In view of what was said before the Congress on Wednesday about the shortcomings of the present American copyright law and the desirability of correcting these shortcomings in the proposed copyright bill of 1965 now pending before the Congress of the United States, it seems useful to have an American publisher make a further statement to this Congress on these matters before the adjournment. Because there is no other suitable time left, the chairman of this afternoon's session has kindly said that I may address the Congress at this momentand I understand he will extend the same courtesy to Mr. Harwood, who will follow me. As spokesman of the 63 scholarly publishers who constitute the U.S. members of the Association of American University Presses, I would remind you that these presses are attached to every important institution of higher education in our country, that they are scattered in 36 of these United States, and that therefore they reflect an impressive geographical spread of informed opinion on these matters. I am not a spokesman for the American Book Publishers Council nor the American Textbook Publishers Institute but I do point out that the majority of the American university presses are also members of the council. What I wish to say should be plain to the delegates of this Congress, but I wish to make it doubly clear. I mean, of course, the position of the American scholarly publishers on the so-called "manufacturing clause," the clause which has infested our copyright law for so many years and now threatens to do so again in the new legislation, in one form or another. As our representative will say when it is our turn to be heard on Capitol Hill, this manufacturing clause, which denies copyright protection (with some minor exceptions) to books of American authorship printed outside the United States, is rankly discriminatory and has far too long jeopardized the permanent property rights of scholars and publishers. It does not belong in copyright legislation. We are determined this time to see it eliminated. Sir Stanley Unwin has pointed out that the American University Presses have consistently opposed this indefensible clause and if we now speak against it with special emphasis, it is because we regard it as an impediment to our particular task, the diffusion of scholarship. But above all, we are opposed to it as a matter of principle, because in the field of authorship, scholarly or otherwise, it qualifies, without just cause, a right of property that should be held inviolate. Therefore we call on all American publishers to make war on this outrageous clause and to do so with full determination and without unnecessary concession. I am certain that the delegates from other countries appreciate what we Americans know full well that the task of enacting into law the wishes of any body of citizens is arduous and complex. To eliminate or reduce the manufacturing clause, which is fully supported by another body of citizens, however much we may consider them in error, will not be easy. But the opportunity to defeat this undesirable clause is once more at hand. The American scholarly publishers urge those concerned to grasp this opportunity and we pledge our support to their efforts. It was a university professor-Archibald MacLeish-who spoke to this Congress earlier this week for the conscience of the United States on matters of foreign policy. It may, therefore, be appropriate for a university publisher to speak for what we believe to be the conscience of American publishers on this troublesome matter of domestic policy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting this interruption. Mr. CARROLL. As I say in my statement, university presses are nonprofit publishing organizations operating under the control of universities and research institutions. They exist for public, educational ends-through the publication of scholarly books and periodicals, they provide a means of communication between scholars and serve the advancement of knowledge in the arts and sciences and the professions. We 67 presses, none of us giants or cartels, publish perhaps 5 percent of the new books, including new editions, issued in this country each year. Nearly everyone who has made a statement at this hearing has emphasized the need for a general revision of the copyright law and I shall not take your time by reiteration of the obvious. Our committee has been impressed by the painstaking scholarship with which the Copyright Office has made the studies upon which the present bill is based, and the fairness to the interests involved with which it has been drafted. Truly the present bill is better than the situation that now obtains, better than the law under which we now operate. The remainder of my statement, gentlemen, consists of statements on the copyright of Government works, which our association favors; on fair use, in which we subscribe to the present language, particularly, of section 107; and on the manufacturing clause. I should like to read the section on the manufacturing clause. Chapter 6 of the bill, the so-called manufacturing clause, which denies copyright protection (with some minor exceptions) to books and other printed materials of American authorship manufactured outside the United States, should be eliminated entirely. This has been the unanimous opinion of the members of the Association of American University Presses, recorded at its annual meetings, for a number of years. Most of the associations representing publishers or authors have also gone on record against, as have a number of educational organizations. The Register of Copyrights omitted such a clause in the original draft of the bill. There is no question that it was first incorporated in copyright law, and has remained there in modified form in the face of repeated efforts to eliminate it, because of pressure from printers. In our view, especially in recent years, this pressure has no economic justification and book manufacturers and the printing trades unions would be helped rather than hurt if the clause were completely eliminated. The United States is predominantly a book-exporting country and has no need for protection in the field of book manufacture. University presses can testify to this out of their own experience. Many of our presses export 20 percent or more of their entire production. As a part of the copyright law, it is rankly discriminatory against American authors. There is no provision in the copyright law denying copyright protection to films manufactured outside the United States, or phonographic records manufactured outside the United States. Only the authors and publishers of books are singled out to jeopardize their permanent property rights for what is essentially a matter for tariff regulation. An example: if you had designed and built a house for yourself, which required imported materials for its successful completion, you would not object to paying reasonable tariffs on these materials, if they were required to protect American manufacturers. But you would object-strenuously and on principle-if such foreign manufacture threw a cloud on your title to the house you had built. An author's book is the house that he designed and built. The copyright is his title to that house. It is outrageous that such title should be jeopardized for anything other than malfeasance or no feasance on his part. The Association of American University Presses speaks with special vehemence on the manufacturing clause because its member presses publish the works of many scholars that require complex composition, as in mathematics and foreign languages, in which foreign manufacture does on occasion provide significant economies. Sometimes such economies make the difference between publication and nonpublication. Publications of this character do not bulk large in the total volume of the printing trade, yet they make a significant contribution to the diffusion of knowledge. In arguing against the manufacturing clause, we feel that we are arguing for the scholar as well as the scholarly publisher. But above all, we are opposed in principle to the manufacturing clause because, in the field of authorship it qualifies without just cause a right of property that should be held sacred. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. You heard the Department of Defense testimony this morning? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Do you have any exception to anything they said relating to copyright in U.S. Government works? Mr. CARROLL. I did not make a quick and ready summary of the statement by the two gentlemen and I would prefer not to comment on it until I am able to review their testimony. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The Association of American University Presses actually is a fairly large association, but some of your members are quite large and others quite small. Mr. CARROLL. Yes. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The University of Chicago Press, Harvard, and perhaps Yale University are large, and the others are relatively small? Mr. CARROLL. The per title production of publications each year of the presses ranges from perhaps 5 to 10 titles to 130 to 150 titles. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Has your association participated in or contributed to the Copyright Revision Panel over the years in connection with the manufacturing clause? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. On page 2 of the statement, which section I did not read, the first full paragraph beginning on line 4 indicates that we have been in touch with other book industry organizations through the years on general matters of copyright revision. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Edwards? Mr. EDWARDS. No questions. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Tenzer? Mr. KASTENMEIER. If there are no further questions, we want to thank you, Mr. Carroll, for representing the organization here and for submitting this statement on your views. Mr. CARROLL. Thank you. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. With Mr. Carroll's testimony this concludes today's hearings. Accordingly, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 24, 1965.) COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, St. Onge, Edwards, Tenzer, and Poff. Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel, and Allan Cors, associate counsel. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair would like to announce it is informed that we are going into session at 11 o'clock this morning. This means we will be subject, presumably, to interruptions. We will, nonetheless, try to complete hearings as expeditiously and in as good order as possible. Also, the Chair would like to announce that one of the witnesses, the last one scheduled for the day, American Broadcasting Co., will not appear today. The committee is pleased to welcome this morning as its first witness Mr. Ernest Jennes, general counsel of and representing the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Jennes. STATEMENT OF ERNEST W. JENNES, ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM MALONE Mr. JENNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ernest W. Jennes, a member of the law firm of Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., general counsel to the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. My associate, Mr. William Malone, is here with me. MST's membership includes more than 160 television stations both VHF and UHF and commercial and educational, which operate at the maximum power permitted by the Federal Communications Commission and which serve small, medium-sized, and large cities throughout the country. The association is deeply concerned about a number of problems presented by the great expansion and the change in the nature of socalled community antenna television systems (CATV) and with the impact of these developments on our system of television broadcasting which up to now has been supplied free to the American people. 52-380-66-pt. 237 1223 |