Motion Picture Commission : hearings before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, Sixty-third Congress, second session, on bills to establish a Federal Motion Picture Commission (1978)

MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. 143 Mr. ScHECHTER. At the close of the bill it says: Thiit the penalty for violatieii of this act shall hi> a flue of not more than $500 or iniprisoniiient iint more than one .ve:i«-, or botli. in tli(> discretion of the court. Dr. Chase. "And the fihns unlawfully changed, exhibited, or trans- ported shall be confiscated." Mr. PoAVERS. Do YOU not think that wouhl be a sufficient preventive from any spurious duplication? Dr. Chase. Well, I suppose so, if the committee thinks so. In my experience in enforcino- the hiw I have perhaps, become overcautious. Mr. To AVERS. AVouhl it not be better. Canon Chase, if you do not think that is a sufficient petialty to prevent the duplicati(m, to make a more severe penalty without adding so nmch money, 50 cents, for attaching the seal to "all these duplicates? Dr. Chase. It was our idea to i)rovont the crime ratlier than to allow^ it to ffo on and then punish the guihy. Our idea was that the seal and certificates furnished without exandnation l)y the commis- sion w^ould be attached by the manufacturers by permission of the commission, and if evei-ything was done in good faith there would be no trouble, but if it was found that this privilege was being abused by the fihn manufacturers it would be in the power of the board to tighten things up by retpiiring that duplicates should be submitted to'^the commission for examination before licenses for the duplicates would be granted. In that case it woidd be necessary to charge something for the expense of examination. Mr. Powers. This section says that the board sliall charge 50 cents for each film, which is a (hipliVate of any film, whether ]n-oduced in good faith or not. It looks to me like a pretty heavy bur(len? Dr. Chase. Yes, sir: from the financial side you are right. But from the standpoint of being sure to have the law enforced, it seems to me wise to have the 50-cent fee. remembering that section 17 allows the commission to reduce or abolish this fee. The commission must furnish a certificate. It is necessary that there should be a certificate on each film, which must have the signature or stamp of the com- mission. It woidd be necessary to fiu-nish that certificate. You can allow the manufacturers to furnish the seal which is made of the film, but the certificate must be furnished by the commission. It will therefore be necessary to keep certain records in the office. Ap- parently you could just reduce the fee for duplicates to 25 cents and have eiioiioh to pay the exi)enses of the commission. You would then get $50,000 from duplicates, which, with the $12,000 from the oriirinJtls. would give you an income of $()2,000. Mr. Powers. The niuuber of emi)loyees necessary to do this du]:)li- cate work and their salaries, woidd not that amount to a good deal of money? Dr. Chase. I do not think the commission will have those dupli- cates examined. I tliink they will decide to license duplicates with- out examiiuUion. Possildy some law-bi'caking firm might l)e t()ld by the commission that they would have to submit all of their copies to the counnission. l)ut T tliiidv most of the business woidtl be con- ducted Avithout the dui)licates being shoAvn to the counnission at all. Thev would a])])!v and say, ''The original has been apju-oved and we would like to uei" 50 certificates, Avhich Avill l)e attached to the copies