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)

112 The MPAA had said that any agreement we reached would be embraced by copyright holders and distributors across the board. They could bring them along, so they said. They couldn't; they haven't. And this was one of the main reasons we were reluctant to begin talks in the first place. As a matter of fact, when we began voluntary negotiations, there was an explicit commitment that the networks would go along with whatever emerged from the talks. When the talks broke off, the MPAA said to us and the other creative guilds sitting around the table, they would simply go ahead and implement the label they found satisfactory and we did not. But that is not the label presently appearing on a few feature films because the networks, for whom the MPAA was supposedly acting as a good faith surrogate, objected. The networks forced the MPAA to make a bad label even worse. As we said, the MPAA can't bring all the players to the table; the table isn't big enough. In any case, Congressman Frank and Senator Simpson have set out to make the American public aware of changes made in films — not a few films, as is the case through the MPAA labels, but the 20,000 films in domestic circulation. Film ownership and distribution is in many hands; only some of which are MPAA companies. The simple and indisputable fact of the complexity of the universe of film ownership and distributorship is the reason for legislation. Only a national commitment to inform film consumers will bring all firm copyright holders and distributors under the tent of disclosure. We would argue that the time for notices on films, such as the labels we support, is more important now than ever before. The new digital revolution quickly unfolding before us provides greater and greater opportunities for manipulating entertainment and information products. Film labels are nothing more than certificates of authentication— that something has been changed from the original version you were expecting. When movie industry officials — and government officials — press the Europeans to let our film and television programs pass freely into their countries; when we press China to put a stop to the theft; of our films — we hear that all of this is done in the name of America's film artists. It is they, we hear, who are being denied the rewards of their labor. It is they who craft the artistic and cultural products that are craved in foreign markets. Would that the producers would take the same line in this country as they take abroad. We believe that rhetoric that films are an art form, created by artists, and that they are our best and most ubiquitous ambassadors of the American way of life. We don't believe the producers should play the violins of pathos about American film artists when it suits them abroad, only to stand adamantly against a respectful regard for films and film artists in this country. Telling consumers what changes have been made in a film, giving directors, screenwriters, and cinematographers a chance to object, is a small increment of respect. Ms. COOLIDGE. And I believe I am supposed to introduce Mrs. Henry Mancini. Mr. MOORHEAD. Without objection, the documents are made a part of the record. Ms. COOLIDGE. May I do that? Mr. MoORHEAD. Yes. [See appendix, p. 503.] Ms. COOLIDGE. Mrs. Henry Mancini has a very short statement. Mr. MoORHEAD. Go ahead. STATEMENT OF MRS. HENRY MANCINI Mrs. Mancini. I will be very, very brief. I am the widow of Henry Mancini who passed away last year, and I am here to just point out to you that the body of work that he left is certainly woven into the fabric of the international music landscape. I urge you to pass the legislation that extends the copyright law.