TAPE MEASURE

If you thought the question of tape recording anything for personal, noncommercial use and pleasure was resolved when the U.S. Supreme Court said it was okay to copy TV programs on your VCR, you'd better take another look. It's entirely possible that by this time next year you may be paying 50% to 100% more for every blank cassette you buy. And, if you're in the market for a new cassette deck, it may cost you anywhere from $10 to $75 more than it does now, even if there's zero inflation in the coming 12 months.

The recording industry, pleading poverty even in the best of economic times, is looking to increase its take. It has convinced a Senate subcommittee to sponsor a bill, S. 1739, which would tax blank audio tape used for recording copyrighted musical programs, at the rate of 10 per minute of playing time. Audio tape decks would be taxed too: 5% of the deck's price if it's a single-well deck, and 25% if it handles two cassettes at once. In theory, the tax collected would be given to a "royalty tribunal" that would distribute the money to the creative artists, musicians, etc. whose copyrighted works had been copied. In theory, tapes that aren't used for such nasty purposes as copying copyrighted works would be exempt from the tax, as would tape decks that weren't used for recording music programs. In theory, videotape and video recorders wouldn't be involved. After all, the Supreme Court said it was okay to record TV programs, including their audio soundtracks! So much for theory.

The serious impact of this proposed legislation was brought home to me when I was called upon to testify before a Senate subcommittee on behalf of the Recording Rights Coalition-an association of blank-tape and tape deck manufacturers, and other interested parties, who feel that anyone has the right to tape any program material providing such recording is not done for commercial gain. Even if you agree that some compensation is due copyright holders when their works are taped by private individuals, the proposed bill is greatly flawed. It would not be able to provide compensation without penalizing the majority of us who do not copy programs to avoid buying a prerecorded disc or tape.

above: Leonard Feldman, Jack Battaglia (of Memtek Products), and Charles D. Ferris (lobbyist for the Audio Recording Rights Coalition) testified in Congress against proposed Senate bill S.1739, legislation which would impose taxes on audio recording equipment and blank audio tape.

The Senate bill suggests that it will be possible to exempt tapes that are not "suitable" for high-quality audio recording. As we all know, even the lowest grade of tape can be used for audio recording. Furthermore, the very teenagers who are probably the chief offenders when it comes to copying albums for friends are the ones who will be buying the lowest-cost tapes--those that will supposedly be exempt.

At the same time, customers who buy tape for perfectly legal requirements, such as making copies of records that they bought, for use in portable or car cassette players, will likely buy better grades of tape-the types that will carry the penny-per-minute tax.

As for the bill's attempt not to involve videotape or video recorders this naive approach shows that the good senators are not keeping up with the state of the audio and video arts. As we all know, you can no longer differentiate between video and audio tape, or between video and audio recorders. To begin with, all videotape recorders are also audio recorders. Hi-Fi VCRs, whether Beta or VHS, have audio-only settings which turn them into audio recorders-in terms of the Senate bill's definitions. An even more ludicrous situation arises when you look at the 8 mm video recording format.-his new format includes provision for stereo PCM audio-only recording capability, which, on some machines already available, offers as much as 24 hours of recording time. Clearly, the tribunal that will be set up to determine where the tax is to be applied will not be able to overlook such an "audio" recorder or its tape. Based on the penny-per minute rate called for in the proposed bill, an 8-mm "video" tape that normally sells for something under $6 would be taxed an additional $14.40 because of its extended recording time in the audio-only mode! The proposed bill is extremely shortsighted from a technological point of view. In all likelihood, future recording media will not be limited to analog aucio tape. By as early as 1987 there will surely be DAT (digital audio tape) recorders on the market, and the quality of recordings made on them will be even less dependent upon tape grades than is the case with today's cassette format. A digital recording format depends upon the playback machine's ability to recognize pulses (corresponding to the binary digit "1 ") or the absence of pulses (binary digit "0"). Even the poorest grades of tape (those ostensibly exempted from the proposed tax) will be able to achieve superb digital audio reproduction, free from tape hiss or distortion. Since the royalty tribunal would have the right to reexamine its exempted products from time to time, we can expect that ultimately all kinds of tape would be taxed. And since it's possible to buy some C-90 tapes for not much more than $1, the tax (900) would end up being nearly as great as the cost of the product itself.

Recordable Compact Discs (not out of the question, a few years from now) would also come under the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the proposed bill's enforcers. Perhaps, too, you have read about the possibility of recording music digitally on floppy disks. If a future floppy disk serves as a common medium for music storage and computer data storage, is it to be taxed or not? And if it is, can you imagine how angry computer users will be? If you look back at the history of home entertainment technology, you'll find that every new innovation and invention ultimately benefits not only consumers, but the suppliers of the programming, too. Hollywood was afraid that television would ruin the motion-picture industry. It's done just the reverse. Opera broadcasts on TV haven't hurt attendance at live performances, and there are more active opera companies in the U.S. now than there were before the broadcasts began. By and large, it can be shown that the invention and use of the tape recorder has actually stimulated the music business. Of course there's some copying going on out there to avoid buying records and prerecorded tapes. But the people who tape the most are also the people who buy the most recorded programming.

Obviously, as someone who is interested in high-quality audio, you have a stake in the outcome of this debate.

There may still be time to stop this unrealistic and unfair tax. The Senate needs to be informed about the realities of audio tape recording and about the unworkability of proposed legislation S. 1739. If you perceive the serious and costly consequences of such legislation, write to Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Let him know how you feel about this proposed tax and suggest that the government stay out of the picture-and the sound.

(adapted from Audio magazine, Jan. 1986)

Also see: Forum by Richard Heyser and John Curl (Sept. 1979)

= = = =