Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Dahasic conclusion was-which is in the middle of page 3

jikebox exemption should be repealed or should at least and by a provision requiring jukebox operators to pay reas

fres for the public performance of music for profit. Th intim of legislation proposed for this purpose should con det inuiting the general revision of the law. And it did Se bearings were held in 1963, and a bill completely rem

comption after a 1-year period was reported with minority i tis committee on September 10, 1963. It was addressed rig

X 15 separate issue, and—if I may then skip to page
sents that had been going on, actually since the Second
en Congress over this issue continued right through the

is in 1965. And your subcommittee reported a bill
te 2, 1968, which contained a jukebox section based on a co

bensing system,
Sve at that time—and a lot of this seems to have been forgo
te that time there were four different possibilities for dealin
mblem. They talked about compulsory arbitration, com

vith a per box maximum, which is not exactly what w

compulsory license with a fixed fee per record purchase sesory license with a fixed fee per record in the box.

sol that is what emerged and went through the full leg ses in the House up to the time the bill went to the floor i

a explanation is at the bottom of page 5. And again, this s
De tent throtigh a very thorough economic analysis of th
toist an alternative quarterly fee of either 3 cents per s

tad amount of less than 3 cents based on box capacity a

umber of songs available for performance during a qua IS THS complicated, but it was the closest approach that t

cold find to what it considered a fair solution to the p
the time. On this basis it estimated that annual royalties

$19.20 per box, or about $9 million per year.
Sets formula was again adopted by your committee, an

reat to the House this was, I think, the most contr
then it went to the House foor. And without going i

of that very difficult compromise, a compromise was ha sus literally, and it was based on the clear observat

would not pass unless a compromise was reached.

the system nor the amount that was in the House mittee-reported bill-could survive, and it was a que ating the whole bill go or trying to compromise th

esentially a money issue. After strenuous nego y the same formula now in the bill was passed by th

1, 1967. The amount of the royalty was to be $8
ate did not accept this compromise at first; it kept th

Tersion for longer than would normally have been
tally it went over to the Alat $8 per box rate.
in 1949, it added what used to be section 114 of t
til discuss if I ever get to chapter 8-the pert

mords. And that, of course, applied to jukebox
Tell ns broadcasts. And the Senate added a dollar
11 fee, with $1 pegged for the jukebox, to go

The basic conclusion was-which is in the middle of page 3--that the jukebox exemption shonld be repealed or should at least be replaced by a provision requiring jukebox operators to pay reasonable Hisense fees for the public performance of music for profit. The consideration of legislation proposed for this purpose should continue without awaiting the general revision of the law. And it did.

House hearings were held in 1963, and a bill completely removing the exemption after a 1-year period was reported with minority views by this committee on September 10, 1963. It was addressed right up to 1965 as a separate issue, and if I may then skip to page 5-the arguments that had been going on, actually since the Second World War, in Congress over this issue continued right through the House herrings in 1965. And your subcommittee reported a bill on (ctober 12, 1966, which contained a jukebox section based on a compulsorr licensing system.

Yow at that time and a lot of this seems to have been forgottenbut at that time there were four different possibilities for dealing with the problem. They talked about compulsory arbitration, compulsory license with a per box maximum, which is not exactly what we have here, compulsory license with a fixed fee per record purchased, and a compulsory license with a fixed fee per record in the box.

And that is what emerged and went through the full legislative process in the House up to the time the bill went to the floor in 1967. The explanation is at the bottom of page 5. And again, this subcommittee went through a very thorough economic analysis of the problem and set an alternative quarterly fee of either 3 cents per song, or a prorated amount of less than 3 cents based on box capacity and the total number of songs available for performance during a quarter.

This was complicated, but it was the closest approach that the committee could find to what it considered a fair solution to the problem at the time. On this basis it estimated that annual royalties would avera ge $19.20 per box, or about $9 million per year.

Now this formula was again adopted by your committee, and when the bill went to the House this was, I think, the most controversial issue when it went to the House foor. And without going into the details of that very difficult compromise, a compromise was hammered out, almost literally, and it was based on the clear observation that the bill could not pass unless a compromise was reached.

Neither the system nor the amount that was in the House reportthe committee-reported bill-could survive, and it was a question of either letting the whole bill go or trying to compromise this issue, which was essentially a money issue. After strenuous negotiations, essentially the same formula now in the bill was passed by the House on April 11, 1967. The amount of the royalty was to be $8 per box. The Senate did not accept this compromise at first ; it kept the House reported version for longer than would normally have been expected, but eventually it went over to the flat $8 per box rate.

Then, in 1969, it added what used to be section 114 of the billwhich I will discuss if I ever get to chapter 8-the performance royalty for records. And that, of course, applied to jukebox performances as well as broadcasts. And the Senate added a dollar to the $8, making it a $9 fee, with $1 pegged for the jukebox, to go for the

[graphic]

in section 116 seems too far down the road to warrant reo be its premises or its basic formulation. The vestigial refer ta 78 should be removed—that is the 50-cent thing—ass fe committee wishes the cost of licensing jukeboxes by the Co

an to be borne by the copyright owners. This is going to come Lars in other words.

Similarly, it might be wise to add language making clear th
inted machines include devices activated by tokens and cu

en, sincs, if you are familiar with jukeboxes these days, th
me that you can operate by putting in a dollar bill.
Iz Dursas. That is progress.
V. Ruscar. Aside from these minor adjustments, the only qu
a the amount and whether the Royalty Tribunal should
1. These are essentially practical and interrelated qu
Le Copyright Office takes no position on them, although, as in

ther compulsory licenses, we recognize that the Tribunal un efective than congressional committees in marshalling an sss the masses of economic data necessary to revise the rate mund that a congressional veto power is provided.

L.Danas. Thank you very much, Ms. Ringer.
I lare just one question and then I will yield to Mr. Wiggi
There any way by which we can set the maximum decibel:

General langhter.]
Et. Dasar, Mr. Wiggins!
L. Wongs. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Dasar. Mr. Pattison!
Jl. Parrison. There seems to be an argument developing
silmaal as to whether the Tribunal should set the rate of
Temal veto, or whether the tribunal should recommend
bosg developed the information subject to congressional a
Do you have any particular feeling? That also relates not
Sapatimlar issue, but to other issues as well.

Ruso. Actually, I am wrestling with this now this esot the bill-and now, as I have organized the rest of m

I mill have a separate chapter on this, and I have not al coclusion on your question. un troubled as I have indicated earlier, I think in cc De cable issue by the one House veto arrangement, that you really do not know what happens then. If on that do you do! And I think that obviously needs

It has been suggested that you might have the rates all and allow paying out so that the funds are not tie

ods, assume this is valid but allow the courts to tes to this is being suggested, and I would like to save my

that proposal until later.

PATTISON. Fine. I will look forward to getting those. titutional issues also which would be obviated by

the mechanism of having the Tribunal recommen O st. And those constitutional problems I am not estes are, although we have some memoranda on that that they may well be serious.

Again, section 116 seems too far down the road to warrant reopening either its premises or its basic formulation. The vestigial reference to Section 708 should be removed--that is the 50-cent thing-assuming the committee wishes the cost of licensing jukeboxes by the Copyright Office to be borne by the copyright owners. This is going to come out of their $8 in other words.

Similarly, it might be wise to add language making clear that coin operated machines include devices activated by tokens and currency, et cetera, since, if you are familiar with jukeboxes these days, there are some that you can operate by putting in a dollar bill.

Mr. DRINAN. That is progress.

Ms. RINGER. Aside from these minor adjustments, the only questions are the $8 amount and whether the Royalty Tribunal should be able to review. These are essentially practical and interrelated questions, The Copyright Office takes no position on them, although, as in the case of other compulsory licenses, we recognize that the Tribunal could be more effective than congressional committees in marshalling and evaluating the masses of economic data necessary to revise the rates up or down, and that a congressional veto power is provided.

Mr. Drinan. Thank you very much, Ms. Ringer.
I have just one question and then I will yield to Mr. Wiggins.

Is there any way by which we can set the maximum decibels of this creature?

(General laughter.] Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Wiggins ? Mr. WIGGINS. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Pattison! Mr. Pattison. There seems to be an argument developing on the Tribunal as to whether the Tribunal should set the rate of the congressional veto, or whether the tribunal should recommend a rate, having developed the information subject to congressional approval.

Do you have any particular feeling? That also relates not only to this particular issue, but to other issues as well.

Ms. RINGER. Actually, I am wrestling with this now this is chapter 8 of the bill—and now, as I have organized the rest of my presentation, I will have a separate chapter on this, and I have not come to a final conclusion on your question.

I am troubled--as I have indicated earlier, I think in connection with the cable issue by the one House veto arrangement, and the fact that you really do not know what happens then. If one House vetoes, what do you do? And I think that obviously needs to be addressed. It has been suggested that you might have the rate set by the Tribunal and allow paying out so that the funds are not tied up in other words, assume this is valid but allow the courts to test it.

I know this is being suggested, and I would like to save my comments on that proposal until later.

Mr. PATTISON. Fine. I will look forward to getting those. But there are constitutional issues also which would be obviated by doing it through the mechanism of having the Tribunal recommend and the Congress act. And those constitutional problems I am not sure how serious they are, although we have some memoranda on that that indi. cate that they may well be serious.

[graphic]

kis Rascen. I think we are out of the really hairy problem

L. Dersan. The hairy problems are gone?
Vs Boscer. For a while.
The peut chapter is on copyright ownership and transfer,
esthe whole of chapter 2 of the bill. And as I say on page 2,

prolegislative period in the current revision program, p by between 1961 and 1965, the provisions on ownership and tr upyright were the subject of close scrutiny, some hot deba mot deal of tortuous drafting and redrafting. Amst every provision in chapter 2 represents a compro a sint or another. And those involving works made for h mination of transfers were extraordinarily difficult to ach Brever, by the time the bill reached the stage of hearings e sbcommittee in 1965, most of the disagreements were sind er on the way to being resolved. After painstakingly adapter 2, particularly the labyrinthine provisions of sect ad after adopting some amendments, the subcommittee pro barter on copyright ownership and transfer together with a d plative report that have remained unchanged and virtu Waged for nearly 10 years. I guess I should say virtu: bed and virtually unchallenged; there has been one minor

1 st think I will take the time, unless you want me to, en the provisions of chapter 2 in detail-or in any oth

mary that appears at pages 3 through 5, I think, ca se chapter pretty well. And let me summarize its effect by Gak it is fair to say that every change from the present is mother important subject is in favor of authors, either

Den mere some tradeoffs, particularly on the reversion in

I would say that essentially the author gets a better serery respect under chapter 2 than he does under the

may be challenged on this, but this is my own opinion les are some technical issues that remain, and I tried Sain this chapter. I think there is a problem that has

ed with respect to commissioned portraits. To for some mysterious reason the Senate put comr its under a provision--inder the definition of works

I am not sure is fair. And I want to raise this, ar

Till generate some comments on it thereby. But al need to divert you with this right now.

old like to discuss the issue of involuntary transfers

[ocr errors]

tally heard some testimony on this issue from Tent on the second day of your hearings. This pr

tn 104(e) of your bill, and as I explained above stills as introduced contain in section 104 provisio a propriation of copyright by a governmental orgar a ntry was not to be accorded legal effect unde

provision originated as a resnonse to concerns ari rease by the Soviet Union to the Universal Copyright

« AnteriorContinuar »