« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
use of that material to generate and disseminate information in a manner which would ordinarily render him liable for infringement, would render him liable.
Publishers can have no reasonable objection to my proposal. The reason is that the publishers have shown very little inclination to use or encourage the use of computers to aid in the analysis and dissemination of information contained in their copyrighted printed works. In any event, since it is so expensive to record material in a computer, they will always have the first opportunity to do so and hence discourage others from duplicating their efforts. Publishers will have the opportunity to be there "firstest with the mostest." The adoption of the amendment will, therefore, actually encourage publishers themselves to perform those acts which would be forbidden by law to others, if the present proposed statute is adopted.
Forbidding the recording of copyrighted materials in automatic information processing systems regardless of what use is made of the recording, is analogous to forbidding people to read books, or to place books on the shelves of public libraries.
In summary, as stated at page 403 of the article enclosed, my views are simply these :
“When the copyright law is revised, the copyright owner should continue to have the right to prevent the use of his copyrighted work in the printed output of the computer beyond the bounds of fair use, but he should not have the right to prevent the feeding of the work into a computer, since normally the output will be of a kind which would be fair use if no computer were used.”
To encourage the use of modern information technology to analyze and dis. seminate information in ways which would otherwise be fair use, I urge you to incorporate the proposed amendment in the bill which you now have under consideration. Respectfully submitted.
REED C. LAWLOR. MCGRAW-HILL Book Co.,
New York, N.Y., July 16, 1965. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Although some of our McGraw-Hill publications are members of the Magazine Publishers Association and although the copyright committee of that organization has taken the position that in the new copyright legislation the duration of copyright should be placed at 50 or 56 years, we in McGraw-Hill prefer the duration period of the author's life plus 50 years, as recommended by the Register of Copyrights and endorsed by the American Book Publishers Council. whose statements have been placed on the record.
We in McGraw-Hill think that the benefits of the longer term to authors and authors' estates weigh more heavily than does the convenience to editors eudeavoring to determine the validity of copyright many years after publication. It has been argued that a fixed period of 50 or 36 years would be more conrenient than would a period of the author's life plus 50 years in determining copr. right validity. But actually, this would not be the case if the current requirement of copyright renewal is continued. We are convinced that the Register's reconimendation would be both more beneficial to authors and more convenient to editors. Hence we would like McGraw-Hill, Inc., to be recorded as faroring this position. Sincerely yours,
CURTIS G. BENJAMIN.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,
Washington, D.C., Jay 28, 1965. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washing
ton, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: In connection with the possible effects of proposed legislation to amend the copyright law, the National Academy of Sciences recently convened an ad hoc committee to review those aspects of the bills in question that appear to bear particularly on the furtherance of science and tech
nology in the national interest. I am glad to transmit herewith, for consideration by your committee, a copy of the statement prepared by our ad hoc committee on April 22, 1965. Yours sincerely,
FREDERICK SEITZ, President.
STATEMENT BY Ad Hoc COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION The National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council has among its concerns the advancement of science and the widest dissemination and use of scientific information. For these reasons, the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision met recently to consider the possible effects of the bills to revise the copyright law (H.R. 4347 and S. 1006) now before the Congress. The following is a summary of committee consensus on selected sections of the bills.
Among the more important sections is section 107, “Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use," which permits fair use of copyrighted work without infringing copyright. We support this first statutory recognition of fair use as a doctrine, and we urge that no defining language be added, leaving the courts to decide specific cases. This position is a result of our difficulty in predicting what new forms of copying might arise in the future; we favor a broad and qualitative approach.
In our opinion, certain sections of the bill are particularly favorable for the individual scientific author. This is true of sections 201 (c) and 204(a) relating to the ownership of copyright in collective works and to the requirement for a written transfer of copyright. We support these sections as we feel that the regularity and clarity of the procedures would more than offset their slight additional recordkeeping requirement.
Another important statement of proposed copyright policy occurs in section 601 (b) (2), where importation of 3,500 copies of a copyrighted work manufactured abroad is permitted. We favor this section as it is a broadening of the present law and is appropriate to a wider use and dissemination of scientific information. It would appear that the interests of science might best be served by the eventual elimination of any requirement for domestic manufacture.
Section 105, “Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works.” refers only to works prepared by officers or employees of the Government and does not refer to the ownership of copyright in works resulting from Government contracts. As we understand this situation, omission of the latter topic means that the present practice will continue; i.e., that the language of each contract will specify ownership of copyright. In our opinion, this flexibility of approach is desirable and should be supported as a general principle. Where special requirements for Government departments and agencies are necessary, they can be dealt with by administrative arrangement.
The committee will continue to follow the discussion of the copyright law and may from time to time supplement this statement.
Prof. W. ALBERT NOYES, Jr., Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision. APRIL 22, 196).
NATIONAL BROADCASTING Co., Inc.,
Vew York, N.Y., September 15, 1965. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Repre
sentatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAX WILLIS: NBC has not participated directly in the hearings which subcommittee No. 3 has been conducting upon H.R. 4347 because it felt that its views were adequately represented by the National Association of Broadcasters. NBC supports the enactment of H.R. 4317 with the changes recommended in the testimony of Mr. Douglas A. Anello, general counsel of the VAB. There is one subject. however, upon which we would like to aniplify the NAB testimony—the relationship of the copyright law to CATV systems.
NBC, in numerous comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission, has consistently taken the position that CATV systems are making an unauthorized use of program material when they distribute over their systems the programs of a broadcast station without having obtained the consent of that station for such distribution. We believe that the distribution of program material by a CATV system constitutes a public performance of the copyrighted material in such programs under the present statute and that the courts will so hold. It seems to us that the conclusion reached by the supplementary report to this committee of the Register of Copyrights, at page 42, is unassailable, “that what community antenna operators are doing represents a performance to the public of the copyright owner's works."
Therefore, those provisions of H.R. 4347 applicable to CATV systems are simply a restatement of the present law. We support their enactment as clearly resolving any possible doubt as to the applicability of the copyright law to CATV systems.
There has been considerable testimony from CATV interests about the administrative impossibility of obtaining clearance from copyright owners and even some suggestion that a compulsory licensing procedure for CATV systems might be appropriate under the circumstances. We think there is no basis in fact for the alleged impossibility of obtaining clearances and that compulsory licensing would be harmful to the copyright proprietor and to the public.
NBC has proposed for many years that the broadcast station whose programs are being distributed by a CATV system be the focal point for rights clearances. If the station desires to permit its programs to be carried on a particular system, the station can negotiate with the holder of the rights for such CATV distribution when it acquires the right to broadcast the program.
If the program is a locally produced one which includes copyright material belonging to others, the station must have the owners' permission in any event before it can use the material for its own broadcast; when the station seeks clearance for this broadcast use it could also negotiate for the additional right to authorize distribution of the program on selected CATV systems.
If the program is a locally originated film program which the station buys (licenses) from a distributor (film syndicator), all of the copyright material in the program has been precleared for broadcast use on the station by the organization which produced the film for television use. If stations in buying such programs will acquire the additional right to authorize distribution by the CATV systems carrying their programs, the transaction can be handled with a minimum of inconvenience and with the negotiated agreement of all concerned.
As to the network programs, NBC now undertakes the responsibility for clearing all copyright material included in such programs so that the broadcast of the program by each affiliated station is an authorized use. In many cases the rights clearance which NBC now obtains is sufficiently broad to cover distribution by CATV systems if the systems have been specifically authorized to carry NBC programs. Once it is clear to all concerned that CATV systems require advance clearance, then all parties to the various rights negotiations which result in the production of network programs will be guided accordingly and networks will be in a position to grant licenses to CATV systems for distribution of practically all network programs.
It is NBC's present plan to entertain requests for such clearance through the NBC station whose signal a CATV systems wishes to distribute. As in the examples cited above, the station would be the focal point for the CATV system to seek clearance. NBC would then determine whether to authorize the distribution of its network programs by a CATV system on a case-by-case basis after evaluating such factors as the area served by the system, whether NBC network service is already available in the area from a broadcast station, quality of the broadcast signals delivering the existing NBC service, and other such considerations.
Under the system briefly outlined above, the amount of license fees to be paid by CATV systems, and the eventual distribution of such fees among the many parties involved in the present broadcasting economy, would be worked out in a series of negotiations by the normal process of bargaining. We believe the realities of the marketplace would soon lead to the establishment of a system under which the CATV industry would serve a continuing and useful role to the public in the distribution of television programs, with appropriate payments being made by such systems to program suppliers, and, in turn, by such suppliers to the underlying rights holders.
If it is not clear from the above why compulsory licensing is inappropriate one specific example may suffice. Under normal business practice, a film syndi. cator grants a station customer exclusively on a program series in the station's
market. Therefore, if a syndicator has sold a series to a station in Philadelphia, neither he nor the station wants the same series exhibited in Philadelphia by means of a CATV import of the program from a broadcast by a New York station. Exhibition of the program on the CATV system in this circumstance diminishes the value of what the Philadelphia station has bargained and paid for, and upsets the basis of the syndicator's business, i.e., the right to make the program series available on an exclusive basis to just one station in Philadelphia. Even if no station in Philadelphia has yet bought the series, the syndicator is damaged by the imported program because this lessens the prospect of a sale to a Philadelphia station. If the clearance system proposed in the earlier part of this letter was in operation, the CATV system in this example would have to seek clearance from the New York station before distributing the program in Philadelphia. The New York station in turn would need the syndicator's con. sent, which would not normally be granted because of the economic factors described above. To require compulsory clearance at a nominal fee in this situation would obviously be unfair.
In conclusion we reiterate our belief that recognition by CATV systems of their obligation to obtain clearances plus a system for seeking such clearances through the stations whose signals are being distributed by CATV would, after a period of adjustment, result in an equitable and practical solution of the problem for all concerned.
We respectfully ask that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearings before your subcommittee. Very truly yours,
THOMAS E. ERVIN,
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS,
Washington, D.C., June 8, 1965. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CELLER : At the first meeting of the National Council on the Arts, the following resolution was passed, and I have been directed to forward it to you for entrance into the hearing record at the proper time.
“Now, therefore, be it resolved that:
“(1) The National Council on the Arts expresses its views that modernizing and strengthening the copyright protection afforded to authors is of the utmost importance to the creative activity on which the strength and endurance of our cultural progress largely depends.
“(2) The council recommends the most favorable consideration by the Congress of these principles with the ultimate purpose of enactment at the earliest possible date of a new copyright law based upon these principles.
“(3) The chairman of the council is hereby instructed to forward a copy of this resolution to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Com.
mittees under whose jurisdiction this legislation lies.”
CHARLES C. MARK, Consultant.
THE ONTARIO FEDERATION OF PRINTING TRADE UNIONS,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 28, 1965. The CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
GENTLEMEN : The Ontario Federation of Printing Trade Unions ask permission to place before you a statement of their views on the manufacturing requirements of the proposed copyright bill H.R. 4347.
We are a federation of local unions who are all members of international unions in the printing trades and which represent employees of the printing industry in Ontario, where 95 percent of the English language printing in Canada is done. We believe that as dues paying members of the international unions with headquarters in the United States, that our views would not be opposed by the American unions. The International Brotherhood of Book Binders at their last convention in New York pledged their support to their Canadian locals say. ing that they did not consider Canada a foreign country for the purpose of cops right legislation.
The manufacturing provisions contained in present copyright legislation and essentially retained in the proposed bill, H.R. 4347, affect Canada more than any other country because of our proximity to the United States and because of our common language. For this reason and because the provision does not apply to foreign language publications, it would almost seem that this discriminators legislation was aimed specifically at us. We have not been able to find any other western country that has resorted to placing such an embargo on printed matter from a friendly neighbour. Canada is by far the largest customer for U.S. English language printing and the United States imports very little printed matter from Canada.
This legislation also discourages the interchange of ideas and the movement of scholars and writers between our countries and can only lead to demands for retaliation, perhaps even in quite unrelated fields. We would consider this most regrettable, because this is a time when such causes for misunderstandings between friendly countries should be removed.
We would therefore urge that the Judiciary Subcommittee on Copyright ree ommend the abolition of the manufacturing clause, at least insofar as it applies to Canada. Yours very truly,
John Duncan, President.
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., May 29, 1695.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CELLER: As a student at Yale Law School, I recently completed a study of trade practices in copyrighting folk music. I should like to offer the House Judiciary Committee some of my views on that subject as it pertains to the proposed revision of the Copyright Act.
A major problem in this area is authorship claims when the songs are based on material known to be authentic folk music. This practice is to be distinguished from copyright claims in arrangements based on public domain material under 17 C.S.C. 7; here the "composers' claim out right authorship in the hope of greater royalty benefits. There are frequently more than one claim of authorship in the same song, but there is little if any litigation, since potential plaintiffs know that their own claims could not withstand defendants' counterclaiins of unoriginality.
People interested in preserving folk music's availability argue that it is morally, as well as legally, unseemly that the practice of claiming total author ship in folk music should go unpunished. The proposed revision of the Copsright Act contains a device to help correct this condition. Section 505(C) places up to a $2,500 fine for making false representations of material facts about appli. cations or written statements accompanying the applications. The Department of Justice, the agency to enforce this provision, should be vigilant in instituting suits against those "composers" who seek to gain economic rewards with truly the minimum of effort. Enforcement of penalties for such perjury would increase the integrity of both the law and folk music.
The proposed revision does not use the phrase "public domain," substituting instead “pre-existing material,” which would include folk music. I suggest that this substitution, as it applies to folk music, is an improvement, if only on the i semantic level. “Public domain" connotes that folk music, in a sense, belongs to everyone; if so, everyone in a culture could have standing to assert a property interest in folk music. But the point is that a folk song qua folk song should be legally unprotectable in the statutory sense (any legal restrictions, such as on trade secret theories, should be outside the Copyright Act's scope). “Pre existing material" changes the emphasis from the connotation of potential prop