« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
whether in some cases the author would really be benefitted by the proposed Federal statutory protection. It might be to his advantage not to disclose his work to the public.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 19, 1965. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, House of Representatives,
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Canadian Embassy has transmitted to the Department of State the attached letter from the President, Canadian Association of University Teachers, with the request that the Department forward it to the House subcommittee considering revision of copyright legislation.
Accordingly, we are transmitting the letter to you for consideration by Subcommittee No. 3 of your committee. Sincerely yours,
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS,
Ottawa, Canada, June 23, 1965. The CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY SUECOMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the Council of the Canadian Association of University Teachers held in Vancouver June 15–16, the following resolution was unanimously adopted :
"Whereas a bill known as H.R. 4347, for the general revision of the U.S. copyright law, has been proposed in the House of Representatives in Washington; and
“Whereas bill H.R. 4347 contains clause 601, which effectively deprives both American citizens and Canadian citizens and other foreigners domiciled in the United States of the protection of copyright in 'nondramatic literary material' unless the publication was 'manufactured in the United States’; be it therefore
“Resolved, That the president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers write to the chairman, and send copies of his letter to all members of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Copyright, U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, urging the deletion of the 'manufacturing clause' from the proposed law, in the interest of freedom of speech and the spread of knowledge."
I am sure that you will recognize the importance of the issues involved, for American writers and academics as well as for those from Canada and elsewhere, and for the principle of free speech. I ask for the thoughtful consideration by your committee of the intent of this resolution. Yours respectfully,
JACQUES ST. PIERRE, President.
THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, July 30, 1965. The CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
SIRS: With this letter you will find a resolution which was unanimously carried at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Historical Association held in Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 12, 1965. Yours sincerely,
C. C. J. BOND, English-language Secretary.
RESOLUTION OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL
ASSOCIATION, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, JUNE 12, 1965 Whereas a bill for the general revision of copyright law was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 4, 1965; and
Whereas this bill contains new and even more vicious protective provisions than its predecessor as well as the objectionable manufacturing clause; and
Whereas these provisions, contained in section 601 of the said bill, are rankly discriminatory and do jeopardize the permanent property rights of Canadian scholars and publishers: Wow, therefore, be it
Resolved, That this association protest to the chairman and members, Judiciary Subcommittee on Copyright, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., and most strongly against this unilateral and unjustifiable impediment to the diffusion of scholarship.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.,
New York, N.Y., August 30, 1965. Re H.R. 4347. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3. Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN WILLIS : On May 26, 1965, in his statement before Subcommittee No. 3 considering the above-captioned bill, the Deputy Register of Copyrights proposed that copyright owners come forward with suggestions for solving what he called the obvious difficulty facing operators of CATV systems in obtaining advance clearances for their use of copyrighted material. CBS is pleased to respond to this invitation.
At the outset we want to affirm our support of those provisions of H.R. 4347 which make CATV systems subject to the copyright law thereby, in our opinion, codifying the law as it presently exists.
We do not believe that there will be any undue difficulty in the obtaining by CATV systems of advance clearance for the use of copyrighted material. The procedure need be no different from existing practices in the television industry for program clearances. While the CBS television network (“CBS”) is not in fact the copyright owner with respect to many of the programs or rights in programs furnished by it to its approximately 200 affiliated stations, CBS assumes the responsibility for obtaining all rights necessary for the broadcast of every CBS television network program by each affiliated station. In fact, CBS indemnities the stations against claims arising by reason of the alleged failure of ('BS to obtain such rights. It is our understanding that the other two television networks follow the same practice.
There appears to be no reason why a CATV system carrying the programs originated by one or more networks cannot, in appropriate circumstances, also obtain clearance from each of the three television networks with respect to those programs. As to those programs broadcast by a television station and not originating from a network which a CATV system wishes to retransmit, the station could similarly clear the rights for the CATV system. Thus a CATV system would be required to go only to the stations whose signals it is carrying for the clearance of the non-network programs of those stations, and to the network or networks for the clearance of the network programs.
As various witnesses have described to the subcommittee, there now exist music performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) whose very reason for existence is the licensing of such rights. CATV systems could, if they wished, negotiate for licenses directly with the music performing rights organization for the necessary rights. This should be facilitated by the fact that many CATV systems will be negotiating with those licensing organizations for the background music furnished to their subscribers.
There may, of course, be some programs or program series as to which the network or the station will be unable to secure the rights necessary for licensing the CATV system. In the event of any such nonclearance, the network or station could and undoubtedly would notify the CATV operator in advance of the broadcast of each such program or program series.
In his statement before this subcommittee, Frederick W. Ford, president of the National Community Television Association, Inc. (NCTA) claimed that the reason copyright owners have not submitted a feasible clearance scheme is because the nature of a community antenna system's function prohibits ad. vance clearance of copyrighted works. We submit that such is not the case. Since the CATV systems have been carrying all programs without attempting to obtain clearance of copyrighted works-and indeed without recognizing any proprietary rights in the copyright owner as against CATV systems—there has not to this time been any reason for coming forward with a clearance scheme. As we here establish, such advance clearance is not an insurmountable obstacle.
Ur. Ford gives as the reason why advance clearance is not feasible that CATV systems cannot pick and choose among programs. This is not the case, as the Federal Communications Commission has recognized. In its recently announced rules Jealing with CATV systems, the Commission prohibits in certain circumstances the duplication of programs on CATV systems from a station removed from the community served by the CATV system when those programs are carried by a station closer to such community. Thus, CATV systems may have to delete certain programs. The Commission, then, believes that the picking and choosing among programs is technically feasible for CATV systems. And, indeed, NCTA itself has agreed to the principle of nonduplication-clear evidence that the CATV operators themselves believe it feasible to “pick and choose."
It may be appropriate for CBS to state its intentions with respect to licensing CATV systems to carry CBS television network programs. While it is impossible to state precisely what our policy will be in all circumstances since we have not been confronted yet with the necessity of acting on applications from CATV systems for licenses-we are certain that where a CATV system applying for a license to carry our programs would be bringing those programs into an area where the programs would otherwise not reach by reason of the distance of that area from the nearest CBS television network affiliate, a license will be granted. Similarly, where the CATV system would be carrying our programs into an area where, for technical reasons, off-the-air reception of the CBS television network affiliate's signal is inadequate, CBS will license the CATV system. In both instances the CATV system performs a useful service and would not merely be duplicating the programs which the public in the area served by the CATV system can receive off the air. CBS would grant licenses and, in these circumstances, it is not the intention of CBS to charge the CATV system other than an amount necessary to pay the costs of administering a CATV system licensing program.
We respectively request that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearings on H.R. 4347. Very -uly yours,
LEOX R. BROOKS,
THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS,
New York, N.Y., April 29, 1965. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: Enclosed is copy of a resolution adopted unanimously at the eastern regional conference of the Council of State Governments in Manchester, N.H., April 24, 196.5. Legislators and other State officials who are members of the commissions on interstate cooperation in the States in the eastern region attended this conference. As you will note the resolution urges passage of H.R. 4347 and we hope that this bill will receive favorable consideration by your committee. Sincerely,
WILLIAM L, FREDERICK,
RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE EASTERN REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
STATE GOVERNMENTS, MANCHESTER, N.H., APRIL 24, 1965 Whereas the States of the eastern region were the first to recognize the indisputable justice of protecting author's works by enacting State copyright laws; and
Whereas there is pending before Congress H. R. 4317, an act to secure more adequate protection of the property rights of authors in the advanced technological era : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That we, the assembled members of the eastern regional conference of the Council of State Governments, be recorded as supporting a revision of our Federal copyright laws in a manner which will carry forward the spirit of safeguarding the rights of authors and providing adequate encouragement to them
a movement which was so ably fostered by our States at the very inception of their sovereignty; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee of the Congress of the United States.
A STATEMENT FROM DAVID W. DEARMAND REGARDING H.R. 4347, FOR THE GENERAL
REVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW, TITLE 17, AND WITH SPECIFIO REFERENCE TO THE MANUFACTURING CLAUSE, SECTION 601
My name is David W. DeArmand and I live at 370 Central Park West, New York, 10025. I am a native-born citizen of the United States and have worked in publishing and related fields for more than 30 years. I welcome the opportunity to submit this statement to the House Subcommittee on the Judiciary regarding a part of the proposed bill to revise the copyright law, H.R. 4347.
My career in publishing fields has included work as a bookseller, production manager for both magazines and books, coauthor of a successful how-to-do-it book on photography, and, for the past 3 years, U.S. representative for a British printing company. As a result I have had frequent opportunities to assess the relative advantages and shortcomings of book manufacture overseas. This experience, I think, qualifies me to comment on section 601 of the proposed new copyright law, the so-called manufacturing clause.
As a representative of a British printer I am impelled to speak out against the manufacturing clause because in the form advocated by the Book Manufacturers' Institute it would effectively end my business. Even the ambiguously worded form proposed by the Register of Copyrights (p. 146, “Copyright Law Revision," pt. 6, May 1965) could jeopardize my business, if not end it, by a test in the courts. If this were the only reason for protesting the manufacturing clause, I would not think it a matter of much concern for this committee. However, my arguments against the clause touch issues more significant and important than its possible effects on my personal fortunes.
Section 601 of the proposed new copyright law is aimed specifically and solely at the manufacture of books of nondramatic material, in English, written by U.S. citizens or by residents of the United States. It has been my experience and observation that in general only two types of books are sometimes manufactured in whole or in part abroad. These are:
1. Books containing many color plates or much color printing, or heavily illustrated books. Representative of these are art books, picture books, some juveniles or children's books.
2. Technical books and advanced textbooks especially in mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, and related fields; long general texts in English involving complicated typographic elements, many different head
ings, footnotes, quoted matter, references, etc. ; foreign language texts. Manufacturing costs tend to be very high in both of these categories of books. Because of this, art books containing many expensive color plates are sometimes produced in consortium with publishers of other countries to better spread the high cost of plates and printing and thus reduce the cost per copy. Even the costs of single color (black and white) plates are high, and books heavily illustrated with such plates also require top quality printing and paper, invariably more expensive. Although some illustrated children's books by American authors are manufactured abroad, the number of such titles each year is quite limited.
The economics of book manufacture is, generally speaking, such that for works of fiction or nonfiction—"trade books," i.e.--there is no cost advantage in going overseas, or not enough at any rate to compensate for the difficulties of liaison and communication, the additional time often required and the occasional risk of inferior materials such as paper or bindings. Even for technical or other scholarly books the advantage of foreign manufacture is usually limited to the setting of the type and the pulling of high quality reproduction proofs from which offset-lithography plates are made. Overseas printing, paper, and binding (plus transportation and customs duties) do not always total less than the same manufacturing costs here except when a substantial part of the edition is also to be distributed abroad. But the typesetting or composition costs alone for technical and other complicated books can be so high as to constitute the largest single item of cost for the book. And this is especially true of those books whose subject matter is so advanced or abstruse that the potential sale is very limited. Under such circumstances the publisher seeks for ways to reduce the cost of production, and one possible way is to have the type set overseas where labor costs may be somewhat lower and where methods of work and standards of craftsmanship may differ from our own. He may find that abroad his manuscript can be set in type for from 25 to 3313 percent less than it would cost here.
As a hypothetical example, assume a technical book manuscript containing many mathematical or chemical formulas which when set in type will make a 400-page book (not unusual for books of this type). If, then, it costs $20 per page to set in the United States but only $14 per page to set abroad there will be a possible savings of $6 per page or $2,400 overall. Publishers generally figure the retail price for a technical book at from 5 to 6 times the manufacturing cost (textbooks, as distinct from technical reference books, are priced on quite a different basis). Again assuming that the book will have a maximum sale of 5,000 copies, the differential in the two composition costs amounts to 48 cents per copy, or $2.50 in the retail price of the book. This in turn might make the difference between publishing and not publishing the book. Mr. Mark Carroll of Harvard University Press in testimony before this committee for the Association of American University Presses spoke on just this point, and his stand has found agreement among all publishers of technical books.
It might be asked : But what effect does this have on American book manufacturers and printing trades workers? And the answer can only be : No effect whatsoever. On January 18 the trade magazine, Publisher's Weekly, published a report analyzing the condition of the book industry at the end of 1964. Their estimates of publishers' receipts indicated an increase of 4.5 percent in 1963 over 1962 and an increase of 7 percent for 1964 over 1963. Book-title output was up 58 percent in 1964 over the 1961 total of 18,060 titles. In the same issue Stanley B. Hunt, head of the New York accounting and consulting firm of the same name, forecast an increase from 1,160 million books of all categories in 1963 to 1,370 million copies of all books in 1968, an increase of 18 percent. All other statistics per. taining to the book publishing industry point the same way-upward. I have seen no statistics on the growth of book manufacturing facilities during the past several years, but from personal observation and occasional announcements in the trade press I conclude that the main problem of the manufacturer is to keep up with the demand for his services. Almost all of the expansion of facilities made throughout the book manufacturing industry bas been to provide for the increasing volume of straight text, nontechnical books or those of a relatively uncomplicated nature. However, some of the new methods of phototypesetting have provided an increase in domestic facilities for technical (mathematics, chemistry, etc.) composition.
Much publicity has been given the threat posed by technological unemployment to newspaper printers, but so far as I can determine this is not a problem in the book manufacturing industry. With shops running on two and sometimes three shifts, the problem is less one of unemployment than the finding and keeping of competent craftsmen, at least according to many employing printers. In this situation the best men are consistently paid well above the minimum wage scale rate because men who will work at regular scale are suspected of being incompe. tent if not worse. According to a recent story in the New York Times, graduates of the New York High School of Printing experience no difficulty getting jobs as soon as they graduate.
In other words, it is very difficult to see what threat overseas bookwork is to either the employers or the workers in the book manufacturing industry. In. deed quite the contrary is true. The industry actually suffers from a severe lack of both plant facilities and skilled personnel in the field of technical composition. If all outside or “foreign" sources for this type of work were to be shut off, as they might be with passage the manufacturing clause recommended by the Book Manufacturers' Institute, the effect on technical and scholarly publishing in this country would be nothing short of catastrophic.
Three factors would contribute to this situation : Some books would not be issued because of the higher cost of producing them here. Others would not be published because American book printers would have to stretch their inadequate typesetting facilities to attempt to accommodate the new load of work. This could well mean that some books would require one, two, or even more years for production, a period of time during which some technical books would go out