Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

but to effect a urneral revision of the popricht law Separate original and re Duel term reistration is a wastantial financial burden on individunt autors rfart18*No contribute smull or short works to a variety of daily bratrs * ntt er

p lanle The proposed amendment to sertion 4011c #old N .. fer! Hitrite the Rennter, without perjudice to hef general authori'». to ta'! I tolal itu putting grouping of contributions by the same individual

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. TEGTMEYER. If I may add one point that may be helpful, one thing you can do is to compare the fact that it must be ornamental as opposed to functional.

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes; but it is also, as I read the Code prorisions, I think it relates to prettiness or beauty; I have a problem with this

Mr. TEGTMEYER. That's not the intent of the provision as we under stand it.

Mr. DRINAX. I wonder if I might a k one question. If you would just give us an example. Ilow many of these fundamental things you have described could or would get a copyright or patent!

Mr. TECTMEYER. That would be difficult to predict because you don't know whether or noi they would meet the test of novelty for patent protection,

Jr. DRINAX. In your testimony you suggest only two areas and his are furniture and appliances. But, you give us a lor instance on wint type of things might come under title II!

Mr. TEGTMEYER. Linoleum and wall coverings, which I believe am covered under the present copyright law as it is interpreted, as *il as furniture designs, appliances and other household goods which would have a design, an original design.

Mr. DRINAx. Do you fear any lossibility of restraining tride or even monopoly?

Mr. TEGTETER. We feel the protection is in the nature of a cop! rivit provision and is only againt copying. If you compare it to piracy of tapes and records, we find it very similar. Ile are talks about someone who has pirate or copied a design, not somebody Wall has independently originated it him-ef.

Mr. DRINAX. I tend to agree with Mr. Rail back that there is too much confusion, but your testimony has been helpful. I wish we had longer, som

Mr. KA YENMEIER. On behalf of the committee, we appreciate your appearance again before us on a slightly ditierent type of bill than you normally appear before us with and we wish to thank your «ol. leagues. This concludes the tentimony this morning on the subject of the revision of copyright laws. We shall nest inces as a sulsomhtthe on May 11, Welne-lay at 10 a.m. in room .0 for further bar

Reports on H.R.) were received by the subcommittee from the Department of State, the Irting Librarian of Congress, and the la tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, as follows:

DET *TYTYT OF STATT

Washington, D.C. May 7, 19:3. Ilon. P T. W. Roor), Jr.. (hairman, (immutter on the Judiciary. House of Representatites. Washington, DC

DEAR VR ('914UA. "The Sætrary has all that I m ond to tour le******! February 10, 1975, 10**ink the tra rtment of states viens on IR. for the general revision of the copyright law, Title 17 of the I nitr siates (unde, ! for other purjuangan

17 fint prik!" of the 70* Sin* ennetyllir ttie First (ongres ip 17**), with expert. -1° min teruk Puncted at intervals of amat 401 years, in 1-31, 10 aw 14**The presrat C o pyright law, title 11 of the United Nintemeie, is bainly the be as the Art of 1* Iruritust the nana yra tieten10 x1r,fe have ** made in tehnology and tehnisk for (unutant portr.fret 19.111 VLunal ini , and hyrje sted 'I lie w tat. niini adautts have berand new industrins ani methods for the repulue.

[ocr errors]

sd domination of copyrighted work and peer busineer relationships have

d !**au'hors and users. Althouxb the two grouw have diffend otvar. ****Dh T re the 19 tutute does not stimulate authors tu) por s'rait train the in for their efforts and fails to consider print or future tra B irrifients in (mmunications A uplar etiwgation to one section of H R " the Department other.

ittor parkirit of this important legislation Our (wiunients 0 HR are directo tras sertion which triate to the conduct of our funka

*** Abd (larrefore art of interest to the Impartment. Ti mrtions are the
1.*** thn 10 auth!n* hjert matter of frikht and natiti

*****, agnitivt importation of certain (uyrighted materials from other

jestu., 11. usert Vatter of copyrigst: Veljonal Origin-in).

Tie marimetit sents the ain of this setinn who is to deal with the

*). thu 40 ty te ins'itind in uited Sta!** (urts by a fustva mint to divat itsetus or alors of rushi co ter works or io* of, of their works within the laited States We do not have any el, letop

1 fan of this nntur in l.ly to tur ir it and honesrr, 11 would ref>

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 attect 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 fea. tures 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 C.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 Genera. 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 t'.S. copyright law is most desirable and supports the enactment of H.R. 2323. 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 copre right community. It is also important in bringing the l'nited 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,

ROBERT J. McCLOSKEY,
A88istant Secretary for

Congrcasional Relations.

THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS,

Washington, D.C., August 26, 1975. Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 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. 22:23, 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, goth Congress, 1st Sesjon.

The Register of Copyrights, Barbara Ringer, and I testified on May 7. 1975 before the House Subcommittee on Courts, (ivil 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 he undeniable."

The Register of Copyrights bas submitted to the House Subcommittee chaired hr 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 l'atents, Trademarks, and (pyrights, specitic 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

insideration 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 bali," 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 #futute; 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 delaved because of a few issues concerning the scope of the erolurire 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 photo

sing, 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 Ofice are ready to provide whatever assistance the ('ommittees or Memhers 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 reich 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 ('ommittee on June 13. 1970. 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.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »