« AnteriorContinuar »
from major TV markets, are liable for copyright fees substan
tially in excess of the nominal levels contemplated in H.R.
2223, and in excess of fees paid by larger systems. As
solied to TPT's own systems, the following table illustrates
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
New York, N.r.
Another effect of TPT's proposal is that it tends to
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.
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
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
COMPARISON OF COPYRIGIT PETS FOR TELEPROMPTTR CADLE SYSTEMS
PER H.R. 222) UND TELEPROMPTER PROPOSAL
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
Per H.R. 2223 TPT_ (1)
trent to this study, we present an analysis of the impact : 75 proposal upon systems located within the Congres
Lara Sestricts of the members of the House Judiciary Sub
Annual Subscriber Revenues
se Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of
Annual Subscriber Revenues
da preable to its proposal TPT states its "basic
... 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. bassals and network and non-network distant signals, and
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
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
tion" and "signal (s)...not required to be retransmitted" are not terms of art which lend themselves to precise definition,
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
signal carriage for different types of stations for various
They are, rather, terms which are ambiguous and
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
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: