We specialize in stitchbond for over 14 year.


issue and debate; legislative plan to tax video recording gear

by:JIAHE     2019-11-05
Featured by Ernest Hollander and the New York Times 1982, this is a digital version of an article from The Times Print Archive, before it begins online publishing in 1996.
To keep these articles as they appear initially, the Times will not change, edit, or update them.
There are occasional copywriting errors or other problems during the digitization process.
Please send a report of such issues to archid_feedback @ nytimes. com.
In a high-
Last year\'s court decision sparked a dispute over Stakes, with video makers and filmmakers arguing over a legislative proposal to tax machines and video tapes as revenue flows to the entertainment industry.
The result of this struggle, may be this year, may affect 3.
It has a choreographer and two million people who record shows, movies and sports events for later viewing.
Many parties are very interested in this topic, including marketers and leasers of video materials such as Hollywood, old movies, and video lovers.
The proposal being promoted by the film industry will require the public to pay an extra $1 or 2 per tape recording, and now the retail price of about $20 per disc, an additional $50 per new tape conveyor, each unit now costs about $1,000, giving or accepting $200.
Congress has introduced two chatty pieces of legislation and hired two of Washington\'s best talkers to put pressure on the opposing side.
AD Charles D.
The chairman of the Carter Administration\'s Federal Communications Commission, Ferris, holds a flag against taxes. Mr.
The Union of family recording rights in Ferris includes the electronic industry association;
Consumer electronics groups whose members sell equipment in the retail market;
3 m and Sony and Sears and Roebuck.
Jack Valentine, president of the American Film Association, is arguing about the tax.
The groups aligned with him include the National Broadcasting Association, the National Cable Television Association, the National Association of Theater Owners, and the Union of Writers, directors and actors.
The dispute entered into force on October.
When the Ninth Circuit appeals court in San Francisco ruled that family-recorded programming constituted copyright infringement, it shocked the electronics industry.
In fact, millions of \"criminals\" were created overnight.
Members of Congress rushed to rescue by recording \"non-criminal\" bills, as long as they were made for family use and did not intend to make a profit.
A number of bills, including a measure proposed by Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr.
Republicans in Maryland went further by imposing new taxes on video tapes and blank tapes, which will be distributed to various sectors of the entertainment industry by the federal Copyright Royalty court set up by Congress in 1976.
Senator Matthias did not mention any figures, but people in the entertainment industry suggested $50 per machine and $2 for tape. For the TaxMr.
Valenti believes that even without a profit motive, recording material from television \"is like stealing property\" because it helps to weaken the fragile film-making business.
The average investment in a feature film is $18 million.
In order to recover the cost, a film usually needs to benefit from a range of five markets: theater, recorded video tapes and video tapes, paid cable or pay TV, Web TV and combined TV.
The extensive recording of films on the third and fourth floors destroys or narrows the follow-up market.
Please click on the box to verify that you are not a robot.
The email address is invalid. Please re-enter.
You must select the newsletter you want to subscribe.
View all New York Times newsletters. For example, Sir.
Valenti said that if it was seen on television 40 years ago \"going with the flow\" and recorded by a large number of people, it would not have earned the profits so far.
The growth of the recording, sir.
Valenti and his friends believe that so much profit will be made that there will be fewer and fewer high-quality films and the public will be affected in the long run.
In addition, they believe that the reduction in the promise of economic returns will curb creativity, hinder the entertainment industry and destroy thousands of jobs.
They say that, contrary to the manufacturer\'s claim, new taxes will not be passed on to consumers, as fierce competition for selling recorders will force the electronics industry to absorb.
In the vast majority of cases, movies are not \"taken\" or stolen \"by viewers who store movies and show them over and over to neighbors and friends.
Ferris and his allies said.
Most home recording enthusiasts have a small number of tapes and use them to record programs for late viewing, a practice known in the industry as \"time-shifting.
He said the work in the entertainment industry has been rewarded. Ferris says.
For example, as far as television is concerned, the ratings service counts the number of views recorded as part of the audience to the broadcaster, and as such, advertisers may get a larger audience than before the video recorder era, sir. Ferris says.
Before recording the show, the audience who chose to go to dinner or watch the show on Friday night just missed some of the TV specials they wanted to watch.
The recorder allowed them to watch the show later.
\"We believe that the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court is to invite Congress to provide the same exemption video as the current recording,\" Mr. Ferris said. \'\'Mr.
Valenti and his team just took the opportunity to pay tribute to the people.
Why do people pay taxes just for the privilege of time? shifting? \'\'Mr.
Ferris also believes that the copyright court may not be able to determine how to distribute the proceeds in the entertainment industry so that writers or actors, not just producers, can gain a share.
At some point this year, legislation on this issue seems likely to pass.
Meanwhile, Sony said it might appeal the Ninth Circuit Court\'s ruling to the Supreme Court, and that in the Supreme Court the dispute over whether the Fifth Amendment was breached by Family recordings could follow.
A provision of the amendment prohibits the government from taking away private property, and some legal theorists, especially the Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, believe that this can be applied to family recordings.
If the ruling is established, it will be up to the district court to decide how to properly reward the owner of the copyright complaint for the loss and how to compensate them in the future.
Congress may act.
However, this problem should be solved.
A version of the article was printed on page A00030 of the National edition on March 12, 1982 with the title: questions and debates;
Legislative Plan for taxation of video equipment.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...