Under the proposed revision, it seems likely that some books, mainly scientific, technical, or scholarly works, would become more readily available to our people. On the other hand, the copyright privilege would still be withheld from English-language works produced on a large scale abroad.

The Department believes that there is a reasonable question as to whether the protective features of section 601 should be continued at all. We in the United States are the largest exporter of books and periodicals in the world. We, therefore, have a strong interest in the free flow of such materials. We consider that our broad trading interest in the world will be served by a general reduction of trade barriers and this of course is the direction of our national policy.

At the same time, the Department agrees that we do not yet have sufficient information to come to a clear judgment about the effects of completely eliminating the protection of the manufacturing clause. We hope that further hearings by the Congress will provide information that would enable the U.S. Government to come to a decision as to whether this long-standing protective provision serves our interests or not.

As regards the matter of composition abroad, the Department of State supports the approach in section 601 which would maintain the situation existing under the present law concerning reproduction proofs. However, we believe that consideration should be given to further liberalization to permit any kind of composition to be done abroad. It appears to the Department on the basis of the testimony before this committee that such a change may have little adverse effect and may have a beneficial effect on the book manufacturing trade. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. My colleagues and I are prepared to respond to your questions.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Trezise.

What role does the State Department play with respect to the Universal Copyright Convention, or any other international arrangements or agreements affecting copyrights?

Can you describe technically the role that the Department of State plays prospectively in such agreements?

Mr. TREZISE. Well, in the normal course, Mr. Chairman, we would probably head the negotiating delegation in the negotiations of a copyright convention or related international arrangements. In some cases, of course, we might defer to another agency with greater technical competence in the negotiation, but typically, we would be in charge of the delegation.

In any event, we would advise the delegation and would participate in respect of those matters that bear directly on the foreign policy and the foreign relations of the United States.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Would you be or are you now interested in such matters in the bill as term of copyright, being proposed as life plus 50 years, one of the purposes being to make it conform with that of other nations? Is this of concern to the State Department?

Mr. TREZISE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for reminding me. The Department does support this proposed feature of the bill. It would bring our system more nearly into conformity with that of most other nations, and we believe it is a desirable action.

52-380-66-pt. 3--27

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I found also interesting the allusion to the relationship with developing countries, the underdeveloped countries, and their not having copyright laws as yet. In most cases, do we expect that these countries will be developing copyright laws, or come into international conventions at an early date?

Mr. TREZISE. Well, I don't think, Mr. Chairman, it would be accurate to say that we expect that they would come into the Universal Copyright Convention at an early date. I don't profess to be an expert on the drafting of copyright laws, or the administration of copyright statutes, but my understanding is that this is a rather complex and difficult procedure. In many of these countries, as the committee is aware, the governmental structure is still a bit rudimentary and particularly in those kinds of cases, Mr. Chairman, we think that the proposed flexibility given the President might be useful to us.

Where a country with every will in the world is still not really up to drafting and managing a copyright statute, we might find the ability to accord copyright protection on our part to be helpful. But in general, I would say, Mr. Chairman, we hope that as many countries as can properly manage a copyright system will do so, and will join the international convention.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes. You stated that, while the Department had a view, and had communicated a view on section 105, you would not go into it in your formal statement. I wonder if you might comment briefly on the Department's view on section 105, that is, the question of the U.S. Government's right to copyright, and what the definition of the U.S. Government shall be. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. TREZISE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Department, as we reported to the committee, supports the proposed section 105 which would, as I understand it, make clear that works of the Government employees, or works of the Government, would not be subject to copyright protection, and which does clarify the provision concerning works produced by contractors for the U.S. Government in respect to copyright protection.

The Department itself, or the Department employees, Mr. Chairman, are not very prolific producers of material that could be published widely. We do produce a great many words, I can assure you, but they are not usually of a sort that would lend themselves to general publication.

In any event, the Department feels that the proposed legislation which would, in effect, limit the copyright privilege, so far as Government works are concerned, is a proper and correct approach.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. At least one witness stated that the U.S. Government should not have a copyright in any event, not even by assignment or bequest. How do you feel about that?

Mr. TREZISE. Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to defer to Mr. Mendelsohn, our counsel, on that.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Mendelsohn?

Mr. MENDELSOHN. I think in some cases the Government may take a copyright, just in order to get the book published, and in order to have a sufficient amount of publication of the work in the community. Here again, I don't think it is a matter upon which the Department itself takes a strong position one way or the other. In some cases, it might be helpful, and because of that, we could go along with it.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Mr. Trezise, on the last page of your statement, referring to the manufacturing clause, you state the hope that further hearings by the Congress will provide information which would enable the U.S. Government to come to a decision as to whether this long-standing protective provision serves our interest or not.

We have had a number of witnesses testifying on this point. How do you feel that we could improve our hearings or further them by having additional witnesses?

Mr. TREZISE. Well, sir, the Department's view on this is that the manufacturing clause as written is a bit of an anomaly in that it provides, and I believe quite deliberately, protection for our book manufacturing industry, by a rather special kind of device, the withholding or granting of the copyright privilege.

We are a very large exporter of books and periodicals. Our exports last year of books alone were in the neighborhood of $88 million, and of periodicals, $55 million. Our imports are much smaller, and it seems to us that our general interest in this field, as indeed in most areas of trade, would be served by reducing or eliminating trade barriers, including this kind of trade barrier.

We have, however, Mr. Chairman, looked at the hearings that have been held, and it appears there is a considerable difference of opinion within the industry, and among people concerned with the book publishing industry, as to the effects of the manufacturing clause. It did not appear to us at this time that we were in sufficiently strong position in terms of our own understanding of this to come up and recommend to you that the clause be eliminated completely, so we chose, as my statement suggested, to support the proposed modifications.

Now we would hope that this committee would pursue further with the industry and with the trade unions the question of whether this kind of protection really does serve to foster our book manufacturing trade or not. It would appear to us that it is an open question, particularly considering the very large volume of world trade in which we participate, and which is so heavily favorable to us in our net position.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Could you be a little more precise on what you think we might develop from testimony or evidence at a further hearing by, let's say, the labor organizations that you mentioned? I think their position is quite clear. Do you think we could derive more statistical data from them, or what?

Mr. TREZISE, I think you might, Mr. Chairman, elicit further opinion from them as to the benefits that the present protective clause offers, measured against the possibilities for expanding our export trade in the kinds of books and periodicals that they and their members manufacture and receive employment from.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you.

Mr. Edwards?

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, books written by and published in English in Great Britain cannot be imported into the United States. Is that correct? Mr. TREZISE. By American nationals.

Mr. EDWARDS. By American nationals?

Mr. TREZISE. A book written in English by a British citizen would be importable.

Mr. EDWARDS. In bulk?

Mr. TREZISE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EDWARDS. Why is it in the libraries of Switzerland, France, and England, there are a number of books, and good books, by reputable authors that have a stamp in the back of them which states that they cannot be imported into the United States?

Mr. TREZISE. By British or

Mr. EDWARDS. By British authors, yes.

Mr. WINTER. I don't know why they should be, Mr. Congressman. The United Kingdom is a member of the Universal Copyright Convention, and as such a book in the English language by a British national can be imported into the United States in any volume.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, what do you mean on page 4:

However, we believe that consideration should be given to further liberalization to permit any kind of composition to be done abroad.

What do you mean by "composition"?

Mr. TREZISE. Well, as I understand it, Mr. Congressman, the composition refers to the preparation of the basic plate or material from which the page will be reproduced. I hasten to say, Mr. Edwards, I am not an expert on the printing trade, but in my briefing, I gleaned that this is the point, that we now, under the rather ambiguous language of the present statute, permit the reproduction proof for offset printing to come in, as an element of composition, but no other basic form or plate for the beginning of the process.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Poff?

Mr. PoFF. Mr. Chairman, I direct your attention to section 601 (b)(1). How do you feel about the word "domiciliary" in that paragraph?

Mr. TREZISE. Well, sir, as I say, we have supported this proposed change in section 601. This would permit the importation of a work manufactured abroad, if it was the English-language production of a foreign citizen, or a person domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction with which we have copyright relations.

Mr. POFF. But suppose the work were created by a foreign national, who was domiciled in this country?

Mr. TREZISE. In this country?

Mr. POFF. Yes, sir.

Mr. TREZISE. Í believe, Mr. Congressman, in that case, the manufacturing clause would still apply.

Mr. POFF. Do you think it should apply? In other words, do you think the word "domiciliary" should be eliminated from that paragraph. I can see why my question might be obscure, and maybe I can help you in formulating your answer by explaining that there are many foreign nationals, here in the United States, domiciled in the sense that they are resident students of universities in this country, and in the course of their stay here, they sometime produce copyrightable material.

Mr. French, I believe, who was testifying in support of the Book Manufacturers Institute, suggested that the word "domiciliary" might

be omitted in order to accommodate foreign nationals who made that contribution, under the theory that their works, even though copyrightable, do not have much currency in the American market.

Mr. TREZISE. I think, Congressman Poff, we would probably support that suggestion, at first glance, from the viewpoint of liberalizing the manufacturing clause.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POFF. Yes, sir, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Wouldn't the striking of the word "domiciliary" under those circumstances permit a resident alien to have privileges which a U.S. citizen living next door would not have?

Mr. POFF. That is one of the reasons I asked this precise question. I don't want to take you by surprise, and I certainly do not want you to give an answer that you may later want to retract, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission for this witness to consider this question, and to supply a definitive answer for the record later.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, any communications directed to this committee on that subject will be accepted.

Mr. TREZISE. Thank you, Congressman Poff.

(Subsequently the following statement was received:)

It appears from the previous consideration of this matter that two situations have been cited with respect to the possible elimination of the word "domiciliary" in section 601 (b) (1). In the first case the representative of the Book Manufacturers Institute suggested that the word "domiciliary" might be eliminated in order "to accommodate" the foreign student who was studying in the United States and might wish to publish an English language work. It is our belief that such a student would not come within the legal meaning of "domiciliary" since this term usually means "a foreign national who is resident in the United States and intends to remain here for an indefinite period of time." The foreign student, on the other hand, presumably is resident here only temporarily. In the second case which has been cited before this committee, it was suggested that a resident alien or foreign national domiciled in the United States would have an advantage over the U.S. citizen "next door" if the word "domiciliary" were eliminated. Since in the rest of the proposed copyright law a domiciliary is treated the same as a U.S. citizen, as a matter of principle, we would agree that the domiciliary should be treated on the same grounds as the U.S. citizen as regards the manufacturing clause.

Mr. POFF. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Mendelsohn, in responding to a question, you suggested that the Government might be interested in receiving an assignment of copyright in order to get a work published.

Is it necessary that the Government retain the copyright in the work? I mean, if they received an assignment of copyright, presumably an outright assignment for a consideration, the author selling his copyright to the Government?

Would the Government necessarily have to retain the copyright in it? They could publish it, but free of copyright, couldn't they?

Mr. MENDELSOHN. Mr. Congressman, are you referring to an assignment by a Government employee, or by a contractor?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am referring to the same circumstances in which you answered the question. I understood the situation to be a situation where the Government might receive title to copyrighted material by assignment or bequest.