Lapas attēli

from other sources, and/or renegotiation upon the expiration of current settlements fully exists. It should be remembered that these cable systems are now paying copyright while their contiguous counterparts are not.

Also of note is the fact that this current agreement allows for the bicycling of tapes as has been the custom in Alaska.

As the subcommittee knows, the tremendous changes, technological and otherwise, which have occurred since the initial copyright laws were drafted in 1909 have rendered many of these statutes obsolete while spawning vast new areas of uncertainty with respect to copyright protection and application. The Congress has been working on a total package approach to general copyright revision for many years now.

It has always been my belief that a comprehensive, long-term approach to copyright revision is the proper course. Because of this I have attempted to address matters of concern to my state in this area strictly within the body of the Omnibus Copyright Bill.

It is my sincere hope that the subcommittee will recognize that any agreement pertaining to the unique problem of non-contiguous cable operation should include all systems it affects if drafted into the Copyright Bill. To do otherwise would be contrary to the spirit of equitable reform.

Accordingly, in order that the deficiencies I have outlined be corrected, I am recommending that the following changes be made in the amendments to Section 111 of H.R. 2223 proposed by Mr. Richard L. Brown in his September 15 letter to the subcommittee and subsequently presented before the subcommittee by representatives of Guam Cable Television and the motion picture industry during hearings on the Copyright Bill held September 18.

In the proposed amendment to H.R. 2223, Section 111 (e) (2) (C) (ii), which reads: "prevents duplication while in the possession of the facility making the videotape for the system,” should be changed to read: "prevents unauthorized duplication while in the possession of the facility making the videotape for the system, where the facility is owned by or under the control of the system,”.

This wording will allow for full compliance with this section by cable systems which own their own taping facilities as well as those who do not.

Additionally, that part of Section 111(e) (2) of the proposed amendments which reads: "except that any cable system in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands may transfer,” should be changed to read : "except that any cable system in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Íslands may transfer,"'.

Further, that portion of Section 111(e) (2) of the proposed amendments which reads: "to another cable system in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, if :" should be changed to read : "between and among cable systems in Alaska; between and among cable systems in Hawaii; between and among cable systems in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, if:.

Again, I must emphasize that I do feel these underlined changes are essential if the keynote principle of equitable treatment between cable systems is to be maintained.

I would greatly appreciate the inclusion of my letter in your hearing record at the appropriate place.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter which is of great importance to the cable systems in Alaska and elsewhere. I stand ready to work with you on this matter should you desire it.

If you desire any more information on this subject, please don't hesitate to contact me or have one of your staff contact Ernie Kelly at x41038. With best wishes, Cordially,

TED STEVENS, U.S. Senator.





Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Drinan, Pattison, Railsback, and Wiggins.

Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order. This morning's hearing on copyright law revision relates to a number of miscellaneous issues. First, we shall receive testimony from four witnesses who wish to be heard on the so-called manufacturing clause, section 601 of H.R. 2223. We will examine these witnesses when they have all testified.

At earlier hearings, the subcommittee received testimony of governmental witnesses, notably from the State Department, on this particular issue.

Second, we are scheduled to hear testimony on H.R. 4965, introduced by Mr. Won Pat, Delegate from Guam, that would provide a nonsimultaneous recording right for transmission on cable systems in noncontiguous areas.

Third, we will hear testimony on ephemeral recording right provisions with respect to music of a religious nature, section 112(c) of the bill.

Lastly, we will receive further testimony on public radio and the handicapped.

At this time, then, the Chair is very pleased to welcome our first witness, Mr. O. R. Strackbein, representing International Allied Printing Trades Association. Mr. Strackbein, vou testified before the subcommittee just over 10 years ago in August of 1965. We welcome

you back.



Mr. STRACKBEIN. Thank you. It seems quite a while from when I testified on this subject the last time. I am happy to be back. I hope this time that we will go through.

I appear here as the legislative representative of the International Allied Printing Trades Association to testify on H.R. 2223, a bill for the general revision of the copyright laws.

The International Allied Printing Trades Association is composed of the combined printing trades unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

These unions are:
The International Typographical Union;
The Graphic Arts International Union; and
The International Printing and Graphic Communications Union.

When I testified previously, there were, I think, five or six of these international unions, but there have been some mergers since that time, and the number is now down to three, but the membership remains at upwards of 575,000. So, I will skip that part and go on to the substance of their position.

We believe that the manufacturing clause, which has been in existence in somewhat of a modified form since 1909, should be retained as it stands in H.R. 2223, unmodified. The original purpose of the clause itself remains unchanged. Numerous assaults have been made against it over the years, but it has stood the test of time. It is not necessary here to spell out the meaning of the clause other than to say that with a reasonable exception all books of nondramatic literary material, authored by an American national, printed in the English language must, in order to enjoy copyright protection in this country, be manufactured in this country. The exception is that of 2,000 copies to permit testing the market.

The reason for this requirement is the maintenance of employment in this country at levels of compensation and under working conditions that are in keeping with the standard of living achieved here and maintained over the years.

Until recently foreign wage levels have remained at levels far below those prevailing in this country, including the printing trades.

While during the recent worldwide inflationary period foreign wages have risen, the narrowing of the wage differential may be temporary. It is still quite wide in any event, and imports of printed matter by this country have increased from $97.2 million in 1966 to $271.3 million in 1974. This represents a near tripling of imports.

Some of this sharp increase may be attributable to the removal of our duty on books under the Florence Convention which was negotiated under the auspices of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and ratified by the Senate. It took effect in 1966.

Opposition to the manufacturing clause is often based on the simplistic objection that it is protectionist. However, a copyright is itself protectionist in the sense that it bestows a monopoly on the author or his publisher. That purpose is contained in section 8, article I, of our Constitution. The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

The Universal Copyright Convention extends copyright privileges in this country to foreign publishers but does not preclude this country's setting forth the conditions under which the monopoly privilege may be enjoyed. Foreign authors are not excluded from the enjoyment of

copyright in this country. They must merely, under the clause, conform to the conditions that will place them on the same plane as American authors.

The importation of books, free of duty, has increased from $48 million in 1967 to $125 million in 1974. They are included in the more general classification of printed matter and represent nearly a half of the total as recited in a preceding paragraph.

With importation free of duty, the principal inducement to manufacture books abroad, as indicated above, lies in generally lower wages prevailing in many foreign countries. Of principal concern to the printing trades in this country are possible sources of cheap labor such as still prevail in the Far East and across our borders in Mexico.

Wage comparisons admittedly leave much to be desired if the purpose is to determine comparative costs of production. Rates of wages must be translated through exchange rates, and when these fluctuate as they have in recent times, we encounter considerable difficulty in arriving at satisfactory comparisons. Moreover, productivity, which is to say output per man-hour, varies considerably from country to country. The so-called fringe benefits may also vary from country to country.

Yet, when all this has been said, two other considerations will contribute to the relevance of comparative wage rates. In recent years, productivity in other industrial countries has advanced quite sharply. The United States no longer enjoys the great lead in this respect that was formerly her advantage. The higher wages here went hand in hand in many instances with higher output per man-hour. Modern technology, including that of the printing industry, is now quite widely diffused throughout the world, at least in many countries.

Second, the wage differentials between the American printing industry and the foreign are, in some instances, still very wide, especially so far as countries of the Far East are concerned, as well as Latin America.

Now I have a listing here, Mr. Chairman, of comparative wage rates and

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, your entire statement with the detailed listings will be accepted for the record.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I think it is probably enough, without running through these lists, to say that, so far as the Far Eastern countries are concerned, like Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, et cetera, which are most likely to export books to this country and where publishers have the books printed, their monthly rates look more like our weekly rates, or even less. The same is true of Mexico.

Now, in the European countries, such as Britain, Belgium, France, West Germany, and so on, the rates are considerably higher or markedly higher than they are in the Far Eastern and Latin American countries, but yet those rates are also still lingering quite distinctly below those prevailing in this country.

In Britain, for example, turning to page 7 of my statement, the wage for the printing trade was paid at the level of $62 for typographers and lithographers and gravure-printers in 1974. That is, of course, per week. But, in this country, the American rate for bookbinders was $150, while the rate for typographers was $212 and for gravure-printers,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »