ADDITIONAL CONCURRING VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE E. DANIELSON
I concur in the foregoing report and state the following additional views:
The bill S. 22 which this report accompanies is an exceedingly complex bill. Among many other things it would establish new rights and liabilities in the copyright liability of cable television, a subject which until now has not been covered by legislation. The subject is somewhat controversial, largely because it is new, and I feel that it requires added discussion.
At the threshold we must be aware that we are dealing with a property right. Copyright is a property right. It is often referred to as “intellectual property”. It was known and honored in the common law. It was specifically recognized by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, and the regulation of copyright was among the powers delegated to the Congress. Article I, Section 8, clause 8.
As with more familiar forms of property, copyright can be bargained for, bought and sold, it can be the subject of a gift, it can be licensed for a specific use or period of time. It is subject to testamentary disposition and the laws of succession.
As a form of property, copyright is also afforded the protection of the Constitution and our laws, including the injunctions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which declare that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The Constitution also provides that authors and inventors are to have the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
For more than a year and a half the Judiciary Committee has been working on the copyright revision bill which is reported to the House herewith. The most controversial, difficult and extensive part of that work has been the granting of a compulsory license and the development of a formula for the imposition add allocation of copyright royalty charges placed upon the secondary transmission by cable television systems of copyrighted programming which is broadcast by television stations.
In more familiar transactions in property there is no need for government to intervene. In the free market buyers and sellers are able to bargain for and to reach prices which are acceptable to all concerned. The same is usually true in the case of business transactions involving copyrighted properties. However, the unique character and role of cable television is such that the committee has been compelled to depart from traditional practies. The bill now reported subjects broadcasts of copyrighted programming to a compulsory license vested in cable systems which re-transmit (secondarily transmit) those broadcasts to their subscribers, it imposes a royalty charge on certain of those secondary transmissions, and provides a means for the payment and distribution of the royalty charges by the users and to the owners.
(359)
