IB
Union Calendar No. 16
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 672
[Report No. 105–25]
To make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 17, United
States Code.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 11, 1997
Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary
MARCH 17, 1997
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on February 11, 1997]
A BILL
To make technical amendments to certain provisions of title
17, United States Code.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE SATELLITE
HOME VIEWER ACT OF 1994.
The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (Public Law
103–369) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 2(3)(A) is amended to read as fol-
lows:
‘‘(A) in clause (i) by striking ‘12 cents’ and
inserting ‘17.5 cents per subscriber in the case of
superstations that as retransmitted by the sat-
ellite carrier include any program which, if de-
livered by any cable system in the United States,
would be subject to the syndicated exclusivity
rules of the Federal Communications Commis-
sion, and 14 cents per subscriber in the case of
superstations that are syndex-proof as defined in
section 258.2 of title 37, Code of Federal Regula-
tions’; and ’’.
(2) Section 2(4) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(4) Subsection (c) is amended—
‘‘(A) in paragraph (1)—
‘‘(i) by striking ‘until December 31,
1992,’;
‘‘(ii) by striking ‘(2), (3) or (4)’ and
inserting ‘(2) or (3)’; and
‘‘(iii) by striking the second sentence;
‘‘(B) in paragraph (2)—
‘‘(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking
‘July 1, 1991’ and inserting ‘July 1, 1996’;
and
‘‘(ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking
‘December 31, 1994’ and inserting ‘Decem-
ber 31, 1999, or in accordance with the
terms of the agreement, whichever is later’;
and
‘‘(C) in paragraph (3)—
‘‘(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking
‘December 31, 1991’ and inserting ‘January
1, 1997’;
‘‘(ii) by amending subparagraph (B)
to read as follows:
‘‘‘(B) 
ESTABLISHMENT
OF
ROYALTY
FEES.—In determining royalty fees under this
paragraph, the copyright arbitration royalty
panel appointed under chapter 8 shall establish
fees for the retransmission of network stations
and superstations that most clearly represent the
fair market value of secondary transmissions. In
determining the fair market value, the panel
shall base its decision on economic, competitive,
and programming information presented by the
parties, including—
‘‘‘(i) the competitive environment in
which such programming is distributed, the
cost of similar signals in similar private
and compulsory license marketplaces, and
any special features and conditions of the
retransmission marketplace;
‘‘‘(ii) the economic impact of such fees
on copyright owners and satellite carriers;
and
‘‘‘(iii) the impact on the continued
availability of secondary transmissions to
the public.’; and
‘‘(iii) in subparagraph (C), by insert-
ing ‘or July 1, 1997, whichever is later’
after ‘section 802(g)’.’’.
(3) Section 2(5)(A) is amended to read as fol-
lows:
‘‘(A) in paragraph (5)(C) by striking ‘the
date of the enactment of the Satellite Home
Viewer Act of 1988’ and inserting ‘November 16,
1988’; and’’.
SEC. 2. COPYRIGHT IN RESTORED WORKS.
Section 104A of title 17, United States Code, is amend-
ed as follows:
(1) Subsection (d)(3)(A) is amended to read as
follows:
‘‘(3) EXISTING DERIVATIVE WORKS.—(A) In the
case of a derivative work that is based upon a re-
stored work and is created—
‘‘(i) before the date of the enactment of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, if the source
country of the restored work is an eligible coun-
try on such date, or
‘‘(ii) before the date on which the source
country of the restored work becomes an eligible
country, if that country is not an eligible coun-
try on such date of enactment,
a reliance party may continue to exploit that deriva-
tive work for the duration of the restored copyright if
the reliance party pays to the owner of the restored
copyright reasonable compensation for conduct which
would be subject to a remedy for infringement but for
the provisions of this paragraph.’’.
(2) Subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii) is amended by strik-
ing the last sentence.
(3) Subsection (h)(2) is amended to read as fol-
lows:
‘‘(2) The ‘date of restoration’ of a restored copy-
right is—