« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
bilized on the basis of economics. If the edition is a big one, it proves to be economical to have the double print, and if the edition is not a big one, it does not; and, as I have said before, the kind of material that the group that I represent is concerned with involves small editions which would probably never be reprinted. Certainly there is never need of their being reprinted, because, being scholarly productions, employed mainly in the universities, the reading public is not large.
I suspect that since the American Federation of Labor has made no outcry against that figure, that discriminatory figure is probably about right. Certainly there has been no complaint at all in recent years since that tariff measure became effective, of any habit on the part of American publishers of printing manuscripts abroad.
Mr. GOODWIN. Is it true that the American Federation of Labor has agreed to forego this provision of having
Mr. RANEY (interposing): So far as foreign authors are concerned; yes. What they said when I came into conference with them some 10 years ago is that they were willing to abrogate the requirement of American manufacture so far as foreign authors are concerned if they could be cared for under the tariff.
Mr. Rich. And you think that that provision should be made in the tariff?
Mr. RANEY. Yes; it is made there, and that has proved satisfactory. That is what they said; they said they would be satisfied if they were cared for in the tariff and I said “I am with you on that.”
Mr. Rich. If we were going to go into a conference such as they had at Berne, or such as may come up in the future, that question of the tariff would not necessarily come up in connection with copyrights, would it?
Mr. RANEY. It can not arise. Mr. Dies. Would it not arise if you adopted a prohibitory schedule?
Mr. RANEY. Not at all; because it is not a copyright question. You are not denying the author the title to his work.
Mr. Diss. You would have much the same thing in a different way.
Mr. RANEY. Exactly. The only provision of the International Copyright Union is to comply with the copyright law of this country, and you will then be given international protection. That is the only provision of the International Copyright Union. As long as you keep the copyright question clear, you are all right abroad, and I think that is a perfectly feasible way for it is just unscrambling this mess. We have a provision with respect to a tariff now
Mr. Dies. Is that a sufficient provision, the way it now stands?
Mr. Raney. It is, unless you want to raise the rate, but the principle is the right principle. I may go still further back and say that I am sympathetic with the point of view of the American Federation of Labor. I was connected, during the period of the war, with Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore, being a member of the faculty there, and the suggestion was made that because of the depreciation of German currency we might send the various journals that were being published by Johns Hopkins to Germany for printing; and the president of the university asked me if I would not look into the question entirely aside from patriotic
grounds and ascertain whether it was true that it would be economical; and I made a report, which was adopted, to the effect that it would not only be unpatriotic but uneconomical to go abroad to print, and our journals stayed at home.
I am heartily in favor of the proposition that American works should be kept at home, and of making it hard for the man who violates that principle, and I think we are on entirely the right track in this tariff provision; and we have heard no complaint in recent years since that provision went in that it has not proved effective. There has been no request on the part of the American Federation of Labor filed with the Tariff Commission that that should be reconsidered.
Furthermore, here was another trick that was being played, that the American Federation of Labor representatives told me about and I came down to Washington and helped them with that. It was alleged that the marking provision under the tariff act was being violated. Ever since the McKinley tariff law there has been a requirement that every article of foreign manufacture that enters here should, unless the marking would deface it or ruin it, have the mark of origin on it, such as "Made in England,” “Made in Germany,' and so forth. It was claimed by the American Federation of Labor that they could definitely cite certain American publishers who were violating that, that they were inserting a separate sheet with a
„perforated edge on which would be cited “Made in Germany wherever it was, and after passing the customs they would rip that sheet out, and their book was safe; also, that that could be put on the upper edge of a sheet and it could be torn off after it passed the customs. I never saw the evidence myself, and I did not ask to see it, but it was sufficiently explicit for us to go to a hearing, and we supported them heartily in that, and a ruling was given out by the Treasury Department that required that such markings should be in such a specific place that they could not be removed. Your title page is gone now if you are going to remove the evidence that it is of foreign origin.
So, I am quite as heartily in favor of this idea of keeping the work at home as any member of the American Federation of Labor, but I do want to unscramble the two ideas and get tariff provisions out of the copyright law, which will put us in a defensible position before the world, and after that we may consider whether we should take the next step and join the family. That is what I have come down to say, that that is the prime thing before us. It is a thing which will produce international good feeling. It is so simple and decent a thing to do that it stands quite in a class by itself, and you have time to do that and I do not think you would have any very great opposition in any direction; and the man who puts his name to a simple, short measure of that sort has won fame in American copyright legislation equal to that of the Connecticut Congressman who introduced the original bill.
Mr. Rich. It might be well for you to make some recommendation, to give us your suggestion of what things you think are the most important that might be taken up by the committee, and, as you say, we will not have an opportunity to make a general revision. The fact of the matter is that we could not make a general revision that would be satisfactory to all the people, but we could accomplish the most important things, those that we have been discussing, and we would then be on the road to eventually doing something that would be worth while.
Mr. Raney. That is the idea- let those major things be tried out, and when you have had sufficient experience, then you would be perfectly clear. I think the simple thing to do is not to assume that the law of 1909 is rotten from cover to cover, but find the specific rotten spots and remove them, and let the thing go in this session of Congress.
Mr. Rich. While I am myself and have always been a supporter of the tariff because it supports American labor, yet I believe it should not have any part in the copyright law, but that it should be enacted by Congress from the standpoint of a tariff exclusively.
Mr. RANEY. Exactly.
Mr. Rich. Then that would keep that matter out of the conferences that our people might have in foreign countries in connection with the copyright questions.
Mr. RANEY. Yes.
Mr. Goodwin. Are there any groups, so far as you know, or any interests in the United States that are opposed to the United States entering the International Copyright Union?
Mr. RANEY. I have been attending these hearings for a good many years, and so far as I am aware it comes down particularly to the phonograph industry, to the so-called canned music folks. Their spokesman have been rather steadily against entering the International Copyright Union.
Mr. Dies. They are just about out of business.
Mr. Raney. They say quite frankly, at least privately, that the reason is that they would thereafter have to pay for something that they now take. I can not feel very sympathetic if such toes were trod on. I think we ought to pay for a thing we take.
Mr. Dies. The committee thanks you very much for the able presentation of these matters that you have made.
Mr. Raney. It is exceedingly good of you to give us an extra day like this.
Mr. Ould. I was wondering if the committee would allow me to ask Doctor Raney a couple of questions.
Mr. Dies. Yes; go ahead.
Mr. Ould. I wonder if Doctor Raney has any sugegstions as to how the Library of Congress might get its depository material which now comes in under the copyright if that provision for deposit were repealed.
Mr. Raney. Are you now speaking of American or foreign material ?
Mr. Ould. All; particularly American.
Mr. Raney. I am glad that you have mentioned that point. In the first place, let us say that we can do anything we please with our own authors; let us say that you can leave every provision of existing law standing with reference to manufacture and compliance with formalities, if you like, but you can not get into the International Copyright Union and leave these formalities applicable abroad. As a matter of fact, I think these formalities, since they are not
properly in the domain of copyright, ought to be out of the copyright statutes, but that does not mean that I believe that the provisions for the deposit of copies should be removed from the law. In other words, let the requirements stand for deposit of copies, but let the penalty for failure to deposit be not the denial of a man's being entitled to his work, but punish him in some other way, by fine or in some other way, but not by the immoral stand of saying that the book is not his; that is too drastic a penalty. I think the deposit of copies should be still required.
Mr. OULD. Have you any suggestion under what constitutional provision that could be required if it were not done under the copyright law? There has been some discussion of that, and I know the opinion has been expressed by experienced persons that there is no constitutional authority for it in this country if it is done under an entirely separate statute.
Mr. RANEY. That question has not been raised in any of the hearings. I did not know that anybody doubted the ability of Congress to make that requirement. That requirement has remained in all the bills that have come before Congress in recent years, in the last 10 years. It is in the Vestal measure, for example.
Mr. OULD. Perhaps I had better clarify the statement. I mean simply that the question has been raised that, aside from the constitutional provision for copyright, if the requirement to deposit were removed from the copyright law, and it were attempted to require deposit under some other provisions of law than copyright, there would be no constitutional basis for that.
Mr. RANEY. What would you say to that, Mr. Solberg?
Mr. SOLBERG. I do not think I could give any authoritative answer, but I have never heard of any objection to the proposal contained in the various bills that required the deposit at the Library of Congress of books.
Mr. RANEY. None of the various constitutional lawyers have ever raised that question. I am not a lawyer myself.
Mr. Rich. I think the question is as stated by you, Mr. Solberg, that it is necessary to deposit the books.
Mr. SOLBERG. You mean, it is necessary now.
Mr. SOLBERG. Now, it is a provision of the copyright law that requires it, but when proposing new legislation which removes that requirement as a condition of copyright, it has then to be changed to a voluntary deposit, with a penalty if there is failure to send the copies, and that is contained in the later bills. I do not know that the word "voluntarily” exactly expresses the character of the deposit, but it is dissociated from the property in the book.
Mr. Rich. It is essential that one of the books should be deposited with the Government somewhere, so that the public would have notice of its issuance. We should have that without_hestitancy, but whether it should be the Library or some place else I do not know.
Mr. RANEY. England requires five copies. There are five different institutions in England that under the law receives a copy.
Mr. OULD. I think Mr. Solberg should explain in the record at time something about that English provision. As I understand it, it is entirely separate from the protection of a title in England. There is an entirely separate requirement of law that a certain number
of copies, perhaps five or even more, should be deposited in various university libraries and in the British Museum, and there is a penalty for failure. Apparently there is some basis in England for such a practice.
Mr. RANEY. A monetary penalty.
Mr. SOLBERG. My understanding is that there is no requirement in the statutes of Great Britain that requires the deposit of the thing to secure the legal protection of copyright in it, but there are provisions of law requiring deposit, first, in the British Museum, and that is a very general provision, requiring the deposit of everything: Five other libraries—Dublin, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, and Wales--may make a request for books which they need for their universities from the publishers, and unless that is complied with within a given period of time—there is an allowance of one year, I think-there is a penalty, but none of this concerns the copyright itself or the legal protection of the work.
Mr. RANEY. Here is the English provision, under 15 (1) and 15 (6), in skeleton form:
15 (1). The publisher of every book published in the United Kingdom shall, within one month after publication, deliver at his own expense a copy of the book to the Trustees of the British Museum who shall give a written receipt for it.
15 (6). If a publisher fails to comply with this section, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, for a fine not exceeding 5 pounds and the value of the book, and the fine shall be paid to the trustees or authority to whom the book ought to have been delivered.
Mr. Ould. What is your impression as to the total number of copies which could thus be required in Great Britain for deposit in these various libraries? Something like a dozen, is it not?
Mr. SOLBERG. One copy.
Mr. RANEY. One must go to the British Museum itself, and the other five have a chance to see whether they want the same number. STATEMENT OF R. S. OULD, PATENT ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON,
Mr. OULD. It is desirable to call particular attention to a feature of the copyright system which has received scant attention during these hearings. The interests of authors and publishers to secure adequate financial return and legal protection of their property rights have been very thoroughly discussed. There has also been a little discussion of the desirability from the point of view of the public of a complete registration system so that the public can conveniently determine what copyright property rights exist and in whom the title lies.
A further -and very important aspect of the copyright system is the making available to the public for reading and inspection the material which is the subject of copyright. Under the present copy. right law and for many years past there has been the requirement that a person claiming and registering copyright shall make a deposit of two copies of his work in the Library of Congress, with certain exceptions of minor importance for which only one copy is required.