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 The law is so out of date that there are now areas in which authors are simply not being protected at all.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 copyright 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Because the 1909 law has been allowed to become hopelessly out of date, you have to compromise, and the obvious compromise in many of these cases is compulsory licensing.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. KASTEN MEIER. 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, 222, 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 any 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 protit of the desecratators—on an equal plane with the protection of the authors a: 1. ventors!

Ms. RINGER. Yes. I think that the system that we have had has been based on the desire to induce dissemination, make works available to the public by offering protection to authors.

1 t... that this system is now subject to some difficulty because of t'e fait that the new technology has made it an absolute detriment to ate. In other words, an author in certain situations who lets tư 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, Le finds suddenly it is being pirated or made in duplicates all

over tre country.

It is very, very difficult in that situation for him to realize any scator de gisa or reward for his creation and there may be situations 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 11. some areas where there is a more realistic possibility of exercising complete control.

I ́e task of your committee, as I see it, is to try in some way to este the impact of the new dissemination med a on the basic ta-k of garg authors a reasonable return and inducing them to let the work gunst to the public.

We are in really big trouble on this, in my opinion, at the moment. V• W%gins. Í ank you.

Lavon, Mr Charinan.

Mr. KASTEN MER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson Mr. DANIFIG I wish to thank Ms. Ringer, Mr. Lorenz, and Mr. Karsten for their contribution this morialg. It was most

"1 MRger be bakarain I have a coure of questions,

M. KASTEN METR. As a matter of fact, yes, We wil have Ms Ringer

a terlaps at an cari er time than later be ause it is obvious today Unot have 1 m2 for extended examination on a number of issies trave been in.l.

bevor, test, I want to thank my co!' are, Mr. Wargins, for rustg they dir, e ard for your response to it. It was ditestiv

e fa oge ijgest on it Lav mer d. A ‹Ã readt e Constitution, te
for
copyr gat in the first place and the only one in tie
is to prop otet e progress ofs et earl us ful a ts.

I am con erned, my leg s'at on watch I w.'l support w 'l
atmated to ache è that end, to promote tue progress of

gratis tie rica's through wha h that er d is a on a' tel te, I believe, the general ra e that I am goig to fo low

ak, Mr. Kanaristen and on met 1 him for 'eng toa of the legislative process Wh, has set forth in the next

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 hid 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. PATTISON. I have no questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. 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 MEIER. 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.]

COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE On Courts, Civil Liberties,

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The wibeon, mittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 2226, Bayborn House Othee Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairn., of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Badillo, Patton, and Ral-back.

A'so present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; Bruce A. Lehman, counsel; at. Ihomas E. Mooney, associate counsel.

Mr. KASTEN MED R. The committee will come to order. This morning is the second morning devoted to hearings on the subject of H.R. 923 a fother bills relating to the general revision of the copyright law. We are pieved to have as our first witness this morning, representing the State Department, Deputy Asistant Secretary for Conimercial Adairs and Business Activities, the Honorable Joel W. Biller, Mr. ber is accompanied by Philip R. Trimble, Assistant Legal Adviser for For one and Business Affairs,

1 Mr. B'ler here!

Me B:ttat.】",

Mr. KASTEN MEIER, 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. Buop Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tr.mb'e is sitting on ryngtand Mr. Bos a ell 1 on my left. I greatly appreciate having the opportunity to present the views tate. Îpartment on H R. 9723, for the General Revis,on of qaght law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for other

Although we take exception to one sext on in tras bil, the pricht otherwise supports the enactment of tais important

Avt e coramittee knows, the present US copyright law is essentotte sare us the act of 1909) Sne that date, great advances have bwe, y a le in tehnology and tel toques for contulerating proted Patter, veral in ages, and recorded sour bs, Pese a ivy les lave sted new ddustries and methods for the reproduction and 1.1 tat, wol opyrighted 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 the 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 materials 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 dels 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