« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
!!Pour task is completed for indeed historically one day I am t's the names of Fimber, Kaminstein, and Ringer will, in text!
!! gitar:edit history of this country, have an estraordinary pl
Formy part, legislatively, I would like to reall that the clinit: 43","ful committee, Mr. (eller, who served Congress so well for Pou!!! Pears, hav aluays felt so deeply about and has been a very
It the legislatie standpoint I think he also doneties irry "p
Taiv esent. I would like to call on the peron on whom we are 's. pto loan boravily, not only this morning but in days to (0!! on the whiteser of the intentill rimun.
We souhile very plead to hear from our Register of Copyrics Va Bertara Ringar.
Vu River. 1!11!k you very murah, Jr, (hihin. I am 947 ! !! Dutill.rs localer, Lillacoul of the Copripiat Oi * I lomu u li got me out of toulle if I t into it.
Te (uspirosit Other has prepared portfolios itin-inting of 19 **Of will rol with prir! Oppoftrof witloof
,** arriba de tort murtant tal oli. On ti ho tin, " ..rrr ...r port the irriant wat 101.5 on the partit "Brut the rallt it we have tried to m e that contenentut
p e of tongue brethrrinel of the prototis 1914aris Ar!","ti.li.lt.
spi'rilor(.il. osad istine o Olis of the bill, as so weilhnou. V. (..." ** 1.! thair meaning nanly on a tir-t, or might on.l. et f**!
in irtis toe dad
1909 and has been amended in only a few relatively minor ways. It is essen tially 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 will 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 dis tinct legislative efforts before World War II: The Dallinger, Perkins, and Vexual Bilis 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 tierce opposition to particular provisions by certain groups. The history of C.S. copyright law revision in the 1920's and 12315 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 propositon tian 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 blume to go around. At the same time it is important tut for forget that the main purpose behind some of the revision bills was to permit U.S. adherence to the luternational Convention of Berne. There can be little doubt that some of the Congressional opposition to copyright law revision strated from basic objections to L.S. acceptance of foreign principles of copyright jun prudence and to C.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 refixe the copyright law in a way that would permit adherence to the Berne (onvention would continue to be futile. It was also recognized that the emergence of the l'nited 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 dereloping and implementing a new international copyright convention to which the United States could adhere without major changing in our law. These efforts, under the leadership of Register of Copyrights, Arthur Fisher, achieved suar in 1952 with the signing at Geneva of the t'niversal Copyright Convention, fefe lowed in 14 by the enactment of revisions to the 109 statute permitting 18 adherence to the loc, aud by the coming into force of the Convention in 195.
Noteworthy as it was the achievement of brinking the l’nited States into the international copyright community also served to dumatize one more h* archaic and inademate the l'.S. Copyright statute of 1 ) had become. The autumn of 1942), which saw the coming into force of the l'niversal (opyright (onventjen and the inauguration of the current program for general revision of the copriat In w, market the end of one eph and the bevinning of another. In Angust le (Ang authorized the formation of a Panel of ('
xsultants on (*)era! R 1-1021 of the Copyright law under the chairmanship of the Register of copyrights, ad the ('opyright of undertook a series of basic studies of the major substantis wwe involved in revision. At the same time began what HAN bevme ***Inkly endle ries of meetings and diverfans with representatives of virtually perry inter*t kruup nfferte luy the (pyright law Brnorr these dinilawions wluch 1.21 been ax valuable as they have b01 time-puniming, must iterally run into the thands.
The study place of the current perision programban alat practly 20 sean aco, in 1957. It was Nit to take three years, but it task about #x. It prie duod 31 studir cofpring 16t of what we thought at the time were the stils stantive intre in op rikht revision. These were published together with a large wdr of comments from tbe Panel of (onsultants, and I am proud to say that they ar all otill in print
The ruluitintinn of this part was the pollution, in 1'11 of the 1'wil Rurt of the Recinter of ('ot's rights on (purral Resisjon of the (oprixht Law The Reiners Refwirt was the first of funny montar entribution to the evneral mi
luni prograin hy Abraham L. Kaminstein. r. Fishes *10******* Register of ( if The w p of the Regina Mr Kamintrinald in his 1 Annual Returt. **was to furnish a lat kane (ofe* around which opinius and conclusi* cuuid cry falito ardeve the wide t ill agrenent on basic prineipies
D e pronding to drnft a revised osricht law." The Report attempted
****,' por team av instes in revision. samninnrize the print law with rr* t **atij seriernative solution, and priment j e r0ninetrations
Tr Higieter Hinwirt kunded very well in clarifying the insidente I... the dinions on them, but nothie of its most fundamental rm I "* . more puntenersial than anyone in the fspyright other had ** 1.1. sar, the kriter's propul for cuprikht to kin with pl e nt. th and to last for a first terın of 2 year, renewable for a 126
!* ars protoked a few of offwwiting; there was strong suport for a 1
g.' Tixi.! yelpt with profertion ( ...niu won the ti ti of FI.1.'164) year after the author death Amers of thietin of the I' d stats fata tirne ral Reunion was beid h foto mber 161, 1112 *at w b.dat all of the Retort rommendations were dint***d in II
Prep " ppre le beurdardwents at this top and other 11s**t.'
*'« lur fri in program for stral net..and I rolkit It 1. in'.. lar summer alid fall of 11 It watir aptarit that, iftin 1'rt to infatt.der the metal for advanultig und unluleril. 1
appeared to testify. The record of those 1963 hearings comprises nearly in pages of printed text, including not only the oral transcript but also more than 1.70 written statements. The Senate Judiciary Sulommittee under the chair manship of Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, held brief hearing on !!! revision bill in August 135, but delayed a full series pending the conclusid of the intense activity in the House sub ommittee.
Several significant fartors with respect to the general revision program emerge from the 130J hearings. Most obvious were the sharp controversies rema it. in% to be settled on some old issues (such as the jukebox exemption, the roralty ra to be paid under the compulsory license for recording music, and the 1994 turing requirements with respet to English language books and jericas, and on some relatively new issues (such as fair use, and the reprodotto al opyrighted works for educational and research purposes, the liability of any. tional broade anters and similar transmitters, and the status of cutiibuLIIS antenna television systeins under the copyright law).
Aside from the need to work out further accommodations on sveral critkal is up, the most serious problem arising from the 197 bearings we now to itn. mize the massive contents of the record in a way that would overlook no s.. cant comment or suggestion but that still would form a comprehensive bus fit decision-making. Working in close collaboration, the ('opyright Office and the Hlous Judiciary ('ommittee counsel prepared summaries of pvery statement that had been made, and this divided the entire corpus of the hearing into ten :fral arra; subject matter of copyright, ownership, duration, patice and rule trition, manufacturing and importation requirements, community antena T tems and other secary transmissions juke parformanos, complety license for phonorecords, educational ( ting and fair use, and educational loro casting and other performing rights. Each subject was then divided into typ topir, onder which were fixe prery issue ruined at the hearings.
This " periment in legislative technique," as it has been callid, prored mom tive. It enable the linse Judiciary Subwommittee, in its deliberations of t.. bill, to consider mach issue in context, to weigh the arruments for and against it, and to arrive at r ner decisions. Vecting regulariy, usually twice a wk. from February through September 1966, the minimmittee held 31 p1**}ile Muotis, all of which were attended by representatives of the l'opis right 0 m Eramining enah we in depth and then rrra fring the pertinent milion of the bill am tl. Went along. the U nmitt ppt poru" an entire r**ti-d bill in an atmosphere of informal, bipartisan disty s that wuld well serve as a motel for similar lekiniative projnis. The bill. 11 t
h e the winnitt. Was mirte-dunnimon) lr to the I N Judiciary (*ommittee on September 21, 196, and was reported without amendinant buy the full Judiciary (ommittee on (kfolur 12. 116. Tlie Ilon Rib fort still remains the burie legislative explanation of the intent of the lll, and che rimarts ****ink it in both lloj- llte all fwn drawn from it.
The bill w ritur two latte in the Wh (on for further legislative