Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you. And I want to thank this panel. It has been excellent. We appreciate you coming over and contributing to this discussion.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I add my compliments to the panel and to Mr. Valenti who recently had to leave because of a time consideration? But I think this has been an extremely rewarding discussion about some very important issues within the two pieces of legislation that you have commented on. Thank you very much.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.

I am going to ask the second panel to come forward.

Our first witness on the second panel will be Ms. Martha Coolidge, who is the cochair of the Directors Guild of America's President's Committee. Ms. Coolidge is one of today's most well-known directors. She directed two major film productions back to back in the past year: “"Angie" and "Lost in Yonkers." Ms. Coolidge has directed other award-winning movies such as "Rambling Rose" and "Valley Girl."

She holds a masters of fine arts degree from New York University and started her professional career by directing award-winning documentaries. She helped to found the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, Inc. She serves on the board of directors of the Directors Guild of America, Women in Film, the American Film Institute, and was named to the dean's advisory board of UCLA's School of Theater, Film and Television.

Welcome, Ms. Coolidge.

Our second witness will be Jeffrey P. Eves. Mr. Eves is the president of the Video Software Dealers Association. The VSDA represents over 20,000 video retail stores in North America.

Prior to his present position, Mr. Eves was the corporate vice president of Fort Howard Corp. He served in senior level management positions in the areas of international trade government and market. Mr. Eves was appointed by President Nixon as Special Assistant to the President and Chief Liaison between the White House and the business community and by President Ford as Director of White House Conferences.

He holds degrees in business from the University of Nebraska and in economics from the University of California at Berkeley. Welcome.

Our third witness is Mr. Michael Weller. Mr. Weller is a playwright and screenwriter, having written over 40 plays and screenplays, including "Hair" and "Ragtime." He is a member of the Writers Guild of America East and the Dramatists Guild of America, where he serves as a council member.

Welcome.

Our fourth witness is Ms. Judith M. Saffer, assistant general counsel of Broadcast Music, Inc., BMI, one of the Nation's largest performance rights society.

Ms. Saffer was a graduate of the New York University Law School, a member of the executive committee and the presidentelect of the Copyright Society of the United States. She is also secretary of the Foundation for a Creative America and is active in

Before commencing her career in the law, Ms. Saffer was a professional ballet dancer with the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo and appeared in films and television as an actress and dancer.

Welcome, Ms. Saffer.

We have written statements from our four witnesses, which I ask unanimous consent to be made a part of the record; and I ask that you all summarize your statements in 10 minutes or less.

Again, I ask that the subcommittee hold their questions of all four witnesses until they have completed their presentations. And I feel we are very fortunate to have such a very fine panel today and with so many accomplishments.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt, but I do notice that it is 11:30, and we probably took a lot more time with the first panel than we should have. I know that each panelist has a great deal of information to provide.

We do have their written testimony, and I would urge us to ask the panelists, as much as possible, to limit their opening statements so we can have as much time to engage in a good dialog with them and have the question-and-answer period extended, because I know we are going to start losing members because we were told that the hearing would end at about 12.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I don't want to limit them too much, because they have waited for a long time. Use those comments with discretion.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully enjoyed the discussion that my colleague engaged in, so for him to suggest that maybe the witnesses ought to be briefer might come at a little bit inopportune moment.

This panel will not convene again, and I know that members have to leave. We are very important people. But let's give them as full a time as possible. Normally, it is a 5-minute period, but let us be as generous as we can.

Mr. BECERRA. And, Mr. Chairman, I meant in no way to limit them. I only wish to be able to participate, as I know some of the individuals who are on the panel probably have some urgent matters to care for. And I would hate to see that we lose some members because we all have things to do. And I would love to have them talk as much as possible.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, let's let the witnesses get started.

STATEMENT OF MARTHA COOLIDGE, MEMBER, DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC.

Ms. COOLIDGE. My name is Martha Coolidge. I am a feature film director and a member of the Directors Guild of America and a member of its president's committee, which has guided our legislative efforts in Washington.

I am here to ask the subcommittee to support H.R. 1248, the Film Disclosure Act, in the name of fairness to consumers and to film artists as well.

What we would like to see is a simple statement of fact regarding motion pictures altered after their initial release and shown on TV, airlines, and cassettes. Tell consumers clearly and succinctly how the movie has been altered and give the director, screenwriter, and

Hardly revolutionary, H.R. 1248 is a truth-in-the-marketplace bill entirely consistent with current practices which tell consumers about the products they buy.

Soon I will be completing my next major film, "Three Wishes." It will be released at about Thanksgiving, and I hope that you will all come to see it and you will bring your families, and I hope that you will see it more than once.

About a year from now, "Three Wishes" will start to show up in the ancillary marketplace on cable, in hotels, on airlines, on cassettes, and then perhaps on the networks and then syndicated television. What is virtually certain is that when this film is distributed in these markets it is going to be altered. Shot for the wide screen, it will be squeezed into a square TV form and edited for TV viewing, not for violence or sex but to fit in an assigned time slot. And it may be speeded up on TV, a process called lexiconing, destroying all my careful timing.

I have high hopes for this movie, commercially and artistically. I am applying the 25 years of experience I have in directing films to guide this project frame by frame to the best possible outcome. It is my reputation that is on the line when people see this film. And when they see less than I have given, I would like them to know that.

When "Three Wishes" is altered in the ancillary markets, I would like people to know how it has been altered; and I would like the opportunity to object to these changes if I judge them egregious. This is all that H.R. 1248 seeks to accomplish.

I consider myself a film artist. I am a painter, a storyteller, using motion picture cameras, sound, and music. I am involved in an art form, the great American art form; and what we do in making films enriches the artistic and cultural heritage of our country.

Let us treat the people who see movies and those who craft them with the modicum of legal respect this bill provides.

What will happen if the labels in the Film Disclosure Act are applied to films? Great upheaval in the marketplace if you listen to our opponents. But where is the evidence for this? There are three labeling regimes in place today, including the inadequate one from the MPAA, and no economic catastrophes have ensued.

The companies have a history of opposing every innovation on the basis that the sky will fall, and it is appropriate for the subcommittee to keep this in mind. The companies have argued that TV, the director's cut, and even VCR's would all ruin the motion picture industry. Not only were they wrong, but all of these advances have vitalized the industry economically. And judging from this history, if the subcommittee wanted to boost the financial fortunes of the producing companies and distributors, it ought to pass H.R. 1248 unanimously today.

Why do we need a law? Why can't we work this out among ourselves? We tried, and we failed. We couldn't get the major companies to agree on a factual label that would in any way recognize the efforts of those on the creative side.

But even if we had agreed on the words on a label, we would have failed in application because of the complexity of the universe of film ownership and distribution. There are too many players. No table in Hollywood, nor anyone in Washington where the tables are

even bigger, could accommodate everyone whose presence would be required.

Here is a personal example reflective of this complexity. A few years ago, I directed a motion picture called "Rambling Rose" about the awakening of human love. It was not a movie about sex, but one sexual scene was critical to the film's plot and the development of its main characters.

The airline distributors simply cut the scene out of the movie, turning the story into gibberish. I had offered to trim the scene, but my offer was refused. This happened at Academy Award time when the film was being considered for nominations. The reputations of the actors, the writer, and my own reputation were at stake.

The copyright holder, Carrolco, insisted in defense of the movie that the altered version carry a label laying out the alterations, but many airlines refuse to buy movies with restrictive labels. Here we have the copyright holder insisting on a label and distributors and exhibitors turning thumbs down.

This is an example of the complexity in the world of production and distribution and the reason why only a national law can address the matter of labeling.

Let me briefly add the endorsement of the Directors Guild to both of the other measures under review today, copyright extension and the reauthorization of the National Film Preservation Act.

As the Europeans move ahead to extend copyright terms, we need to do the same thing as a matter of equity and economics.

We enthusiastically support reauthorization of the Film Preservation Act, particularly since the act grew out of our own early lobbying efforts. With funding for film preservation choked off at the National Endowment for the Arts, it is more important than ever that the Library of Congress continues to hoist the banner for preservation efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure this hearing is a first, taking testimony on three different bills that affect directly, though in disparate ways, the motion picture industry. I take it as a sign that Congress now recognizes the complexity of the economic, artistic, and cultural issues related to motion pictures.

In our view, all of these measures advance either a sense of economic fairness related to movies or advance their importance in the cultural sphere. The most elemental advance would be to end deception in the U.S. marketplace and tell consumers when the movie they are watching has been altered. This stamp of authenticity is a small step to take to enhance respect for our greatest art form. And I want to personally applaud Mr. Bono for his concern for the creators of songs which I think is very similar to our concern for the creators of film, our film artists.

I just have three things that I would request, Mr. Chairman, to be placed into the record:

The first is the position paper supporting the Film Disclosure Act by the American Cinema Editors and by the Motion Picture Editors Guild.

The second is a short letter to you and the committee from

cerned with this issue for many years and has visited Congress several times.

And, finally, I am pleased to announce that the Screen Actors Guild East and West have officially voted to support the Film Disclosure Act. This is a tremendous vote of support for the bill. SAG is a huge union with almost 80,000 members all over the United States. And I would like to point out that this position of support underscores the traditional relationship of trust between actors and directors.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for listening to our petition.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Coolidge follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTHA COOLIDGE, MEMBER, DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC.

My name is Martha Coolidge, and I am privileged to appear before the subcommittee today in my capacity as a feature film director and as a member of the Directors Guild of America. I have been a member for some years of the DGA's President's Committee, which has steered our efforts in Washington to provide greater protection for films and film artists.

Perhaps I am alone among the witnesses giving testimony this morning in being enthusiastic about all three pieces of legislation that the subcommittee is considering today, though my remarks in the main focus on H.R. 1248, the Film Disclosure Act of 1995.

I would doubt that any other single Congressional hearing has ever focused on three bills together that relate so directly, though in disparate ways, to the motion picture industry. I take this as a recognition by Congress of the importance and complexity of our industry in economic and cultural terms.

Before the main focus of my remarks, let me briefly touch on H.R. 989, the bill extending copyright term, and H.R. 1734, the bill reauthorizing the National Film Preservation Act.

H.R. 989

Within the last year or so, the European Union has adopted a rule extending the term of copyright among its member nations, essentially seeking to harmonize differing copyright terms among the countries of the Union. And as is almost always the case when the Europeans lead the way, the emphasis is on providing greater protection to authors.

Too often, our own country, the world's leading copyright exporter, follows along, rather than leads, in efforts to enhance protection. We must not delay, though, in adopting a longer term of copyright protection for reasons that essentially have to do with equity and economics.

It simply is unfair that authors and copyright holders in Europe should enjoy a greater incentive to the production of further work through enhanced protection denied their American counterparts. There is also what I would call the "Free lunch" issue, in which Europeans will be able to enjoy American copyrighted works without paying for them, though European authors will be compensated.

The average theatrical motion picture these days costs many millions of dollars to make. To recoup this investment, the companies have to distribute product in many countries and over a long period of time.

The copyright term of a number of landmark films, such as "Gone With The Wind," will expire within a few years, even though there is obviously considerable commercial value left in the film. Cycling more money through the system through an extended copyright term will help insure future production.

Having said this, it is worth noting that the directive from the European community that encourages a longer copyright term also explicitly states that "the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work shall be considered as its author or one of its authors. Member states shall be free to designate other co-authors."

Again, as in the case of Berne implementation, we in the U.S. seem spurred on to higher levels of copyright protection by following a European model, but we do so selectively. So long as we studiously avoid a discussion of moral rights, of natural persons as authors, even in a collaborative setting, we will not close the gap of hy