Broadcasting Oct 31 - American Radio History

Tom Enders, who was then undersecretary of state, and his succes-
sors. What do we have? We have net -net a major victory for broad-
casters in Radio Marti; one that a year ago nobody said was possible.
We have, in addition to that, ongoing negotiations between the
Cubans and the United States for the first time in recent years-to try
to resolve the incompatibilities and the technical problems between
the broadcasting systems in Cuba and in the United States. That's
major -that helps eliminate a lot of interference, potentially.
We have 221 co- sponsors on a major piece of legislation before the
House of Representatives. Never before has NAB gone after co-
sponsors to this magnitude, to see the degree of success that we have
reached with 221 co- sponsors. Our objective was to get the majority
of the House of Representatives- bipartisan- Republicans and
Democrats -from all over the country. We're pleased with that.
The Freedom of Expression Foundation. Strong movement.
Strong support from NAB and the other entities in town, and in
universal communications. We think that's significant. We think that
it's going to be sort of the wave of the future and something that
we're going to work toward in the future.
So, on balance, even though there have been some uneven tides, if
you will, during this fast year -and I think any time there is a
change of any type, in any organization, there.are some ripple ef-
fects-on balance, I have to say I am very enthusiastic, I am very
encouraged.
We've treaded some tough waters in the first year, and we antici-
pate that those waters have smoothed substantially, and that in the
future, hopefully, the wind will be at our back. We think we're
making progress, and underlying all that, we feel that the net result is
AT LARGE
411w & Roq ao
Appeals court criticizes CRT,
upholds most of '79 decision
Panel rejects MPAA request for
greater percentage; tells
tribunal to review claims for
religious groups and sports
The Copyright Royalty Tribunal's distribu-
tion of the $20 million in royalty fees paid by
the nation's cable television operators in
1979 was criticized by a three judge panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals last week as less
than an artistic success. And in some re-
spects- including some questions raised on
appeal by the National Association of
Broadcasters -the court remanded the deci-
sion to the tribunal for reconsideration. But
in the main, the decision was affirmed.
For the most part, that means the Motion
Picture Association of America was the prin-
cipal loser in a case involving six appeals
and dozens of intervenors. MPAA, arguing
on behalf of 58 producers and syndicators,
said those program suppliers are entitled to
more than the 70% of the total fund that was
allocated to them as groups in Phase I of the
distribution. MPAA also said that in Phase II
they should receive all of the funds assigned
to syndicators and producers, rather than
only 96.8 %. The panel rejected those argu-
ments.
The NAB, however, persuaded the panel
to direct the tribunal to reconsider its refusal
to accord any weight to television broadcast-
ers' contributions to sports broadcasts, or to
allocate any part of the royalty fund to radio
broadcasters. The panel also remanded the
portion of the tribunal's decision denying
"devotional claimants" -the Christian
Broadcasting Network, Old Time Gospel
Hour and PTL Television Network -any
share of the royalties distributed among sup-
pliers and movie producers, in Phase II.
The last case considered by the panel in-
volved an appeal by the Spanish Internation-
al Network, which was seeking to increase
its allocation of 0.7% of the royalties al-
lowed producers at the expense of the award
to MPAA. That effort failed.
The 1979 distribution by the tribunal was
the second it made after being established
under the Copyright Act of 1976 -and was
the second challenged in a number of ap-
peals. The tribunal's decision regarding the
1978 distribution emerged almost entirely
intact. As in that proceeding, the appeals
court panel last week, in a unanimous deci-
sion, said the claims "are motivated essen-
tially by each petitioner's feeling that it de-
served a larger share of the fund." And it
Broadcasting Oct 31 1983
54
that NAB is a much stronger association with its membership, with
its staff, and even on the Hill.
We have made contacts in this Congress. Even though there are
those who say we are greedy and arrogant, there are those who do not
say we are greedy and arrogant; on the other hand, there are those
who say that we're very, very calculating and that we're very re-
served in our approach and that they're glad to see us up there
working.
Even Chairman Dingell has said: "You have dealt with us fairly
and on top of the table." And we're very pleased to see that.
I want to go back to make sure we don't lose a chance for you to
answer the question about leaving your own mark on NAB.
Well, let's face it, this is not Eddie Fritts's NAB. This is not Vince
Wasilewski's NAB and it's not Leroy Collins's NAB. This is an
association of broadcasters -large and small, radio and television,
all across the country- unified in an effort to move the industry
forward as technology changes and as the competitive climate
changes.
I don't know if it's Eddie Fritts's mission to put a "mark," per se,
so that I can say I've accomplished a specific goal at NAB. We have
goals, no question, but they're not goals for Eddie Fritts, they're
goals for this association and for this total staff.
I think we've been reasoned, and if you can say this in the same
context, aggressive, but yet conservative. I don't think we've made
major mistakes. I think we've corrected a lot of ills -hopefully, for a
positive effect. N
noted that the tribunal again was confronted
with "a welter of conflicting data" based on a
variety of factors.
The panel did not fmd the arguments
MPAA had used in seeking "a larger share of
the fund" persuasive. MPAA had said sup-
pliers suffered " harm" as a result of cable
retransmission of their material. But the pan-
el said the tribunal had been correct in down-
playing the evidence of harm, which was
largely "anecdotal."
The panel also rejected the argument that
the tribunal had not adequately explained its
awards to sports claimants -15% -and tele-
vision broadcasters, represented by the
NAB- 4.5% -in Phase I of the distribution.
It said the sports claimants had presented
evidence that "cable operators perceive
sports programing to account significantly
for the ability of cable systems to attract and
retain subscribers." The panel acknow-
ledged that the tribunal's explanation of its
grant to NAB was "tortured "; nevertheless,
it concluded the award was "within the zone
of reasonableness."
As for the award of 96.8% of the funds
allocated to suppliers in Phase II, MPAA
said that constitutes the imposition of a pen-
alty on the 58 companies it represents, for
they had agreed to divide among themselves
98.5% of the suppliers' allocation. The pan-
el called the argument "groundless." It said
the tribunal not only indicated it "welcomes"
voluntary agreements but had also said the