on royalty checks of a few pounds and a few dollars, coming from this restriction of the right to copy.

When you were reading Thomas Wolfe, famous as he was, he was living from hand to mouth on small royalty checks.

I have a friend of whom you have probably never heard. He is a professor in a university in Vermont, an educator. His name is Dr. Raoul Hilberg. He has written a book which I think is one of the important books of the 20th century, called "The Destruction of European Jews," a thousand pages long. It took him 9 years to write it. I think the book is important because it is a permanent, profound, and complete study of what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jewish people. The book has sold, so far, 2,000 or 3,000 copies. But the money that he makes from that book is extremely important to him.

I visited him to talk about his book not long ago. He has a young, pretty wife. They live in a small apartment. Dr. Hilberg was considering embarking on another work of an equally massive nature and they were talking about whether it would be possible for him to add to his burdens as a teacher the undertaking of this huge writing task. They talked about the royalties and the differences that the royalties would make.

I happen to know Dr. Hilberg but I don't know all of the men of this quality to whom the restriction of the right to copy makes the difference as to whether they will make a contribution of unmeasurable importance to the life of the United States. That is what we are talking about here.

The Copyright Office is interested in the restriction of the right to copy so that the artistic and intellectual community can continue free and self-supporting. You are here in fulfillment of the constitutional requirement that this right be protected.

I am speaking here in the most general terms because I am persuaded that once it comes down to a fundamental understanding that the restriction of the right to copy is the floor under a free community of art and intellect in the United States that you will come to the proper determination of the details that we have been talking about here.

Let me say one more thing. A community of art and intellect that stands wholly on its own feet, that supports itself by its earnings from the restriction of the right to copy, is something that you find only in the free world.

We are not dependent on the state. We are not dependent on patrons. We live by this restriction of the right to copy. We ask only that the well-considered measure of the Copyright Office which carries this duty of protecting that right, we ask that this measure be passed because as a result of our most earnest study we find it protects us as we wish to be protected.

Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Wouk.

Thank you, Mr. Stout and your colleagues, for this presentation. I would like to ask the committee if there are any questions to ask of any of the witnesses.

Mr. ST. ONGE. I have no questions.

Mr. TENZER. I have one question before Mr. Karp leaves the witness table. I have not had much experience with the copyright law in the

past and perhaps the answer lies within these volumes that we have been discussing today, but I would like to ask this question:

Is it possible for there to be a corporate copyright owner?
Mr. KARP. Yes, there is.

Mr. TENZER. How would you determine lifetime plus 50 years for a corporate copyright owner?

Mr. KARP. You don't in the case of a work written for hire such as a motion picture or a magazine such as Time or Life, written by staff writers on salary. The term of copyright, as provided in the act, for works made for hire, which would be corporate works, would be 75 years from publication or a hundred years from creation.

Mr. TENZER. That work written for hire would be limited to 75 or 76 years and the other would be lifetime plus 50 years.

Mr. KARP. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to say that I have been very much impressed by this presentation. I think it has been able and helpful and very informative. Thank you for it.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have just one comment on something which Mr. Hersey said. It has been repeated by a number of authors. I wonder whether or not this is a fair position with respect to teachers, that the law be written in such a way as to protect the authors but as to the teachers there really have not been and probably there won't be any suits against the teachers even though presumably they infringe in some small way. Whether this is a satisfactory result is the question; namely, should the law be written in a fashion acceptable to authors but really permitting a sort of bootleg infringement on the part of teachers? Mr. Karp, do you think this is a satisfactory solution?

Mr. KARP. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the present law and the revision bill do permit various uses by the teachers. It certainly would not be fair to say that the alternatives were no use or only bootleg use. The problem we are confronted with by certain proposals is the writing in of exceptions to this basic right of copying that would permit massive-in some instances massive and in other instances very large amounts of copying of copyrighted works. We think that the solution is to preserve the right to copy which has never presented a problem before largely because technology did not make it so easy to abuse the right to copy, to preserve the right to copy and to arrive at one or another system, and we think there are various systems available, for licensing those who want to make copies for educational purposes; granting licenses to do so and to collect fees and the fees would have to be attuned to the educational purposes.

We have made one proposal which is rather detailed and I think would only confuse the record here but we will be glad to submit it for the committee's consideration. There are many others.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You understand I am not making an argument necessarily against the revision as written or the existing state of the law. What I am arguing really is that the constraint of the author is not to sue teachers where the right exists. You have a state of affairs literally where you have teachers knowingly infringing, based on the good faith of the authors not to sue. Is that a desirable state of affairs? I wonder whether it is, and whether somehow we must take this into account.

Mr. HERSEY. This is one reason why we would like to keep the fair use definition open because it seems to us that this is where the give and take has to come. What we want to be protected against, as Mr. Karp said, is the massive abuse of this right.

Mr. STOUT. May I say one word?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes, Mr. Stout.

Mr. STOUT. Actually the problem has been handled heretofore by a consensus between teachers on the whole and writers on the whole as to what is fair use and what is not. I think any writer I know, and I know a lot of them, would say, I think, that he regards as fair use one or two copies of a little poem he wrote by a teacher. Now, is that legally correct? I don't know. I am merely describing how I think the problem has been handled heretofore.

I personally see no reason why, with the provisions in the new copyright law practically identical with those in the existing copyright law, I myself can see no reason why such a mutual sort of unspoken understanding should not be continued. I should think it could, provided both parties still remain reasonable and fair and decent in their attitude toward it. Isn't that true, John, or not? Mr. HERSEY. That is true.

Mr. JANEWAY. Mr. Chairman, it is the new technology, the sudden availability of new forms of copying that raises the question here. Certainly we will arrive at some accommodation with them. But they are revolutionary and we would like a chance to work out our accommodation without having our right to do that given away before we have had this opportunity to adapt ourselves to the new technology.

Mr. TENZER. Mr. Chairman, along this same line, I would like to ask Mr. Karp if an individual formed a corporation and transferred his copyright to a corporation, would that in your opinion also come under the "for hire" interpretation?

Mr. KARP. No; it would not.

Mr. TENZER. The individual would be able to assign the copyright to the corporation which he formed and thus have the benefit of a life plus 50-year protection.

Mr. KARP. Yes.

Mr. TENZER. I just wanted that to be clarified for the legislative history.

Mr. KARP. And that would be no different than an author assigning rights to any publisher which is a corporation and then which becomes the holder of the right. The important thing is that as long as he lives and for 50 years after his death, if the work is used and income is produced, he and his family will in the ordinary course of events be paid a royalty.

Mr. TENZER. The distinction we were making is that of an individual who forms a corporation and assigns the copyright and one who is employed by a corporation who writes and produces while he is in the employ of the corporation.

Mr. KARP. Yes; and the distinction is basically an economic one. The man who writes on salary is being paid, even while he is not writing. A man who creates a work independently is creating it at the risk of his own sustenance.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Stout, let me on behalf of the committee thank you and your colleague for your presentation today.

Mr. STOUT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now, as the last witnesses this afternoon the Chair would like to call up the American Book Publishers Council represented by Dan Lacy and Horace Manges.

STATEMENT OF DAN LACY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL

Mr. LACY. I would like to read part of my statement and comment briefly on some other parts and some of the testimony earlier today. My name is Dan Lacy. I appear here today on behalf of the American Book Publishers Council of 1 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., of which I am managing director. The council is the general trade association of book publishers. Its 188 members include nearly all general book publishers, most church and other religious publishing houses, all major university presses, nearly all scientific and technical publishers, the major paperbound book publishers, and almost all publishers of children's books The publishing of elementary, secondary, and college textbooks and of encyclopedias is separately represented by the American Textbook Publishers Institute, which will also present testimony before these hearings.

With me is Mr. Horace S. Manges of the firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges of 60 East 42d Street, New York, N.Y., who is the counsel of the American Book Publishers Council and is a member of the panel of experts consulted by the Register of Copyrights in drafting the bill before you. Mr. Manges will present the specific changes in the bill that we recommend, and respond to any questions the committee may have.

The bill before you, Mr. Chairman, is one of great importance. It provides the fundamental legal basis for a number of major industries: the publishing of books, magazines, newspapers, and music; the production of phonograph records and motion pictures; radio and television broadcasting; the performance of music, both serious and popular; and the production and distribution of the whole range of educational materials-textbooks, films, audiovisual materials, maps, charts, and other training devices. These industries, all dependent on copyright for their orderly conduct, make up a major and growing sector of the national economy.

But far more important, the copyright law is the means, the only means, by which those creative minds who are the leaven and the growing edge of our society can be protected in their inherent right to their own creations. Of all the ways in which the Federal Government affects literature, music, art, and scholarship in our society, none compares in its importance with copyright legislation. Of all its means of nourishing creativity and fostering the freshness, growth, and richness of our culture, none is so important as this power of the Government.

The complex and technical body of legislation before you, dry as it may seem, in fact goes to the heart of the place of poetry, fiction, drama, music, art, and scholarship in our society. Both in the

Congress and in the executive branch there has been a great deal of attention recently to the place of the humanities and the arts in our society. If we mean what we say about their importance, it is in this legislation that is the primary place, it seems to us, to show it.

Mr. Chairman, you pointed out earlier today, and very correctly, that the primary consideration in enacting this legislation should not be the interest of any one of the groups who will appear before you, but the public interest, and raised the question as to the means of attending to the public interest in the consideration of the bill.

I would like to say here that it seems to me that the work of the Register of Copyrights, placed as it is in a central and dispassionate and cultural agency of the Government, the Library of Congress, has been a remarkable demonstration of the careful, dispassionate, disinterested, thorough consideration of the public interest over a period of years.

The Copyright Office has received innumerable technical studies done by experts throughout the country. It has received the presentations of dozens of organizations representing one or another interest in the copyright matters over the years. It has weighed and measured each one of these over and over again against its concept of the public interest.

The bill before you, I think, represents that interest. Many compromises have been made by the Copyright Office in the course of preparing this measure. You spoke earlier of the fact that many of these compromises seem to have been made on the side of the creators rather than the users of material. I think the groups here representing primarily creators of material would feel that many, perhaps most, were made almost adversely to their interest.

It is natural that any interest would feel that. But I think all of us have felt, whether we were pleased or disappointed, gratified or disappointed in the results of the recommendations, that there has been an overriding and a careful and devoted concern to the public interest in the preparation of the bill.

The result is that the bill has achieved surprisingly broad support. If you have followed the history of earlier efforts at copyright revision which have foundered on bitter agreements, it is all the more surprising that the support for this bill is as broad as it is.

I think it is fair to say almost every group in the country concerned with copyright approves of the general character of the bill, although many of them, including ourselves, have some changes that they wish to suggest.

The changes that we are proposing, or most of them, relatively few in number, are presented not only by ourselves but by seven other organizations representing the authors and composers and distributors of literature and music in the country. Mr. Manges will present these.

I want to speak, sir, only briefly about three of the areas of controversy that the Acting Register of Copyrights referred to in his testimony this morning that have some special importance for book publishers. One of those that I want to allude to only briefly is the manufacturing clause which has been discussed earlier.

This is a unique provision of American law. So far as I am aware, no other country in the world makes an author's right to the use of