Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. PATTISON. Could we have some response from the religious people on that? Mr. MIDLEN. Yes,

Mr. PATTISON. How are we going to define this “of a religious nature”? Assuming it is a good provision in the bill, how are we going to define it?

Dr. ZIMMERMAN. My reply, Congressman, would be that if the program itself is for a religious purpose and it is in the context of a religious presentation that it is used, then the numbers used there would be construed to be used for a religious présentation. And I think

Mr. PATTISON. It seems to me, if you start every morning off with a prayer, you will then be exempt for the rest of the day.

Dr. ZIMMERMAN. Well, Mr. Pattison-
Mr. PATTISON. I mean, I don't want to be facetious. I am serious.

Dr. ZIMMERMAN. No, I understand. I want to be very honest, too. I would not construe that as what you are talking about at all. We are not talking about a broadcast station coming on with a devotional of some nature, which many of them do.

Mr. Pattison. Yes.

Dr. ZIMMERMAN. We are talking about a presentation of a specific religious broadcast within the context of a program or service that has been produced by a religious broadcaster. And I cannot think of exceptions that would be made in the average religious broadcast that I know anything about, Congressman, that would bring in secular music.

Mr. PATTISON. Well, I take it—and I don't want to beat this to death-but I take it that would also include lots of organizations which people may or may not approve of, for instance, Dr. Moon's organization or “Children of God” or a variety of other organizations like “Universal Life Church," like lots of organizations that call themselves religious, like “Ethical Society," but which may not be religious in the normal Christian or Jewish or even any of the major religious traditions to actually be religious. So that if a broadcaster decided that he was going to call his program religious, that doesn't necessarily refer to a Christian God or Jewish God as we know it, perhaps, in our culture. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Mr. MIDLEN. If I might respond to that? The criteria is not whether the organization is religious or not religious. The criteria is whether it is a governmental body or a nonprofit organization, which then in turn meets the rather strict criteria which is set out in section 112(c), namely, one recording for nonprofit purposes for broadcasting. And it is spelled out there with considerable specificity, so that it is quite narrow.

And in response to your earlier question, I think that the amount that you were referring to is the 3 cents in section 115(c) (2) of this bill, and it is the position of the staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Patents and Copyrights that it does not cover such nonprofit aspects as are contemplated in section 112(c).

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I would observe from the colloquy and from what Mr. Midlen says that while the intention, as expressed by Dr. Zimmerman, is to protect religious programs; in fact, we are pro

to fing programs of nonprofit organizations, of governmental bodies, ROEP!nt, which may happen to have religious music and only as to tv :) music. It!:k I have observed religious programs that have had sertarian

ins, fem, for various purposes on such programs. They would not, qis 10:bly, be protected, because they are not musical works of a

niniure. And notwithstanding the needfulness of the organizai 11 to be proudled, for the purposes you have cited, they would apfar'have to comply with the copyright payments under this

tailld not be covered under this section. Wel, in any event, gentlemen, I wish on behalf of the subcomI see to thank you, all of you: Dr. Zimmerman, Jr. Midlen, Dr. ..Mg, and Mr. ('ancimino.

1 .0 m uitnemy today is that of public radio and the handicapped. 54, 1* sould like to welcome Dr. Walter Sheppard, representing tillation of Public Radio Stations.

lor. Seppard, you may proceed first.

I STIHONY OF DR. WALTER SHEPPARD, REPRESENTING THE AS. SOCIATION OF PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. "APGARET ROCKWELL OF WASHINGTON EAR; MATTHEW B. (OITIY, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS; AXD PHILIP HOCHBERG, COUNSEL

Pop SHIP 120). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me at the table are

li Renknell, dintor of the Warsuington Ear, which is the pie liandien apmal mitice of WETA-FM here in Washington to #:! any quetons that the members of the subwommittee may

be will the operations of such services, and al- Matthew ('otiev, oppsdent of the w intion of Public Radio Stations and Mr.

poliomietin, ronnel to the 11001110n. 1 .tple the opportunity to testify here this morning on thiomed 10,"prere able to poplore in detail at the hearing on July 10,

1.104 hout the recent history of the omnibus copyright revision ." 1309 of Millie Rio Stations had mamtained the irod tur referential treatment and indoort that is partly what it

Trort of its 1: aneteason in audition, we have requested B: , *30! eremption for performanor on public into

Tetheplan of this made ommittee min charged with the propony. O som big publie pols dels on copyright. There is nothin p .tpotatie in tue aunarpt of copyright profertion: it is rent..!! te' ', verter to overriding questions of peop polli V. (); * tiene !! leas', at the triptofá neady epolymered in the l a t unit Ik a stilpler. 'I he userpot of the compleory 11eropongo iw but a! Penement of this prirlpole.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

a special receiver. The purpose of this service is to give access to printed material to the blind or those otherwise too physically handicapped to read.

Must someone-simply because he has no sight—be denied the timely information contained in the daily newspaper or weekly news magazines? Must he rely on 312 minutes of news on the hour and headlines on the half hour? Is it absolutely necessary that he wait months before being able to hear a book being read via talking records?

We brought this issue to the attention of the Senate Copyright Subcommittee staff this spring. On May 28, 1975, in a meeting between representatives of public broadcasting, the copyright holders, and the Senate subcommittee staff, language was drafted which resolved a significant part of the print-handicapped problem. The Senate subcommittee has approved that as section 110(8) of S. 22.

While the addition of this section resolved any question of performance, it did not resolve the section 112 question which makes a program recording a copyright violation. In other words, section 110(8) would exempt a work performed on the local service for the print handicapped. However, if a recording of that initial performance was made to facilitate a second performance on another print-handicapped service, that recording would violate section 112.

Questions will be raised as to the "free ride” that the blind will now be getting. And we concede that point to you. Not only will the blind be getting special treatment, but so too will those who for other physical reasons cannot read. But we must consider this: How many newspapers, magazines, and books are ever purchased by the blind and those with associated physical disabilities? A human right of access to information in a usable form is the issue.

As a matter of public policy, the choice seems clear. This right should not be denied.

PERFORMANCE TO THE PUBLIC Since 1909 noncommercial radio has been exempt from the payment of copyright fees under the “not-for-profit clause." Public radio is asking the committee to continue this exemption by amending H.R. 2223 to reinstate the exemption for local public radio performances.

Without this exemption, classical music may well disappear from the airwaves. The number of commercial classical stations is dwindling. Two stations have changed formats just since your July 10 hearing, WHAS in Louisville and WBAL in Baltimore. The public radio stations are becoming the single source of over-the-air performance for classical composition. If payment is imposed, not only will the public lose a valued cultural service, but the young composers will lose the last remaining radio outlet for their works.

Why will this happen? I think there are four reasons. I will mention them briefly now and expand on them later in questioning:

(1) The inability to determine rights to classical music, since only one record company consistently provides that information. (2) The uncertainty over public domain music with the emergence of derivative or critical editions of previously public domain works. (3) The inability of the societies to guarantee that they cover 100 percent of the composers. Some estimates indicate only about 75 percent of classical cumposers belong to the societies. The stations could find themselves draing with individual composers in the hundreds. (4) The lack of inal station resources. Clearance requires the filling out of forms and mondireping. Public radio stations are required to operate 16 hours ajay, 7 days a week with an average full-time stati of eight people.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, having never been subject to copyright paymerit, we don't know the full meaning of the inclusion. What we do k1.on is that we strain our resources to the limit daily to provide a pilis service to the print handicapped and to the general public interested in serious music. To impose the burden of copyright will Call us to curtail services to no one's benefit.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KANTEN METER. Dr. Sheppard, do you have the text of the amend. vit colaminting of section 110, subsection (8)! We do not have it before us. Would you read it!

Dr. SHTEPPARD. Yes, certainly. This is a general section on uses of #tathat are exempt from copyright infringement :

Performance of a literary work in the course of a broadcast service specifically de ge for broadcast on noncommercial educational radio and television staU leo & print or oral handicapped audience.

Mr. Hochberg points out that the text is actually printed in Mr. Karpis statement he has prepared for submission at the bottom of P17 of that statement.

Jr. KASIT MER. Next, we would like to hear I wonder if you word make room for one of the other witnesses, and then you can T: ain there and you don't have to get up and so forth. I would like to muite Mr. Townsend Hoopes, president, Asociation of American Publinlers and, as well, Jr. Irwin Karp, counsel, Authors League of Aprica, Inc.

PANEL DISCUSSION: DR. WALTER SHEPPARD, DR. MARGARET ROCKWELL, MATTHEW B. COFFEY, PHILIP HOCHBERG, TOWN. SEND HOOPES, AND IRWIN KARP

M:. Ilors. I will le merciful, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Townvnd I open. I am president of tie Amat.in of American Publishers, a trade Or t ion composed of *' " mtely 200 member companies and wool:aries which a 70%. footnote than hal perrent of the dollar sales of look allda *!:01 al

seriale published in this country. Its mennyirellipinelvelee musier c! Invernity presns and other nonprofit publiku

We have lyn a kid to comment on what we under tid artro p**ameriments to HI.R. 3 put forwantis pelle loro 47

7.!epu? , dealing with special e simptions for the b!!:d and the

[ocr errors]

With you, Mr. Chairman, we have been "runt uninterrato ..hoftliceral informal prop**1!4 are no le hirm. Wra: 1.ost

1. pha n the langup of the mouse that are and, tip fote. Wr. An'onda to post themseitically.

We can, however, state our position with no frithio to tuos, tin perfumed by the subcommitter on the Senate .:d:ars (on", "pp for it is;on in the Senate bill, S.2. Section 1101 ha) Moril protet! at performance of a literary work as part of a program spy for?" designed for broadcast on noncommercial educational radio anitro vision stations to a print or oral handicapped audience" is 1:0 1 infringement of copyright. The publishers' association fully

s 4 the essence of the subsection. We would hope, however, that will gress will take steps to clarify the somewhat awkward and op, phrase "print or oral handicapped audience."

In addition, we support the proposed section 710 of S. , : would establish procedures whereunder the copyright owner !! untarily grant a license to the Library of ('ongress to procure lor.. copies or phonorecords for the blind and physically handicap.

ile rite these two provisions, Jir. (hairman, to demonstrate that it purpose, with respect to the blind and deaf persons, is to be quite fint to coming on the matter of facilitating their access to literary so'n throuch the medium of programs thesigned expressly or primar.it their benefit. We realize that this position involves the jartial n, quisment of rights of copyright owners, and further that it poss a degree of risk and vulnerability to abuse. We neverthelestaket's position in the belief that blind and deaf pople are despren ! seal consideration, and in the trust that all parties concerne si endlearor to be fair and proportionate.

Is to specific amendments to IIR. ).3 on this suljert, me 14:44 reserve our position until we have had an opportunity to st11. th. lanımage thereof.

Jr. KASTENMELER. Thank you. Mr. Karp, we will now hear fring yon.

'Ir. Karp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted a statement, which I request be included in the record. It is on behalf of the luna L le.

Wir I state at the outset that the provisions of promo t ing 11015) that appears at the bottom of page 4 of me statement, wlih

24 gilopted by the staff of the Senate subcommittee and the ',! Pnpfre

Mr. KASTEN MEIFR. Yes, and it is precisely as read.
Mr. K r. As I gave, yes.
Mr. K TENVIR. I was read by Dr. Sheppard.

Mr. K 11.P. Yes, that is the same language on page 4 of mr state ment, Iinst int to make it clear that this was not written with the cooperation of the Anthors Learnie. (uite the contrary, then it *** propon , we objected, as we object right now. We objected for what I think are good and mufficient masons.

In evaluating the proposem oh, I might sar that the other part tion, which I quoted on page 1. was a proposal made by the Imeran Foundation for the Blind, which would go also as clause of 4:00 110. Ile hare, in eterit, rival propowials for an exemption, neither of which upsupport. We are equally opposed to both of them.

1. pauliina 1. proel rient jobs. It is formed to heleer how wikart -111nted to the Wind unelor the proponit proses of the 1:*art. Inter the provisions of the 1:20nutthe Librin pol (olem for 10 sean has distributed to lind

f

r om 1:1 bradavicon of thounds of ens. This prorrun is conflicted or the Library's Ditton for the Blind and Physicalls llandisa prel

« AnteriorContinuar »