Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

lieve in this area, Mr. Chairman, there is substantial misunderstanding within the educational community. This concern should be alleviated by an abundantly clear legislative history of just what changes the bill is intended to make in exist ing law, and what changes it is not intended to make.

As I read the bill, the fair-use doctrine-with all its judicial ramifications—is protected by the proposed statute. Similarly, performance or exhibition, or educational television transmission of a copyrighted work in a classroom situation, is not an infringement. While copying of a copyrighted work in its entirety is not permitted under the bill, even for educational purposes, I think the record must show that such copying is an infringement under existing law as well. On the other hand, do feel that the legislative history should leave no question that certain types of limited copying, for educational purposes, are definitely protected by the fair-use doctrine. There is a very strong public interest involved here of which this committee must be constantly aware.

I think it is important to realize, however, that the educational community shares a common interest with the authors whose work is used. It is as much to the benefit of scholars and educators to have a strong copyright law to encourage the creation of valuable source materials as it is to the authors themselves. I am also impressed by the number of educators with ambivalent feelings toward this bill resulting from their dual role as authors.

One aspect of the impact of the bill on education deserves particularly careful study. That is the provision which appears to limit the exemption for the educational television industry to broadcasts for classroom use. I refer to section 109(2). I think the committee should hear considerable testimony as to the effect that the limitation will have upon educational TV stations. The noncommercial and infant status of this industry may well be deserving of additional protection.

A third part of the bill appears to be of special interest to my constituents. That is the broader protection afforded to those working in the performing arts. I speak in particular of choreographic and dramatic works. My mail strongly indicates that pirating of choreography is now a widespread practice. This type of work would seem to be well within the protection of the proposed statute. It is not so clear, however, that the work of a stage director is also within the scope of the bill. A letter from a theatrical manager in my district makes this point very well, and I quote:

"Whereas the bill specifically protects the work of choreographers, it speaks only in general terms of 'dramatic works,' and does not specifically protect the work of a director of plays. I recognize that the work of the choreographer is more readily apprehended but since the burden of proof is upon the person protected by the law, a director would naturally have to be able to prove that his work was something special and unique to him. It would be a good thing if the word, 'director' would be included."

I think the committee could well explore, Mr. Chairman, the possibility of further definitive work in this area.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like once again to stress my strong support for this bill. Reform and revision of our copyright laws are long overdue. I realize that there are several aspects of this bill about which some people feel very deeply. I have touched upon some of these. It is my most sincere hope that these areas of disagreement can be equitably resolved in committee, and that a fair, reasonable, and sensible bill can be reported for prompt House action. Mr. LINDSAY. To summarize what I have said in my prepared statement, I regard this reform and revision of the copyright laws as one of the most important matters that our Committee on the Judiciary has considered in a long time. As a Representative from New York City, I, of course, have a particular interest in this bill because New York City, and especially my 17th District, is in so many ways the copyright center of the world.

My hometown is the heart of our greatest efforts in literature, music, and drama. The copyright laws affect, directly and indirectly, the jobs, the opportunities, and the general welfare of thousands of our people. New York is the center of the legitimate theater in America. The New York Philharmonic, Metropolitan Opera, and New York City Ballet are but three of our many resident groups of worldwide

fame. New York is also the home of the great publishing houses, newspapers, motion picture companies, recording studios, and television and radio networks.

The creative arts are a great energy in our city and our community, and this affects the entire country. I am delighted, therefore, that this measure will bring up to date and modernize a body of law which has become increasingly archaic.

There is no reason why the length of the copyright should not be a lifetime plus 50 years as is the case in most Eupropean countries. This bill proposes that we change our present system of 28 years renewable for 28 years, to the accepted European standard of the creator's lifetime plus 50 years.

I think it is high time, too, that we have clarification on some of the other problems. The fair-use provision, for example, is a reasonable proposition, but there are uncertainties about it, and a lot of the testimony here will go to that, I am sure.

There is no reason, in my judgment, why the jukebox exemption should continue. Copyright protection should extend to the work of composers at all performances for profit, including coin-operated machines.

The whole community antenna question is another very difficult subject. All of these problems, I think, have to be faced. I know it is my hope, and I am sure it is the chairman's hope as well, that, as to the more difficult questions such as fair use, where there is a tug of war between schools and libraries on one hand, and book publishers and authors' associations on the other, that reasonable compromises can be reached when the hearings are over so that we can get a bill out.

I would hope, too, that our subcommittee can take up the question of books for the blind. There is nothing in the bill at this point. The Library of Congress now makes available recordings of books to those who are technically totally blind. However, there are many, many citizens in the country who are de facto blind; they cannot read because of one disability or another. It seems to me that provision should be written into this law for these people, and I hope it will be.

I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Kaminstein, Register of Copyrights, for the superb job he has done in drafting the bill introduced by the chairman, Mr. Celler. This is a first-class, professional work. I deeply regret that Mr. Kaminstein has been sidelined by illness and is unable to appear, but we welcome Mr. Cary, his associate. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Lindsay.

Our first witness today was to have been Representative Monagan but he will not be heard today. He asserts he will definitely testify at a later time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, might the record show, if no mention has yet been made of it, that Mr. Poff asked me to say his absence this morning is due to a necessity for his attending another meeting in connection with Judiciary Committee activities. Otherwise he would be here and he will be here at a later time. If we meet this afternoon he will be here.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We appreciate that explanation. Thank you. Now at this time we will begin by hearing from the Librarian of Congress, Mr. Mumford.

STATEMENT OF HON. L. QUINCY MUMFORD, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

Mr. MUMFORD. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is L. Quincy Mumford, and I am the Librarian of Congress. The bill that you have before you, for the general revision of the copyright law, is one that I believe to be of urgent national importance. It is a great honor for me to appear as one of the opening witnesses on this bill, and to urge its enactment.

The copyright law of our country was originally passed by the First Congress in 1790, and has been completely revised only three times in the century and three-quarters since then. Ninety-five years ago, in the second general revision of 1870, administration of the copyright laws of the United States was entrusted to the Librarian of Congress, and the administration of the American copyright system has been an integral part of the Library's functions ever since.

As most people realize, the copies deposited for copyright registration have furnished the backbone of the Library's collections. What is not generally realized, however, is that the copyright law is directly responsible for the very creation and publication of our country's literature, art, and music. As a symbol of America's cultural life, it is fitting that the Library of Congress is also the focal point of its copyright activities.

As Librarian of Congress I am confronted daily with what are now being called the "information explosion" and the "comunications explosion." It is obvious to me that these revolutionary developments carry with them a profound challenge to creative endeavor, and that our antiquated copyright law must be revised to meet this challenge. The longer this task is delayed, the harder it will be to accomplish, and the more serious will be the loss for future generations.

The present bill reflects 10 years of concerted effort on the part of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress and the representatives of the many groups and interests directly concerned with copyright, to reconcile differences and seek solutions to the multitude of problems in this field. The bill is a tribute to the patience, persistence, and hard work of Arthur Fisher, the late Register of Copyrights, who planned the revision program and who died in 1960, and of Abraham L. Kaminstein, the present Register, who has carried these plans forward and whom, I greatly regret, illness prevents from being here today.

In the weeks to come you will hear sharp conflicts and further disputes on particular issues, but do not let them obscure the progress that has been made so far. Mr. Kaminstein has said that in his experience there are no irreconcilable issues in copyright, and the bill reflects not only his belief in this principle but also the truth of it.

Copyright law is by nature a difficult and complex subject, and my understanding of its details is imperfect, to say the least. But, like any other intricate field of knowledge, there are certain simple and fundamental principles underlying our copyright system, and their importance cannot be overemphasized.

If, as I believe, a civilization lives on in future generations through the works of its creation, and if, as I also believe, an effective copyright law is essential to promote creative activity, then the revision of the copyright law may well represent one of the most important

pieces of legislation to come before the Congress this year. I believe this to be true, and for this reason I urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 4347.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Mumford, for a splendid statement. I hope that the spirit of your statement-that is, reflecting the hope that we may be able to harmonize differences of opinion with respect to what is already in the bill-can be brought to fruition.

I might comment that the committee, dealing with certain aspects of the bill in former years, has not been able to reconcile even those aspects. We are asked to reconcile or to approve a whole package of ideas affecting copyrights. I hope to this end we will be successful. In any event, I appreciate your statement.

Mr. MUMFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Are there any questions?
Thank you very much.

Mr. MUMFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The next witness will be the Deputy Register of Copyrights, who will be accompanied by his General Counsel, Mr. Abe Goldman, and Barbara Ringer, the Assistant Register of Copyrights for Examining. I am referring to George D. Cary, the Deputy Register of Copyrights. Mr. Cary.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. CARY, DEPUTY REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS; ACCOMPANIED BY ABE A. GOLDMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, COPYRIGHT OFFICE; AND BARBARA RINGER, ASSISTANT REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS FOR EXAMINING

Mr. CARY. My name is George D. Cary. I am the Deputy Register of Copyrights. I appear here, as has been indicated, solely because the Register is recuperating from an illness. I assure you that no one is more desirous of his quick recuperation than I.

I would like to introduce to you my two associates, Mr. Goldman, our General Counsel, and Miss Ringer, our Assistant Register for Examining.

At the conclusion of my remarks I would like for them to give you a brief summary or rundown of what the bill actually provides in its intricacies and they will be available to answer any questions you may have as to the technicalities of the bill.

My function is primarily to give you some of the background necessary to understand the bill. I would like to touch upon some of the new provisions in the bill and finally to point up some of the issues that are going to be controversial, about some which you may have already heard.

I would like to submit a prepared statement for the record. Because of its length I will try to abbreviate it as much as I can.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, it may be received and made a part of the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

REMARKS OF GEORGE D. CARY, DEPUTY REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS

Mr. Chairman, my name is George D. Cary. I am the Deputy Register of Copyrights and appear here today in the absence of the Register of Copyrights,

Abraham L. Kaminstein, who is presently convalescing from a recent heart attack. I would like to introduce to you two people upon whom has fallen the greatest burden in the drafting of the bill which is presently before your -committee: Mr. Abe Goldman, our General Counsel, and Miss Barbara Ringer, the Assistant Register in charge of the Examining Division. Following my remarks, they will speak to you on some of the intricacies of the bill itself and will also be available for answering any questions you may have concerning the bill.

It is my purpose generally to give you some of the background so necessary for an understanding of the many complicated features of this bill, to briefly touch upon some of the new provisions in this bill which do not now exist in the present law, and finally to point up some of the issues which represent a conflict between the protagonists and antagonists of the bill, and to give you briefly our own impressions as to how we view the particular conflicts in question.

BACKGROUND

Copyright is one of the oldest continuing matters on which the Congress has legislated. The first copyright law was enacted in the very first session of Congress in 1790. Since then it has been revised generally only three times, the last being in 1909. Parenthetically, that year might be noted as being a part of the horse and buggy era. It was long before our technological development of radio, television, Telstar, tape recorders, longplaying high-fidelity phonograph records, video tape recordings, electronic computers, xerographic copying machines, and Cinerama motion pictures in full color. One may well ask the reason for this long-continued interest of the Congress in this rather esoteric field called copyright. If I may I should like to touch upon that subject for the next few minutes since it may furnish some insight into the hopes and purposes of the present revision attempt.

Copyright as we know it is basically the statutory right afforded to an author which protects his writings-be they books, poems, dramas, musical compositions, motion pictures, paintings, or other forms of artistic or literary expression. In essence the right is a form of exclusivity for a specific period of time. So at bottom what we are really talking about today is, in fact, protection for authors, using that word in its generic sense. But if that were all we were discussing here today it would probably have been inappropriate for me to appear before you. While it is correct to say that the protection of the author is the essence of a copyright law, there is far more to the picture than that bare statement. The Constitution itself made it clear that the purpose of this protection for authors was to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, which is simply another way of saying that the protection was to be in the public interest. It would be difficult to find a clearer, more practical statement of that purpose than that of the congressional committee reporting the bill that became the 1909 law. In the words of the committee:

"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings * *

"First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly."

Some of the deeper implications of that public interest become apparent from the prescient statement of a former Librarian of Congress, Dr. Luther H. Evans, who wrote in 1949:

"Misled in some measure by the numerous technically complicated details of the subject, many persons may have overlooked the fact that determination of sound copyright policy raises, alike in the domestic and the foreign field, the fundamental issues of our day: preservation of personal initiative with greater equality of opportunity; avoidance of the evils of monopoly with a minimum of State control; freedom and integrity of thought, speech, and communication reconciled to media of mass communication. Copyright properly understood and wisely handled may be at the same time a powerful stimulus to creation and the

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »