2

"(1) for the purpose of transmission on a noncontiguous area cable television system, has made or

shall cause to be made, or has transmitted or shall

cause to be transmitted, a videotape of a television pro

gram or programs broadcast by one or more television stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission; and when after the enactment of this

subsection:

"(i) the videotape is transmitted no more than one time, without deletion of any material including commercials, on any such system; and

"(ii) an owner or officer of such facility erases or destroys, or causes the erasure or destruction of

such videotape; and

"(iii) subject to the provisions of subparagraph (2) of this subsection, on or before the end of each calendar quarter, an owner or officer of such system executes an affidavit attesting to the erasure or

destruction of all such videotapes made or used dur

ing the preceding quarter; and

"(iv) said owner or officer places or causes said affidavit, or the affidavit received pursuant to section 101 (f) (2) (ii) of this title, to be placed in a file, open to public inspection, at such system's main

office in the community where the transmission is

3

made or in the nearest community where such sys

tem maintains an office.

"(2) Nothing herein shall prevent any such system, pursuant to written contract, from transferring the videotapes to another such system provided that:

"(i) said written contract is placed in the file, open to public inspection, required hereunder; and

66

(ii) the last such facility transmitting the programs shall comply with the provisions of section 101 (f) (1) (ii) through (iv) of this title, and shall "(iii) provide a copy of the affidavit required hereunder to each such system making a previous transmission of the same videotape.

"(3) As used in this subsection, the following terms and their variant forms mean the following:

57-786-76

"(i) a 'transmission' is the distribution by a noncontiguous area cable television system of a videotape to its subscribers and is the equivalent of the carriage of broadcast signals for all the purposes

of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.

"(ii) a 'noncontiguous area cable television' is a facility located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession not within the boundary of the forty-eight contiguous continental States, that

7

4

receives signals transmitted or makes or obtains videotapes of programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and delivers such sig

nals or programs by wires, cables, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.

"(iii) A 'videotape' is the reproduction of the images and sounds of a program 'or programs, including commercials, broadcast by a television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, regardless of the nature of the material

objects, such as tapes or motion pictures, in which

the reproduction is embodied.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. LORENZ, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY ABRAHAM L. KAMINSTEIN, FORMER REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND HONORARY CONSULTANT IN COPYRIGHT AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND BARBARA RINGER, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Mr. LORENZ. Mr. Chairman, I am John Lorenz, the Acting Librarian of Congress. It is an honor for me to appear as the opening witness at these historic hearings, and to urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 2223, the bill for general revision of the copyright law. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called upon Congress to bring together and completely revise the copyright laws of the United States. After long hearings and several years of controversy Congress responded by enacting a new statute on the last day of President Roosevelt's administration. The act of March 4, 1909 remains, 66 years later, the governing American copyright law.

President Theodore Roosevelt's message of 1905 is still valid for us today. He wrote:

Our copyright laws urgently need revision. They are imperfect in definition, confused and inconsistent in expression; they omit provision for many articles which, under modern reproductive processes, are entitled to protection; they impose hardships upon the copyright proprietor which are not essential to the fair practices of the public; they are difficult for the courts to interpret and impossible for the Copyright Office to administer with satisfaction to the public.

The aptness of Roosevelt's message today is not as ironic as it might seem. Legislation is often specific. It grows out of individual circumstances and relates to definite purposes at definite times and consequently is subject to change.

As time passes, the ability of courts to adapt the letter of the law to each change diminishes. Cardozo put it well: "The law tends to expand to the limits of its logic." The logical limits of the present copyright laws have long since been reached and exceeded.

In recent years there have been several important Supreme Court decisions illustrating the inadequacy of the 1909 act. At the same time, administrative regulations cannot cure the law's inequities and private understandings or agreements cannot settle the crucial issues of copyright.

Everyone affected by copyright or concerned with its administration is looking to Congress for action. New legislation, a new ordering of the relationships that depend upon copyright, is required, and only Congress can do the job.

As Acting Librarian of Congress I am proud of the role that the Copyright Office has played for many years in the efforts to reform the existing copyright system. I am particularly pleased to see Abraham L. Kaminstein here, who as Register of Copyrights from 1960 to 1971 was largely instrumental in planning the present revision effort. But beyond these efforts the basic responsibility, with its broad social and indeed philosophical implications, continues to fall upon your subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, you have been involved in this work for well over a decade, and more than most, you appreciate the infinite complexity many of the issues treated in H.R. 2223. Ten years ago the former

of

Librarian of Congress, L. Quincy Mumford, sat before this subcommittee and said:

Copyright law is by nature a difficult and complex subject, and my understanding of its details is imperfect, to say the least. But, like any other intricate field of knowledge, there are certain simple and fundamental principles underlying our copyright system, and their importance cannot be overemphasized.

As Dr. Mumford said, one simple principle underlying copyright is the encouragement and reward of individual creativity. This principle is, I would suggest, a basic corollary of the principle of freedom of speech and press. It is a recognition that those parts of our civilization that have endured are the product of individual creators, and the principle of copyright is basic to civilization itself.

But the principle of copyright is also rooted in the present, and the practical concerns of authors and all those who disseminate and use their works. Since 1909, the pace of technological innovation, especially in communications, has been breathtaking.

In these hearings you will hear those who argue, forcefully and in good faith, that technology threatens to strip copyright of its meaning and value. Others, in equally good faith, will stress that copyright is impeding the application of technology to the growing informational needs of society.

Congress must chart the way, and, difficult as that task is, it can be made easier, I believe, by keeping always in mind the underlying social premises of copyright in a free society.

Recognizing the equities on both sides of the arguments you will be hearing, the Library of Congress urges favorable consideration of H.R. 2223. This legislation is the culmination of 15 years of painstaking negotiation and compromise.

It does not provide all of the answers, but it does provide a modern framework for growth and change: New tools for the courts, the Copyright Office, for the authors and the users of copyrighted materials, to meet the challenges of the future.

This is the kind of effort that involves little widespread recognition and a great deal of difficulty and toil. But I am convinced that, when all is said and done, your work will have a significant impact on the lives of all Americans-those who create and those whose lives are shaped and changed by their creations.

As the present administrator of the world's greatest collection of those creative works, I believe that your success in this endeavor will be one of your greatest legislative achievements.

Ms. RINGER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the privilege of introducing Mr. Kaminstein.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes, of course, Ms. Ringer.

Ms. RINGER. The current program for general revision of the copyright law started in the fifties under Arthur Fisher, who was a great Register of Copyrights. He charted a course which we endeavored to follow, and he put his personal stamp on the revision program.

Arthur Fisher died in 1960, at a crucial point in the revision program, and was succeeded by Abraham L. Kaminstein. It is hard to