Lapas attēli
[ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][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][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

to 1939. One bill was produced just on the eve of World War II after extensive consideration. That bill died because of the war.

One of these measures passed the House, and a later one passed the Senate, but in every case the revision program ultimately failed of enactment because of fierce opposition to particular provisions by certain groups.

The history of the U.S. copyright law revision in the 1920's and 1930's teaches a basic lesson: The need to work out accommodations on the critical issues in an atmosphere of good will and give and take. It is a great deal easier to recognize the validity of this proposition than to put it into practice.

The failure of the earlier efforts at general revision of the copyright law has been blamed on one group or another, and on the fare of it there does appear to be quite a bit of blame to go around. At the same time, it is important not to forget that the main purpore at that time behind some of the revision bills was to permit U.S. adherence to the International Convention of Berne.

There can be little doubt that some of the congressional opposition to copyright law revision stemmed from basie objections to C.S. acceptance of foreign principles of copyright jurisprudence, and to U.S. assumption of the international obligations involved in becoming a member of the Berne Union.

If it had not been for that issue, the copyright law would have been revi-ed during that period, in my opinion.

After World War II the proponents of copyright law reform adopted a new approach. It was assumerl, on the basis of past expurience, that effort to revise the copyright law in a way that wonld permit adherence to the Berne ('onvention would continue to be futile.

It was aluo recognized that the emergence of the United States as a major exporter of cultural materials made our adherence to a multilateral convention essential. Thus, efforts to secure wineral revision of the copyright law were temporarily deferred in favor of a major program aimed at developing and implementing a new international copyright convention to which the United States could adhere without major changes in our law.

It was essential to develop and get implemented a new international contention aimed at bringing the United States into a muluilateral copyright arrangement without requiring is to make major changes in the 1909 law. This was done under the leadership of Arthur Fisher, then rgi-ter of copyrights. They neceeded in 1913 with the signing of the Universal l'opyright Convention, followed in 1987 by the enactment of revision to the 1M9 statute permitting U.S. adherence to the I ((, and his the coming into force of the convention in 1935.

Noteworthy is it was the achievement of bringing the United Stats into the international copyright community a vrved to drumat he open more how archaic and inadequate the Cs copyright statute of 12 handsome

The autuun of 1995), which the coming into force of the l'niveral Coprimal Convention and the inauguration of the current pro grunn for literal revision of the copyright law, marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. I think the dividing line was dugunt 1:05.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

In Aurt 1935, Congress authorized the formation of a P: (itants on General Revision of the Copyright law une Camatwap of the register of copyrights, and the Coprighi urdertenk a neries of baie studies of the major suriantise inveniend in revision.

At the same time began what has become a seemingly end! of twilight and dwuons with representatives of vituly 1: terratrumpaitected by the copyright law.

by 204 them din'unions, which have been as valuable a, the bown file coniuming, munt literally run into the thou-ands, an an of going on.

1. modo per of the current revision program le fut 2 years an, in 1953. It was supposed to talie Van ter nimit o la produced 35 fairly comprehensve me mu Bart of what we thougit at the time were the sulmantive in (Pilt remon.

1. Wote puble bed, together with a large bivol corin! tłu Pori lofton utants, and I am proud 10 that this are in pill.

Trillition of t? in effort was the publication, in 1": 1.Rot of t. rllen fer of copyright on the Res!" Ciposonit Law. There Reis'sirpori win the t'ont of 1:""

*:{?.. to the real teson program by Abril K. Mr Fietnamite Birger of Copriette 1.1 of langwrts, as Mr. Kunden und in his 1:** anual .."fr..-!a'...', 'r core artit d wlais bo pounds, ringa!

11p to #set sile näppud 't on le prin . Durave draí ansied copyright law." 1 timput atte.puteed to purpunt the major 14 e in mo

? ! le porn sit law with rimet toesteloflieht, al...'\. na vifal. I porruent.fore ti tromleyla!' Tellista prozore sterede ad very well in clarifying t!


med 11~~10!in on them, by it willie Of il111

non proind more controuerwsdl than a!!! liet

..!!! dretal
1:. jul. wart'n lietot propel for copiest to do."
**!!it, la

aril to it for a list fan it!
lrout] toll of its proso... a .? Olo
1. PF * * 'pop-.t for a literatur :;.','

1.-!. If youn the frati in of a kom alltid
s! Inserto !. Parrof (0.11.11. plie!

Penolta Reforma DIY, 1.

aloriil'... mf , all

* Niiripun.11 Thlr.''tiptr,0 1

1:11.!!. at low and !,l!! Biti's

1. for reloof! not lopper' it tois" d'ent: Bil. 1. It 1111* *11.!! por lojes with up to fores!!!,

Ko'r!! por profiti popolari: l'aspetost In cortabile Cititorillo tiroffer 119 par !

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In November 1962, the Register announced that the Copyright Office was prepared to change its position on some debatable quezinis and to draft alternative language on others. He indicated that the Office was prepared to revise its recommendations concerning "puiulie dissemination" and the retention of common law protection, and that, "at least one alternative version of our draft bill will adopt the lifeplus basis for computing the term--in conjunction with a system of notice, deposit, and registration that we consider essential."

The Register also announced that he would send preliminary drafts of statutory language to the members of an expanded Panel of (onsultants on General Revision for their comments, and that he would convene another series of meetings on the preliminary draft.

The process of preparing draft language for circulation occupied practically all of 1963, and included a total of eight meetings of the Panel of Consultants.

The development of this preliminary draft proved to be a difficult but enormously productive phase of the program. The procedure a lopted provided a motive and a forum for detailed, critical scrutins of the language and substance of a new copyright statute by representatives of nearly all of the groups affected.

It also created an atmosphere of cooperative effort that has survived various stresses and strains and has continued to grow in breadth and depth.

The preliminary draft of the general revision bill, that had reached completion at the beginning of 1964, was never intended to be a tinal product. The next 6 months were devoted to compiling, analyzing, and synthesizing all of the comments received on the draft, to making substantive decisions and changes on the basis of these comments, and to preparing a complete, section-by-section revision of the bill.

The draft of the bill that emerged from this process was preparrd tirely within the ('opyright Olive without collaboration or consultation with any private groups or individuals involved. The intre duction of the 1961 draft in July 1964, marked the end of the drafting phase of the revision program and the opening of the legislatise phone,

Lile the preliminary draft on which it was based, the 19Vit !.:!l was not intended as a tinished produit, but as a fo al point for further Comments and toptions. In August 1964, a full week of detailed d21074 of the bill showed that a great deal of progress had lwyn Epile, bout that still further rerisions would be necessary lwfore legisIrite hearing con!! profitable begin.

During the full are winter of 19.05. the Copyright Olie portered 74.11 opgeloped the many oral and written couments on the bill an! gry another complete tryinion.

1rpls pobworinning of the worly (oners, on Filmuary 1. 1913, Renproponfative (sullpos introminen tie 1:05 Cirne raul Rusijon bland this Contar!, Off p pwritthonyt mentis preparing a supplement to 101 Riprints Report, Th. 17 entire port of the Printer Pit Coopyrirrhea on the lirneral Prision of the 1.5. Copyriorhit LAT: 1447" Tippinjon bil! which w** p Bilim! and in Var 1965, soot frost!, il posar from lommerinor rumilos pite con palautions in the 1961 prowork and plerisime tir nanism of the provisiona of the 1965 :1).

p.1.dication of tim asperpentare report coincided with the open

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

2. Of congressional hearings on the bill. Over a period of more 3.ts, between May 6, 1963 and September 2, 1840, da inic bearings were held before your sulxommittee, under ti ise and dedicated chairmanship of the man who is still ...rman, Robert W. Kastenmeier.

Atxal of lems witnesses, representing an extraordinarily wieler of palle and private interents, appared to testify. The teen I.. 1:3 hearing comprises nearly 200 pages of printed ...hilig liot only the oral transcript but also more than 100

L Shate Judiciary Sulkommittee under the chairman in M Cielan of Irhana, held brief hearing on the R

.nl manust 1:#3, but delave a full series powing the col. 1. !! Ailele atvey in the House submon mitee.

Sufiant factors with repeat to the general teus f" am eterged from the 1963 hearing Mort obssoas po *.'p contruseris remaining to be settled on some pillon siasties juarboreiromption, the lovelty rate to be paid und

vity low for mordings mus, and their hand mitetits with not to English language book and person: 2: ! « se relatively het in diens such as firu, and the riposo

ausgital woth for educational and royarch of cluational broadcasters and similar 1..' liputatus of Cochinunty attenti desnon potuin Wideo Bitlin.

firm the true to work out furtis aromodations in

! al juml;f, tip mot wr1014 problem ansing from •%$*** how to organise the 11-se contents of the po a wastiat would overlook no signal and copy|1}}t or -1..'."

s! :) word form a comprare le loro for de 10!! 1.'!! Any rera sordabweicher 1 dinoflot....!!!

rt!.45 Springfierit.

no longer baletati..t!.. ( * C'est sitter or pirmuarri 111'lut of pirts till innle, and planirani po prost!"PRO"

!) Harul 11S. lost triftir ofiori,
i rol of), Tiend monft! OR, MI,PI? I poppesta.]

11 1.***.1":11 g lapora

's. Licet prop fort ope you, 1001 points former fi 1 al copiilor nr. :' Tudo it ..

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »