and dissemination of copyrighted works and new business relationships have ontworped between authors and users. Although these two groups have differed en varias festes, both recognize the 1909 statute does not stimulate authors to coute et reward 12 cm for their efforts and fails to consider present or future techaungual deve'optaents in communications Although we take excuption to one section of H.R. 2223. the Department other. exports the enactment of this important legislation Our comments on HR are directed to those sections which reinte to the conduct of our foreign reas and therefore are of interest to the Department. These sections are the g: Section 104 concerning subject matter of copyright and national Section 302 on the duration of protection, and Section 601 relative to us against importation of certain copyrighted materials from other pretios luj, Subiect Matter of Copyright: National Origin —(c). The inpartment supports the aim of this section which is to deal with the Jumo busty that action may be insituted in United States courts by a forega pover ment to divest its e.tuens or authors of rights to their works of Lioca idun chion of their works within the United States. We do not have any evidence that ah se ion of this nature is likely to occur. If it did, however, it would repr test tundes ruble othcial interference with the freedom of expression, and we Verefore believe that it should be guarded against. The international copyrigat od in the Aricinal Copyright Convention is intended to et for the rig ts of the itd., du 1 and et courage the devil pment of "","e the wiences and the arts', i he ooliga tens contained in the Couver fin Cd not become the vehicle to suppress free con munication in the Und ptatem of ideas and literature unacceptable to authorities of some signatories Wer with a provision to be enacted, it would be necessary to avoid larg verə Amrest Fadverten'iv interfere with legitimate governtusi, al acquis tou at Wetnderstand that other I & Governielit agvizes are grifi: g *** *ge to meet the pitjie of 2 fin 104 c) in a trolley diferent math r. e not reviewed these proposais aud are unable to expi ས Par trực However we witbort the ailu of approptatxiy drafted leg. or st world deny effet in krand Sates courts of a fire gu bha ais la v designed to deprive the authors of that country of the rails to pdoriak etter literary and art. * Works in the Uited dat Duration of Copyro»M» Works Created on or after January 1, 1975. 132 veius tie darat, nof tse°c?st €ct =ia + ?¡**u@ ! [༔a}{་ . Pet 6 1. Manufacture, Importation and Public Distribution of Certain fre a comparte defer se in any civil a ton of er ni al proceeding fie dày Îngement of the exclusive rights of reprolu ti ʼn or distrit uti in of cojsem where, under certain circumstances, the defendant proves violation of the manufacturing requirements. The Department notes with satisfaction that, on the whole, there has been a liberalization of the manufacturing clause as it exists today. For example, a violation of the manufacturing clause as regards a book would not affect the right of the copyright proprietor to authorize a motion picture version or other use of the book. It would merely affect enforcement of copyright with respect to publication as a book. Further, the number of copies manufactured abroad that may be imported has been increased from 1,500 to 2,000. Despite this liberalization, Section 601 would continue the protectionist features of the manufacturing clause. This kind of protection is fundamentally inconsistent with basic U.S. policy in international trade. For several decades we have pursued a policy of reducing tariffs and other trade barriers in the interest of promoting an open international economic system. We believe that the broad trading interests of the U.S. and its people continue to be best served by a general reduction of trade barriers including non-tariff barriers. This is the policy we are carrying forward in the current multilateral trade negotiations being undertaken in Geneva under the authority of the recently enacted Trade Act. During this round of negotiations attention will be focused particularly on non-tariff barriers, and one of our major negotiating objectives will be to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers of other countries which restrict U.S. trade. We believe that it is important to note this inconsistency in considering the continuation of the manufacturing clause. Furthermore, the exception for Canada introduced by this bill into the manufacturing clause would violate our obligations under the GATT and various bilateral treaties. The United Kingdom has protested and we expect that other foreign countries which are being discriminated against by this measure will protest, thereby introducing another element of discord and potential retaliation into our relations with those countries. Specifically, the exception would violate our obligation under Article XIII of the GATT which requires non-discriminatory application of quantitative restrictions. Although the U.S. could seek a special waiver from the GATT Contracting Parties to permit this exception, this procedure would be particularly undesirable at this time in view of the opening of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations at Geneva. The exception would also violate commitments in various Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaties, which we have concluded with most of the other industrialized nations. These treaties normally impose obligations on the U.S. before it introduces non-tariff 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 supports the enactment of H.R. 2223. A modernization of the copyright law to take into account the important technologi. cal 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. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, ROBERT J. MCCLOSKEY, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. RODINO: This refers to your request for the views of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office on H.R. 2223, a bill for the general revision of the Copyright Code, title 17 U.S.C., for the establishment of protection of ornamental designs of useful articles in the form of the Design Protection Act, and for other purposes. The current bill is the latest in a series of bills pending in Congress since 1965 to effect a general revision of the Copyright Code. H.R. 2223, except for technical amendments, is the same as the bill that passed the Senate in the 93rd Congress, S. 1361, 93rd Congress, 2d Session (1974), by a vote of 70 to 1. The Kastenmeier bill (H.R. 2223) is also substantially identical, except for Chapter 1, to the bill passed by the House of Representatives in 1967, H.R. 2512, 90th Congress, 1st Session. The Register of Copyrights, Barbara Ringer, and I testified on May 7, 1975 before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice and urged enactment of the revision bill in this Congress. We reiterate the strong support of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office for this bill. As Ms. Ringer remarked in her testimony before the Subcommittee: "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." The Register of Copyrights has submitted to the House Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Kastenmeier a series of brief, objective analyses of the key provisions of the bill. She is also preparing a supplemental report on the revision bill and plans to submit this to the Committee on the Judiciary in early fall. I shall therefore confine my comments to general support of the copyright revision bill, reference to the recent changes by the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, specific mention of a few recommended changes in title I, and general support for title II. 1. GENERAL COMMENTS ON TITLE I The current copyright revision effort began twenty years ago. The basic bill has been under legislative consideration for more than ten years. However, active consideration of the bill has peaked at different times in each house, and the House of Representatives has not considered the bill thoroughly since H.R. 2512 passed the House in 1967. The exceedingly careful preparation of the study and drafting phases of the revision program is reflected in the strength of the "basic bill," which has remained intact since the House last considered it. For example, the following fundamental provisions of the bill have stood the test of time: a single national system for copyright protection under the Federal copyright statute; provisions governing the term of new works and subsisting copyrights; limitations on the assignment of an author's right; copyright formalities, including notice, deposit, and registration; copyright infringement provisions; and housekeeping provisions affecting the Copyright Office and the registration system. Enactment has been delayed because of a few issues concerning the scope of the exclusive rights granted under the bill and limitations to those rights. For many years, the key issue was the limitations on the exclusive rights affecting secondary transmissions, principally cable television. Other issues, such as library photocopying, computer uses of copyrighted works, public broadcasting, and educational uses of copyrighted works in general have waxed and waned. Now that cable television litigation seems to have run its course, this issue is ripe for a legislative solution. The Williams & Wilkins v. United States, 487 F.2d 1315 (Ct. of Claims 1973 aff'd by equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376 (1975)) litigation over library photocopying has ended inconclusively. In both instances, the courts have urged legislative solutions for the complex problems caused by the impact of new technology on an antiquated copyright law. The Library of Congress and the Copyright Office are ready to provide whatever assistance the Committees or Members of Congress wish in presenting balanced explanations of the provisions of the bill or of additional proposals. Without endorsing particular solutions, we do endorse wholeheartedly the general concept of reasoned discourse and debate on the issues and good faith attempts to reach compromise positions, followed by a Congressional decision on the particular proposals. We genuinely believe that these problems are capable of solution. We also believe that an effective copyright system is not likely to survive further delay in enacting a revision of the 1909 law. 2. SENATE ACTION ON S. 22 The Senate Subcommittee on Patents. Trademarks and Copyrights reported a companion bill, S. 22, to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 13. 1975. We should like to bring to your attention the substantive changes in the Senate bill. Royalty Tribunal.-The Senate Subcommittee has restored the provision in sections 801 and 802 for periodic review of the royalty rate for jukebox uses of copyrighted works. Federal pre-emption.-The Subcommittee has accepted an amendment to section 301 specifically reserving state law protection for misappropriation of copyright subject matter provided the relief is not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright. Prohibition against involuntary transfers.-The Subcommittee has replaced the provision prohibiting expropriation of copyrighted works in section 104(c) with a new provision in section 201 (e) prohibiting involuntary transfers. Single registration for several contributions to periodicals.-Two new subparagraphs have been added to section 408 (c) authorizing a single registration for contributions to a periodical by the same individual author under certain conditions. Fee schedule.--A new schedule of fees has been added to section 708. Voluntary licenses for use of copyrighted works by the blind and physically handicapped.-A new section 710 has been added directing the Register of Copyrights to establish by regulation standardized procedures under which the copyright owner grants voluntary licenses to the Library of Congress for the reproduction of certain nondramatic literary works for use by the blind and physically handicapped. Noncommercial broadcasts to handicapped audience.-A new clause (8) has been added to section 110 exempting the performance of a literary work on noncommercial radio and television stations to a "print or aural handicapped audience." Derivative work right for sound recordings.—Section 114 has been amended to include among the rights granted to the copyright owner of a sound recording the right to prepare derivative works. Criminal penalties.--Several amendments proposed by the Justice Department were adopted. The punishment for criminal infringement of a sound recording or motion picture copyright has been increased from one year to 3 years for the first offense, and from two years to seven years for subsequent offenses, section 506(a). A new subsection has been added to section 506 adding forfeiture and destruction of copies as possible penalties for conviction of copyright infringement, within the discretion of the court. A new section 509 has been added providing for possible seizure and forfeiture by the United States Government of infringing copies or phonorecords, including articles or devices used to carry out the criminal infringement. Title II.-The Subcommittee adopted a series of changes recommended by the Department of Commerce with respect to sections 203-206, 209, 211-213, 227, and 229 of the Design Protection Act. 3. RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN TITLE I Several of the amendments adopted by the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights were either recommended by the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, or have been endorsed by us. We specifically urge adoption of the following amendments. Prohibition against involuntary transfers.-We recommend the language adopted by the Senate Subcommittee in section 201(e) in lieu of the present section 104 (c) of H.R. 2223. The new language is intended to establish on a statutory basis the principle that an involuntary transfer of the copyright interest will not be recognized under our law. Of course, traditional legal actions such as bankruptcy proceedings and mortgage foreclosures are not within the scope of the recommended language since the author has, in one way or another, consented to these legal processes by his actions. The provision is no longer directed against foreign governments since the same principle applies to the United States Government. While our courts have not addressed the precise issue of involuntary transfer, we believe the principle of the proposed section 201(e) would be followed by the courts in construing the present law. Federal pre-emption.-We endorse the change in section 301 adopted by the Senate Subcommittee which is intended to clarify that misappropriation relief may be provided under state law as long as the protection conferred is not equiv. alent to the exclusive rights granted by the copyright law. Single registration for several contributions to periodicals.—The basic principle of this provision was originally suggested by Irwin Karp, Counsel for the Authors' League. The Library of Congress and the Copyright Office recommended it to the Senate Subcommittee, and the provision also appears in H.R. 7149 (by Mr. Kastenmeier), which would amend the existing title 17 U.S.C. apart from the to effect a general revision of the copyright law. Separate original and rebewal term registration is a substantial financial burden on individual authors 8-4 artists who contribute small or short works to a variety of daily newspapers artotter periodicals. The proposed amendment to section 40×te) would specifPay a thorize the Register, without prejudice to her general authority, to estati oli reg ilations permitting grouping of contributions by the same individual au!!, »p for registration purposes Fer scha 'ule section 70% - - The new fee schedule adopted by the Senate Subeurocitem muso appears in HR 7149, introduced by Mr. Robert W Kastenmeier 12 May 20 1975 at the request of the Liorary of Congress and the Coʻyright o* » We found it necessary to propose general increpes in the fee sche quie in vra of the low ratio of recovery of the costs of the copyright registration systemn br casă fervi ofa for services performed. We strongly urge in-lusion, of the n w fww, shoe to HR 2223 We also take this opportunity to urge se, aryte et net **CHR 119 without awaiting general revision of the copyright law The ↑ till entiti & bee the effective inurediately upon enactment be the of the alste tave preparation requiresi to im; jemenit its provisions. Hence, we favor @5% *1***af HR 7149 as soon as pos» Libe mack for yo of copyrranted works by the blind and phunsa iy imevussen – mest section 710 Tas provision niso origin t»i with the I amy j of Congress and the Copyright Once, and we urge its ad lition to the revama rak It has the suptort of the American A·sooi ition of i'uol,shers, cght ContentAN Vento,ar #a terhin end amendment to Maru +421 41. View of the 1971 revision of the Laiversal Copyrigit Conven1.br .5 of ja ge 7 should read 1962 or 1971 Caversal Copy r,,lit Couveau rasaka |