Mr. BLOOM. And you agreed at that time that the provisions as they were taken care of in the House bill would satisfy the printing trades of this country.

Mr. FLYNN. If I recall correctly, that is true.

Mr. BLOOM. I may say, for the benefit of the committee, that I have been studying this thing for many years, and one of the principal objections was that raised by the American Federation of Labor. But in the last 4 or 5 years the committee of the House and the American Federation of Labor got together and agreed upon a satisfactory clause in the bill which could be taken care of just as well in this bill.

Mr. FLYNN. It is not in this bill as now written.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes; it is exactly the same, because it would be taken care of in the manner provided by the House bill.

Mr. FLYNN. Of course, as I said before, I am not as conversant at the moment as I was 4 or 5 years ago, with the situation. I know the position taken then, because I participated in it, as you know.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. FLYNN. I will say, also, that the conditions which existed 5 years ago, from the standpoint of employment, compared with the conditions which exist today, were entirely different, which makes a difference with everybody, because there is nobody interested in labor today and I include in that category every Member of Congress-who is not doing his utmost to see if we cannot maintain and secure employment opportunities for American workers.

Mr. BLOOм. I really cannot see that there should be any further objection on the part of the American Federation of Labor, if you are protected the same as you were protected in the previous bills which passed the House.

Mr. FLYNN. All I can say to you is that I am not conversant with the bill and have not had an opportunity of going over it with those who participated in other years, and that is the reason why I am asking the privilege of filing a brief, so that those interests may express themselves more fully than I, who have had only telephone communication with them in the last few days.

Mr. BLOOM. I am in sympathy with what you are trying to do. Mr. FLYNN. That is our position. I thank the committee for the courtesy of being heard at this time.

STATEMENT OF THORVALD SOLBERG

Mr. SOLBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words in relation to what we have just heard. For over 50 years I have been interested in and connected with publications. For 33 years I was Register of Copyrights in the Library of Congress. So there was constantly before me this question of publication and American manufacture of books.

First, it should be clearly understood that there is no proposal in this bill whatever for changing the legislation now in force in the United States requiring the manufacture of books in the United States before copyright can be obtained for them for all works by American authoris. That requirement applies to every American author of every book in the English language.

When this requirement was put into our law, it applied to all books, foreign books in foreign languages, as well as books in English. But the printers themselves presently realized that it was against their interest, so far as foreign-language books were concerned. I had many interviews with Mr. Lynch, who was then at the head of the Typographical Union, and he finally agreed that the obligatory remanufacture of a book in a foreign language in the United States before it could be placed before the public and an attempt made to secure a return by selling the book, stood in their way. Foreign authors could not afford to do it, and printers lost trade. They lost much trade because no books were published in foreign languages in America.

I will give one instance of republication. The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the most successful English publications, and when the new edition was to be put upon the market, they were very much distressed at the requirement of obligatory manufacture of the 24 volumes in the United States. They came and discussed it, and it was made clear to them that the law was plain and mandatory. They did print it in Chicago, and it was done very well. But the Britannica people came to me afterwards and said, "Mr. Solberg, we did not wish to face such an enormous bill for this second printing, but now we can frankly say to you it was obligatory upon our part to do the printing in America because we could not supply the demand from the British press." It is said to have cost them a very large

sum.

For many years, now, and up to the present time, of English books which are required to be printed in the United States only 15 percent are so printed. They must be so printed in order to obtain copyright protection, but the great run of English authors could not afford, at the outstart, to pay for two editions of their books. The result has been that 85 percent of the British books from year to year have failed of publication, and have not been reprinted in the United States, and have not secured copyright in the United States.

If we enter the Copyright Union, it is perfectly obvious that out of that 85 percent will now come to the American printer a large business in reprinting these books. Under the convention, the English author does not have to concern himself about his property right, his literary property right. It is automatic. It begins from the day he writes his book. It continues from the day he publishes it in the English edition. But he will have time to consult with American publishers and my private opinion is that it will increase the output of English books printed in the United States by from 50 to 75 percent, to the distinct benefit of the American printer.

The copyright advance now urged is the adherence of the United States to the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works signed at Rome on June 2, 1928. Such adherence would permit the United States to enter the International Copyright Union established in 1887. This last is a parallel to the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Patents) of which the United States became a member as far back as June 11, 1887.

The original Berne Copyright Convention of 1886 was revised at Berlin in 1908 and at Rome in 1928. To the Berlin revision of 1908, 37 countries have adhered. But of these, 25 countries have now

adhered to the convention of 1928, among them Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries— Denmark, Sweden, and Norway-Switzerland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia. Of non-European countries, Brazil and Japan and the British Dominions of Canada, Newfoundland and South Africa, together with British India.

The Director of the International Copyright Bureau at Berne declares that the following additional six countries are about to adhere: Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Portugal, and Roumania. China, Russia, and the United States are still outside. Failure of the United States to enter the Copyright Union has been due primarily to the fact that our copyright legislation since 1891 makes copyright protection contingent upon the obligatory manufacture in the United States of all books claiming copyright in the United States, whereas article 4 of the copryight convention provides that "the enjoyment and the exercise of such rights as are accorded by the convention are not subject to any formality." In addition to the burdensome requirement of American manufacture our domestic law imposes other formalities, such as publication with notice of copyright; deposit of copies, registration of the claim of copyright, none of which are required by the articles of convention.

In the earlier years the creators of literary and artistic productions in the United States exhibited no great interest in the copyright union. But with the passage of time the situation has changed and there may be said to be, among persons legitimately interested, a general consensus of opinion that the United States should now enter this union. The exploiters of our intellectual productionsbooks, music, dramas, and motion pictures need a worldwide market for their wares and demand world protection, such as can alone conveniently be secured by entry into the copyright union. I will read a telegram received yesterday:

MARCH 27, 1934.

Entry of the United States of America into the International Copyright Union is of unquestioned tremendous advantage to American arts and letters through the possibility by that means of securing practical and effective copyright protection in foreign countries. Subjects the matter of copyright are international in their service to humanity and should not be subjected to the same rules as regards policies of isolation as frequently govern in matters of business. Authors, composers, and artists of leading European nations generally enjoy better protection in the United States under present existing arrangements than do our citizens in foreign countries. The vast majority of the civilized and progressive nations of the world have adhered to the International Copyright Union and the policy of United States in withholding adherence heretofore has, so far as welfare of our nationals is concerned, operated to our disadvantage. We can contribute substantially to the art and culture of the world and show our interest in promoting these functions by now, though tardily, adhering to the Copyright Union.

This is the opinion of a man who has very large copyright interests. The comparative unanimity of this opinion has been reflected in our proposals for copyright legislation. During the last 10 years 12 bills for the general revision of our copyright laws have been presented to Congress. Most of these bills have contained provisions to enable the United States to adhere to the Berne Copyright Convention. These provisions have been subject to scrutiny and discussion in the many public hearings by congressional committees and have been approved in bills reported for enactment. There has been some

debate also on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives, and this last body passed the Vestal copyright bill (H.R. 12549) of the Seventy-first Congress, second session, on the 13th of January 1931, which bill contained a provision to the effect that

Copyright shall subsist in the work of alien authors by virtue of adherence to the International Copyright Union.

That provision was included without change in the text of the bill subsequently reported by the Senate Committee on Patents.

In other words, the question of the entry of the United States into the International Copyright Union has been very thoroughly discussed and the persons and interests most directly concerned have publicly recorded their desire or willingness to enter, as may be seen in the printed stenographic reports of the copyright hearings. Students, educational workers, distinguished authors, university presidents are recorded as earnestly desiring this action-entry into the Copyright Union. Very many associations of scholars, learned societies, the American Bar Association, have been represented at the copyright hearings by officials expressing a wish to see the United States a member of that union. The advantage to intellectual producers of the United States to so obtain automatic protection throughout the 37 countries of the Copyright Union is understood and admitted. It is an advantage that would surely increase with every year that passes. And entry into the Copyright Union implies no possible disadvantage to the authors of the United States. International copyright relations have already been established (under the provisions of sec. 8 of the Copyright Act of 1909, U.S.C., title 17) with 23 of the countries now adhering to the convention of 1928. The President's proclamation extends to each country the rights and privileges granted by our copyright laws in exchange for reciprocal rights in each foreign country. But it does not secure automatic protection. On both sides compliance is demanded with all the conditions and formalities prescribed by each country, which may be varied and complex.

What is desired is the substitution for thls complex copyright relationship of the simple automatic, full, and adequate protection obtainable in each country of the. Copyright Union by membership in that union.

There are many reasons why the various countries of the Copyright Union are interested in the accession of the United States. Our country no doubt affords one of the largest markets for the literary and artistic output of each country of the Union. Beyond that it must be frankly admitted that the attitude of the United States has been not only illiberal but unjust. Our burdensome manufacturing requirements (enforced since 1891) has led to the loss of legal protection in the United States for something like 85 percent of the British books produced annually during this long period. That has meant not only loss of royalties for American reprints of books, but greatly larger sums which might have been obtained for the use of English books for motion pictures, if their authors had been able to obtain copyright protection in the United States.

Our copyright conditions and formalities-not paralleled in the copyright legislation of other countries have given cause for complaint, and in the convention of 1928, article 6, which provides for the

protection of works by authors of non-Union countries, when such works are first published in one of the countries within the Union, adds in paragraph 2:

EXCEPTION-PROTECTION FOR NON-UNION AUTHORS

(2) Nevertheless, when a country outside of the Union does not protect in an adequate manner the works of authors within the jurisdiction of one of the countries of the Union, this latter Union country may restrict the protection for the works of authors who are, at the time of the first publication of such works, within the jurisdiction of the non-Union country and are not actually domiciled in one of the countries of the Union.

It has been and is now possible for American authors to secure British protection for their works first or simultaneously published (sold) in England. Such copyright obtained under the liberal provision of law in Great Britain referred to, also secures protection in all the countries of the Copyright Union. In 1915 Great Britain agreed that its copyright act of 1911 should apply to works by American authors, "in like manner as if the authors had been British subjects." Could greater liberality have been proposed?

We cannot wonder, therefore, that after enduring our burdensome obligations since 1891, many thousands of British intellectual producers who have suffered thereby, may now be bringing pressure upon their government to take measures to secure some amelioration?

Our entry into the Copyright Union would protect British authors for their books published hereafter, without formalities, and would secure to them their property rights in the United States for their previously published, formerly unprotected books.

STATEMENT OF M. LLEWELLYN RANEY, DIRECTOR OF LIBRARIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

(Supported by American Anthropological Society, American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, American Association of University Professors, American Chemical Society, American Council of Learned Societies, American Council on Education, American Economic Association, American Historical Association, American Library Association, American Library Institute, American Philological Association, American Political Science Association, American Sociological Society, Archeological Institute of America, Association of American Colleges, Association of American Geographers, Association of Urban Universities, College Art Association of America, Geological Society of America, Linguistic Society of America, Modern Language Association of America, National Education Association of America)

Mr. RANEY. Mr. Chairman, may I preface my remarks by introducing at this point a memorandum presented to the State Depart ment by 12 American university presidents on the subject matter of this hearing?

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be pleased to have you file it. (The matter presented by Mr. Raney is as follows:)

The Hon. CORDELL HULL,

Secretary of State, Washington, D.C.

DECEMBER 15, 1933.

SIR: The attention of the administration is respectfully drawn to the discreditable position occupied by the United States in reference to international copyright. This has been true ever since the original mistake in 1790, of limiting protection to residents a mistake fortunately not made in patent legislation.