Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />fees the CRT establls~ed and collected royaltIes. Funds collected from cable <br /> <br />systems would In turn be dIspersed to the producers or copyright holders of <br /> <br /> <br />programmIng viewed outsIde of Its prImary broadcast market. <br /> <br />Next. In 1977, the FCC studied the exclusIvIty provisIons adopted In 1972. <br />~Is study resulted In a 1980 order abolishIng syndicated exclusivIty whIle <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />retaIning network exclusivity. ~Is actIon was challenged by broadcasters In <br /> <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I . <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br />Malrlte T.V. of New York vs. F .C.C.. In 1981 the U.S. CIrcuit Court of Appeals <br /> <br />upheld the FCC decision thus opening the door .to widespread use of distant slg- <br /> <br />nal carrIage. ~e U.S. Supreme Court declIned to hear the case on appeal. <br /> <br />Because the Interest of copyrIght holders has been affected by these actIons, <br /> <br />Congress has monItored thIs deregulatIon carefully. ~e current sessIon of Con- <br /> <br />gress attempted to resolve the contInuing dIfferences between programmers and <br /> <br />cable systems. ~e cable Industry, movIe producers and broadcasters negotiated <br /> <br />a complex settlement whIch became H.R.5949. Although the bill was a compromIse <br /> <br />by all parties It lacked the necessary support to achIeve passage. H.R.5949 was <br /> <br />adopted by the House but failed In the Senate. <br /> <br />MeanwhIle the CRT began to adjust the fee schedule for dIstant signals. Be- <br /> <br />cause they were authorIzed to adjust fees If FCC regulatIons changed, the CRT held <br /> <br />extensIve rate hearIngs thIs fall. ~e new rules challenged by Halrlte meant a <br /> <br />sIgnIfIcant change In cable's abilIty to offer a varIety of programs on Imported <br /> <br />signals. Ylth thIs In mind the neW rates were publIshed In October and ImmedIately <br /> <br />generated controversy. Two fee schedules were adopted. One schedule was an In- <br /> <br />flatlonary adjustment for signals either grandfathered by the FCC's actions In 1972 <br /> <br />or permItted by the FCC prior to Halrlte. ~e InflatIon-adJusted rates for systems <br /> <br />In the top 50 markets went from 0.799% of the gross basIc subscriber revenu~ to <br /> <br />1.398t for the fIrst sIgnal, 0.503% to 0.887t each for the second through fourth <br />