« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
and various allied industries. We merely represent the craft unions as being members of the International Allied Printing Trades Association.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. SAMPSON. In my capacity as president of the board of governors of the International Allied Printing Trades Association, I speak for the same group in behalf of which Mr. Strackbein has spoken.
Also testifying from the same group, testifying separately, will be Mr. Van Arkel, who will speak for the International Typographical Union.
We all have a vital stake in this legislation and I wish to confirm their support of the manufacturing clause. Today, there is only a nominal tariff remaining on the books and yet the difference in wages enjoyed by our employees and those in other countries continues to be very wide. We, therefore, cannot look with indifference on imports from abroad.
We are also aware of new technological developments, no less than high-speed transportation overseas, which will open up greater impact on our wage standard. The law should include a manufacturing clause in an effective form including avoidance of its erosion by new developments.
The principle that must determine our position is very important; that is, the clause must not be weakened by an interpretation that would take out from under it what was originally intended to be covered and its undoubted purpose.
All aspects of producing books sought the provision of our copyright laws which confers a monopoly on the owner.
There was never any intent that this should happen, particularly with respect to technological developments. The principle remains as it was. It is not modified by mechanical innovations, and we feel the legislation should reflect this principle. Otherwise, the purpose of the legislation will have been violated.
My appearance is merely to reinforce this position rather than any details to accomplish this end.
We support the principle and the original intent of the manufacturing clause and we are opposed solidly to any efforts to open loopholes to reduce its coverage.
That is the end of my statement.
The Chair appreciates the willingness of Mr. Van Arkel to return tomorrow, at which time he will be welcome as the first witness.
Accordingly, this committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, August 12, 1965.)
COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1965
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, St. Onge, Edwards, Tenzer, and Poff.
Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; and. Allan Cors, associate counsel.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. The hearing will come to order.
This morning the committee will continue on that part of the hearing on revision devoted to the so-called manufacturing clause. I hope we will be able to conclude by noon because we do not have permission to sit this afternoon during general debate. I hope that the witnesses will cooperate with this in mind.
We are very pleased to have as our first witness today somebody who was willing to be put over for this morning's testimony, Mr. Gerhard Van Arkel, representing the International Typographical Union.
Mr. Van Arkel, welcome to the committee. We appreciate your willingness to be put over until this morning.
STATEMENT OF GERHARD VAN ARKEL, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTER
NATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOE BAILEY, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Mr. VAN ARKEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Gerhard Van Arkel, of the firm of Van Arkel & Kaiser, Washington, D.C. I represent here the International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, which has long been interested in this subject matter, in support of the Register's recommendation that a manufacturing clause be continued in our copyright law.
With me is Mr. Joe Bailey, a vice president of the International Typographical Union, who does not plan to testify but who will be available to answer any questions which the subcommittee may wish to put to him.
I have submitted to the committee a statement setting forth our position on the issues which are involved in this matter. I shall try to summarize, in my presentation here, and I shall try to do it somewhat more briefiy than Mr. Frase did yesterday on behalf of the publishers. I hope the members of the committee will understand that I do this out of respect for the time pressures that I know are on this committee, and not because I could not, if I chose, talk as long as Mr. Frase or because we are less interested in the subject matter than he is.
I would strongly urge that in considering this problem the thought that should be uppermost in your minds is that we are not talking about free trade. Insofar as the American market today is concerned, there is free trade in books. There is a purely nominal tariff of 3 or 7 percent only. There is no other restriction of any kind imposed by statute, regulation, or otherwise which restricts, in any respect, the number of books that any person, or the type of book which any person, American or foreign, can import into the United States. We have thus absolutely free trade in books.
You gentlemen have been considering amending the copright law, and witness after witness who has appeared before your committee has stressed the obvious fact that the grant of a copyright is the grant of a monopoly.
Now I do not have to develop the thesis that monopoly and free trade are at the opposite ends of the pole, and that they are not reconcilable.
Our position here is that foreign manufacturers should have the right, which they now have, to have their work performed anywhere in the world by that labor which is most exploited and works under the most degraded conditions, and to import that product into this country without restriction.
As I say, that right they now enjoy. Or that they can by American law exclude American manufacturers from the American domestic market under certain reasonable conditions.
But we object to their being granted both this unlimited right of importation and an unlimited monopoly of the American market at the end of of it.
I suggest to the committee that there are only two questions properly before you. The first is, may the Congress impose reasonable conditions on the grant of copyright? The second is, is the manufacturing clause a reasonable condition?
Now the first of those need not detain us. Your whole hearings have been directed to the question what kind of conditions should be imposed on the grant of copyright. Who may have a copyright, what does the copyright extend to, who is the infringer, and all the rest of it. This we think is in line with the constitutional power granted to Congress in this field.
Now as to the second question, whether or not the manufacturing clause is a reasonable requirement, about 15 years ago the Honorable Sam Bass Warner, who had been a Register of Copyrights and who was a stanch defender of the manufacturing clause, did a very perceptive study of this clause and its origins.
He found that at its inception this clause was exactly what we assert it now to be. That is to say, at that time it was an entirely acceptable condition imposed on the grant of a very much desired privilege; namely, the right to have a monopoly of the American market. As he pointed out, this was the method that the Congress adopted to reconcile the interests of the British in obtaining copyright in the United States and the desire of the American public to have English editions under reasonable conditions.
Prior to that time, as has been pointed out, there was no protection for foreign nationals in this country and there was no protection for American authors in England. The result was that English titles were pirated in this country generously and that American titles were pirated in Great Britain.
A good bit of the coyness that was shown by the witnesses yesterday about the unethical practices, if I can call them that, of American publishers in pirating British titles was quite unnecessary because the British were doing exactly the same thing with our titles.
So that the grant of copyright accompanied by the manufacturing clause was the method which the Congress and all other interests chose to impose as a condition on the grant of this very much desired privilege in the United States.
It is, of course, difficult to compare wage rates in different countries. In my statement I have made an effort to do so. On page 4 Mr. Fuchs points out that I neglected to say in the statement that the wage rates there referred to are wage rates of printing trade workers abroad. But those comparisons show that the country which most nearly approximates our wage rates, which is Sweden, has an average wage rate of less than half of ours. I should have mentioned Canada, whose rates are approximately equal to ours.
The lowest of them, Belgian women, is only about a tenth of our wage rates. I have not been able to obtain statistics, but we know that wage rates in the Far East and in large parts of South America are below even these levels.
So this points up the glaring discrepancies between wage rates abroad and in this country and it illustrates, I think, our basic point that we should not create a condition in which work can be done under the most degraded working conditions anywhere in the world and still have unlimited entry into the United States and a right to exclude American manufacturers from our domestic market as a consequence.
Now we have made certain points in this statement which I should like to discuss briefly.
In the first place, we would welcome a provision which would exempt Canada particularly from the manufacturing clause. This has a bearing on a good bit of the testimony that was given yesterday, where it was pointed out that there is a lot of friction with the Canadians, and we think that where wage rates are comparable, as they are between Canada and the United States, that there ought to be some provision made, we suggest by way of a Presidential finding, that if another country has wage rates comparable to ours then the provision of the manufacturing clause should not apply.
This is particularly significant if you consider the export figures and import figures which Mr. Frase presented to you yesterday. Those figures show an excess of exports from the United States over imports, but about 45 percent of our exports go to Canada, and we import practically nothing from Canada.
So that if you take the Canadian figures out of the statistics that Mr. Frase presented to you yesterday, they make a far less one-sided picture than the statistics which he produced would make it appear.
By the same token, almost 40 percent of our imports are from Great Britain so that, insofar as Great Britain is concerned, there is hardly any inequality whatsoever.