thumbnail of National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention; 
     National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention - 3rd Gen.
    Session Main Auditorium "Copyright"
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
But God or simultaneous or nearly simultaneous presentations of the same program as for example in the Big Ten program in the Midwest. I think an amendment is an order. Publishers as you may know have made no objection whatever do they to the absence of restrictions on the use of copyrighted material in close circuit television and I think it's important for you to know this with respect to open educational television. We have another problem. It seems likely that within a few years the entire country will be blanketed by such stations and the magnitude of the audiences makes open to educational television and entirely different situation. Now my remarks which follow concerning the nature of the program was well composed without any idea of what Mr Kerry of the Copyright Office was going to say this morning. There is no closing whatever. There is another difference. Just a striking and more important with respect to use of copyrighted materials the programs on open channel
educational television carry not only educational courses but entertainment as well. This entertainment is often of a high art.. But it is a straining of terms to speak of it as education. Most of the so-called educational courses might better be called cultural and education and to the degree that this is true they appeal for free use of copyrighted material on open channels cannot be justified on the grounds of what most of us think of as education. It has been urged that copyrighted material should be free to educational television because this medium such it does such a good job of selling books. There is no question that sunrise semester and other systematic courses of instruction do sell books endless product autos sold over three thousand copies of the book made by the Macmillan company for those w and d t cars on a single pass. But wine books are so ordered by such formal organized courses they are not so
effectively sold by other programs. Trade publishers for example have tried and abandoned commercial television programmes as an advertising medium. The point is that systematic courses such as endless part of DOS and sunrise semester are built around books which must be read by the viewers. Other Television uses of copyrighted material tend by contrast to make the book unnecessary in the one case or is a close partnership between publisher and educational television from which both profit and the other. There is a partnership of mutual profit only if permission fees are paid for the use of the material. It has been urged that free use of copyrighted material is necessary because of the delays and difficulties in securing permissions. This is a good argument and I hate to see it attenuated by the explanation of television programmers do not know until the last moment what literary pieces they are going to need. This argues an impromptu character for
educational television that is just as well not publicize. To overcome delay however the American textbook Institute representing the knights in the textbook and referenced book publishers has proposed a clearing house arrangement for use of their materials. It would be based upon station reports of usage accompanied by modest pre-determined fee. Under this arrangement no prior permissions would be required. I'm quite hopeful that we can go forward with the discussions and planning of such an arrangement quite promptly. Now it is notorious that it takes a lot of money to run the TV stations and if this money is hard to come by. It takes money to buy machines and tape. It takes money to pay rent electric bills and sound. This takes money to pay for permissions for the copyrighted material that you use but the total of your permission payments cannot possibly bulk very large in your budget. We publishers therefore are adding a loss to understand why Educational
Television is represented as unwilling to pay these permission charges. You do not ask for free coaxial cables free tape free recorders or free office space. How can a special levy on the works of authors and publishers be justified. I'm sure it is no security of that it takes a lot of money to run a publishing house too. And that money is hard to come by as well. In most industries it is possible to make a mock up of a product and market tested before investing in an inventory and publishing. On the other hand we have to produce the first printing of a book before we know whether it will sell or not. Back of that first printing now lies investment for advances against royalties for editorial costs for typesetting and for plates. It may interest you to know that the manufacturing cost of the first printing of a book is only one third of the total of the cost up to that point. In the
field of original publishing as distinguished from paperback reprints we work in a market of limited size in the publishing of trade books particularly profit margins are slim and uncertain. Trade Publishing profit is derived largely from sale of subsidiary rights the rights to reprint or perform published works and the attrition of these sales and fees deprives a publisher and author of income they require to keep going. And he had fission of the market by whatever means reduces our ability to bring out the new books that society needs. I have never met anyone inside or outside the educational world that through thinks of this would be a good idea. I need not remind this audience of the rapidity of technological change because you are a part of it. Educational Television stands today on the threshold of an enormous expansion. As its essential role in our society becomes more generally understood I am confident that
financial support will be forthcoming. New techniques and new electronic devices are as inevitable in television as they are in printing and publishing. Now one thing has emerged clearly from the dialogue to this date. You need our products and I hope you always will. We hope to be around to provide and on a basis that will keep us in business. The issue is now dividing educational television and publishers can be resolved. We want to help you. But please don't cut our purse strings or our help won't amount to very much. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Dyke. You have heard it now like one expression of the point of view of the book publishing industry. I don't need to point out to this audience that educational broadcasting both radio and television is a
voracious user of music. And today we have with us the vice president in charge of the legal staff and publisher administration of B M II. Mrs Theodore as that man. Who is going to talk from the point of view of the music publisher and music copyright owner. Last minister die and feel alone in being a non-lawyer in this group I will assure you that to begin with I don't propose to talk law this morning. It becomes increasingly evident to me after listening to the prior speakers that I should be talking principle and I should be talking values because these are things that I am afraid of being overlooked in some of the discussion on this subject.
Specifically I want to talk about the plight of the serious composer in our society. I'd like to tell you if I can why one of my colleagues one said only half a seizure slightly that he wouldn't let a child of his studying music until the age of 14 because he helped by that time may be distracted by girls and this would minimize the chances of his ever wanting to become a composer. In Syria at least a serious composer should be doing well in 20th century America. We have now some 13:00 symphony orchestras in this country more than half of those in the entire world. The number of children studying music either privately or in schools has risen from about two and a half million in 1947 to over 10 million in 1962. Sales of recordings are at an
all time high. Yet against all these facts I must tell you that a man who would be on anybody's list of the 10 most significant contemporary concert composers had a gross income in 1963 of $12000. Now do those of you who spent your time and sound such a lucrative profession as teaching that may not seem like a shocking figure but I would point out to you that even in the education field I doubt whether anyone who could be characterized as one of the 10 leading educators has reached at the peak of his career the munificent sum of 10s of $12000. How does this happen. It happens because increasingly the serious composer is caught in a valise of which the performance not for profit is won. I think I can
illustrate this by telling you a story that Norman Della joyo tells a rather rueful. He was invited not too long ago to attend a concert being given at a large women's college where one of his choral works was going to be performed and Mr Della joyo was very fulsomely introduced by them to the audience by the president of the college. As the distinguished composer that he is Bulent surprise winner gentleman scholar etc. and on into the night after the performance he went back stage in order to congratulate the performers and discovered to his horror that only the pianist had a published copy of his music. Everybody else had a Xerox copy. Needless to say he did not receive any royalties on the Xerox copies. And of course he did not receive any royalties for the performance because despite the fact that admission was charged it was
quote a performance not for profit. If his total compensation is stemming from the use of his work which constituted approximately one fifth of the total program was in the area of 30 cents. This stemming from the one published published copy that the pianist was using. Now I rather suspect that Mr Della joy children wear out their shoes just about as fast as the children of the man who made the music stand. I doubt whether his appetite is less than the appetite of the janitor who swept out the auditorium or the man who printed the programme ticket. Yet all of these people were considered worthy of their hire. The composer on the other hand was treated as a sort of natural resource there to be used without any thing so sordid as compensation entering into the picture.
This peculiar exc Luzhin and copyright law of the performance not for profit is almost unique. I can think of no other country which has such an exemption in its law. This is this makes life very difficult for us and sit down wholly when new people are kind enough to program the works of foreign composers. I am sure you would not envy me the job that I frequently have of explaining to a foreign composer why a work of his can be performed and re performed to a substantial audience without one cent accruing to him from the performance. This is not doing the image of the United States in its And the position in place of the creative individual in the United States terribly much good abroad. Even our own law is not consistent on this for profit exemption. You cannot for example present a
dramatic work and escape getting permission for it on the grounds that it is a performance not for profit and not withstanding this dreadful handicap I would point out to you that all available statistics indicate that college drama is flourishing despite the fact that there is no exemption for the performance not for profit. I think that when the words for profit were written into the copyright law in 19 0 9 there was probably a very limited field of applicability. And the things which motivated it were probably. Things such as the performance of music in churches performance of music in school assemblies and the 4th of July parade in 1964 However we face a completely different problem. And increasingly high percentage of the performance of concert music
is coming under the wings of sponsors who are asserting a nonprofit status. Increasingly colleges are serving not only their own college population they're serving an entire community when the college becomes the cultural center of a town as is so often true. The performance of concert music is likely to move under the college's way. And here you have an assertion of a performance not for profit regardless of what the box office may say to the contrary. You people why has as has already been pointed out are using an increasingly large amount of music municipal auditorium and arenas such as the one we're in today are again more and more serving as the four walls within which concert performances are held. And here too we are being hit with the concept
that if the arena is municipally or state operated this must be a not for profit performance regardless of what the economics of the actual concert may be. If I may revert to my sad little story about Mr Della Joyal for just a moment. I'd like to tell you if you couldn't guess what the president of the college said when the unhappy fact of the xerox copies was brought to her attention. Quote the music department has a very low budget and filed this I'm sure has a familiar ring to all of you. Yet I'm sure that the same college does not tell its mathematics faculty that there is a budget shortage in the mathematics department and therefore it is part of the duty of the faculty to go steal paper from the five and ten cent stores. I'm not unaware of the fact that you do have budgetary problems.
I noticed that a number of the equipment manufacturers have apparently thought it worth their while to establish fairly expensive exhibits here and I would presume from that fact that they are not giving you their physical or physical equipment free. Regardless of what your budgetary problems may day. I would also assume though I don't know that this is true that they're not making special prices for you. Those of us who represent the creators of music and books have already indicated that we are ready and willing to recognize the difference between educational broadcasting and commercial broadcasting and even between various kinds of educational broadcasting we will have a basis however for talking about appropriate ways and means. Only when you people have decided that what happens to the creative person in our society
is a matter of concern for you as well as for us. We are I think at a moment of truth. Where are we and you in particular must answer a very real question. Do we respect the sanctity of physical property but not the sanctity of intellectual property. Is it wrong for me to steal this microphone. But morally acceptable for me to steal the product of a man's brain if I only have the excuse that my need is great and my budget is small. I will freely admit that it would be expedient convenient and to some extent economical for you. If the new copyright law relieves you of any responsibility whatever toward the creator of intellectual property. The
question is whether people such as you truly want to in the name of expediency or economy to stand up and tell the world that you have no concern for the men who who make music instead of marbles. I doubt whether you view your functions as educators in terms of stuffing as many chemical formula laws down children's throats as possible. Transmitting the largest amount of historical data as to how many men participated in each battle of Manassas. I think that you would not be in the education field at all if you didn't feel that one of your functions and a most important one was to help all of us to reach an appropriate sense of values a civilized sense of values. If this is part of your function
then I submit to you that you cannot in the name of expediency or economy disregard the rights of the creative person. No. Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Adams. The last man on our panel. Has been involved in the problem of educational broadcast copyright probably longer than any other single individual. He has been a key man in the discussions with the Copyright Office on the proposed revision. He is Eugene A-line a cough attorney for the National Education Television Center in New York. I find that one of the problems each time we discuss copyright and
educational broadcasting and educational uses in general is a kind of lack of understanding about what mutual funds are. And what is educational broadcasting and what is educational broadcasting trying to do. Today for example we seem to be talking in terms of educational television with some side glances at some of the other means of communication. There's a question about what it is broadcasting or what is educational. I frankly don't find this questionable at all to me. There are many kinds of broadcasting that they use for education and I hope they'll be more kinds in the future. There's a thing called closed circuit television. There's a minimum powered television station that broadcasts to a campus. There's an airplane that flies about five or six states in the Midwest. There are UHF educational television stations VHF stations. In addition there's a whole gamut of audio visual
means all of which are the latest means of communication and the more they use the better. And I find no problem with where the person is who is getting this in educational material is served by these means of communication whether you're sitting in a school room or in an auditorium or at home or in a business place or any of the other places where you can take in some of the kinds of information that you should be getting more and more of our civilization is to proceed. I'd like to point out to Mr. Kerry and to the others on the panel that educational broadcasting does include educational radio certainly and as well as educational television. I'm very happy that the register as distinguished from the bill he proposed has now come to the conclusion or at least a tired of feeling that there are certain types of educational broadcasting that should be protected that should not have some allowance made
for their uses and the kinds of things that are important to them. I only hope that they'll go all the way because frankly I don't see a difference between an English language cause for Spanish speaking people that goes into a school that goes into somebody's home and I don't think it matters whether you get college credit for a course or whether you are listening to a set of lectures. And I would like to create correct one thing Mr. Kerry about the age of kings the age of kings was in any TV program with which I was very much involved. It played out educational to Asians. There were two large areas in the country that at that time did not have educational stations namely Washington and New York and so we permitted those stations to commercial stations to carry them on a sustaining basis. In those two areas because we felt very strongly that this series which was important to schools which was important to colleges and was important to people who were sitting at home listening should not be blacked out simply because we had not yet had
time to organize stations in those areas. And I think you will find much much. Now as far as what is educational is concerned I would only say one more thing the FCC has established regulations for educational stations both radio and television. They must be licensed to educational organization and they must submit program content that is educational and character when they ask for their licenses. They are judged just as much as commercial stations for the kind of material they carry. They cannot carry sponsorship they cannot carry any means of of of income whatsoever they are permitted to receive gifts from time to time. And I think one of our problems is that those gifts are not often enough as as we would like to see them. So that I think that if there is any question about what is educational or not this question should be directed to the FCC as well as to the organization that is operating the station.
I think you'll find that there is a pretty good defense for anything that goes over an educational station. And the fact of what contribution it is bringing to the people that are listening to it. Because if there isn't it probably should not be aired. So I find this not a difficult problem at all. Now I do think that we ought to realize that in the present act there is the exemption the Mr. Rosenfeld was talking about and that we have all along known that this exemption was probably not sufficient for many purposes. There is a question about recording rights there are questions of of of other kinds under the Act. However we've always felt that we could live with these and that we could proceed on this basis and that we could find the materials we needed. And so we did not raise this question very seriously at the beginning of the copyright revision activities. However the music publishers composers and the literary authors and publishers
began to feel that with all the modern means of communication I think they were as concerned with the Xerox machine as with the educational television station. But there was going to be some great change in their industries and that perhaps these were new sources of income whether before the serious composer or the serious author. I think there are different considerations in music and in literary works and I think you have heard them today. I don't really believe the textbook publishers mind having their books quoted on television I think they sell many more copies as I think Mr. Dighton has admitted. I don't think the serious music I care so much about the compensation he receives as about the exposure that he can receive from educational radio and television. I have watched many commercial television programs I think you find very few serious composers on them. I think you can find many of them on educational television and if
there was a place for composers to be heard it probably will be in these channels and I would like to say to Mrs. even. I have had an experience with Norman Della joy recently too. We were trying to get him to compose a new score for a quite important program on a Kennedy memorial program which will be shown in a few weeks. We offered him quite a feat which was in line with his fee and he said he was too busy to take it because he had other commitments now. I think that this would have been a very worthwhile thing for him to do. I don't think he went out of his way to make time for educational television and he has a perfect right to do it. But I really can't cry because he doesn't get that one percent of royalty only $10 leases or license of a set of musical parts. I think he's he's way above that. And as far as the composer who needs some sort of incentive in money as well as in
exposure I think that if they could work with educational television and radio more they would find it a great deal easier. I think though one further thought. And that is that there is a great deal of independence and should be a great deal of interdependence between creative people and I think that authors and publishers and composers are creative people and educational broadcasting. I think those kind of people and I think listen to Dighton and misstatement are examples are very much interested in educational broadcasting for themselves for their own enjoyment and interest for their children and as a movement in this world I think we all realize and they realize especially that commercial television leaves much to be desired in this area and I think they would be the first to support educational television against its critics. So I think that they're with us very much. On the other hand I think we in educational broadcasting authors and composers and materials
and indeed need them desperately. The criticism of educational programs always is that there isn't enough creativity there aren't enough people who are. Are putting in the visuals the content and all the other kinds of thought that they should be into this. And I would propose instead of the kind of discussions we always have. Should an author be compensated if you pay for the electricity isn't there enough money in your budget to pay $10 a year for a music license that will cover all your needs which would have really difficult arguments but I wonder if they the emphasis isn't a little bit misplaced. And shouldn't we really be talking about as far as we're concerned in educational broadcasting what can we all do to get educational broadcasting even more on its feet than it is what can we do to expand its uses what can we do to make its content better. How can we acquire and adapt all the creative material that exists outside of television for Television uses because surely television as well as
the other audiovisual means of the means of mass education in the future. And I have been very much heartened by. What the Copyright Office says feld and reexamining its position I think they are going to re-examine their position because there has been so much of let's say an educational backlash created in the last year SL. I am hopeful that if we could only try to convince the publishers and the authors and the composers and people of this sought of what we are trying to do and what we are not trying to do that we are not trying to compete with their commercial uses we're trying to expand them. We're not trying to do to steal their property. We're trying to help them enlarge their property. And so I think that perhaps the time has come when these kind of conferences and these kinds of discussions which don't happen very often. Quite able and that perhaps a larger
conference or a larger meeting or a larger discussion can take place with all of the interested groups involved. In which the basic discussion would be the manner and the ability of the. Of the availability outside the availability of creative materials for educational broadcast and for other educational uses. I don't think this short of a conference should be limited to broadcasting I think it goes across a much wider scope of which educational broadcasting is just a part and I would be very happy that and very hopeful that given the kind of goodwill I think we all have here on the on the platform that something could eventually undo which we would not continue to have these discussions not continue to play the copyright office but just move ahead to doing what we think will be best for the educational process. Or.
Thank you very much again for the rest of the time on this program this morning. I proposed two procedures. One is to give the members of the panel an opportunity to add to their remarks or in a way of a rebuttal. And after that to entertain any questions from members of the audience. So I'd like to ask the panel Harry do you want to make a few. Fred I can't tell the an a b how grateful I am for getting this group together I think you have reasonable people together. We may have different views. But the fact of looking at it this way I think is going to be helpful to all as I see the discussion we've had this morning for questions have been thrown I take it at me personally because I happen to be the one that stated a
position I should be grateful if you'd give me the few minutes to answer those. The first question that was really raised both by Mr. Dighton and this is even as I try to parse our business I'm going to take our profit away aren't you going to destroy. And come in won't that be harmful to you and this is a very real and very honest and very valid question. Let me head right into it. On October 18 the New York Times financial section just a few days ago had a story as follows. I believe I did not get copyright permission to make a copy of text book sales head for record says the headline and the first paragraph reads now that the children are back in school it's time for the textbook publishers to tart up their sales and earnings.
These are expected to show records in most cases. Then it goes on with security analysts and saying how the textbook publishers. Well let me just give the other headline seeming immunity in fealty economic shifts. Seen what I'd like to cite. It is a speech made by Mr. Dide colleague on his committee. Mr Downer put it in the press. Scott's Faurisson and Company a textbook publisher we're not talking about trade people. And obviously the theory is that if we put anybody out of business we're going to put these people out of business by the unreasonable request of the whole committee. Let me read from this piece and a recent talk before the New York society of security analysts Dara Lee Peterson price butterscotch Faurisson and company a large textbook publisher had some words about their future he said and I quote I'm sure that everybody in the investment banking business has made a projection
estimating the potential for the next few years. We in the industry have also done some pencil work and it seems there is at least one place on which we are all in accord This is Scott's for as I'm talking. There are going to be a lot of books bought and used in the American schools between now and 1970 close quote. With that he projected a compound growth rate of 8 1 and I yam for the textbook field in the pre 1964 to 70 80 percent growth for a year. This doesn't sound like property to me ladies and gentleman and it's based on the present law because they don't know any more than you and I know what the future law is going to be. Secondly I was asked do we want to steal property.
I warned you you were going to be told that this is property Congress has said it isn't property. When I buy this pencil I can do anything I want with it I own it in perpetuity. I'm not asking from monopoly on the making of this pencil. When someone writes a book and I happen to be the author of books to as almost every member of the AD Hope committee so we are created as well as users. When we write a book. As Mr Kerry accurately said we can't do anything we want with a book because the copyright is not given by Congress. There is no monopoly in here. If I buy this desk I can do anything I want with it including making copies of it or repairing parts of it to the arguments of those who would not have the exemption they would want exempt
privileges which nobody else is asking for. What sang is that Congress and said this isn't property except as it's given by Congress and that Congress has said what aspect of this that is not given is the exemption for education. And I've already indicated that they're not really hurting too badly. Thirdly George Carey asked the question and I think it's the fair question and the reasonable and the right question. And George Carey being the distinguished lawyer and public servant that he is has to ask this question. And I want to repeat it. Because I think this is the issue before you. Is it fair to require commercial organizations to pay and not educational broadcasters and i answer is yes. I think there is a fundamental difference between commercial and education and
Congress has said so. And this area has said so for 50 years and the last questions around. And it's a very real and a very decent question and a good question is do we want to put creative people out of business. The answer is no because we are setting a creative. Bear in mind and I'd like if I may for a moment George care to take one slight difference with you. The issue isn't between creators and users because we are created because of the things we're talking about. I'd like to point out that we think this will help creative use and I'd like to close by saying there's not only a question of creative writing but creative teaching. And this is what we're trying to foster by our proposal. Thank you all. Thank you very much. As any other member of the panel I want to make any further remarks before
we go into question this is. It is that microphone on there. I would just like to comment briefly on Mr. Elia cost statement that he is quite certain that composers appreciate exposure and don't really care whether they get paid or not. You people I think may find yourself with a rather interesting bedfellow in a thing they proposed copyright law on this issue because I've heard exactly the same argument and couched in almost exactly the same words from the jukebox operators. They too feel that the composer should be so delighted that the fact that his work is being exposed that the fact that he receives one cent compensation on the sale of the
record at the maximum for. 10000 dimes or quarters thrown into a jukebox machine ought to satisfy him entirely. There is no doubt in the world but that exposure is important to composers and. I have a feeling that if you restrict the copyright law to what is necessary in order to keep a man creating Maybe you don't need any copyright law altogether because there is such a thing as a creative compulsion. And I too like Mr Rosenfield have a few books to my credit though not to my bank credit I must say. But I don't consider it that. I am a creative author among other things I'm not in the unhappy position of trying to do this for a livelihood. For every serious composer today as a moonlighter. He there
is almost no serious composer no matter what his stature who can survive without moonlighting whether he does it by way of college teaching which email may not be temperamentally fit to do. But my writing background music for television series or commercials under a pseudonym real question is whether we have sufficient regard for the art of professional concert composition. To say that we do not want to live in a society where a composer either must moonlight find himself a rich wife or a patron. A. Thank you for that. Anybody else leave you want to make some comments please. Well here goes one handed to me Chopper I said I wasn't but
I'm just not attracted by the prospects of Scott Foresman and Ike's generation and I want to tell you first on my serious remarks I did try to separate the problems of textbook publishers and the problems of publishers believe me they are quite different. Their balance sheets are different their profit and loss statements are different. The trade publishers are the poor relations in the publishing industry. Second I think it be a mistake to confuse Scott Foresman with the rest of a textbook publishers. Scott Foresman is by all odds the most profitable publishing companies in existence and it must be interesting to speak for Scott Foresman. But believe me he can't on financial matters speak for his peers and competitors. Now one other thing I should mention and this is. Have publishers and authors tried to make clear in my
introductory remarks do not lie with educational television in my judgment. I have said publicly before that we have much more to fear from the uses of information material in the growing media and media information handling information storage and retrieval. So that I think that you must as educational television people keep this in mind and weighing the discussion you've heard this morning. Finally I said nothing about property rights. I'm not concerned about property rights. I don't think this is pertinent to our discussion whether or not a property right exists as a matter of a natural bias as a matter of nature or whether it's been given to us by Congress. We have at the moment as publishers and
authors notably as authors because publishers come in only secondarily as a Siamese of the author's basic rights. We do now have by act of Congress certain property rights. And any discussion of there may be a ration is a discussion which affects authors but I don't think seriously that we ought to let this sort of thing get into our discussions any further and I want to second as heartily as I can a closing remarks of Mr. Alaina cough. I believe that our discussions in the future should advance to another level our level of cooperation and the means of cooperation for the mutual advancement of creative persons but educational television and society at large. Thank you Mr. At there's no one else on the panel that has any further
comments I will open this for questions from the audience directed to any member of the panel are there any questions. I will not attempt to summarize the positions taken by the various members of this panel you can do that for your. Self. But before closing this session I should like to point out to you that this type of discussion has been going on now for at least two years and Mr Kerry and his office has been working on this problem for much longer than that. That we are now about to I arrive dismiss them so that a moment of truth when the new bill will be presented by the copyright office for introduction in the next session of Congress in January.
Now that bill is bound to affect various segments of education and as many of you know all these segments of education have been brought together. In the form of an ad hoc committee on copyright revision which Mr. Harold would grin of the National Education Association its chairman. This group assume well continue to work for our of the revision of the proposed bill. It will undertake I assume a study of the new bill an attempt to inform all people in education and particularly educational broadcasters of the effects of the provision in that mill. And after that then we go to Congress and to the committee set up by Congress. And as Mr. Kerry has pointed out this may happen some time
next year. I assume that your an aid office will try to keep you informed of any developments that are taking place. I hope this session has been informative and profitable for you and there's nothing else I declared adjourned support.
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention
National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention - 3rd Gen. Session Main Auditorium "Copyright"
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-ht2gcd8m).
No description available
Public Affairs
Media type
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 4339 (University of Maryland)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention; National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention - 3rd Gen. Session Main Auditorium "Copyright" ,” 1964-10-28, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 28, 2023,
MLA: “National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention; National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention - 3rd Gen. Session Main Auditorium "Copyright" .” 1964-10-28. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 28, 2023. <>.
APA: National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention; National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention - 3rd Gen. Session Main Auditorium "Copyright" . Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from