Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

1909 and has been amended in only a few relatively minor ways. It is essentially a Nineteenth Century copyright law, based on assumptions concerning the creation and dissemination of author's works that have been completely over turned in the past fifty years. A Twentieth-Century copyright statute is long overdue in the United States, and the present need for a revised law that wil anticipate the Twenty-First Century is so obvious as to be undeniable.

It is startling to realize that the program for general revision of the copyright law actually got underway more than 50 years ago, in 1924, and produced four distinct legislative efforts before World War II: The Dallinger, Perkins, and Vestal Bills in 1924-1931, the Sirovich Bill in 1932, the Duffy Bill in 1934–1936, and the "Shotwell" Bill in 1939. One of these measures passed the House, and a later one passed the Senate, but in every case the revision program ultimately falied of enactment because of fierce opposition to particular provisions by certain groups. The history of U.S. copyright law revision in the 1920's and 1930's teaches a basic lesson: the need to work out accommodations on the critical issues in an atmosphere of good will and give and take. It is a great deal easier to recognize the validity of this proposition than to put it into practice.

The failure of the earlier efforts at general revision of the copyright law has been blamed on one group or another, and on the face of it there does appear to be quite a bit of bisme to go around. At the same time it is important not to forget that the main purpose behind some of the revision bills was to permit U.S. adherence to the International Convention of Berne. There can be little doubt that some of the Congressional opposition to copyright law revision stemn.ed from basic objections to U.S. acceptance of foreign principles of copyright jurisprudence and to U.S. assumption of the international obligations involved in becoming a member of the Berne Union.

After World War II the proponents of copyright law reform adopted a new approach. It was assumed, on the basis of past experience, that efforts to revise the copyright law in a way that would permit adherence to the Berne Convention would continue to be futile. It was also recognized that the emergence of the United States as a major exporter of cultural materials made our adherence to a multilateral convention essential. Thus, efforts to secure general revision of the copyright law were temporarily deferred in favor of a major program aimed at developing and implementing a new international copyright convention to which the United States could adhere without major changes in our law. These efforts, under the leadership of Register of Copyrights, Arthur Fisher, achieved success in 1952 with the signing at Geneva of the Universal Copyright Convention, followed in 1954 by the enactment of revisions to the 1909 statute permitting US adherence to the UCC, and by the coming into force of the Convention in 1955. Noteworthy as it was, the achievement of bringing the United States into the international copyright community also served to dramatize once more how archaic and inadequate the U.S. copyright statute of 1909 had become. The autumn of 1955, which saw the coming into force of the Universal Copyright Convention and the inauguration of the current program for general revision of the copyright law, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. In August 19425, Congress authorized the formation of a Panel of Consultants on General Revision of the Copyright Law under the chairmanship of the Register of Copyrights, and the Copyright Office undertook a series of basic studies of the major substantive issties involved in revision. At the same time began what has become a seemingly endless series of meetings and discussions with representatives of virtually every interest group affected by the copyright law. By now these disenssions, which Lave been as valuable as they have been time-consuming, must literally run into the thousands

The study phase of the current revision program began almost exactly 20 years ago, in 1955. It was supposed to take three years, but it took about six. It produced 35 studies covering most of what we thought at the time were the wh stantive issues in copyright revision. These were published, together with a large body of comments from the Panel of Consultants, and I am proud to say that they are all still in print

The entmination of this effort was the publication, in 1961 of the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on General Revision of the Copyright Law The Register's Report was the first of many major contributions to the general revision program by Abral am L. Kiminstein. Mr Fisher's sncessor as Register of Copyrights. The purpose of the Reports as Mr. Kaminstein said in his 1962 Annual Report, "was to furnish a tanginie core around which opinions and conclusions could crystalize-to achieve the widest possible agreement on basie principles

before proceeding to draft a revised copyright law " The Report attempted to pinjesit the major issues in revision, summarize the present law with respect to each of firm analyze alternative solutions, and present specific recommendations, The Registers Report succeeded very well in clarifying the issues and in fwerking the discussions on them, but some of its most fundamental recon,met.datna proved more controversial than anyone in the Copyright Office had expected. 1- parteslar, the Register's proposal for copyright to begin with "public distat, on and to last for a first term of 28 years, renewable for a second termi of 48 years provoked a flood of opposition; there was strong support for a single Federal ooperight system with protection commencing upon the creation of a work a en ling 30 years after the author's death A series of meetings of the Panel at Vodkaa'atila on General Revision was held between September 1961, and March 142 at which all of the Report's recommendations were discussed in an increasCarter se atizosphere. The heated arguments at these and other meetings actus saved the revision program for several months and brougat it to a genuine etike in fue later summer and fall of 1962. It became apparent that, if the entire wet was not to fiender some method for advancing and considering alterna***** ElGat its would have to be found

DON vesuber 12, the Register announced that the Copyright Ofw was preJared for matige its position on sote del atal 'e questions and to draft alternative

[ocr errors]

tothers. He ind eated that the Office was prepared to revise its recomMASONITEŻ public disseffitiation” and the retention of common law ***. is and that at least one alternative version of our draft bill will adopt haus for computing the term in conjunction with a system of notice, and registration that we consider essential "La Register also autoriteed d prean inary drafts of »* stutory languay to the tus tube tw of an led Panel of Cofisiltants on General Revision for their comments and that mid cetate at før meries of meetings on the preto nary draft. The proe*** fingering draft language for caren'ation occupied practically all of 1986), and led a total of eight meetings of the Panel of Consultatiim

[ocr errors]

purest of this preliminary draft proved to be a diffcult but enority prod of ve på me of the progam. The procedure ad před provided a motive

[ocr errors]

e for deta ang critical scrutiny of the khalder and must ber of A he w cut statute by representatives of nearly all of the groups affected. It a indani Afriomrilere of cooperative effort to at law survived various stre ses and ward]awcontrned to grow in bread"), and depth

Sotary drift of the general revision bail that had reached comedat ʼn ching of 1964 was never intende 1 to be a Stal report. The next mix were devoted to compl'ing analyzing and synthesizing all of the comberta received on the drift, to inakilig vi at five devi aus and e Thẻ bànk of them cut ments, and to prepiring a compiete, ne-boob by next of the FF De draft of the F21 that et erged from flis process W19 e Copyr, St Om pm,** aut collaboration of c

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a'y parvae groja of it day days The 11 wicta ti of the 194 dr. ft and the end of the drafti: gi ve of the revision program and

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

appeared to testify. The record of those 1965 hearings comprises nearly 200 pages of printed text, including not only the oral transcript but also more than 150 written statements. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee under the chair manship of Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, held brief hearings on the revision bill in August 1965, but delayed a full series pending the conclusion of the intense activity in the House subcommittee.

Several significant factors with respect to the general revision program emerged from the 1965 hearings. Most obvious were the sharp controversies remain.ag to be settled on some old issues (such as the jukebox exemption, the royalty rate to be paid under the compulsory license for recording music, and the manufac turing requirements with respect to English-language books and periodicals, and on some relatively new issues (such as fair use, and the reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes, the liability of edn ational broadcasters and similar transmitters, and the status of community antenna television systems under the copyright law).

Aside from the need to work out further accommodations on several critical issues, the most serious problem arising from the 1965 hearings was now to orzanize the massive contents of the record in a way that would overlook no sig.dcant comment or suggestion but that still would form a comprehensive basis for decision-making. Working in close collaboration, the Copyright Office and the House Judiciary Committee counsel prepared summaries of every statement *! at had been made, and then divided the entire corpus of the hearings into ten general areas: subject matter of copyright, ownership, duration, notice and regis tration, manufacturing and importation requirements, community antenna sys tems and other secondary transmissions, jukebox performances, compulsory license for phonorecords, educational copying and fair use, and educational bris.dcasting and other performing rights. Each subject was then divided into suotopies, under which were listed every issue raised at the hearings.

This "experiment in legislative technique," as it has been called, proved effes. tive. It enabled the House Judiciary Subcommittee, in its deliberations of the bill, to consider each issue in context, to weigh the arguments for and against it, and to arrive at reasoned decisions. Meeting regularly, usually twice a week. from February through September 1966, the subcommittee held 51 executive sessions, all of which were attended by representatives of the Copyright Office. Examining each issue in depth and then redrafting the pertinent section of the bill as they went along, the subcommittee produced an entirely revised bill in an atmosphere of informal, bipartisan discussions that could well serve as a model for similar legislative projects,

The bill, as revised by the subcommittee, was reported unanimously to the full House Judiciary Committee on September 21, 1966, and was reported without amendment by the full Judiciary Committee on October 12, 1966, The House Res port still remains the basic legislative explanation of the content of the bill, aid the reports succeeding it in both Houses Lave all been drawn from it.

The bill was reported too late in the 89th Congress for further legislative nction, and indeed none had been expected in 1966. In the revised form reported by the House, it was introduced by Representative Celler in the 90th Congress, and was considered by the newly-constituted membership of Subcommittee 3 again chaired by Representative Kastenmeier on February 20, 24 and 27, 1967. It was reported to the fill Committee on the last of these dates and, after rather heated defates in the full cotamittee on February 28 and March 2, 1967, was azuin reported to the House This time, however, the report included minority Views by Representatives. Byron G. Rogers of Colorado and Basil L. Whitcher of North Carolina, devoted to the jukebox Issue, and additional dissent by Mr. Whitener on the b,!! « treatment of CATV,

It was becoming increasingly moparit, as the bill roved toward the High floor, tint extremely warp and u.recopelled conflets on the issues of jukebox perform arce and CATV trit stalssiotis. Peni a ned, and that there was a sir, 1018 dinger that one or both of these jotjes could defeat the bill The bill was com sidered by the House Rales Condittee on March 8, 1967, and the rather act, omius argutserts in the Conan item before it took action author.zıng full de sate on te House fl map were 950'er duper gal

The debates of "eb" in the Huse of Representatives on April 6, 1967, were emalt and protracted. When the House fi'nly recessed after 7:00 pm, f* wis apparent that a res ge operation was esse tal Over the next four days, in an atmosphere of it fetise crisis, several crucial con¡ romises were achieved, and on

Tend.5. April 11, an amended bill was passed by the House after mild debate the extraordinary vote of 373 yeas to 29 nays. Fairly radical changes were reelabras, there were drastic revisions in the provisions e tut •labor for inkebox performances; the provi

ty alfeting transmission were dropped entire y and the exen ptiot.s for inent al broadcasting were considerably broadened. On the other hand, the re and content of the bill it «if has reminitied substantially intact,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ae berate Judiciary Evan,flew Warceled ojched heat in 1965 and had a short werdene of legeington the CATV probicia in 1965, resuried fury sche den at any of the 11 under the font chairmanship of Senators Merle' an and ca, on March 15, 1157. Indeed, the Senate hearings were in full swing in crimim ili tue House, & ad for a time tae general revision programa res el a twarog cưvp in more ways than one. To everyones surprise tue *t of t, e Serate hearings, which lasted 10 days a idenced on April 28 137, steady equals that of the H suse henrings in size and content

'Le several areas that eme,ged as fuill own issues at the Senate heurings, at toe Himt in portalit in the problem of the use of copyrighted works thi setage and retraval systems. This problem Was and

in the context of the creation of a National Certas New Iwong jogfond Usaw which Congress entited as separate legislation ery inst atal salachian stali twatting stalling

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

2 and bare between 1968 and 1970 to resolve controverses over a number of cert an catre, and sueves ded in reporting the revised bill to tie full *ry Com La,tre during the 91st Cola ess it was not alue to prasa er Ace* p* «p» „72+ dey, Ty Fa Copy to, if Oll e to gasli chat Cx** ting everything except the eib,e sextin 1

[ocr errors]

8

[ocr errors]

Į Tova Dots dealing with ecution, te rig is also filed B、 1971 sent that the bil was completely stym od over the CATV issue and elvelut rem 11-1972 governing the caȚIE KAU payat nga fum 1 to break the infuisse

[ocr errors]

༄་། ་

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

atud are beleggled to expire on. Decesa er al 19,6 Le urgent | roo Vand so taken care of throat, separate ration A

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

...

but certain y the most immediate came of lamtalia. Was the Supreme Court de ision in 67%A ོསྒན་ ཟླ རིན་རྣམ་ངན་མཚོན་

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

hot go through the b

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Et the pr. 1

va few ne

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

to 1939. One bill was produced just on the eve of World War II after extensive consideration. That bill died because of the war.

One of these measures passed the House, and a later one passed the Senate, but in every case the revision program ultimately failed of enactment because of fierce opposition to particular provisions by certain groups.

The history of the U.S. copyright law revision in the 1920's and 1930's teaches a basic lesson: The need to work out accommodations on the critical issues in an atmosphere of good will and give and take. It is a great deal easier to recognize the validity of this proposition than to put it into practice.

The failure of the earlier efforts at general revision of the copyright law has been blamed on one group or another, and on the face of it there does appear to be quite a bit of blame to go around. At the same time, it is important not to forget that the main purpose at that time behind some of the revision bills was to permit U.S. adherence to the International Convention of Berne.

There can be little doubt that some of the congressional opposition to copyright law revision stemmed from basic objections to U.S. acceptance of foreign principles of copyright jurisprudence, and to U.S. assumption of the international obligations involved in becoming a member of the Berne Union.

If it had not been for that issue, the copyright law would have been revised during that period, in my opinion.

After World War II the proponents of copyright law reform adopted a new approach. It was assumed, on the basis of past experi ence, that efforts to revise the copyright law in a way that would permit adherence to the Berne Convention would continue to be futile.

It was also recognized that the emergence of the United States as a major exporter of cultural materials made our adherence to a multilateral convention essential. Thus, efforts to secure general revision of the copyright law were temporarily deferred in favor of a major program aimed at developing and implementing a new international copyright convention to which the United States could adhere without major changes in our law.

It was essential to develop and get implemented a new international convention aimed at bringing the United States into a multilateral copyright arrangement without requiring us to make major changes in the 1909 law. This was done under the leadership of Arthur Fisher, then register of copyrights. They succeeded in 1952 with the signing of the Universal Copyright Convention, followed in 1954 by the enactment of revisions to the 1909 statute permitting U.S. adherence to the UCC, and by the coming into force of the convention in 1955, Noteworthy as it was, the achievement of bringing the United States into the international copyright community also served to dramatize once more how archaic and inadequate the US copyright statute of 1909 had become.

The autumn of 1955, which saw the coming into force of the Universal Copyright Convention and the inauguration of the current program for general revision of the copyright law, marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. I think the dividing line was August 1955.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »