Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1973

from major TV markets, are liable for copyright fees substan

tially in excess of the nominal levels contemplated in H.R.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

2223, and in excess of fees paid by larger systems. As

(6)

solied to TPT's own systems, the following table illustrates

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to romarize the table: the TPT proposal, as aptuo eta systems, results in an overall reduction in

its of $136,393, or 13 percent from $1,032,774 to initive to H.R. 2223. Only the highest revenue

rystems--those with annual revenues in excess of kaki Segbow a decrease in fees. All other revenue classes

. ml. Beach, ma. Pocatello, Idaho

[ocr errors]

New York, N.r.

Another effect of TPT's proposal is that it tends to

[ocr errors][merged small]

increase payments by the decreased number of systems which remain liable for payment, with a proportionately greater

tieved from a slightly different perspective, the ** e presents the percentage distribution of copy*** payments by revenue class under H.R. 2223 and the * pui respectively. Among other things, it shows that

2.1. contribution of the largest revenue class is

burden borne by systems in the lower revenue classes.

[ocr errors]

n/err/a

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

To summarize the table: the TPT proposal, as applied to its systems, results in an overall reduction in copyright lees of $136,393, or 13 percent from $1,032,774 to $696,131 relative to H.R. 2223. Only the highest revenue class of systems--those with annual revenues in excess of $440,000--show a decrease in fees. All other revenue classes of syttens show increases.

Vieved from a slightly different perspective, the following table presents the percentage distribution of copyright fee payments by revenue class under N.R. 222) and the TH? proposal respectively. Among other things, it shows that the relative contribution of the largest revenue class is

nota

reduced from 77 percent to 60 percent of total copyright lee payments under the TPT proposal, while the relative contribution of the remainder increases from 23 percent to 40 per

cent.

COMPARISON OF COPYRIGIT PETS FOR TELEPROMPTTR CADLE SYSTEMS

PER H.R. 222) UND TELEPROMPTER PROPOSAL

TA!

De purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to evalu23 seceptal and administrative soundness of the Tele* 7 proposal as an appropriate alternative to the 27.103 of 1.R. 2223 for determining copyright liability

* le systems for the retransmission of copyrighted retar sagnals and (2) to evaluate the specific impact of a prometa, odth respect to copyright liability on (a) TPT U mrm for which relevant base data are publicly availBut I copyright proprietors. Additionally, in an

Copyright Tees As
A Percent of intal

Per
.R._222) IT?

Copyright Fees
Per

Per H.R. 2223 TPT_ (1)

(2)

Revenue Classification

trent to this study, we present an analysis of the impact : 75 proposal upon systems located within the Congres

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Lara Sestricts of the members of the House Judiciary Sub

Annual Subscriber Revenues
More Than $160,000 But
Not More Than $320,000

52,734

113,908

12.71

5.11

se Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

12 OCALIFICATION

Annual Subscriber Revenues
More Than $483,000 But
Not More Than $640,000

da preable to its proposal TPT states its "basic

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

... is that there should be no copyright liability of any ter: cable retransmission of broadcast signals." However, a dat is characterizes as a compromise, the TPT proposal

en sabe she provision for copyright liability. The pro-
2. based fundamentally on distinctions it draws among

2. bassals and network and non-network distant signals, and
Tables that only the last, non-network distant signals
B. berat;ect to copyright liability. The specific lan-
Benetra's redraft of the statute reads "a 'copyright

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

-xiii

nera

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to evaluate the conceptual and administrative soundness of the TelePrompfer (TPT) proposal as an appropriate alternative to the provisions of H.R. 2223 for determining copyright liability thong cable systems for the retransmission of copyrighted broadcast signals and (2) to evaluate the specific impact of the proposal with respect to copyright liability on (a) TPT cable systems for which relevant base data are publicly avail

able and (b) copyright proprietors.

Additionally, in an

appendix to this study, we present an analysis of the impact

of the TPT proposal upon systems located within the Congressional Districts of the members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice.

M. COPYRIGHT QUALIFICATION

As a preamble to its proposal TPT states its basic

position is that there should be no copyright liability of any

tort for cable retransmission of broadcast signals." However,

is what it characterizes as a compromise, the TPT proposal does make some provision for copyright liability. The proposal is based fundamentally on distinctions it draws among local signals and network and non-network distant signals, and concludes that only the lant, non-network distant signals should be subject to copyright liability. The specific lan

guage of IPT', redraft of the statute reads *a 'copyright

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

qualifying broadcast station shall be any broadcast station whose signal is not required to be retransmitted by the cable system pursuant to the rules and regulations of the (FCC). Stated another way, the TPT proposal would grant copyright liability only for non-local broadcast stations (i.e., those which may not insist upon retransmission of their signals), and then only the non-network originated portions of the signals of such stations. It should be noted here that the terms "distant signal," "copyright qualifying broadcast sta

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

tion" and "signal (s)...not required to be retransmitted" are not terms of art which lend themselves to precise definition,

Cable

especially within the context of the FCC's complex rules on

The Topularity of the Non-network ProQINING of the disLast Signal in the County in which the Cable Systes in Located, lapressed as • Market share her Catago

Copyt. llabalat

signal carriage for different types of stations for various

purposes.

They are, rather, terms which are ambiguous and

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

which invite definitional disputation. This ambiguity is characteristic of the whole TPT proposal, but specifically of its formula for determining copyright liability. Without otherwise commenting here on the philosophy, equity or realism of the proposal, it would appear at best to be an enormous administrative burden.

.

(E) (D) + (A) 2.241

[merged small][ocr errors]

III. COMPONENTS OF THE TELEP POMPTER PROPOSAL

The critical substance of the TP7 proposal is that

Se product of the first two components (A) x (B) of sed defines the base of cable system revenues that * rect to copyright liability. The TPT proposal **9cable systen revenues by a factor which is the

programing costs (in reality, non-network proet **s to "total revenues of "all television sta- pesent in this hypothetical example). Our

only "non-network programming of distant stations" be subject to copyright liability. The proposal attempts to establish a marketplace rationale for this position (based on a "nodel of the broadcasters*} by focusing on:

nera

nierria

« AnteriorContinuar »