Imágenes de páginas

In 1973, the NRB made much of the fact that of the three performing rights organizations--ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC-only SESAC was asking religious program producers to sign licenses for recordings of religious music on their transcribed programs. It was implied that SES.I(' was overreaching and applying undue pressure in an area where the other two organizations were not causing any problems. To quote from the NRB's 1973 testimony:

I might add, it is in their testimony today, too. To quote from the NRB's 1973 testimony: Religious program producers have reported no problems in this respect with ASCAP or BMI. Only SESAC, according to frequent reports, has pressured certain of the religious program producers to make sucb payments.

The VRB failed to point out, however, that ASCIP and BMI canno ask for mechanical licenses in this area because they do not represent the mechanical rights on behalf of their affiliates. Both ASCAP and BMI represent only the performance rights. SESAC alone of the three organizations represents not only the performance rights but also the mechanical and synchronization rights on behalf of its afiliates. I believe the NRB is well aware of this basic fact of life in our industry, and I am dismayed that such a fact has been so terribly distorted.

One thing should be made clear. We have no desire to inhibit the broadcasting of religiously oriented programs. To the contrary, we are simply trying to maintain the integrity of a religious copyright, and we are simply trying to preserve to the creator of a religious copyright those rights which are now, and even under H.R. 2223, will continue to be available to the creator of non religious copyrights.

Why should one who creates a religious work be treated as a second class citizen?

The creator of a religious copyright has the same expenses as the creator of a non religions copyright. He must pay the same for a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk. Why then the distinction in allowing the author of a non religious work a broader earning base than the creator of a religious copyright? Also, one can imagine the very substantial problems of determining what is a religious work. In many instances, whether a work is of a religious nature is determined on a subjective basis by each listener.

In 1973 the VRB also asserted: Ant lar requiring a leaving open the possibility that mechanical reproduction fops he paid for such use could make this music too expensive in the average religious broadcast.

The fact of the matter is that the usual charge to a program producer for the use of a copyright in a transcribed program to be heard on radio is a rather nominal $10 per year copyright for unlimited use of that copyright during that vear. I think that organizations such as Billy Graham's Hlour of Decision, the Lutheran Ilour, the Baptist Ilour, and others cited by the VPBas VRB members in 1973, can voll afford to pay the creator of a religious song $10 a year for unlimited use of that song. If they can afford this more than the half-page ad in a Minreapolis neitspaper earlier this month to attract viewers and listeners of the Word of God, they surely can pay those creating the music of God. The VRB in 1973 said over and over again that respon

sible religious broadcasting is a nonprofit activity carried on 11 ministry. We again emphasize that we have no quarrel with the importance of such a ministry and with the fact that the country needls more of this kind of broadcasting. All we ask is that these nume profit organizations-many of whom are rather large and wealh1pay for the use of their religions music just as they pay for their nens. paper advertisements, their electricity, their studio and audiitori . rental, their executive salaries, their plane fares from city to Carv, their guests stars, and every other expense normal to their bus nens

Again in 1973 the NRB stated, and again today they state:

The proposed mechanical reproduction exemption would cause no measurat de injury to religious music copyright owners, their publi-bers or agents **

What is left unsaid is that many of the program producenate behest of NRB have refused to pay mechanical rovalties prendre resolution of this issue by Congress. However, if they recognize their current obligations under the 1909 law, as have some of the &"}. ates, a more substantial amount of income would be accruing to copik right proprietors today.

Therefore, the injury to religious music copyright owners is wela measurable and substantial, as evidenced by the list of endorem-;4 appended to my testimony in 1973 from the foremost copyright proprietor organizations in the industry. Letters were submitted in age mint with SESIO'S basie position from the Church Music Publisters A sociation, the National Music Publishers Association, the US Publishers ciation, BMI, ASCAP, the larry Fox Aner, the American Guild of Authors and ('omposers, and the National (en Music Publishers Association.

Mr. (hairman, should you wish copies of the full letters of endur ment which are alreadly contained in the record of the Senate hiqet held in 197%. I will be more than happy to supply them to yon. 11 organization represent substantially all of the responsible copyr **. proprietor interests in the United States today and all of them are opp to the inclusion of section 11e ) in the pending revision bil. I might also add that the American Bar juration passed a tion in 197:) whicloppose* 112r) in its entirety.

It is interesting to note that in the monthly newsletter of the VRB called Hot line, the June 1975 is-ue referred to a petition filed with te F('('which the VRB claimed “clearly divriminates against sectarian groups" and the .WPB pointed out that the religious orientation of an applicant should not alsed as a basis for determining its eligibility for a communion license, SEST' wholly endorse thus position a'd we further a-k that the religious orientation of a copyright crostor not be und as a basis for determining his eligibility to rectile copil right royalty payments

In the interioris of time. I will collude, Jr. (Charman, brak 1. this subcommittee to cons.der and weigh the practiul nettop for such an error option as arists in 112c) aguirist the far reaimurg and negative text which it will have not onis on trade industry prouts as curryntly exist, but on the unkarral feel leution of the right originally graditel to the copyright proprieton by Congria in 1:7). Only by all with the copyright proprietors of religious work enjual rigits and an equal opportunity to earn a living, will we continue to

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

pins the kind of music which has contributed to and hopefully will Pjet line to contribute to the moral fiber of our great country.

Jir. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you for your testimony. If you will wait for the following witnesses to appear, we will invite you back.

Suwthe Chair would like to call Mr. Thomas Zimmerman, first vice poslent, National Religious Broadcasters, Inc., accompanied by Dr. besl. Armstrong, executive secretary and John II. Midlen, counsel.

I'r. ZIMMERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have to my left Dr. Arm-
4:48. Plecutive secretary of the National Religious Broadcasters,
4:10 Ny right, Mr. John II. Midlen, counsel for the National Relig-

- Buil. -r in the United States
Jly name is Thomas F. Zimmerman. I am an ordained minister and

rul suprrintendent of 1-semblies of God, which has nearly 9.000)
. . in the l’nited States. We operate a sizable publishing house,
*!.h has a significant sacred department. We also produce religious
permanns for presentation on rario and television. I print this tege
1:" Y as fint vice president of National Religious Broadcasters,
Vis ming sprtion 11:10) of II.R. 3.
.19,6al Religions Broadcasters has approximately 650 members,

mobited among the 50 States and territories. The membership con• 4 pr marily of broadcast stat on licensees and their associates, performante artists and other rrlated persons in broadcasting, and

O'ls program producers for broad rast stations. We caumata that there are 6 organizations, including those who are not SRB Don, that produce religious programm on a nonprofit basis for a fuorum di at:on on a number of bronchit stations. And there are many D*, , prient, and rabbis harilgter invidual programs on local

outlets. Wer known religious programs utiling religious movie and which air i tally come !!nd that there be engited the present provi-JOL of mor!n 11:247) of II. R. 13include Billy Graham's Tour of Ly':

# Fternal Lig!ıt, Jewish Community Ilour, The Ilour of St. Fran. r amel Ileast Hour, The Lutheran llour, Back to the Bible, h..a! 1.'1', admittit others. Generally, the Wril known proe

*"}. ar produced either on lopen or dink for dinerbution by mail 1110 only to each bron last station carrying the programn. 'The fon . then are broadın-t at the true and date agreed upon les IN the station and program prelucer. Sone of the prograll in p aid for a print by the relicious program prokurely. Instead, the

por mus praram procurer urally pass the broget ut.on to *$!" y te program or furniture the rel.minus program without

to the station. Inbounded itaf.o in cu-tomarily have put formance rathcot,

PP.. then rel.:01 11.110 with ASCAP, BMI, 21 .10'ldi pp are copyright ownerde resipital.-17:00 for 1.0.11 18. bosvarlist, VIB iliport the !.its of the cop t 04.0!

to compensation for performances of religious music under the fær formance rights licenses, with the broadcast outleis. SRB aio,! ports the rights of the copyright owners to compensation for Mariana ical reproductions of religious music for sale or other profit.

Presently, there is confusion and contradiction with respect tocla! for mechanical reproduction fees for musical works of a mintis nature included in religious programs proluced by nonprofit ore nizations for broadcasting purposes, Only SESIC, to our known has pre-sured for such payments. We have no reports of any problees in respect to either USCIP or BMI, and presumably they could ar range to hanille mechanical rights.

We know of no court decision directly on the point. Any law nyit ing or leaving open the possibility that mechanical reproduction free be paid for such use could make this music too expensive in the air api religious broadkast, since the financial mounts of the 110 program producers are not adequate to accommodate sucht, sont ing to two SRB studies. These studies were in 1973 and His a: 1 were among XRB membres that reflerted that the alleet to the fusle: tial of unlimited mechanical reproduction fees predominatels rund from (1) using only religious music in the public domain; 1 set stantial curtailment of the number of breast outleis used or att even total discontinuance of the religious program.

Responsible religious broadcasting is a nonprofit activity, colt11.1. inga minisiryhole sable than the liorpslips oftiuil.

com or church.

Essentially, the taping or recording of programs not for prok!! for single release or on ota-ons, a n eat release, simply is a l' of producing such programs for convenience. To present the prote: live, utilizing telephone lines to individual broadcast intenso XII undeniably exempt from any claim for mechanical repro link Bit this prosedure is not feribile, cause of prosline commen ! impracticability of using telephone lineare

Copyright owners *pive a valuable service from religro pivo gram producers by the 14 of their music, thus un n etto poslre through radio and television prenentation. *tion 11 lipit an incluiry Innov10, brit m y cocina eneralls Piti1H** tion. There is not now any partit, med right fos lleisenbal nn ? tion fors for reproduktion within the purpose or pop 1 "

los can thenga rolirious mes colright owner sport's no pole? that the pro

agee 'tion 11:10) in this for privat bill ritrom of any printing income. Only as??!! handful of roligaprys!: pi** duoen to the best of our knou lerlin, *3}reumb toES( pronun for patient for menjual products in mormolit, rulola grunn for bronden , and some of trange hyginant q te fli.!'**! Such panit. Labort, thencante no 'all'Is for term of incope it the neirotra!!!, tel.

('oner i les losjon girl.t's wolltole to prote,'t copript! er fron mp hariqul noption of vir litet prom his time ho slow for a prostranter !

arcos wall. Reettoman posvet* **71 pronline boutor, clearly are not to post for a proit, last fest Pr o f 7840919 mylimit yms.for role in tranh

(o r;58), Oline pusen 11.1.** per pilom , at the tipsene upit nga an a for mim, $19 tiittimetyr den for todos los ex.ce **** Hl

It is the reverse situation where the program producer pays the broadcast station to carry the program, or furnishing it without charge.

When a recorded program is broadcast, the tape is returned or the disk destroyed. The tape is then erased so that it may be utilized for subsequent broadcasts.

The present copyright exemption language of paragraph 112(c) is carefully designed to cover only mechanical reproductions with limitations for nonprofit religious programs. The responsible religious programers meet these criteria and their position clearly justifies the proposed exemption.

At the 33d Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, April 10, 1975, which numbers among its membership more than 39,000 churches of various denominations in the United States, they adopted a resolution supporting the provisions in section 112(c) of II.R. 22:23. This resolution is attached to my written statement.

The proposed provisions of section 112(c) of H.R. 2.923 are nonsectarian and beneficial to Protestants, Catholics, and Jewish nonprofit Religious program producers. We strongly urge the enactinent in its present form of section 112(c) so that there will be encouraged the needed religious programing for the moral tone and well-being of our Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENHEIER. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman. For the record, the resolution of the National Association of Evangelicals will be made a part of the record

Mr. MiLex. The full text of the written statement of the National Religious Broadcasters, I ask be included too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. K1STEN MEIER. Yes, you are talking about the full text! Vr. MIDLEx. Yes, the full text, the written testimony. {The prepared statement of Dr. Thomas F. Zimmerman follows:]



INTRODUCTION My name is Thomas F. Zimmerman. I am an ordained minister, and General Superintendent of Assemblies of God which has nearly 9.000 churches, a sacred music publishing company, and produces religious programs for presentation on radio and television stations. I present this testimony as First Vice President of National Religious Broadcasters concerning Section 112(c) of H.R. 223.

National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) is a non-profit association formed in 1944 in order to contribute to the improvement of religious broadcasts, better serve the public interest, and more effectively minister to the spiritual welfare of this nation. The association has approximately 650 member organizations distributed among the 50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The membership of National Religious Broadcasters consists of (1) broadcast station licensees and their associates, (2) performing artists and others related to broadcasting, and (3) those producing religious programs for broadcast, stations. It is estimated there are more than 600 organi. zations, including those who are not NRB members, that produce religious programs on a non-profit hasis for presentation on a number of broadcast stations. Additionally, it is conservatively estimated there are more than 1.500 pastors, priests and rabbis having individual programs on local broadcast outlets,

Among the more widely known religious programs produced by NRB members for broadcasting are Billy Graham's Ilour of Decision, The Lutheran laur, The Baptist Hour, Methodist Hour, Back to the Bible (daily). Light and Life Hour (Free Methodist), Revivaltime (Assemblies of God), Words of Hope (Reformed

« AnteriorContinuar »