perishability of paper and availability for the long future of a great part of the American record. At the same time this would simplify the problem of deposit of newspapers and journals since it could readily be arranged that the fee for the film of these be on an annual basis encompassing a whole volume rather than on a per issue basis. With respect to the question of relaxation of statutory prescription by administrative regulation, I feel that this should be the case definitely to permit the degree of flexibility that is always needed. I have no suggestion regarding the length of time to be prescribed for making the Library deposit or complying with the demand for deposit, but I would argue for a short time, indeed, and for a fairly heavy penalty for not complying. The obligation, it seems to me, should be placed upon the publisher since in the majority of cases he will make the application anyway and since it would be most convenient for him. As to whether a receipt for the deposit should be issued in all cases or upon request, I have no opinion worth offering. It seems to me that this is a matter for your administrative judgment. As regards disposition of deposited registered works I would argue for complete freedom on the part of the Library of Congress to dispose of these as it sees fit without recourse to the copyright owner, since in my view the deposit should be considered as payment for the privilege of registration and the copyright owner would retain no proprietary interest in the works deposited. As regards length of time it is advisable to retain copyright copies against the eventuality of legal action requiring their use. This, it seems to me, again is a matter requiring the experience and judgment of the Copyright Office and any contribution I should make would be feeble both from the legal and the practical point of view. I see no reason why the free mailing privilege should be retained any more than for granting free registration. The deposit and fee are part of the quid pro quo arrangement and if the deposit also costs not only the value of the material but the postage on it, this should make no substantive difference. FREDERICK H. WAGMAN. CONTENTS I. Introduction_ II. Historical development. A. The first copyright law B. Early experiments in publishing the copyright record.. C. Establishment of the "Catalog of Title Entries" by the act of 1891.. D. The act of 1909.. 1. The Conference on Copyright, November 1–5, 1905- 3. Development of the catalog since 1909 E. Provisions for the catalog in the revision bills of 1924-40 III. Relationship of the "Catalog of Copyright Entries" to other copyright records.. IV. Distribution and use of the catalog A. In general... B. Use in depository libraries_ C. Use by subscribers -- D. Production costs and sales. V. Publication of copyright records in other countries. VI. Analysis of issues.. A. Need for the catalog B. Alternatives to the present catalog C. Incidental uses of the catalog- VII. Summary of issues- |