Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. HAMID. It was presented in Atlantic City Convention Hall.
Mr. TENZER. But you originally had it booked for the Steel Pier.
Mr. HAMID. Yes, sir.
Mr. TENZER. How many seats in Steel Pier?
Mr. HAMID. A total of about 10,000.
Mr. TENZER. How many in Convention Hall?
Mr. HAMID. About 17,000.
Mr. TENZER. So there were a greater number of seats.
Mr. HAMID. Yes.

Mr. TENZER. For example, when you have Paul Anka, what did you charge for admission that evening as compared to what you charged for admission when you had the Beatles?

Mr. HAMID. We charged $1.90 for Anka and we had a $2.75 to $4.90 top on the other concert. Mr. TENZER. So there was a difference in income?

Mr. HAMID. Well, no. You see, we employed Paul Anka for a week, and the difference in income was far in favor of the Paul Anka engagement. We naturally had more income for 7 days with Paul Anka than 1 day with the Beatles.

Mr. TENZER. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. St. Onge. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamid, for your testimony.

Mr. HAMID. Thank you, sir.
Mr. St. ONGE. That concludes the list of witnesses.

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10a.m., Thursday, August 5, 1965.)

COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William L. St. Onge presiding

Present: Representatives St. Onge, Tenzer, Poff, and Hutchinson.

Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; and Allan Cors, associate counsel.

Mr. St. ONGE. The committee will be in order.

For those of you who have a list of the witnesses scheduled for today, the Chair is going to deviate, after consulting with members of the committee, and call first Mr. Joseph S. Dubin, on behalf of the American Patent Law Association.

Mr. Dubin has come from the west coast to testify. His schedule has already been interrupted. We shall still try to hear all of the witnesses scheduled for today.

Mr. Dubin?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH S. DUBIN, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN

PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION

Mr. DUBIN. My name is Joseph S. Dubin, and I am a member of the California Bar.

I am chief studio counsel for Universal Pictures Co., Inc., Universal City, Calif.

For the past 20 years I have specialized in the field of copyright, with particular emphasis in international copyrights.

I have been a member of the Panel of Consultants on General Revision of the Copyright Law since its inception in 1956 and am a former member of Council, Copyright Division chairman, and chairman of various copyright committees of the Section on Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law of the American Bar Association. I am currently cochairman, Committee on Program for the Revision of the Copyright Law, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section of the American Bar Association. I am former chairman of the Committee on International Copyrights, International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI), a former trustee of the Copyright Society of the United States and past president of the Los Angeles Copyright Society. I do not appear on behalf of these specified organizations, nor am I authorized to speak for them.

52-380-66—pt. 3

-11

I am chairman of the Committee on Copyright Law of the American Patent Law Association, an association composed of approximately 3,000 attorneys who specialize in the field of patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and am authorized to submit a resolution adopted by the board of managers of the American Patent Law Association on April 28, 1965, in connection with H.R. 4347, à companion bill to S. 1006.

Copyright in this country involves three factors, namely, the rights of the user, the rights of the creator, and above all, the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts—all protection must be in the public interest. Copyright, in any form, statutory or by virtue of the common law right of first publication, is a monopoly, consisting only in the power to prevent others from reproducing the copyrighted work. The author certainly is entitled to the fruits of his labor, but on the other hand, the world should not be deprived of improvements, nor the progress of arts be retarded. Monopoly of learning and knowledge cannot long be endured—there must come a time when discoveries and inventions become the property of all. The enactment of copyright legislation and the sole interest of the United States in conferring monopolistic rights lie in the general benefits to be derived by the public from the labor of authors, as well as the public encouragement of individual efforts by personal gain.

In our approach to copyright, from the enactment of the first Copyright Act by the First Congress in 1790, and in the revisions that took place in 1831, 1870, and 1909, our legislation, rather than adopting the European civil law doctrine that copyright is but the extension of the author's personality, has consistently set forth that the statutes, instead of granting additional sanctions to rights already held, substituted a new and lesser right to the exclusion of an old and greater one—that literary and artistic property lost the character of copyright and became the subject of copyright privilege, depending upon legal enactment for the security of the private owner.

Much has been and will be said and written about the need for a general copyright law revision. Virtually every civilized country has, since the termination of World War II, enacted or is proposing new copyright legislation. To this list is even added the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc, to the extent that private individuals therein may be afforded protection. We have become a party to an international copyright convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, now consisting of 50 countries.

The development of the medium of expression of literary and artistic works-scientific and technical advances and improvements--requires us to maintain our role as a great creditor nation and a world economic power, not only in the field of tangible property but also in the intellectual and artistic sphere.

The proposed legislation, to a great extent, will accomplish this result, but the legislation goes even further-it strikes a harmonious and equitable balance between the public interest, on the one hand, and, on the other, of the rights of the creator and the user.

At this time, and with all sincerity, I would like to express my respects and appreciation to the Copyright Office, the Register, Abraham Kaminstein, George Cary, Abe Goldman, Barbara Ringer, and other members of the Copyright Office staff for the magnificent results accomplished by them. This statement is my penance—in the past, I have disagreed, and I still do disagree, with many of the items set forth in the proposed legislation. I have never been backward in expressing my disagreement, as members of the Copyright Office staff well know. Having worked with them, argued with them, quarreled with them, advised with and been advised by them over a period of almost 10 years, I have learned and I trust they, too, have, that reasonable compromise, in order to arrive at a fair and equitable bill for all concerned, is never an impossibility.

Prior to the adoption of the resolution by the American Patent Law Association, a report was submitted to the members of the copyright committee. The responses were not unanimous—they could not have been, since the committee members are all lawyers--but the consensus was overwhelming in favor of endorsing in principle the bills now pending in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, with the exceptions that will be specifically pointed out. That consensus is embodied in the following resolution:

Whereas legislation is pending in the Congress of the United States to revise completely the copyright law, title 17, United States Code: Be it

Resolved, That the American Patent Law Association approves the following principles as a basis for said revision:

(1) A single Federal system of copyright;

(2) A basic term consisting of the life of the author plus 50 years after his death, with an extension of subsisting copyrights. For works made for hire, the term should be 75 years from publication;

(3) A modified statutory license for the making and distribution of phonorecords of musical works;

(4) A modified form of reversion after 35 years, but permitting the continued use of derivative works made during the 35-year period ;

(5) Protection of sound recording against unauthorized dubbing; (6) Recognition of the doctrine of fair use; (7) Elimination of the jukebox exemption; (8) A relaxation of formalities as to notice; (9) Divisibility of copyrights; (10) Provision for judicial review of a determination by the Copyright Office;

(11) Protection of foreign works, both published and unpublished, only on the basis of treaty or proclamation; be it further

Resolved, That the American Patent Law Association opposes the following: (1) Government ownership of copyright; (2) Limitation of copyright by way of a manufacturing clause;

(3) Exemption from copyright protection permitting free use of copyrighted material except under the doctrine of fair use; be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress.

I ask the indulgence of this committee for the opportunity to make some remarks, in my personal capacity, as one deeply interested in the field of copyright law.

The present bill is an improvement over H.R. 11947 and S. 3008, which were introduced on July 20, 1964. For example, the present bill contains the compromise provisions on "recapture." I have always been opposed in principle to the concept of “recapture," since this interferes with the freedom of contract, but the compromise (and this compromise, as I am only too cognizant, was worked out after many hours of tedious wrangling), is reasonable and fair to all concerned, providing that the provisions are not changed or watered down. Any dilution or modification would, in turn, create other problems and affect other sections of the proposed legislation. In the interest of obtaining

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »