I mentioned the areas of contention-moral rights, protection of works of architecture, self-execution, retroactivity. But still I haven't answered your question.

I have reached the conclusion that the public interest, as well the interest of the Library of Congress requires maintenance of a strong public registration deposit system. And I am satisfied that your bill is true to that larger public interest, and is compatible with Berne with respect to original term of registration then and deposit.

So the Copyright Office supports your bill.

On Berne itself, let me say this-tentatively. The United States produces the lion's share of popular culture and computer software that's broad in the world today. And this output of our creative genius is enjoyed in every corner of the globe.

The United States benefits economically from the high level of protection that Berne has built up over the years, and continues to encourage it all over the world.

So it would serve our own self-interest to strengthen Berne and to encourage other countries to join Berne. And I think we could best do that by joining the Berne Convention ourselves. It would be the honorable thing to do, a gesture worthy of a great country.

So, at this stage, as long as we don't degrade the incentives to registration, I could support U.S. adherence to Berne. But, as I said earlier, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve final judgment until we get the answers to the hard questions that I raised earlier.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. That's a fair statement, Mr. Oman.

Now, Berne has been altered, sometimes I suppose one could say substantially altered, every 20 years or so, 1908 Berlin, 1928 Rome, 1948, 1967.

Do we need to know how Berne might be altered with or without our consent in the future if we are either non-members or members of Berne? Is that a concern to us?

Mr. OMAN. I think it's a concern. And I think something that we should bear in mind in terms of preserving our own legislative flexibility in handling copyright problems as we think appropriate for our own unique experience.

We certainly would have a better chance of affecting the outcome of these subsequent deliberations if we were a part of the process rather than observer.

I think you, Mr. Chairman, were part of the negotiations in 1967 to reform the UCC in 1967. There are an outgrowth of what was happening in Berne at the same time. Perhaps the outcome would have been different if the United States had been a member of Berne rather than faced with developments in Berne and not being able to resist similar pressures for reform in the UCC.

I think the example of amendment of the Paris Convention in the patent area is a very useful example in that regard. The United States has played a very important role, not in directing the details of change, but in resisting change that is adverse to our interests.

I think it would be generally conceded by all concerned that if the United States had not been a member of the Paris Convention

on industrial property, those changes would have been made and patent protection around the world would have been seriously degraded.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

I would like to now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.

The first question I wanted to ask-if you don't want to, I don't want you to answer it right now-to have an answer that you can be fairly complete on. That's the thing.

But I would like to get an answer for the record before we come to the close of these hearings.

Because I represent Southern California and the motion picture industry and so many of the people that produce music records and the writers and all of those people, it is very important to me that their rights not be violated by something that we move into with our eyes closed.

And I would like to have you analyze for me what rights, if any, that they may have that could be in any way reduped by entering into this Convention, and that means the rights of the music writers, the people that produce the records, the people that write the motion picture scripts, the books, and the producers themselves, and those that handle television shows, and all of those that entertain the American people. And I would like to have an analysis from you about what rights they have that could possibly be hurt by this legislation if we adopt it?

Mr. OMAN. Let me make a few prefatory remarks, and then ask Ms. Schrader to respond in fuller detail.

The Berne Convention is generally pro-creator, pro-author document, just the same as the Universal Copyright Convention. They are intended to encourage authors to create; they are true to the Constitutional dictate in the United States Constitution; to encourage the creation of works of authorship. And, in that regard, adhering to Berne would probably enhance the interests of the people that you mentioned who do create the works that are enjoyed, not only in this country, but all over the world.

And I would think that as far as the users are concerned, the implementing legislation that would allow us to join Berne that you've introduced with the Chairman, is in many ways neutral. It is user neutral, it doesn't hurt them or help them. And I think that's the important part of the equation.

But having said that, let me ask Ms. Schrader to respond specifically.

Ms. SCHRADER. I believe that what underlies your concern may be the moral rights provisions. And perhaps also retroactivity.

As Mr. Oman has said, the Convention itself is generally favorable to the rights of proprietors. There are limitations, of course, on those rights, but I am not aware of any limitations myself that are less generous to proprietors than our own law. So, in other words, they are not going to lose any exclusive rights by virtue of joining the Convention. Depending upon the nature of changes in our law, they may gain a few additional rights.

But I think that the main question perhaps is that of the moral rights, where you have the question of relationship between the author and the producer of the work.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If our provision in this legislation, however, allowing the transfer of those moral rights, an assignment along with a sale, are valid, then we should be all right there too?

Ms. SCHRADER. Yes. Then at least there would be freedom of contract. There would an additional right beyond the copyright that one would have to take account of in the contract. But once the law becomes well-known, the lawyers could take care of that.

And, of course, the bill itself doesn't extend moral rights to works for hire. So the final motion picture itself, if it is a work for hire, would not enjoy moral rights protection.

But you're quite right to be concerned about the components that go into making the motion picture. The screenplay, if not itself a work for hire, or the novel, if the screenplay is adapted from a novel, which is not made as a work for hire, would be protected under the moral rights provision. The authors of the screenplay or novel would have under this bill moral rights which would have to be taken account of.

I just add, though, the bill allows alienability so you can contract the rights to the producer.

Mr. MOORHEAD. California is one of the few States that has some protection of authors in the area of moral rights.

Could you elaborate on the California system, or are you familiar with it?

Ms. SCHRADER. I believe the California system deals with visual artists.

Mr. MOORHEAD. To a great extent, yes.

Ms. SCHRADER. So we would be concerned with works of arts, generally unique works of arts, and the question of distortion or mutilation of those works.

We could perhaps give you a supplemental report on that. I don't really have any further

Mr. MOORHEAD. I would appreciate it on this whole question if you would take some time sometime within the next month or so and give me a much more definitive answer because it is a very important issue, not only in my area but in many parts of the United States. So we could gain by having that insight from you. Mr. OMAN. We will be happy to make the effort, Mr. Moorhead. Generally, the Berne Convention recognizes that the rights of authors are limited by certain fair use factors such as fair news reporting, and other very narrow and limited well-focused limitations on the author's rights that these too would not be adversely affected.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I heard your brief comments on juke boxes awhile ago, but if you commented on some of these things-I might have missed it, but I don't believe so-as regards Berne and broadcasting technologies, can you answer these questions?

Does Berne allow a compulsory license for cable television?

Does Berne permit a compulsory license for public broadcasting, and would Berne allow the creation of new compulsory and statutory licenses, such as for satellite transmission and to our station owners?

Mr. OMAN. Yes, yes, and maybe.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes, yes, and maybe?

Mr. OMAN. I think the first two are clearly permissible under the formulation of H.R. 1623. And the compulsory license for the satellite retransmission could be permissible under Berne if it were done in a way that would allow for initial negotiations prior to triggering the compulsory license.

Ms. Schrader, would you like to add to that?

Ms. SCHRADER. I think that's an unsettied issue because it really isn't settled completely in Europe whether the Berne Convention applies to transmissions by satellite if they are not direct broadcasts. The Convention has not been revised in that respect really since 1948, so satellites, of course, are a new development.

There is another treaty, the 1961 Rome Convention on Neighboring Rights, which does deal more directly with that type of transmission. And it just hasn't been settled in European thinking and European courts as to whether Berne even covers the distribution by satellite.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Because of your expertise in this area, I would like to have permission to submit written questions down the line as we get more information, and I would ask the Chairman if that could be done.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think that can be achieved. I am sure the Copyright Office will be pleased to answer them.

Mr. OMAN. We would be pleased

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my belated arrival. I was involved with another hearing. Mr. Oman and Dorothy, I apologize to you all for my late arrival as well.

Mr. Oman, if you know, is the People's Republic of China going to join the Berne Convention and not join the UCC, Universal Copyright Convention?

And if so, what sort of impact, in your opinion, will China's decision have on copyright relations with the United States?

Mr. OMAN. Well, I have recently returned from Asia. I visited the People's Republic of China, and we went into that. They will in fact pass their copyright law, their first copyright law in 5,000 years, in October of this year, and they intend to join one or both of the International Copyright Conventions shortly thereafter.

The World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva has analyzed their draft bill and told them that with some very minor changes, their bill would be Berne compatible.

The thought in China,-and I can't speak for them,-is that they would obviously reserve judgment, and I would hope that we would get some hints in the near future. But, at this point, they may see more benefits in joining the Berne Convention which they see as a viable, ongoing organization under WIPO rather than joining the UCC under UNESCO, which has fallen on hard times, as Mr. Moorhead has mentioned.

That is a distinct possibility. The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization, Dr. Arpad Bogsch, is extremely persuasive, and he is trying to convince the People's Republic of

China that their interests would be best served by adhering to the Berne Convention. And I think if they did that, and we were not members of the Berne Convention, tremendous pressures would build in this country to adhere to the Berne Convention because it would be the short answer to the question, what's in it for us? It could mean copyright relations with one billion people, one-quarter of the earth's population.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Slaughter. Mr. SLAUGHTER. No questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have just a couple more questions.

You just dealt with the question of an example of what China might have to do, make some changes to make their law Berne compatible.

My question goes to procedure here. Supposing we tentatively pass a law or are about ready to pass a law, do we have to ask you or Harvey Winter or somebody to go over to Geneva and to get clearance by WIPO? I mean absolute clearance in terms of what our proposed law is to make it "Berne compatible."

Mr. OMAN. No. We are completely independent to decide ourselves whether or not what we are proposing is compatible with the Berne Convention.

But then it is up to the U.S. courts to decide whether or not your judgment was the correct one or not. And that raises the difficult question of what happens when they say that, in fact, you did fall short of the mark on one or two points. What happens at that point? Are we obligated to change our law at that point to conform to what the court thinks is our obligation under the Berne Convention? Or do we just drop out of the Berne Convention, drop out of the UCC, and go it alone?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I ask that because, in one sense, merely for us unilaterally to say that we are passing some modifications in our copyright law, and we deem ourselves now in compliance with Berne, for us to make that judgment unilaterally, one has to wonder.

WIPO has to accept that, whether it's a case or not?

Mr. OMAN. No, they don't have to accept it. As a matter of fact, there's another side to that coin. Even if they assure us that what you're proposing is fully compatible with our obligations under the Berne Convention, their view does not bind the U.S. courts. It, of course, would be very, very persuasive in terms of legislative history. It would be the basis for the debates being focused on the fact that the arbiter or the overseer of the Berne Convention gave the stamp of approval to the implementing legislation.

And it would be a factor that they would weigh, but it would in no way be binding.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, yes. Going back to the China case where you said that presumably the World Intellectual Property Organization examined what China had proposed to do in terms of its own domestic law, and had said with certain changes, they thought it would be Berne compatible.

Now, are we going to go through the same sort of process? At some point are we going to share, ask them whether they deem our