I think that your efforts to deal with the CATV problem in 1965 which were attacked as being terribly complicated are extraordinarily clear and simple compared to the FCC regulations which in effect did the same thing. At the same time, I am very disturbed about the increasing reliance on compulsory licensing to resolve difficult conflicts. The law is so out of date that there are now areas in which authors are simply not being protected at all. In these areas there have built up user interests that are so strong and so deeply embedded that to impose outright copy. right liability, with no if's, and's or but's, would create very serious problems. Because the 1909 law has been allowed to become hopelessly out of date, you have to compromise, and the obvious compromise in many of these cases is compulsory licensing. When you begin this game in areas now protected under copyright, where the protection already exists and licensing arrangements have already been made, then I think you are doing something very drastic, and the ultimate result could be substantial changes in the character of copyrights that might actually make it harmful to the author rather than helpful. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now, I would like to yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Following you will be many witnesses who will reflect their economic interests and you may be one of the few witnesses who do not have an obvious economic stake in this bill. Can you help me with some of the problem policy issues which may pervade all of these sections of the bill? I think I can understand a person's economic ax. I respect their points of view. But, I am not sure I really understand the public policy issues involved and I would like your assistance. Ms. RINGER. The 1909 Joint Congressional Committee, in its report No. 2222, made a statement which has been quoted many times and which I agreed with at one time, but which I have ceased to agree with. I will paraphrase it. It was that copyright is not for the protection of the author, but for the public and that where the author's interests and the public's interests conflict, the author must yield. This sounds great and for a long time, I felt that this was probably correct. But, the more I have looked upon the status of authors in this country and the fact that the public interest is badly served when authors are badly served, I have felt that too often the public interest has been identified with economic users rather than with authors. In recent years, partly as a result of this whole revision exercise. I have been trying to gage individual issues in terms of their impact upon creativity and authorship, which I consider the ultimate public interest. The Constitution speaks of the desirability of promoting the progress of science and useful arts, science in the broad sense of learning or knowledge, by offering protection for limited times to authors and inventors. It seems to me that it is this protection, the exclusive rights that are supposed to be granted to authors, that is the ultimate public interest that the Constitution and its drafters were thinking about. I do not think that this has ever been fully or even partly realized in why copyright law we have had in our entire history. Mr. WIGGINS. I was wondering if you would place the dissemination for the benefit of the public and I might add for the prolit of the dsfall ators---on an equal plane with the protection of the authors ...ventors! M. RINGER. Yes. I think that the system that we have had has been bad on the desire to induce dissemination, make works available to the pubise by offering protection to authors It that this system is now subject to some difficulty because of te fat that the new technology has made it an absolute detriment to tate. In other words, an author in certain situations who lets te bird out of the cage, finds that there is no way to regain it, that ore he has made a tape and it has been played over the radio or teley = on, he finds suddenly it is being pirated or made in duplicates all It is very, very difficult in that situation for him to realize any syror är gån or reward for has creation and there may be situations 1. he would prefer to keep his bird in its cage, so to speak. I am speaking in terms of music, but I think the example is better in sot e areas where there is a more realistic possibility of exercising comitsete control. 1 task of your committee, as I see it, is to try in some way to erate the impact of the new dissemination media on the basic ta-k of ging aathors a reasonable return and inducing them to let the work got to the public, We are in really big trouble on this, in my opinion, at the moment. We Wirgins. Thank you. ve, Mr. Charan. VE KOSTENMET. The per tleman from Califort.ia, Mr. Danielson ? Me Distrison. I wish to thank Ms. Ringer, Mr. Lorenz, and M- Kat retain for their contribution this moriat g. It was most M«Riger beba kagam? I have a cour le of questions, Mr. KASTEN MET. As a matter of fact, ves, We will have Ms Ringer Perhaps at an cari er time than later be satise it is obvious today not have 1 me for extended examination on a number of penc have been rassed. devo atat, I want to thar k my co" arie, Mr. Wirgins, for ruSTAR trepot didri, e and for your response to it. It was directiv i to one quest of it my mard A. Tread the Constitution, e u for copy" g t in the fist på e and the only one in the is to prot oft ejrugtyss of war e ardus fél a ts. sin cof. else i a..y leg -"at any watch I w 'I support w '1 ated to a e that end, to promote tar progress of ,! I to the last paragraph of his statement, and of the responsibility of the Congress in meeting that process. I wish every legislator would include that as part of his morning devotions or ablutions. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan Mr. DRINAN. I want to welcome Ms. Ringer back. I am sorry I had another subcommittee. That subcommittee was about bankruptcy, and the Congress has been even more apathetic about bankruptcy than about copyright laws. I thank you for your appearance here today and I wish to thank the other two witnesses. Thank you. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison! Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I am astounded. [Laughter.] Probably it is the better part of wisdom, since the House is in se sion, to terminate at this period and to thank all three witnesses, Mr. Lorenz. Mr. Kaminstein, and Ms. Ringer, for illuminating the subcommittee and updating it on the subject of copyright. Particularly what Ms. Ringer has contributed this morning will raise a number of other issues, other questions, with which I am in entire agreement with the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. on and suggest further colloquy. Rather than get into those thickets at this hour. I think we will let the morning testimony stand. It does sound not only hopeful, but gives us the frame of reference for now proceeding hopefully to a success. ful end. In conclusion the Chair desires to again thank our witnesses this morning. Mr. DANIELSON. Is there any chance of getting a larger room for tomorrow! There are a lot of people standing up back there that would rather sit. Mr. KASTEN MEIFR. We will do what we can do in that regard. The committee is very impressed by the public interest. We will try to bring additional chairs in and accommodate those standing today. Tomorrow we will have representatives of the Justice Department. Commerce Department, and the State Department on the question of general copyright revision. Until then, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 8, 1975.] THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE, on Couris, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, The subrotum ittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 22296, Rayburn House Other Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairEv of the subcommittee presiding, Pret: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Badillo, Patn, and Rail-back. A'so present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; Bruce A. Lehman, counsel; at i Imas E. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. KASTEN MEER. The committee will come to order. This morning is the cond morning devoted to hearings on the subjet of 1.R. a fotter bl's rating to the general revision of the copyright law. We are pieved to have as our first witness this morning, represent#te the State Department, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conimercial Aars and Business Act vities, the Honorable Joel W. Biller. Mr. beris accompanied by Philip R. Trimble, Assistant Legal Adviser for For one and Bustless Affairs, I» Mr. B.'ler here! M. BAR. Mr. KASTEN MEDER. We will be happy to hear what you have to say. TESTIMONY OF JOEL W. BILLER, SECRETARY FOR COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr Bur Tank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tr.mble is sattag on Pangtand Mr. Bus at cll is on my left, I greatly appreciate having the opportunity to present the views State Department on HR. ? 23, for the General Revison of argit law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for ot! er Although we take exception to one section in ties bill, the **cht otherwise supports the enactment of tus important Astre cor in thee knows, the present US copyright law is ess the sate as the act of 1909 S net! at date, great advan es have fewn y a de in te linology and techtaques for contulit, ating proted matter, visual in ages, and recorded serit b. 15ese alvu és isin orated new in fast rewat, 1 retrods for the reproduction and i. tate of prged works. The State Department believes that a modernization of the copyright law to take into account the important technical advances in the copyright field is in the interest of both the authors and the users My comment will be directed to those sections of H.R. 2223 which relate to the conduct of our foreign relations and therefore are of special interest to the Department of State. These sections are tie following: Section 104 regarding subject matters of copyright and national origin; section 302 on the duration of protection; and section 601 on restrictions against importation of certain copyrighted mate rials from other countries. Section 104 is relevant to our international interests in that it speci fies the occasions when foreign works, that is, works produced by nationals of countries other than the United States, will be granted U.S. copyright protection. Essentially, section 104 continues the reprocity approach contained in the present law with respect to published works; that is, the United States gives foreign citizens protection equal to that given by the foreign country to U.S. citizens. It is thus consistent with generally accepted international practice in most countries and has the support of the Department. Of particular relevance to the Department's interests is section 104 (c) (Subject Matter of Copyright: National Origin") which deals with the possibility that a foreign government might take action in the U.S. courts to divest its citizens or authors of rights to their works or to block publication of their works within the United States. We do not have any evidence that an action of this nature is likely to occur. But if it did, it would represent undesirable official interference with the freedom of individual expression, and we therefore believe that it should be guarded against. It is important to note that the international copyright system embodied in the Universal Copyright Convention is intended to "insure the respect for the rights of the individual and encourage the development of literature, the sciences, and the arts." These convention obligations should be kept in mind with respect to any action to suppress free communication in the United States of ideas and literature unacceptable to authorities of another member state of the convention. We understand that other U.S. Government agencies are drafting language to accomplish the purpose of section 104(e) in a technically different manner. We have not reviewed these proposals and therefore are unable to express our opinion on them. However, we support the aim of appropriately drafted legislation that would deny effect in U.S. courts of a foreign nation's laws or practices designed to deprive the authors of that country of the rights to publish and protect their literary and artistic works in the United States. Section 302 deals with the duration of copyright, that is, term of protection. It is one of the most important, if not the most important provision in the copyright revision bill. Essentially, section 302(a) provides for a copyright term of the life of the author plus 50 years after his death. Such a term of protection would be more in line with the practice of most countries of the international copyright community and would also remove a major obstacle to the possible adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Our membership in the |