Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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

Section 601 concerns the so-called "manufacturing clause" which is designed basically to protect the U.S. printing industry. As you know, this section prohibits the importation into or the distribution within the United States of English language books authored by U.S. nationals 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 United States or Canada.

We are pleased that section 601 would, on the whole, move in the direction of liberalizing the present manufacturing clause. 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 copyrights 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, however, 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 nontariff barriers in the interest of promoting an open international economic system. We believe that the broad trading interests of the United States and its people continue to be the best served by a general reduction of trade barriers including nontariff 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 nontariff barriers, and one of our major negotiating objectives will be to reduce or eliminate nontariff 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 manu facturing 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 an element of discord and potential retaliation into our relations with those countries.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the exception would violate our obligations under article XIII of the GATT which requires nondiscriminatory application of quantitative restrictions, and the United States would be obligated to 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 FCN treaties, which we have concluded with most of the other industrialized nations.

These treaties normally impose obligations on the United States to notify and consult before it introduces nontariff barriers on important 57-786-76-pt. 19

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 Winter 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. BILLER. 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 a 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. BILLER, 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 domestic 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. KASTEN MEIER. I can understand the policy reasons on both sides of that one. It would be very difficult. I understand the basic motivation.

How could you expect to have some continued comity with that government 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 important than some of the other considerations involved. Second, with regard to some of the countries which have this kind of system, we have no indication whatsoever that they have any intention of bringing suit in 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 such a system, we have no indication that they will bring suit in American courts to prevent the publication in the United States of works of dissident Soviet authors.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I see. It is the policy of the State Department, not withstanding the success of the Universal Copyright Convention and its membership, that we should be in a position to adhere to the Berne Convention nonetheless; is that correct?

Mr. BILLER. Yes.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. In your view, does the passage of this bill, in its present form, qualify us for entry, for adherence to the Berne Convention?

Mr. BILLER. What it would do, Mr. Chairman, is remove one of the principal obstacles that now exists to our adherence, that being the term of protection, by extending the term of protection to the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. That would remove that ob-tacle because that is the term provided for in the Berne Convention. There are some other obstacles which would have to be overcome, but I think it would be quite possible to work them out.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Are those obstacles outside of the perimeter of what the statutes provide for?

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You have discussed the term in that connection? Is it not the fact that there are one or more countries moving away from life plus 50: is there not at least one major European country that has moved to a longer term than that?

Mr. BILLER. I am not aware of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. As far as you are aware, all the Western European countries have life plus 50?

Mr. BILLER. I believe so.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Perhaps I ought to put it this way, what countries in the world other than ourselves have a term other than life plus 507

Mr. BILLER. I don't have a list of them with me. If you would like, I can submit such a list for the record.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. We would appreciate that.
Thank you very much, for your testimony.

[The material referred to follows:]

A COMPILATION OF NATIONAL COPYRIGHT DURATION STANDARDS FOR LITERARY, MUSICAL, AND ARTISTIC WORKS

BACKGROUND

The copyright duration of life of the author plus 50 years was first advanced as an international standard in the 1908 revision of the Berne Union. Although this term was not made obligatory at that time, in 1948 the Berne Convention was amended to make life of the author plus 50 years the minimum term of duration for members of the Convention. Today the "life plus fifty" standard is the most widely accepted standard for the duration of copyright protection.

The following list of national copyright durations was compiled from Copyright Laws and Treaties of the World or from other more recent sources.

Life of the Author plus 50 years (74 countries)

Argentina; Australia; Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Burundi; Cameroon: Canada; Central African Republic; Ceylon (Sri Lanka); Chad; China, Republic of; Congo (Brazzaville); Costa Rica; Cyprus; Czechoslovakia; Dahomey; Denmark; Ecuador; Egypt, Arab Republic of; El Salvador, Republic of; Ethiopia, Empire of; Fiji; Finland; France; Gabon; German Democratic Republic; Greece; Guatemala; Holy See; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Republic of Ireland; Israel; Italy; Ivory Coast; Japan; Laos; Lebanon; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Madagascar; Mali; Monaco; Morocco; Nepal; Netherlands; New Zealand; Niger; Norway; Pakistan; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Portugal; Rwanda; San Marino; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Singapore; South Africa, Republic of Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Togo; Tunisia; Turkey; Uganda; United Kingdom; Venezuela; Yugoslavia; and Zaire.

Life of Author plus 20 years

Poland.

Life of the Author plus 25 years (13 countries)

Ghana; Iraq; Kenya; Liberia; Libya; Malawi; Malaysia; Malta; Mauritius; Nigeria; Tanzania, United Republic of; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; -and Zambia.

Life of the Author plus 30 years (9 countries)

Bolivia; Chile; Dominican Republic; Iran; Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of; -Korea; Mexico; Nicaragua ; and Thailand.

Life of the Author plus 40 years

Uruguay.

Life of the Author plus 60 years

Brazil.

Life of the Author plus 70 years

Germany, Federal Republic of.

Life of the Author plus 80 years (4 countries)
Colombia; Cuba; Panama; and Spain.

Variable Copyright Term

In the following countries the duration will vary depending on the category of the author's heirs. In all the countries listed below, an author enjoys copyright protection during his lifetime. The term beyond the author's life, however, is controlled by the nature of the author's heirs. (3 countries)-Albania; Haiti; and Romania.

Miscellaneous Categories (Unrelated to life of the Author)

Afghanistan-20 years; Burma, Union of-10 years; Honduras-10, 15 or 20 years; and United States-28 years, renewable for 28 years.

Countries without copyright laws, or for which accurate information is unavailable

Algeria; Andorra; Bahrain; Barbados; Botswana; Cambodia; China, Peoples Republic of; Equatorial Guinea; Gambia; Guinea, Republic of; Guyana; Jamaica; Kuwait; Lesotho; Maldive Islands; Mauritania; Mongolia; Nauru, Republic of; Saudi Arabia; Somalia; Southern Yemen ; Sudan; Swaziland; Trinidad and Tobago; Upper Volta; Viet-Nam, Republic of; Western Samoa; and Yemen.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. RAILSBACK. How serious is the Canadian exception you have alluded to on page 6; what effect could that have as far as preventing us from joining the Berne Convention?

Mr. BILLER. I think the effect on our general trade policy and the negotiations we are engaged in in Geneva are more serious than the effect on our joining the Berne Convention.

What the provision does, Mr. Congressman, is introduce a new element of discrimination, which is quite clear and is patently discriminatory, in our legislation.

Mr. RAILSBACK. The Canadian exception?

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir. This would occur at a period in time where we are engaged in major initiatives to have other countries reduce or, hopefully, eliminate their discrimination and nontariff barriers. This would be adding a discriminatory character to a continuing nontariff barrier.

Mr. RAILSBACK. So, now your authors publish not only in this country, but also in Canada within a 30-day period in order to derive some benefits that they otherwise would not have?

Mr. BILLER. The Canadian exception does not exist now.
Mr. RAILSBACK. The exception does not exist now?

Mr. BILLER. It would be introduced by the legislation.

Mr. RAILSBACK. I guess I am referring to something else; I am a novice in this.

Mr. BILLER. The 30-day provision is, if a work is published within 30 days of its first publication in the United States, it is deemed to be published simultaneously in other countries.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you. I yield my time.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. In your statement you used the acronym GATT; what does that mean?

Mr. BILLER. That is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Mr. DANIELSON. I assume that is a treaty of some sort, is that correct?

Mr. BILLER. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Mr. Danielson, is a multilateral treaty which we entered into with most of the major trading countries of the world in late 1948 by which we established the rules that establish international trade.

Mr. DANIELSON. It is a treaty?

Mr. BILLER. It is an executive agreement, Mr. Danielson, I am told. Mr. DANIELSON. What is an FCN?

Mr. BILLER. FCN stands for Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation. Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation and the standard types of bilateral treaties which we enter into with other countries to assure them we will not discriminate against them or their nationals. Mr. DANIELSON. Are they uniformly a two-party agreement? Mr. BILLER. Yes, they are always bilateral, and they follow the same nondiscriminatory pattern.

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. I have no questions but I want to thank Mr. Biller. I would just like to say that I commend him for his testimony and it is nice to be in agreement with the Department of State from time to time.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York.

Mr. BADILLO. I just wonder what is the Department's feeling about other U.S. agencies that are drafting language of their own. Who is drafting language; I understand there are other agencies drafting their own language?

Mr. BILLER. The Copyright Office, I believe, has some language of its own. It is not our intent to cause bureaucratic problems. We want to make clear that we agree with the language.

Mr. DRINAN. But the present language is not acceptable?

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »