Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

injured American book manufacturing or printing unions. On the contrary, if the problem of composition could not have been met in this way, most of these books could not have been published. Not only would American science and technology have been held back if that were the case, but American book manufacturing companies and printing union members would have lost all the work of platemaking, printing, and binding for these works, which is, of course, a large and more profitable part of the job than the typesetting.

All these books so produced have been registered for copyright on application to the Copyright Office. The validity of the copyrights so obtained has never been questioned in the courts and the Deputy Register of Copyrights, in his testimony before this committee, expressed the belief that the courts would be likely to hold such copyrights valid. We certainly hold that such a use of imported reproduction proofs wholly complies with the law.

In his report on H.R. 4347 to this committee, however, the Register of Copyrights has stated that the language of the present statute is unclear and that registrations of works produced as described above had been made on the "basis of doubt." This ambiguity in the present law is extremely undesirable and its perpetuation would be intolerable. It involves the rights of thousands of American authors and the investment by American publishers over the years of millions of dollars in scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly publications.

Without the ability to have composition of these highly specialized books done where it can be most effectively done, the publication of hundreds of such works would have been impossible in the present state of technology. This would have been a loss to American printers and binders as well as doing grave damage to American scientific, technical, and scholarly progress.

Now I would like to deal briefly with the proposals of the Register of Copyrights.

In 1961, in his original report to the Congress, the Register of Copyrights recommended the complete repeal of the manufacturing clause, and I cite the actual language in my prepared statement.

Subsequently, the Register in the actual bill introduced in 1964 (H.R. 11947 and S. 3008), proposed a further modification rather than a repeal of the manufacturing clause. Again in H.R. 4347 and S. 1006, the current bills introduced on February 4, 1965, the Register has proposed still another modification rather than repeal.

The Register makes it clear in his report on H.R. 4347 that he has not changed his mind about the desirability of his 1961 recommendation of complete repeal, but has been concerned about the opposition to repeal, on economic grounds, which may be expressed by certain groups.

The Register is now proposing to make the following further principal modifications in the manufacturing clause:

(1) Eliminate the requirement of U.S. manufacture for American. authors (or anyone else) in order to obtain full term U.S. copyright. (2) Substitute a requirement of U.S. manufacture (or importation of not more than 3,500 copies) in order to bring suit for infringement of copyright where the infringing use of the material is in book form.

(3) Permit the importation or distribution in the United States of 3,500 copies of a work first manufactured abroad without limitation of time.

(4) Exempt from the manufacturing clause books of joint foreign and American authorship.

Though the various modifications proposed by the Register in H.R. 4347 are desirable as far as they go, they do not reach the heart of the issue. The basically indefensible principle remains: that an author's right to the creation of his own mind is made dependent on the circumstances of the manufacture of one physical form in which his work is embodied. And the central practical problem of the whole manufacturing clause remains.

H.R. 4347 embodies the precise language of the present law is defining what constitutes "manufacture in the United States."

The Register's report confesses that he is not certain what this language means in the present law and says of the language in H.R. 4347 only that "it is intended to mean here whatever it means there." I assume that this committee will not wish to recommend to the Congress that it enact language whose meaning cannot be determined, and that the committee will wish to resolve this issue. As I shall endeavor to point out, it can do so easily, clearly, and completely by simply eliminating the manufacturing clause and the related import restrictions contained in chapter 6 of H.R. 4347-and it can do so without injuring the economic interests of American book manufacturing and, indeed, without significant change in the present patterns of printing and publishing.

The benefits of complete repeal of the manufacturing clause and related import restrictions as compared with the further modifications which the Register of Copyrights has suggested in H.R. 4347 may be listed under the following eight major headings, and I will try to summarize these.

One, the greatest single advantage is the one I have already touched upon, that is, the resolution of the present doubt and ambiguity there may be about copyright registration of books printed in this country by the lithography process using reproduction proofs of type set abroad. This is very important for small-edition, specialized, technical, scientific, and scholarly books by American authors.

Second, it would permit manufacture abroad of co-edition publishing. Co-editions are really a development of the postwar period and are quite common with European publishers now in doing books where the cost of illustrative material, in art books in particular, is shared and is the same in the different language editions. These books are usually done in Europe because most of the participating publishers are located there.

Third, it will reduce the friction which exists between our publishers and authors of other countries which carries with it prospects of retaliation in other ways, particularly in tariffs and exchange restrictions. Fortunately, we are fairly well protected against other manufacturing clauses in the 50 countries which are members of the Universal Copyright Convention, by the terms of that convention.

But, as the leading book export country of the world and, as a matter of fact, the leading country in the export of all published

materials, it is also to our interest to foster the freest possible international exchange of these materials.

Fouth, American authors would be free to have their works published or printed abroad without sacrificing copyright protection in a number of circumstances. One of the principal such circumstances of these is where a Fulbright scholar or someone else happens to be abroad and it is more convenient to use a local publisher. If he does that now, he can only get an interim protection which expires after 5 years. And, for such work, it is frequently not possible to acquire a publisher here to maintain his copyright by the remanufacture of an American edition.

Five, it would make it impossible to lose the chances that American authors may have to write books for foreign publishers and international agencies. Though the best man in the world for an English language edition may be an American, if it is going to be done by a foreign publisher or international agency like UNESCO in Paris, they will usually look around and find someone else because if they use an American author they sacrifice the American copyright.

Six, foreign authors, when domiciled here even temporarily, would also gain. Now, if the foreign author happens to be living here at the time the foreign edition of his publication is brought in, he will lose his copyright protection.

Seven, it would reduce the very special friction which exists with Canada. Canada is our biggest book export market by far. Many of the Canadian authors are first published in the United States. The books are exported to Canada and this has no effect on their copyright in any way whatsoever. But an American author cannot be published first in Canada without losing full term American copyright.

Canadian publishers are not very happy about this, not because they would anticipate publishing many books by single American authors, but they do want to be able to use American authors as contributors to joint works which happen to be first published and manufactured in Canada.

Lastly, it would eliminate what the authors of the Copyright Office study of the manufacturing clause, dated February 1963, have called

an intricate tangle of general requirements, exceptions, special procedures for proof of compliance, special provisions for “ad interim" copyright, and import prohibitions and exceptions. These provisions abound in abstruse and ambiguous terms, making enforcement extremely difficult.

These requirements place a heavy and expensive administrative burden on the Copyright Office and the Customs Service and importers of books. They would all be neatly excised by complete repeal of the manufacturing clause.

Now I would like to move into an economic analysis of the significance of what remains of the manufacturing clause and what would happen if it should be repealed.

I will start by discussing table 1, which appears on page 19 of my prepared statement and is illustrated in graphic form on this first chart.

This goes back to the discussion had in 1954 when the question came up: should we ratify the Universal Copyright Convention and make it possible for foreign authors to have their works in English produced abroad and imported into this country without having to be remanufactured here?

This was the only really serious question, and I attempted to demonstrate at that time that nothing much would happen, that the remanufacture of books by foreign authors and particularly British authors would continue to occur. When it was economic they would continue to be remanufactured here; that is, when the demand justified a large enough edition. If the demand was not large enough to justify an edition of over a certain size, they would be imported.

I argued from some figures we developed from a sample survey in 1953 of 58 publishers. These are the same figures represented in the 1953 column on this chart. At that time, 1953, in this sample, there were 30 million copies of these general books produced by the 58 firms in the sample. Of that number, 27.3 million were books of American authorship.

Some 2.9 million were books of English or foreign authorship, manufactured here, as was required by the manufacturing clause in order to secure U.S. copyright at that time. There were imported about half a million copies of books of English authorship, mostly from Great Britain, and the American copyright was either sacrificed or there was a 5-year ad interim American copyright taken out.

I argued at that time that the reason why a great many more books in English of foreign authorship were remanufactured in the United States, about 3 million as compared to a half million, was not because of the manufacturing clause, but because the average edition size for those remanufactured books was about 7,500 copies, and at that time it was more economic on the whole to remanufacture here when the edition sizes were 2,500 or more.

By contrast, the imported editions averaged less than 1,500 copies and that is the reason why they were imported, not because of the manufacturing clause but the small size of the editions and small size of the demand.

Just by way of comparison, here are the average sizes of the printings on the books of American authorship in 1953, which is about 9,500 copies-many, many times the size of the editions of these imported titles.

So, I argued then that when it no longer became necessary for these three million copies of these books in English of foreign authorship to be remanufactured in the United States, the bulk of them would continue to be remanufactured in the United States because it was more economic to do so because of the edition size.

So, in 1958, we tested that argument after the fact. The British ratification of the Universal Copyright Convention occurred in 1957 and our ratification had preceded that by 2 years. So, what did we find in 1958? We found that the number of copies of English language, mostly British, editions remanufactured in the United States, had increased over what it was in 1953 despite the partial repeal of the manufacturing clause. The number of books imported also increased

somewhat, but the average size of the editions was just about the same as it was 5 years earlier.

The average size of the remanufactured editions had gone up to over 8,000 copies; the average size of the importations had actually declined somewhat so that the repeal of the manufacturing clause for these foreign-authored works in English between 1953 and 1958 had no practical effect on the practice of manufacturing books here versus importing.

The

We ran another test for 1964, and the results were just about the same. The whole volume of business had gone up somewhat. number of copies, the number of editions remanufactured here, had gone up somewhat. The number of imports had also gone up, but neither of them as much as our domestic production of local authors. The size of the editions was about the same, as well.

You will note the remarkable stability in the size of the editions in these three categories. I think this not only demonstrates the accuracy of the analysis and the real economic factors involved here in connection with the discussion of 1954, but it also is an example of what would happen if the manufacturing clause should be completely repealed.

These books don't have to be manufactured here, these 41⁄2 million foreign-authored books now. They could be imported, but they are manufactured here. These 37 million books by American authors have to be manufactured here under the manufacturing clause if they are to get full-term U.S. copyright, but the reason why they are manufactured here is not because of the manufacturing clause but the size of the editions.

Now I will resume with a couple of items not involved in the charts and move to page 23, where I discuss the fact no other country has a manufacturing clause and yet practically in all other countries by far the vast bulk of the printing and binding of books is done domestically. It is not done abroad.

I use in particular the example of Great Britain where I have made some special investigation of the circumstances.

After ourselves and the Russians, the British are the third largest book publishing and manufacturing country. Following us, they are the second largest book exporting country, but they have a greater proportion of exports than we do; they export over 40 percent of their production. So, they know a great deal about foreign countries, and if their publishers found it profitable to go elsewhere to have their books manufactured where the wages were lower, they would do so. They could go to Hong Kong, India, Japan, Czechoslovakia, or anywhere, but they don't.

The total value of British imports at wholesale prices to them now runs $23 million a year, and this analysis of the import statistics shows $3 to $5 million a year of this book import figure for British publishers represents printing of books abroad, or 1 or 2 percent of the total output of the British book publishing industry. Even this 1 to 2 percent is frequently not because of the cost but because they can get a little faster delivery from a Dutch publisher or some specialized work done by somebody on the Continent.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »