House of Representatives on April 11, 1967, passed H.R. 2512 of the 90th Congress for the general revision of the copyright law. This committee's Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights held 17 days of hearings on copyright law revision, but no further action was taken by the subcommittee. On January 26, 1969, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights introduced S. 543 for the general revision of the copyright law. This bill is now being actively considered by the subcommittee. Both, S. 543 and the bill passed by the House of Representatives in the 90th Congress would increase the copyright term of new works from the present 28 years, renewable for a second period of 28 years, to a term for the life of the author and for 50 years thereafter. They also provide for a substantial extension of the term of subsisting copyrights.

While several major provisions of the copyright revision legislation are controversial, the provisions relating to cable television systems have been the principal, if not exclusive, factor delaying action on this legislation. Throughout 1969 the principal parties involved in the CATV question have been engaged in negotiations seeking to reach agreement on a joint recommendation to be made to the appropriate committees of the Congress. While these negotiations were being actively pursued, it has not been feasible for the subcommittee to undertake to act on this issue. The negotiations are still in progress, and it remains uncertain whether they will result in a compromise agreement. Meanwhile, the copyright legislation has been necessarily delayed and the archaic act of 1909 remains in effect.

Under these circumstances, the chairman of the subcommittee in introducing Senate Joint Resolution 143, suggested that the subcommittee may wish to consider the feasibility of separating the cable television question from the general revision bill, and consider the cable television question in separate legislation. No decision on this matter has yet been reached by the subcommittee. Regardless of what procedure is followed by the subcommittee, it is the hope of the committee that during this Congress legislation will be enacted providing for the general revision of the copyright law and the resolution of the cable television question.

Since the general revision bill has been unaviodably delayed, it seems desirable that the terms of expiring copyrights should be extended so that the copyright holders may enjoy the benefit of any increase in term that may be enacted by the Congress. It is the view of the committee that the same considerations that led to the enactment of the previous extensions warrant the approval of this joint resolution.

After a study of the joint resolution, the committee recommends that the legislation be favorably considered.

Attached, hereto, is the report of the Librarian of Congress, dated August 22, 1969.

S. Rept. 91-447

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS,
Washington, D.C., August 22, 1969.

DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1969, requesting our report on Senate Joint Resolution 143, extending the duration of copyright protection in certain cases. This joint resolution continues, until December 31, 1970, the renewal term of any copyright that would otherwise expire before that date, including renewal copyrights previously extended to December 31, 1969, by Public Laws 87-668, 89-442, 90-141, and 90-416.

The resolution, if enacted, would be the fifth in a series of interim extensions to continue temporarily the renewal term of expiring copyrights pending enactment of a comprehensive revision of the present copyright law. The proposed new copyright law (S. 543) increases the duration of copyright and extends the total available term of all subsisting copyrights from 56 to 75 years. The purpose of the joint resolution, and of previous interim extensions, is to prevent works already in their second copyright term from falling into the public domain for the time being, so that they may enjoy the 75year term when the anticipated new copyright law becomes effective. The urgent need for complete revision of the anachronistic 1909 copyright law now in effect is widely recognized. Rapid development of new information, entertainment, and communications media creates a progression of copyright problems. Ironically, while expanding technology increases the need for copyright revision, it also creates new and difficult issues whose resolution has delayed the revision program. Significant steps in the advancement of the 1967 revision bill (H.R. 2512, S. 597) were its passage by the House of Representatives on April 11, 1967, and the conclusion of public hearings before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary during the 90th Congress. Further congressional action in the 90th Congress was precluded by the continuing controversy over cable television. The Supreme Court's 1969 decisions on the copyright and regulatory aspects of cable television have failed to bring this problem any closer to a solution.

A series of subcommittee-sponsored and privately initiated meetings has also failed to resolve the problem, although some progress has been reported. A proposed agreement worked out by the staffs of the National Association of Broadcasters and the National Cable Television Association was not accepted by the board of directors of the NAB. Under these circumstances Senator McClellan, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, introduced Joint Resolution 143 on August 5, 1969. At that time he issued a statement indicating that he is "now reluctantly prepared to support the separation of the CATV issue from the general copyright revision bill," and noting his concern that, unless this is done, "the entire revision effort may well collapse."

I share Senator McClellan's hope that, with the CATV controversy removed, the general revision bill will be promptly enacted. In any event, another interim extension is necessary to preserve subsisting copyrights until Congress acts on the general bill.

S. Rept. 91-447

I strongly support Senate Joint Resolution 143 as a means of preserving the continuity and momentum of the program for general revision of the copyright law. At the same time, I share the concern that to delay enactment of a new copyright law any further will seriously jeopardize its chances for eventual passage. I hope that this fifth interim extension of subsisting copyrights will be the last of the series, and will be closely followed by the enactment of a much needed new copyright law for the United States. I believe this goal is sufficiently important to warrant the efforts essential to its achievement before the expiration of the extension on December 31, 1970.

Sincerely yours,

91ST CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 91-448

PROVIDING FOR THE HOLDING OF COURT IN PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

OCTOBER 2, 1969.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 981]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 981) to provide that the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland shall sit at one additional place, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

On line 8 of the bill strike out the word "Hyattsville" and insert in lieu thereof the words "at a suitable site in Prince Georges County not more than five miles from the boundary of Montgomery and Prince Georges counties."

PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

The amendment provides needed flexibility for location of a court facility most suitable for the expanding population and potential future development of the area.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

S. 981 amends section 100 of title 28, United States Code, to authorize the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to sit at a suitable site in Prince Georges County, as well as at Baltimore, Cumberland, and Denton, Md.

STATEMENT

At the present time the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland sits only in Baltimore City, although it is also authorized to sit in Cumberland, located in the western part of the State, and Denton, located on the State's Eastern Shore.

Over the past 30 years the State of Maryland has undergone a rapid increase in population and today ranks fourth among the States in its population growth rate. Much of the expansion has been centered in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties. The population of these two counties has grown from approximately 163,000 residents in 1940 to over 1 million. people in 1969. Montgomery County's population has increased by over 550 percent and Prince Georges by over 650 percent since 1940. Bureau of the Budget figures for 1968 indicate that Prince Georges County is now the most populous county in Maryland, second only in population to Baltimore City. The phenomenal growth of these two Maryland counties, which has not been matched in the rest of the State, is expected to continue in the foreseeable future.

The population growth in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties has been accompanied by a significant influx of Federal installations and activities. The Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of Standards, the Public Health Service, and National Institutes of Health, Andrews Air Force Base, the Census Bureau, Goddard Space Flight Center, the Naval Medical Center, the Agricultural Research Station, and many other Federal facilities are now located in Prince Georges or Montgomery County. Additional Federal activity may be expected in the future. The extraordinary increase in population and in Federal activity, and the accompanying economic growth portend an everincreasing number of cases to be litigated in Federal court.

Baltimore is approximately 30 miles from the Washington suburbs situated in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties. The roads are extremely congested and the traveling of them involves excessive time. and cost. Consequently, a major percentage of the cases related to these counties are presently thrown into the crowded dockets of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accounting for 21 percent of the caseload of that court.

Your committee believes that the holding of court by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in the Washington suburban area will ease the burdens of jurors, witnesses, parties, and attorneys involved in cases originating in those counties. At a hearing on May 28 before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, witnesses representing the Maryland Bar Association, the Montgomery County Bar Association, the Prince Georges County Bar Association, and the respective county governmental units warmly supported the creation of a Federal court facility in the Washington suburban area. Judge Edward Northrup, who represented the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at the hearing, testified that the judges "are for a facility in the area," but stressed the need for flexibility in planning for such a facility. Such flexibility is assured by the committee's amendment.

Attached hereafter and made a part of this report is a copy of a letter to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery from the Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration.

Your committee recommends favorable action on the bill, as amended.

S. Rept. 91-448