of treaty law. It would be nice to say this, but I just cannot see it. I think if you are going to do away with it, you should just do away with it. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much. Mr. KASTENMEIER. When I resumed the Chair, you indicated you did not necessarily intend to complete chapter 14 today. Ms. RINGER. That is right. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Then, could I encourage you to sum up to the point where you would like to? I do want to express my admiration for your ability, for over 2 hours, to engage in what is primarily a monologue-very difficult to do. It is very hard on any witness, and you have done beautifully, I must say. But I think it is already 12:30, and we should not ask you to proceed much further at this late hour. MS. RINGER. Let me just say one more word about the rest of this section, which is up to page 38, and which involves a proposal by the Authors League to exempt periodicals and contributions to periodicals. And our feeling is that this really does run pretty solidly counter to the compromise, and we also doubt whether complete exemption would be necessary to protect the interests of individual authors in this particular situation. And we suggest some wording in the report that would probably solve the problem. Now, Mr. Lacy of McGraw-Hill wrote to me, and he has also, through the counsel for the American Publishers Association, I think, written to counsel on both the Senate and the House side concerning what I think is a legitimate concern about the way this would work out in practice. In other words, his assumption as to how the compromise would work when the books arrive on the dock, so to speak and I think he has got a point, and I think they should be addressed, and I think we will be here too long if I try to get into this. I could either start with this rather technical point next time, or just make it and leave it for further consideration in markup, perhaps. Then, I would start again on page 38 next time. Mr. KASTENMEIER. All right, fine. Are there any closing questions? Mr. DRINAN. No. I just wanted to thank Ms. Ringer. This is better than any law school course that I had. I feel I should be paying tuition. MS. RINGER. Thank you. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think that sums up the committee's viewpoint. I thank you again very much, Ms. Ringer. We will see you, if not before, on December 4 in this room at 10 a.m. [Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, December 4, 1975.] COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room. 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Danielson, presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier [chairman of the subcommittee], Danielson, Drinan, and Pattison. Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel, and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. DANIELSON. The hearing will come to order. This morning we will hear further and probably finally from Barbara Ringer, the Register of Copyrights. Her appearance today marks the 18th session of the committee's public hearings on Copyright Law Revision. The Chair notes that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has: favorably reported the companion bill, S. 22, and prospects for the enactment of a revision bill seem brighter than before. At this time, the Chair announces that without any objection, the second supplementary report of the Register of Copyrights on the general revision of the U.S. copyright law will be printed and published as a committee print. There being no objection, it is so ordered. Welcome again, Ms. Ringer. Will you proceed? TESTIMONY OF BARBARA RINGER, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, ACCOMPANIED BY DOROTHY SCHRADER, GENERAL COUNSEL Resumed Ms. RINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. When I broke off last time, I was in the middle of chapter XIV on the manufacturing clause, and I would like to pick up at that point, finish chapter XIV and XV, if possible, complete the rest of my comments on the report which would involve going back to chapter XIII involving rights in sound recordings, then picking up chapter XII on preemption and duration, chapter XIII on formalities and infringement, and chapter XV on the Copyright Office and the Royalty Tribunal. This would complete the entire report. You have all of these chapters now, and I am very pleased that the report will be printed. Needless to say I would like to update it so as to take account of recent developments. I will be editing and updating it in the next month or so, and I hope it will be ready for printing around Christmas time. Mr. DANIELSON. That will be all right. Ms. RINGER. In that case, I would like to start on page 38 of chapter XIV. Before doing that, I would just simply say to set the thing in context that there are two points that I have made so far with respect to the manufacturing clause. First, that section 601 is really a very substantial liberalization of present manufacturing requirements and, especially if certain further amendments were added to it, would represent a great improvement over the present law. But at the same time, I do believe the time has come to think seriously about phasing the clause out entirely and the Copyright Office would certainly favor that approach if the committee so decides. The points raised on pages 38 and 39 are not of major importance, but I should note that, since the date of this report, there have been further discussions between the counsel for the American Association of Publishers and the counsel for the Book Manufacturers Institute. As a result of these discussions, the Book Manufacturers Institute has withdrawn its proposal from an amendment, and I understand there is an agreement as to what the report might say on the point that is discussed here. I will not say any more about this rather technical matter, unless you would like to ask questions about it. I will come immediately to the main point in this part of the chapter, which is the Canadian exemption, and I will read now from page 39. This point is discussed, Mr. Chairman, from pages 39 to 50 in the report, and I am starting to read at page 39 from my report. Whether manufacture in Canada should be equated with manufacture in the United States is probably the easiest question to state and the most difficult question to answer in the entire revision bill. Obviously, the Canadian exemption is a pivotal part of the compromise underlying section 601. It was accepted by the Senate. At the September 18, 1975, House Judiciary Subcommittee hearings there was no opposition to the exemption, and there was testimony by Mr. Van Arkel specifically in favor of it. He did refer to the fact that, under the so-called Toronto agreement, which I mentioned last time, there was an expectation that Canada would adhere to the Florence agreement, which would mean that tariff barriers with respected importation of books in Canada would be removed. The report in pages 41 to 44 attempts to lay out the present status of the dispute, and I will turn to page 45 in which I try to summarize this status. No one is actually opposed to the Canadian exemption, considered solely on its own merits. All the private interests that have spoken on the matter favor it, either because they believe it advantageous or justified or because they regard it as a fundamental part of the manufacturing clause compromise. And, as I said, it should not be forgotten that a major part of the agreement of Toronto involved Canadian adherence to the Florence agreement, which would mean a complete withdrawal of tariff barriers to the importation of American books into Canada. Opposition to the Canadian exemption is entirely governmental. The State Department opposed it on the ground that it violates U.S. international obligations and runs counter to U.S. trade policy. The Commerce Department agrees, though its statement suggests less certainty about the violation and more concern about unilaterally giving up trade preferences without first negotiating something in return. The British Government wants the manufacturing clause deleted for all purposes, and it opposes any partial deletion that would, in effect, discriminate in favor of Canadian manufacture and against manufacture in the United Kingdom. There is no question that, purely as a theoretical matter, the provisions of section 601 as a whole, including the discriminatory provisions in favor of Canadian manufacture, violate the spirit of U.S. foreign trade agreements and policy. Indeed, the mere concept of a manufacturing clause runs counter to the spirit of the whole range of post-World War II international agreements involving cultural interchange, including the various copyright conventions, the Florence and Beirut agreements on tariff barriers, and the recent final act of the Helsinki conference. Section 601 could not be enacted as completely new legislation today, and this is a good thing. But Congress cannot write section 601 on a new, clean slate. As I have attempted to show in this chapter, the slate on which it must be written is older and messier and more unclear than anything else in the present copyright law. The Canadian exemption must be judged in its context, as the latest in a very long string of compromises that have produced the present manufacturing clause in section 601. The Copyright Office has sought to view the issue in this light, and assuming that section 601 must remain in the copyright law, at least temporarily, we have no practical or philosophical objection to making the Canadian exemption a part of it. The basic question which we must decide is whether or not the Canadian exemption actually violates the letter, as distinguished from the spirit, of the international obligations of the United States. This is a very unclear question, and I have tried to lay out an analysis of it from the technical point of view on pages 47 to 50. I will now read from page 50, which expresses the conclusion that it is by no means certain that the State Department is correct in its interpretation of the provisions of the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Moreover, the manufacturing clause of the U.S. copyright law is an old familiar monster on the international scene, and section 601 will remove a great many more of the relatively few teeth it still has. Considering the doubt on the question and the very great liberalization of the manufacturing clause in the section 601 as a whole, the chances of one or more contracting states of the GATT making a formal protest over the Canadian exemption do not seem very great. These chances would be further reduced, I hardly need say, if section 601 were to be phased out entirely over a period of time. I will go on to make a point on a different subject, and then conclude the chapter if you would want to save your questions until then. Mr. DANIELSON. No objection. Ms. RINGER. The point arises from section 602, which is the importation provision and has nothing to do with the manufacturing clause. I simply wanted to alert you to something. I will read from page 51: Within the past year or so, the British Lending Library at Boston Spa in England has become a major supplier of unauthorized photocopies of journal Articles to libraries throughout the world. This service is becoming very widely used by libraries in the United States. It can be assumed that the great majority of journal articles supplied by this service are copyrighted in the United States and that a large number of them are of American origin. The activities of the British Lending Library could be considered a violation of section 108 (g) (2) in its present form, if that section were applicable. But, under section 602, libraries are allowed to import up to five copies for ordinary library lending or archival purposes, even where the copies would have been considered piratical or unauthorized at the place where they were made. If title 17 were applicable to such transactions, as a result, we would have a great many copies coming into this country that might have been made in violation of section 108 (g) (2). All I am doing at this point is alerting you to the question, in relation to the general library photocoping problem, and I do think the subcommittee should consider this problem when it comes to that section in the markup. This concludes my presentation on this chapter, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Ms. Ringer. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Not at this time. I thank her for her presentation. I yield to you. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Pattison. Mr. PATTISON. No questions. Mr. DANIELSON. One observation. If the manufacturing clause is not a violation of the letter of some things but is in violation of the spirit, are we to gain some comfort and peace of mind from that? Ms. RINGER. I would say not. Mr. DANIELSON. Is it better to violate the spirit or the letter? I was yielding to my spiritual consultant here. Mr. DRINAN. If I may, I wonder, Ms. Ringer, do you think that it is hopeless for us to try to repeal that manufacturing clause? Ms. RINGER. I would not say that it is hopeless, Mr. Drinan. We have reached the present stage through a long series of compromises, and I think the basic conclusion that I was trying to express in this chapter was that perhaps it would be radical, if not hopeless, to repeal it flatly out of hand right now. I would hope, however, that a terminal date could be put on it, because that would seem to be the within the realm of possibility. Mr. DRINAN. If we did, through some miracle, drop it in the subcommittee here, what would be the lobby that would be clawing at us? MS. RINGER. The typographical unions. Mr. DRINAN. We might as well get the unions involved. Everybody else is involved. Ms. RINGER. They are already involved, believe me. Mr. DANIELSON. I have two comments which may be supplemental, at least to Father Drinan's here. I guess I am awfully simple or something, but I have trouble justifying a manufacturing clause on printed matter, and yet I have a lot of the clothing workers in my district. Apparently it is a bad thing to put a ban on the importation of foreign manufacture of clothing, but it is perfectly all right to put a ban on the importation of foreign manufactured printing. I have a little problem with that, and I would like help if you can give it. Maybe you cannot even give me any help. Mr. DRINAN. No. At the appropriate moment, I would be happy to move to a ban, to drop the manufacturing clause. Mr. DANIELSON. You and I may have a lot in common. The other observation I am going to make-I had the high privilege this summer of accompanying the speaker through a tour of the social |