Berne Convention would facilitate and simplify international copyrgit protection for U.S. nationals. Therefore, we strongly support te term of copyright protection proposed in section 302.

Section 601 concerns the so-called "manufacturing clause" which is des gred basically to protect the U.S. printing industry. As you know, ...s section prohibits the importation into or the distribution within the United States of English language books authored by U.S. natals living in the United States, or domiciliaries, unless the copies are produced in, or are made from type set in, or plates made in, the Ued States or Canada.

We are pleased that section 601 would, on the whole, move in the dre ton of liberalizing the present manufacturing clause. For exate, a violation of the manufacturing clause as regards a book wd not affect the right of the copyright proprietor to authorize a non picture version or other use of the book. It would merely affect enforcement of copyrights with respect to publication as a I. Further, the number of copies manufactured abroad that may be torted has been increased from 1,500 to 2,000.

ip.te tis liberalization, however, section 601 would continue the protectionist features of the manufacturing clause. This kind of proton is fundamentally inconsistent with basic U.S. policy in ternational trade. For several decades we have pursued a policy of

ng tariffs and nontariff barriers in the interest of promoting an nternational economic system. We believe that the broad trading tests of the United States and its people continue to be the best served by a general reduction of trade barriers including nontariff barrors. This is the policy we are carrying forward in the current

ateral trade negotiations being undertaken in Geneva under tea thority of the recently enacted Trade Act.

During this round of negotiations attention will be focused part viv on nontariff barriers, and one of our major negotiating ectives will be to reduce or eliminate nontariff barriers of other netres which restrict U.S. trade. We believe that it is important *ete this inconsistency in considering the continuation of the manufaturing clause.

termore, the exception for Cana-la introduced by this bill into ufacturing clause woud violate our obligations under the GAII and various bilateral treaties, The United Kingdom has profeved and we expect that other fore gn countries which are being ninated against by this measure will protest, thereby introg an even ent of discord and potential retal, ition into our rela•with tome cour fries,

bea. v, Mr. Churman, the exception would violate our obliunder article XIII of the GAT1 which requires nond serimappen at on of quantitative restrictions, and the Ureted States be obligated to seek a special waiver from tue GADI contract art es to permit tais exception. T. «proved are would be particu if lestrabe at this time in view of the openr• of the new 1 of na tateral true negotiations at Cycreva. P ́e evention manda in varios FUN treates, wh

, led with no st of the o' er industrialized rations ese treat es horn aly impose of a gations on the In, tod States to tir fy and consult before it introduces nontar.ff barriers on important

products of the other country, and forbids the prohibition of the other country's products unless the product of third countries are similarly prohibited.

In conclusion, the Department of State believes that the updating of the U.S. copyright law is most desirable, and we support the enactment of H.K. 2223. A modernization of the copyright law to take into account the important technological advances in the copyright field is in the interest of all members of the copyright community. It is also important in bringing the United States in step in copyright with the other principal countries of the world. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the objections to the bill that I have noted will be given serious consideration by your committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Biller. I appreciate your statement and your appearance. In the past, we have had Mr. Harvey Wir ter from time to time representing the Department and we know him well.

May I ask as to what extent does your Department coordinate its view with respect to the legislation under consideration with either the Copyright Office, the Department of Commerce or the Department of Justice!

Is there any particular coordination of views with respect to, say, representing the view of the Administration on the bill?"

Mr. BILL FR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there is. We maintain daily contact with other agencies on the international aspects of the bill. We are aware of the views of the other agencies and certainly on an informal basis there is a great deal of consultation.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You indicated you opposed one section, referring to the manufacturing clause section.

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. But, you indicated a reservation about section 104(e). I wonder whether you could, by using a hypothetical, demonstrate precisely the effect of that in terms that we would understand.

For example, if country would insist that copyrights within its nation were, in fact, state held or state owned it could move in our forums to represent that state as the holder of a copyright, notwithstanding the fact that the author we would normally recognize him to be a different entity than the state. Is that what you're driving at? Mr. BILL FR. No; our position is that we favor the enactment of that section in order to promote to the maximum the individual freedom of authors. If a particular author lived in a country whose domesthe system required that the government of that country hold the copyright and that author managed to publish his work in the United States, even though the government of his country was the legal holder of the copyright, we would favor the enactment of this legislation to prevent that government from suing in the U.S. courts to prevent the publication.

Mr. KASTENMFIFR. I can understand the policy reasons on both sides of that one. It would be very diflicult. I understand the basic motiva

tion.

How could you expect to have some continued comity with that gov ernment with respect to the field of its endeavor?

Mr. Burn. Well, there are two points I would like to make. First, we believe that the importance of promoting freedom of thought and

the importance of communication across international borders is more reportant than some of the other considerations involved. Second, wt', regard to some of the countries which have this kind of system, we have no ideation whatsoever that they have any intention of bringing 8.tin American courts.

So, we don't believe it is a real problem that we would have. In the case of the government of the Soviet Union, for example, which has 8. h a system, we have no indication that they will bring suit in A.... an courts to prevent the publication in the United States of was of dissident Soviet authors.

Mr. KASTEN METER. I see. It is the policy of the State Department, nów "standing the success of the Universal Copyright Convention 1ts membersiap, that we should be in a position to adhere to the here Convention nonetheless; is that correct t

Mr. KASTENMETER. In your view, does the passage of this bill, in its prst form, qualify us for entry, for adherence to the Berne

Mr. butan. What it would do, Mr. Chairman, 1× remove one of the total or sta les that now exists to our adherence, that being the protection, by extending the term of protection to the lit time e author pius 30 years. Thirst would remove that ob tacle because ** a term provided for in the Berne Convention. There are some robust go on which wou'd have to be overcome, but I think it would to tops,ble to work them out.

Mr. KASTEN METER. Are those obstacles outside of the permeter of wtte statutes provide for!

M. KAREN MER. You have discussed the term in that connection? It hot te fat that there are one or more countries moving away fo po there not at least one major European country roved to a longer term than that!

Vr. Enak. I am not aware of it, Mr. Chairn sn.

MI KASTENMETER. As far as you are aware, all the Western EuroJes on strestavel fe plus 30!

『*

M: Fun, I believe no.

M. KENME Perhaps I ought to put it this way, what counfremad, the world other than ourselves have a term other than life plus

Mr Enn. I don't have a hit of them with me. If you would lae, met wich a lost for the record.

ME KOPENMERn. 1 ank you. We would appreciate that,

VK VOL Very man, for voit testathonA.

ister al referred to follows]

ACOMPILATION OF NA" NAD Cana HET DURATION MYANIAMIS POR LITERARY,

fa'ira peright durat གས་ སaས་ སྒོ་Bles』 fei}

Myrl laws and Treaties of the World or from oilet more recent muteva.

The manufacturing clause was added in the 1891 Copyright Act as the price the printers exacted for allowing copyright to be extended to foreign authors. They had been getting a free ride up to that point and they insisted that, as a price for allowing Dickens and Tolstoy to be protected in this country, the works could not be copyrighted unless they were printed here.

This provision, which was bad legislation to begin with, has become eroded over the years and in 1965 it was eroded some more. The Reg ister's initial recommendation was that it be done away with. It became apparent that it could not be knocked out of the bill without a major fight.

As a result, it has been retained with a considerably narrowed scope. I believe that the principal arguments you will hear, perhaps tomorrow and in succeeding days, involve the fact that we are now equating Canada with the United States in terms of the place of manufacture, and this raises a host of technical questions which I won't go into. I think there has been accommodation among the parties and therefore it is unlikely you will find people attacking the manufacturing clause out of hand, as I have just done.

Yet personally I find it very, very bad legislation and would like to see it gone. It may not be practical to do that.

I believe you will also hear testimony from artists and their repre sentatives with respect to the unsatisfactory situation of artists under the present law.

I think this is a valid argument. The revision bill would help artists but probably would not go as far as they would like it to.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. When you say "artists," whom do you have in mind?

MS. RINGER. Painters, sculptors, graphic artists, and designers, I wanted to mention the design bill. Title II of the bill is a completely separate piece of legislation which was conjoined with the revision, bill in the Senate more or less as legislative expediency at the time. The two problems are related and I have no objection to them being addressed together. I think this is probably a good idea.

But you will find differences in approach between them, and a bridge provision in section 113 deserves your attention. I think the design bill is a good bill and it deserves to be passed whether as a title II of this overall oranibus revision or separately.

It is then unclear whether there will be a debate over it. There has not been in the Senate,

There are other issues. There is a proposal that would exempt a proprietor of a ballroom or similar place of entertainment from hability and place the liability on the performing organization.

There are undoubtedly dozens of other little or perhaps not so little issues that will arise during these hearings. But I have tried to give you the overa'l framework of what you will be hearing, and in my opinion you do not need to go back to groun i zero.

I don't think you need to start at the beginning. I think you can consider many issues settled, thanks to your efforts in the sixties. Your problem is not a simple one but I think it is something that is solvable and I am extremely encouraged by the scheduling of hearings and the general atmosphere that I find here today.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

M. KASTIS MER. Thank you, Ms. Ringer, for a very comprehensive wstorically of the issues involved in copyright law revision. The Chair will state, that at our next hearing, we will have Govern

represent si by three other entities, the Justice Department, the Conte Department, and the State Department, and to some extent, ofrastots will be more deeply explored with reference to the bill in ders of its giministration from the governmental point of view,

ve at this point just a couple of questions and then I would like 4 to my colleagues. Froni time to time there have been argule that we could leave something out of the bill.

1, from time to time, certain areas have not been covered in the it not the case, this being a un:hed code, that the operation dew apply whether or not we specifically deal with a 'ject Phat is to say, all we have done in a sense is by our nonstateto leave the matter somewhat unresolved in terms of potential

Efore, we can really not fail to deal with en issue. It wil le *withole way or the other. The code, title 17, will cover it. So we

ade a conscientious decision even by omission. Do you agree ! W KINGER I would agree. In 1969 there was probably no intention ft, tot sound recordings, I think the legislative history would bear

at although it is atabiguous. In the early 1970's there was an inet piracy because of the increasing popularity of track

A- a resit, there was a major effort to get States to pass »t, or to it,force common law protection of what were clearly, in's » ne, pub',sned works because of the lacuna in the 1960 dete was ho explict protection. This issue went all the way to ve Court and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a rretal statute ngainst record piracy on the ground that Cenprees, před that protection since it had failed to act,

y not even be refraining deliberately from giving protection, 16. Was the trust of your question. You may, in fact, be tom Stive protection watch is variable and inconsestent in cases and has a lot of undesirable features. These were the very rabe features that Madison mentioned in the "Federal-t pron ka was defending the copyr gnt clause in the

Ve Kos INMUog. By virtue of passing this bril, we will deal with Witter ve deal with it completely or not for the purpose es in volved is the only que bon, not whether it has • fort compers of the Fill becue the four corners of the to deal witheverything in copyright.

MANGE 1 * ཟླ༥ groe, Mr Charman,

Tynmeter, Ora of the apprehensions that, as we develop 1pronely fature set, ments to it, is that by creati nguts, we maht make the law very con↑ 1te prosent fate and future state of society, that the of getting clearances and know ng what loves of rights are a cote may gt extraordinarily dit, particularly

concern to us in t'e Copyr 40
and I think calle is one of t1» l»«t
.. i ti. at

』!vge evf ༩༢ fi (at are so abatinska ly cot..]
nt deal with them in a broad brush way