ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN V. TUNNEY
I submit these additional views with respect to the amendment which lengthened the period in which the Royalty Tribunal may make rate adjustments.
In my view, the most inequitable amendment added to the bill by the Committee was the one which extended the period during which copyright rates would be frozen for long periods without adjustment. These bill changes to sections 802(a) and (b) lengthened from six months to three years the period before which the Royalty Tribunal could make its initial copyright rate adjustment; and lengthened again from five years to ten years the period subsequent copyright rate adjustment might be made
Those adversely affected by these lengthened time periods are copyright proprietors in four fields: film makers and networks who are copyright owners of films used by cable provided for in Section 111 of the bill; publishers, composers, and artists who secure royalties under section 115 of the bill; royalty recipients of copyrighted music played in jukeboxes under section 116 of the bill; and, broadcasters and copyright owners who are also affected by section 118 of the bill which grants certain rights for public television. It is obvious that the royalty income of many industries is critically controlled by the operations of the Royalty Tribunal.
Clearly, the move to freeze the cycle of rate adjustments for ten year periods is inequitable. It would result in artificially imposed compensation to copyright holders that has no relation to the market place or to shifting economic and financial conditions.
The views which I hold are not limited to me alone. The most authoritative voice on copyright matters, the Register of Copyrights, testified on October 30, 1975, before a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the copyright bill. She indicated that a ten year cycle of review was "too long." I could not agree more.
I shall offer an amendment to reduce the ten-year extension to seven years.
○
(169)
