« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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 CC.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 fare of it there does appear to be quite a bit of blame to go around. It the same time, it is important not to forget that the main purpos at that time behind some of the revision bills was to permit l'.s. adherence to the International ('onvention of Berne.
There can be little doubt that some of the congressional opposition to copyright law revision stemmes 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 Injon.
If it had not been for that issue, the copyright law would have been revised during that period, in my opinion.
.Ifter World War II the proponents of copyright law reform adopted a new approach. It was assumedl, 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 l’nited States as a major exporter of cultural materials made our adherence to a multilateral convention piential. Thus, etforts to pure general revinion of the copyright law were temporarily deferred in favor of a major prograin aimed at leveloping and implementing a new international Copyright (onvention to which the l’nited 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 is to make major changes in the 1: law. This was done under the leadership of Arthur Fisier, then repinter of copyrights. The succeeded in 1:n) with the signing of the Universal (opyright (onvention, followed in 1931 by the enactment of revisions to the 1909 statute permitting U.S. adherence to the l((, and by the coming into forre of the convention in 1235.
Vola sorthy is it was the achievement of bringing the United Status into the international copyright communiti in seried to dramatize onie morr how archaic and inadequate the lis copyright statute of It had come.
Ti untumn of 195, which we the coming into force of the l'niveral (opirant contention and the inauguration of the current pro vrum für gut al rmpinion of the copyright law, marked the end of oue era and the beginning of another. I think the dividing line was August 1955.
In lumut 1937, (ongreg authorized the formation of a Pil (visitants on General Revision of the ('opyright Lav und ca naliw.1p of the rinister of copyrights, and the ('opinglit undirrtok a Nries of bac studies of the major substantine intinin re011.
At the same time began what has become a seemingly endles of terlilign and discussions with representatives of virtuaily 11.12 nsturo'p allerted by the copyright law.
Bi how them diuions, which have been as valuable as they men till (onumung, mu-t literally run into tie thousands, an antigoing on.
L indi pian of the current revision program by erotiv rear ago), in 1915. It was pompa to take overs, tevi alw it 6. Il produced 33 fairly comprehen-1 Ve studies at of what we tourist at the time were the mantivele Cursit rrison,
Tiruppu fullo-bed, logither with a largelir of corrk'}the l'ulos Collants, and I am proud to <!) that they air ! in pril.
lip li'll buion of th.ja cffort was the publication, ' M! 1944, kort of t. Rigter of doporuliin on Cerai lies!!! Coprif law. Il se stessirrt W.is the true of 1.2.1
; .'.rben totes les innon progen bis .lbril. Ko Mr. Vir hielpet's 4,49*** r * Birgisies of (upipirl!!4. T. of the top ofte, as Mr. Kuninein and in his 1:22 annual
if, 's furt. 'a','b'(ore ar und lebih pubb, Jill (1.03 . 0111* r te i r tek : Ikeille airprint ou le jorint) *****, 's draf ani) cofrinht law."
1.0 tot affe!:,pted to pinpoint tie fujor - in ril A: .1!. llor !! nt Inu meh rrjet tothoftirlil, all..'lie Lall .of.asiprietat i rrrump .!!! I lir oft ile's still very well in claf.ing tipo *' 11" Tool!. the 11-10*,on the 1:1, but matte or if 1-'
1 1's, felttons potuire more controvers.) than alla talis 10!!! oli teil. 11. 12. 14... tp liegt propral for cos t to l'!.
id :1.. sa to last for a long to innol l , Amatni ten, of virs poroval a leloon tweet' i
t fur les llistit ! ','T Popol fin.fr o u t the nation of a NO dr.'
In November 1962, the Register announced that the Copyright of fice was prepared to change its position on some debatable questions and to draft alternative language on others. He indicated that the Office was prepared to revise its recommendations concerning "pubie dissemination and the retention of common law protection, and that,
at least one alternative version of our draft bill will adopt the liteplus basis for computing the term-in conjunction with a system of notice, deposit, and registration that we consider essential."
The Register also announced that he would send preliminary drafts of statutory language to the members of an expanded Panel of (onsultants on General Revision for their comments, and that he would convene another series of meetings on the preliminary draft.
The process of preparing draft language for circulation occupied practically all of 1963, and included a total of eight meetings of the Panel of Consultants.
The development of this preliminary draft proved to be a difficult but enorinously productive phase of the program. The procedure adopted provided a motive and a forum for detailed, critical srutiny of the language and substance of a new copyright statute by representatives of nearly all of the groups atfected.
It also created an atmosphere of cooperative effort that has survived various stresses and strains and has continued to grow in breadth and depth.
The preliminary draft of the general revision bill, that had reached completion at the beginning of 1364, was never intended to be a final product. The next 6 months were devoted to compiling, analyzing, and synthesizing all of the comments received on the draft, to making substantive decisions and changes on the basis of these commenta, and to preparing a complete, section-bv-sertion revision of the bill.
The draft of the bill that emerged from this procesy was prepared entirely within the Copyright Online without collaboration or con sultation with any private groups or individuals involved. The intro duction of the 1964 draft in July 1961. marked the end of the drafting phase of the revision program and the opening of the legislative plm .
Lil the preliminary draft on which it was based, the 191 1,'!! W not intended as a finished product, but as a fool point for further (**)nyrints and s trations. In 1971 1901, a full week of dette dinamions of the bill showed that a great deal of progress had lwyn Turner, but that still further resisions would be herungry before legis loping hearing roull profitshlu berin.
During the full and winter of 1901 6.7, the Corriert One prostred 19.11 rally real the Manr oral and written comments on this b'llar: Trong another complete rrinjon.
litlum beginning of pliga wath (anerpes or Firuary 1, 106, Rip. to maintative Collect introuvernd the 1:#5 Grename] Rrimion b aridt. (errore Om W! Itthonrat monthn pomparing & Qualnient to
1, 101 Revorint Report. T, 1000 , entirnost of the Remot por crop priorits to General Hospinion of these is convrirlit Lar: 14 Repinion ''! ),
pl,1: en in 1996 tot f..rtly 15* p ants from sobom priesgo a rinn e pipe free !|itoupinh litorn in the 1961 rprent and placerótipri tip m pire of the propinions of the 1965 1,1).
publication et l'!lerpilitary rurt aminoiled with the opwn
11.3 of congressional hearings on the bill. (ver a period of more 3:......., txtween Jay 26, 133 and September 13, 2d: perincbarings were held before your subommittee, under ti.
die and dedicated chairmanship of the man who is still 100drian, Rolrert W. Kantenmeier.
Atal of 1ni witness, representing an extraordinarily wille! of pilla anii private interents, appeared to testify. The trol t. 1:3 hearing compris nearly 2. ) pages of printre
alig lot only the otal transa'ript but al-o more than lini si
Lip Senate Judiiary Sulxommittee under the chairman Jun J. (leilan of Irhanuas, liela buef hearing on the Run Sinupust 13, but delavria full seriem piling the con :!:'Fidel aitavity in the llous guibeommittee Nerad inufiant factors with remesit to the general res " amn eller grid from the 1963 hearing. Mert obsojn Witt *'p costruirting remaining to be settled on some oli 1.-! • instie juarbor pipmption, the tovalty rate to be paid unde D ry loen for ny ording music and the namfati ther. Da !!&1.ts with rempt to English language books and period: a!« mullir relativeli mwillen hifir un, and the pote L'insrigited works for edurational and march pun tilails of pilnational broadcasters and withilir 11:11.-1).
p atais o pulunuty a tent toleil.on petites Belielos
*.8 me 10 p gpopon in 19.. 11 interpelle... al " tter, 1.ts dr. tils of pig!.!, to iskleriis
tion 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 Comunittee on October 12, 1966.
The House report still remains the basic legislative explanation of the content of the bill, and the reports succeeding it in both Houses have all been drawn from it.
The bill was reported too late in the 89th Congress for further legislative action, 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 No. 3, again chaired by Representative Kastenmeier, on February 20, 24, and 27, 1967.
It was reported to the full committee on the last of these dates, and, after rather heated debates in the full committee on February 28 and March 2, 1967, was again reported to the Ilouse.
This time, however, the report included minority views by Representatives Byron G. Rogers of Colorado and Basil L. Whitener of North Carolina, devoted to the jukebox issue, and additional dissent by Mr. Whitener on the bill's treatment of CATV.
It was becoming increasingly apparent, as the bill moved toward the House floor, that extremely sharp and unreconciled conflicts on the issues of jukebox performance and CATV transmissions remained, and that there was a serious danger that one or both of these issues could defeat the bill.
The bill was considered by the Ilouse Rules Committee on March 8, 1967, and the rather acrimonious arguments in the committee before it took action authorizing full debate on the House floor were another danger signal.
The debates of the bill in the House of Representatives on April 6, 1967, were difficult and protracted, to say the least. When the Hlouse finally recessed after 7 p.m., it was apparent that a rescue operation was essential. Over the next 4 days, in an atmosphere of intense crisis, several crucial compromises were achieved, and on Tuesday, April 11, 1967, an amended bill was passed by the Ilouse after mild debate with the extraordinary vote of 379 yeas to 29 nays.
Fairly radical changes were made in three areas: There were drastic revisions in the provisions establishing copyright liability for jukebox performances; the provisions dealing with community antenna transmission were dropped entirely and the exemptions for instructional broadcasting were considerably broadened. On the other hand, the structure and content of the bill itself has remained substantially intact.
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, which had opened hearings in 1965, and had had a short series of hearings on the CATV problem in 1966, resumed full-scale consideration of the bill, under the joint chairmanship of Senators McClellan and Burdick, on March 15, 1967.
Indeed, the Senate hearings were in full swing during the crisis in the House, and for a time the general revision program resembled a