Lapas attēli

should not pay because he is advertising and popularizing the work, and therefore the author should be grateful. Then, when the author goes to the next user, he gets the same story. So actually, he might receive no payment if he had to live by the principle that each use which advertised his work and helped make it more valuable some place else should be a free use.

On the question of computer, the House report expresses the interest, and I am quoting at the bottom of page 24:

expresses the hope that the interests involved will work together toward the ultimate solution of this problem in the light of experience.

It goes on to say:

Toward this end the Register of Copyrights may find it appropriate to hold further meetings on this subject after the passage of the new law. In the meantime, however, Section 106 preserves the exclusive rights of the copyright owner with respect to reproductions of his work for input or storage in an information system.

We make clear on pages 25 and 26 of our statement that we are in full agreement on this. We think the subject needs considerable study, that it should be carried on not only after the passage of the new law, but now while the Congress is acting on the law, and after it is passed. We do not think, and we agree with the House committee on this, that the law's enactment should be delayed while this study is continued, because this is a complex matter that will require considerable investigation. We think that two things can be done: First, that the meetings which the Copyright Office is even now holding on this subject with the various groups should continue under its auspices.

We think also that a study panel could be appointed either by the Copyright Office or under the direction of your committee and the House committee to go into this whole problem, what type of uses will be made by the producers of copyrighted material, how best can clearances be granted and how can payments be determined. And the study panel, we think, could report back to the committees at a specified time.

We believe that over the next 2, 3, or 4 years, the experience which we do not really have now will accumulate as a result of both effortsof continuing meetings and discussion among the parties and a formal study under the auspices of the Copyright Office. This will produce the material necessary to meet the challenges of this tremendous development of technology which Mr. Wouk has given you one small example of the National Cash Register card process.

In brief summary, we support and accept the provisions of the bill which deal with the exemption from performance rights as they apply to education. That is in section 110(1) of the bill, which is referred to on page 28.


We are pleased with, and we support, the bill in its protection of the right of performance of dramatic works beyond the classroom. There is given in section 110(1) the right to perform in dramatic works in the course of face-to-face teaching, but we suggest that it would be disastrous to American playwrights if any exemption were given which would permit the unauthorized use of plays to be made in any medium other than the classroom itself. This has never been allowed in our copyright law and for good reasons, which we explain and which are also discussed in the committee's report.

On open-circuit educational broadcasts, which are discussed on pages 31 to 34 of the statement, I say only that the provisions of section 110(2) and 112(2) of the bill, which deal with open-circuit broadcasting, represent to a certain extent the result of very intensive discussions by both sides. This, I am sure, is not a matter completely agreed upon, but we believe that the bill establishes a very fair set of limitations and privileges and should not be changed.

In conclusion I might point out that on such items as the manufacturing clauses, we have submitted statements to the House which we will not repeat from here. We feel that the manufacturing clause in the bill is a compromise that all sides can live with. It is a most onerous clause in the present law, and we think that the House committee's treatment of it is fair but that no further reduction in the relief that has been granted should be made.

We say nothing about the jukebox exemption and the compulsory license clause because other authors groups, speaking for composers directly concerned, will discuss that. You should know, however, that we fully support the efforts of these spokesmen for American composers to achieve equitable provisions both on the jukebox and the compulsory license clause. We think that performs a long overdue service in both areas.

On CATV we have submitted statements to previous hearings and we beg leave to refer to that.

One of the problems at the outset of copyright reform was the problem of terminating transfers granted for a long term. We say nothing more about this here. We have a short comment in our written statement, because this is one of the issues that has been completely compromised, as the House report points out. I would only ask, as a word of caution, that having assumed there is no problem, should others appear to oppose this, we can refer to our House statement and ask that that be incorporated solely by reference in your committee's record.

Lastly, we make a recommendation for one modification in the provisions for statutory damages, and it is referred to at page 38 of our statement.

We would like to thank the chairman and the committee for so patiently listening to us, and we think it would be appropriate if we do close with a word of tribute to the House committee, which worked so hard for so long, and to Mr. Kaminstein, Register of Copyrights, and his associates, who have devoted many years to a very arduous, difficult task, and have, I think, demonstrated great skill and a great measure of diplomacy, as they sat in the center of a whirlwind and were subjected to, as you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of pressure from namy conflicting sources, because this bill is undoubtedly one which involves many conflicts on many fronts and is most complex.

Thank you very much.

Senator MCCLELLAN. We are grateful to the House for having blazed the trail here for us. We probably will follow it in large measure, but it makes our work easier for us.

Very well. Is there anything further, Mrs. Janeway?


Senator MCCLELLAN. Any questions, Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to compliment the panel. They have done a remarkably good job in their presentation. They have divided their labors quite well. I was waiting for your suggestion of modification. Not until counsel finished his statement did we find one, so I have reason to conclude you are in general agreement with the House bill.

Mrs. JANEWAY. That is correct.

Senator BURDICK. In fact, almost absolute agreement with the House bill. The only suggestion counsel gave was the modification of the statutory damages.

Mr. KARP. Senator Burdick, we have suggested in our separate statement on CATV a modification of that provision. The chairman has pointed out that that is not a subject for discussion here and we only refer to our previous statement on it.

Senator BURDICK. In all of the areas, you are in agreement with the House amendment?

Mr. KARP. Yes, in substantial agreement. The only two things, differences I pointed out, are in compulsory license and the jukebox clause; I do not think there is complete satisfaction in the jukebox clause.

Senator BURDICK. You brushed over that jukebox so fast I did not hear those.

Mr. KARP. I think you are going to hear quite a bit about it, and I did not want to burden you with our supplementary views on it. Mr. WOUK. I would like to say we are in accord with the House bill, it is true, but the House discussion of the background in its report is at least as important to us as the actual language of the bill itself in illuminating what the implications of the language are.

Senator BURDICK. Well, but for those exceptions in jukebox, cable TV, and damages, it is fair to say, then, that you are in agreement with the House bill?

Mr. KARP. Very much so, sir.

Senator BURDICK. I can't let this opportunity pass without asking a lawyer a good question, being a lawyer myself. It has been suggested many times recently that, in a larger city, lawyers could save a good deal of money by having all the reporters, all the digests, placed on the film that Mr. Wouk talked about, having a central library, and that all the secretary of the law firm would have to do would be to call up the central library and ask for the decisions on the cases. How would that fit into this new bill?

Mr. KARP. Well, case reports themselves are not protected by copyrights, so I guess that anybody could take the body of case reports, put them on film, or the publisher of a conventional reporting


Senator BURDICK. Does not the Lawyers' Co-op have any protection? Mr. KARP. Yes, for its headnotes, annotations and other material, and its compilations. I do not think the experience is sufficient yet to know whether the bar will find that reports on film are more convenient than reading from books. I think some day they may find it so. Putting the books on tape is only part of the problem. Getting the answer to the question is easy. The big problem is figuring out what the question is in the first place to ask the computer.

Senator BURDICK. Now this would be automatic shepherdizing at, the same time. They would send you over a sheaf of cases.

79-397-67-pt. 1- 4

Mr. KARP. Even so, you have to put the question to whatever system you use, from which it keys its searching of the documents to get the reports you want. If you know the cases and you have it on cards, you can, of course, just turn to them.

Senator BURDICK. Then, of course, digests are protected?
Mr. KARP. Yes.

Senator BURDICK. But not the case book, not the reporter?
Mr. KARP. That is right.

Senator BURDICK. Then the digests and the individual works would be protected?

Mr. KARP. Yes, and it is well they should be, because the great work that goes into preparing the digest, doing all of the work that puts the cases into the logical arrangements and categories.

Senator BURDICK. All the Senate would have to do would be to make a deal before they put that on their machine; is that right? Mr. KARP. That is right.

Senator BURDICK. That is all.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Fong?

Senator FONG. I, too, would like to commend the witness for a very fine discussion of the subject. I note that you will call about a hundred witnesses and there are so many things I do not know about the copyright law, I would like to ask a lot of questions, but I think in time, after listening to the hundred witnesses I shall be educated. I would like to ask just one question. I note that in the bill which was passed by the House, the computer phase of it has not been gone into; is that correct?

Mr. KARP. It has only been gone into, Senator, in that the rights to record a work so that it can be put into a computer and taken out are protected by copyright. What the House committee has suggested is that intensive study be made so that methods can be made by which the creators of the material and those who operate the systems can clear the material to make arrangements to pay the necessary royalties.

Senator FONG. There are still a lot of things to be done as far as the computer relationship is concerned?

Mr. KARP. In the sense of writing specific legislation I would say no. In the sense of working out arrangements, yes.

What the House has really done, in a way, is what is done, what the Congress has done in the past in the copyright law in dealing with technological revolutions. This is not the first one, by any means. In the field of music, for example, radio, records and television and talking motion pictures were all tremendous technological revolutions. Radio is not even dealt with in the 1909 act. But the broad rights to perform music are, so that the composer was protected when radio came along as a new electronic means of performance, and composers and broadcasters worked out systems for arranging permissions and payments. I think what the House committee is suggesting is that the best way to approach the computer problem is the same; observe the author's rights, but let us all get to work to solve practical problems as to how you clear these uses and make the material available and

so on.

Senator FONG. Outside of the extension of the copyright time from 56 years to life plus 50 years, would you give us in a very few para

graphs what some of the protections which this new law gives you are, and which you do not have under the present law.

Mr. KARP. Yes. I think one of the most important things to American authors of books is the modification of the manufacturing laws, which now results in forfeiture of copyright if the American author happens to have a book printed abroad and more than 1,500 copies are brought into the country. That is one.

In the field of public television, nonprofit public television, the law, the bill recognizes the right of composers and authors of literary material to be paid when their material is used for public televisionnot closed-circuit television, but in public television.

Senator FONG. Under the present law, you do not

Mr. KARP. We do not have them. What we think authors do have under the present law is the right to record material if it is going to be used in television-educational or commercial. An exemption from that right would be given to public instructional television. I consider it a trading off of advantages. They have something which I do not believe they had under the present law. On the other hand, they would pay for certain use of material in these areas.

In terms of school uses, I think the law preserves all the privileges that education had to perform in the classroom and under fair use to copy. I do not think there has been any change there.

In terms of dramatic works and performance of dramatic works there has been no change.

In the field of music, there would be changes in the rates which have to be paid by recording companies when they make a recording of a composer's song without his permission under the compulsory license laws. In the jukebox, coin-operated phonograph industry, composers would be entitled to be paid, whereas now they are not because of the specific exemption in the present law, which does not permit them to ask for it.

I think these are probably some of the more important changes in the bill.

Senator FONG. This bill includes composers of music?

Mr. KARP. Yes; it includes, Senator Fong, anybody who created any form of copyright at work-authors, composers, dramatists, poets, choreographers, architects; any sort of work, writing, that can be copyrighted under the law.

Senator FONG. Thank you.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. I consider this presentation to be an excellent one and, for the most part, very forthright. Counsel, do I assume from the statement that appears on page 36, referring to the jukebox exemption, where you say, "We earnestly hope that section 116 of the revision bill will be drawn in a manner that allows them to obtain reasonable payment for their works."

Do you mean by that that is all left in our laps as to what is reasonable?

Mr. KARP. No, I think what we are trying to do first of all, was to avoid an intensive discussion by commenting on something that is really of greater concern to other people, who are composers of music used in the jukebox industry. And that we do not believe that the clause as it is now drawn is equitable. We think that probably

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »