« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
should be found necessary now, should be dealt with by means of other legislation. Historically, perhaps it was justified, but American publishers and book manufacturers no longer need this support.
As Mr. Frase has indicated, book exports now greatly exceed imports. The book production in the United States in terms of number of titles in the English language exceeds that of England.
U.S. publishing and book manufacturing is now a very strong and certainly a growing industry as indicated by statistics regularly released. The economies of foreign manufacture are fast disappearing as a result of improved U.S. technology and, more important, are offset by the inconvenience, the delays, the time factors, the communication differences, the transportation costs, and the interruptions sometimes by maritime strikes in getting books into this country after having them produced abroad.
At present, and this is likely to continue under any conditions, foreign manufacturing will be confined to small editions, sometimes the importation of sheets. It will be restricted usually to scholarly books, largely with difficult composition and sensitive composition, sometimes composition not even available in this country. It will refer to significant books, but books with small market for which production time is not a factor. On these significant books the publication would only be possible as a result of foreign manufacture in some form, either composition or complete manufacture, which latter is not usually done. This would refer particularly to university press publications.
If these are not published, it will create a loss to the general public, even book manufacturers, and to scholars.
In my own company, we feel that we have a knowledgeable production department, certainly in the matter of advantages and disadvantages in foreign manufacture. We are one of the largest American book publishers in terms of the number of titles published each year.
In 1961, we published over 500 new clothbound books and over 200 paperbound books. Here is the record for 1964, the extent of our foreign manufacture under the present law. Harper & Row published 32 new titles originally produced, in whole or in part, abroad.
We have a very active college department and set type abroad on only six college titles. They were titles involving complicated composition: French literature, great world theater, language and culture and society; all complicated composition.
Our experience in the year 1963 was similar to that. This occurs under the present law, taking advantage of the offset loophole: I doubt it would change materially under the law without a manufacturing clause. However, the present law contains an obscurity with respect to offset printing which, in the light of discussions now taking place, should be clarified. The only effective clarification would be the complete elimination of the manufacturing clause.
With reference to relations with foreign publishers—I am not talking of manufacturers I can speak from painful personal experience within the last few months. "I met with Canadian publishers in Toronto at their annual meeting this spring and was on the podium at the International Publishers Congress in Washington in June. The resentment was painfully evident to me. It was evident that there was a widespread resentment among foreign publishers, not only those producing books in the English language, and it was very evident there was a possibility of retaliation.
Of course, foreign publishers, foreign nationals, should not be permitted to have any major influence on our domestic legislation; but we as American publishers must operate on a friendly basis with our opposite numbers in other countries. Again, I say not only the English-speaking countries. These are people of influence in their respective countries, and it is in our national interest to have good relations with them. We cannot, therefore, demand concessions in our copyright laws not available in their own laws.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Harwood.
Mr. Kerr. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frase identified me as currently president of the Association of American University Presses, and I should like to remind you and your colleagues this is a group of scholarly publishing houses, scattered through nearly every State in the Union, attached to State and private institutions of higher learning. I am sure you also realize that ours is a very special branch of book publishing, not the production and dissemination of fiction or general nonfiction, or textbooks, as such, but of the results of academic research. We have been described as a small but essential segment of the Nation's publishing apparatus, accounting as we now do for 1 out of 12 new books published every year. In the humanities, social sciences, and in the hard sciences, our output is vital to the forward action of the exploding field of higher education in our country and constitutes, if I may say so, the platform on which rests many of the textbooks and other works brought out by our friends in commerce.
I am appearing here today on behalf of that association to second Vr. Frase's statement in opposition to the so-called manufacturing clause as now existing in the present law and in its modified form in the bill under consideration by the committee. Our position on the whole bill was set forth, you will remember, by one of my colleagues, the associate director of the Harvard University Press, when he had the privilege of appearing before this committee several weeks ago. His statement included, I believe, one of mine on the specific subject of this manufacturing clause.
That statement was full of noble rhetoric, and I do not propose to repeat any part of it this morning. I prefer to ask you gentlemen to listen for only a few minutes while I cite a few examples of how the restrictions of this clause stultify the distribution of learning in this country.
First, let me remind you that, in the 30 vears since I entered book publishing, there have been three major changes affecting scholars and their specialized manuscripts. First, the number of publishers who can serve their needs has doubled, meaning all scholars can now perform their research increasingly secure in the knowledge that the publishable results will find publication.
Second, just as his salary is no longer a miserable academic compensation, so can the productive scholar expect a just return on the labor he puts in after teaching hours and committee work, during
vacations, and in his sabbaticals. He is no longer expected himself to help subsidize the production costs of a work that cannot possibly pay for itself because of its limited audience, and he is now usually paid royalties and other returns from the sale of the first copy. In other words, he has an economic stake in his output and is entitled to a fair return.
Third, a crop of reprint houses, many of them marginal ventures operating on a shoestring and little overhead, have sprung up to reissue scholarly works, often those lacking copyright protection.
For all these reasons, the university publishers of this country and their authors now have a far keener interest in what the Congress will enact in the way of a new copyright law and in urging the distinguished members of this committee to consider the harm that might be perpetrated by the restrictions of any manufacturing clause.
Why do university presses need to turn occasionally to foreign manufacturing? Mr. Frase spelled that out but I can remind you that many of us have our own printing presses and the purchase of foreign printing is often a nuisance, resulting in delays and headaches we would gladly do without. But we find it necessary from time to time to turn to a printer in England or Holland or Scandinavia or Japan for three reasons: the special skills he may offer; the lower production cost on a specialized piece of printing; and the need to collaborate with a foreign publisher on distribution. Mr. Frase spelled all this out in pages 10, 11, and 12 of his testimony.
Our failure to seek these solutions would often result in a decision against publication. If we could not conserve our limited resources we are nonprofit organizations, dependent on academic budgets-if we could not conserve by cutting the cost of a complicated piece of composition in half or persuade the Oxford University Press to share in the venture or by turning to special skills in the interest of fidelity to the author's manuscript, we could not do the book. This does not mean a subsequent loss to the Yale University Press but to scholarly research in this country and to the scholar himself.
At the moment, my press has two essential publications in process: a Korean-English dictionary coming from special work in linguistics which a group of scholars has been engaged in for a number of years; another group has spent some years on the second project, a Burmese dictionary. The research on both of these has been financed in part by the Office of Education. These scholars and their sponsors have turned to us to manufacture and sell their works, and I can promise you that my colleague from Harper's is not falling over himself to wrest these publishing properties away from us.
After extended investigation, we found it made the most sense, by a number of thousands of dollars and the fact that the necessary facilities are scarcely available in the United States, to have these books produced in Japan and Holland; yet, when we bring them out under the existing law, and under the proposed legislation, adequate protection of our investment and the authors who have spent so many years on these projects may be totally lacking. It is not likely to happen but it is possible that both Yale and its scholars might find themselves obliged to watch the great firm of Harper Bros. revert to the 19th century piratical practices described in Mr. Frase's testimony without recompense of loss of rights suffered by us and our authors.
Two years from now when the interim period of protection runs out, Harper could, if it chose—and while it won't, there are plenty of others who may—bring out an edition of a distinguished work of scholarship on Mexican mural paintings, because, to meet the problems I described, Yale had this special work produced in Holland and the market is so limited we won't need to go beyond the original importation of 1,500 copies before the period of protection expires. The loser is the author, the fruits of 10 years of work gone to someone else.
Or, our friend at Wiley-who would not do so—could issue 4 years from now a huge Dante Concordance prepared and released after many years of work by two American scholars and published this year at Harvard, after a decision at Harvard that the several thousand dollars to be saved by having this elaborate work produced in England in collaboration with Oxford, which is also going to help distribute the work, was worth saving.
I could dwell at length on a new series of Canadian-American studies sponsored jointly by Yale and McGill. I have to go to Montreal tomorrow to complete the plans for publishing these volumes and to endure further reminders from my friend, the director of the McGill University Press, about the restrictions which Mr. Frase has already described as affecting such Canadian relations.
I could go on with a list of concrete examples, Mr. Chairman, from other presses: the directors of the presses at Wisconsin, California, New York, Michigan, and Virginia are ready to furnish specific instances, I'm sure. None of us can claim that the list is so long that it constitutes major suffering; it is a small percentage of what we do. Yet it is an essential percentage because we believe anything that prevents the production of even a small percent of the fruits of American scholarship is harmful.
All of us wish to make it plain that whenever possible for convenience and efficiency (as Mr. Frase states on p. 29 of his written statement), we prefer to have our books printed in this country. At Yale we have spent several hundred thousand dollars in recent years to take care of our expanded printing needs, while at the same time we continue to value highly the splendid service provided by our regular outside suppliers, Vail-Ballou, Connecticut Printers, Inc., and other competent American printers.
But scholarship is on the move in this country, and so it seems to us that scholars and their publishers need to be protected. We subscribed to the 1961 move by the Register to eliminate any manufacturing clause from the new bill, and we regret the necessity for him to offer any group accommodation by taking today what I am sure he regards as a more realistic position.
While we recognize its art, we oppose compromise, in this instance at least.
I repeat that the university presses support the general position outlined by our colleagues at this hearing. We think the manufacturing restrictions embodied in the proposed bill belong, if anywhere, in a tariff act and not in a copyright law.
Thank you for the chance to be heard at this meeting.
The Chair would like to compliment Mr. Frase on his superb if somewhat extensive presentation. I think it was entirely germane.
I do have several questions and in view of the late hour, I hope they can be answered precisely.
First of all, I take it it is the practice for publishers associated with your council and institute not to manufacture the books that they publish. Are there any instances where council or institute members in fact manufacture their books?
Mr. Frase. Yes; some firms have their own manufacturing facilities. They are rather rare nowadays. Doubleday is one. It is a general firm and has two plants
. Iloughton Mifflin is a big textbook and general firm that has its own plant. It is a rare thing these days. This is also true of some of the university presses, as Mr. Kerr pointed out.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Notwithstanding that point, would they subscribe to the position the council takes?
Mr. Frase. Oh, yes; there is no minority view on this subject.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You noted early in your presentation that other nations do not have a manufacturing clause. Do they have duties or protective tariff's?
Mr. FRISE. Yes; some do. Actually, we are rather laggard in that respect, too. There are some 10-odd countries which have ratified a so-called Florence agreement which is an international agree ment sponsored by UNESCO on the importation of scientific and cul tural materials which requires, among other things, that the signatories eliminate duties on books. The Senate has approved that but we have not gotten the implementing legislation through; so, among the principal publishing countries, we are laggard in that respect, as well.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. The Yugoslav example of a country where the cost of labor in printing or manufacturing is very low was cited by you as an example of a country which still could not manufacture economically for use in this country?
Mr. FRASE. That is right.
Mr. KASTEN VEIER. You didn't spell that out and I am interestel in knowing why, in view of the low labor cost.
Mr. Frise. They are getting increasingly good machinery. The labor is not as skilled. They do not run the presses as fast. Their paper is not as good, and is more expensive; and then you have proofreading. You have weeks of transportation between Yugoslavia anel New York, and that can be longer. Add all those things up and it just doesn't come out.
Mr. KASTEN MEIFR. I understand that there have been discussions between various components of, I assume, publishers and other interests, as well as those interested in maintaining the manufacturing clause. I gather this has not been satisfactorily reconciled among the parties?
Mr. Frase. No agreement has proved possible, and I think the stumbling block essentially of this matter is the matter of reproduction proofs. This is the No. 1 item and we want it clarified.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Is this the No. 1 item for the people on the other side of the table?
Mr. FRASE. They will have to speak for themselves.
Mr. KASTEN MEDER. There are a number of organizations you cite at the outset of your presentation as advocating repeal.