Copyright term, film labeling, and film preservation legislation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 1734 ... June 1 and July 13, 1995 (1996)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Ill But we are not here to seek yovir help in ending or deterring these alterations. Absolutely not! What we are saying is that these alterations are egregious and widespread, and that the public has absolutely no idea of the extent to which movies shown on TV do not reflect the theatrical version they believe they are seeing. So, as a matter of truth-in-advertising, simply tell the people. Put it another way. Those who oppose labeling are really putting themselves in the position of defending false advertising in the marketplace, hardly a high moral plane from which to mount a defense. But leave morality out of this. The real fear about the labeling bill we endorse is that its implementation would somehow cause economic harm to the industry. This is always the argument to which the producers and distributors return. Firstly, we would advocate nothing that would harm the industry in which we make our living. When movies are shown in ancillary markets, as they must be to recoup their costs, directors get something out of it, thanks to the negotiated residual arrangements. We would not support legislation that negates these arrangements. Secondly, the producers have a long history of wailing how innovations are going to ruin the industry. Television was going to ruin movies; VCR's were going to ruin movies. Now labels are going to ruin movies. Congress should bear in mind this chicken little, the-sky-is-falling style of arguing. If history is any guide, labels ought to increase revenue substantially through the public demand for authentic theatrical versions in ancillary markets. Thirdly, there currently are a variety of labeling regimes in place and operating, and there is absolutely no evidence that any untoward economic consequence has occurred as a result. This really is the crux of the matter. Would labels have a negative impact on the production or distribution processes? Based on systems in place, the empirical answer, the answer with any evidence behind it, is emphatically no. The MPAA has produced no factual evidence to support their view. In fact, each time they have warned that their fortunes would be ruined by the institution of a new idea, exactly the reverse has turned out to be true. The subcommittee is aware that the MPAA companies instituted a voluntary labeling system a few months ago relating to the release of new (and altered) feature films into the ancillary markets. From our point of view, these labels are totally inadequate and misleading. They do not provide information succinctly as to what changes have been made in a film, nor do they provide an opportunity for a director, cinematographer, or screenwriter to object if he or she would choose to do so. Let me give an example. When a movie has been edited, the company label states that the film "has been edited for content." Clearly, the implication is that the violence and sexually provocative scenes have been deleted in conformance with family viewing sensibilities. But this is the phrase applied to editing, period. Family movies, where there is no violence or no sex scenes, bear the same label. If the company labels are crafted to be so manipulative, much better not to have them at all. Consumers are being gulled when we ought to play it straight. What is wrong, or what untoward economic consequence would flow from saying "five minutes have been deleted from this film"? There is nothing to be afraid of on any level from telling the truth, and that is what the Frank-Simpson bill is all about. Let me also point out that the labeling regimes adopted by Turner Entertainment on their colorized films or the American Movie Classics cable channel have not and do not harm in any way the marketing and distribution of films. (Turner Entertainment adamantly opposed the original adoption of the National Film Preservation act because of its labeling provisions. Within weeks of passage, and before the Library dropped these provisions, Tiimer began running labels on all its colorized films, again doing no discemable marketing damage whatsoever.) Let me also point out that the MPAA companies lobbied the FBI successfully so a very official looking label warning of piracy infractions goes on cassettes. So the opposition by the MPAA to official labels is pretty selective. Why do we need a law? Why can't we sit around a table in Hollywood and work this out? We tried. And we failed. We failed because we wanted the labels to be clear about the alterations that were made, and because we wanted an artistic author's disclaimer. And we failed because in a very important regard the MPAA could not deliver on a promise it made to Congress in encouraging voluntary discussions.