I do not think that this has ever been fully or even partly realized in any copyright law we have had in our entire history. Mr. WIGGINS. I was wondering if you would place the dissemination for the benefit of the public-and I might add for the profit of the disseminators on an equal plane with the protection of the authors and inventors? Ms. RINGER. Yes. I think that the system that we have had has been based on the desire to induce dissemination, make works available to the public by offering protection to authors. I think that this system is now subject to some difficulty because of the fact that the new technology has made it an absolute detriment to disseminate. In other words, an author in certain situations who lets the bird out of the cage, finds that there is no way to regain it, that once he has made a tape and it has been played over the radio or television, he finds suddenly it is being pirated or made in duplicates all over the country. It is very, very difficult in that situation for him to realize any economic gain or reward for his creation and there may be situations in which he would prefer to keep his bird in its cage, so to speak. I am speaking in terms of music, but I think the example is better in some areas where there is a more realistic possibility of exercising complete control. The task of your committee, as I see it, is to try in some way to evaluate the impact of the new dissemination media on the basic task of giving authors a reasonable return and inducing them to let the work go out to the public. We are in really big trouble on this, in my opinion, at the moment. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson? Mr. DANIELSON. I wish to thank Ms. Ringer, Mr. Lorenz, and Mr. Kaminstein for their contribution this morning. It was most helpful. Will Ms. Ringer be back again? I have a couple of questions. Mr. KASTENMEIER. As a matter of fact, yes. We will have Ms. Ringer back perhaps at an earlier time than later because it is obvious today we will not have time for extended examination on a number of issues which have been raised. Mr. DANIELSON. All right. Beyond that, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Wiggins, for raising the point he just did raise and for your response to it. It was directly responsive to one question in my mind. As I read the Constitution, the justification for copyright in the first place—and the only one in the Constitution-is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. So far as I am concerned, any legislation which I will support will have to be calculated to achieve that end, to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The copyright is the means through which that end is accomplished and that will be, I believe, the general rule that I am going to follow here. I wish to thank Mr. Kaminstein and commend him for the magnificent perception of the legislative process which is set forth in the next to the last paragraph of his statement, and of the responsibility of the Congress in meeting that process. I wish every legislator would include that as part of his morning devotions or ablutions. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan? Mr. DRINAN. I want to welcome Ms. Ringer back. I am sorry I had another subcommittee. That subcommittee was about bankruptcy, and the Congress has been even more apathetic about bankruptcy than about copyright laws. I thank you for your appearance here today and I wish to thank the other two witnesses. Thank you. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison? Mr. PATTISON. I have no questions. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I am astounded. [Laughter.] Probably it is the better part of wisdom, since the House is in session, to terminate at this period and to thank all three witnesses, Mr. Lorenz, Mr. Kaminstein, and Ms. Ringer, for illuminating the subcommittee and updating it on the subject of copyright. Particularly what Ms. Ringer has contributed this morning will raise a number of other issues, other questions, with which I am in entire agreement with the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, on and suggest further colloquy. Rather than get into those thickets at this hour, I think we will let the morning testimony stand. It does sound not only hopeful, but gives us the frame of reference for now proceeding hopefully to a success ful end. In conclusion the Chair desires to again thank our witnesses this morning. Mr. DANIELSON. Is there any chance of getting a larger room for tomorrow? There are a lot of people standing up back there that would rather sit. Mr. KASTENMEIER. We will do what we can do in that regard. The committee is very impressed by the public interest. We will try to bring additional chairs in and accommodate those standing today. Tomorrow we will have representatives of the Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the State Department on the question of general copyright revision. Until then, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 8, 1975.] COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Badillo, Pattison, and Railsback. Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; Bruce A. Lehman, counsel; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order. This morning is the second morning devoted to hearings on the subject of H.R. 2223 and other bills relating to the general revision of the copyright law. We are pleased to have as our first witness this morning, representing the State Department, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Commercial Affairs and Business Activities, the Honorable Joel W. Biller. Mr. Biller is accompanied by Philip R. Trimble, Assistant Legal Adviser for Economic and Business Affairs. Is Mr. Biller here? Mr. BILLER. Yes. Mr. KASTENMEIER. We will be happy to hear what you have to say. TESTIMONY OF JOEL W. BILLER, SECRETARY FOR COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. BILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trimble is sitting on my right and Mr. Bushnell is on my left. I greatly appreciate having the opportunity to present the views of the State Department on H.R. 2223, for the General Revision of the Copyright Law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. Although we take exception to one section in this bill, the Department otherwise supports the enactment of this important legislation. As the committee knows, the present U.S. copyright law is essentially the same as the act of 1909. Since that date, great advances have been made in technology and techniques for communicating printed matter, visual images, and recorded sounds. These advances have created new industries and methods for the reproduction and dissemination of copyrighted works. The State Department believes that a modernization of the copyright law to take into account the important technical advances in the copyright field is in the interest of both the authors and the users. My comment will be directed to those sections of H.R. 2223 which relate to the conduct of our foreign relations and therefore are of special interest to the Department of State. These sections are the following: Section 104 regarding subject matters of copyright and national origin; section 302 on the duration of protection; and section 601 on restrictions against importation of certain copyrighted materials from other countries. Section 104 is relevant to our international interests in that it specifies the occasions when foreign works, that is, works produced by nationals of countries other than the United States, will be granted U.S. copyright protection. Essentially, section 104 continues the reciprocity approach contained in the present law with respect to published works; that is, the United States gives foreign citizens protection equal to that given by the foreign country to U.S. citizens. It is thus consistent with generally accepted international practice in most countries and has the support of the Department. Of particular relevance to the Department's interests is section 104 (c) (Subject Matter of Copyright: National Origin") which deals with the possibility that a foreign government might take action in the U.S. courts to divest its citizens or authors of rights to their works or to block publication of their works within the United States. We do not have any evidence that an action of this nature is likely to occur. But if it did, it would represent undesirable official interference with the freedom of individual expression, and we therefore believe that it should be guarded against. It is important to note that the international copyright system embodied in the Universal Copyright Convention is intended to "insure the respect for the rights of the individual and encourage the development of literature, the sciences, and the arts." These convention obligations should be kept in mind with respect to any action to suppress free communication in the United States of ideas and literature unacceptable to authorities of another member state of the convention. We understand that other U.S. Government agencies are drafting language to accomplish the purpose of section 104 (c) in a technically different manner. We have not reviewed these proposals and therefore are unable to express our opinion on them. However, we support the aim of appropriately drafted legislation that would deny effect in U.S. courts of a foreign nation's laws or practices designed to deprive the authors of that country of the rights to publish and protect their literary and artistic works in the United States. Section 302 deals with the duration of copyright, that is, term of protection. It is one of the most important, if not the most important provision in the copyright revision bill. Essentially, section 302 (a) provides for a copyright term of the life of the author plus 50 years after his death. Such a term of protection would be more in line with the practice of most countries of the international copyright community and would also remove a major obstacle to the possible adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Our membership in the Berne Convention would facilitate and simplify international copyright protection for U.S. nationals. Therefore, we strongly support the term of copyright protection proposed in section 302. Section 601 concerns the so-called "manufacturing clause" which is designed basically to protect the U.S. printing industry. As you know, this section prohibits the importation into or the distribution within the United States of English language books authored by U.S. nationals living in the United States, or domiciliaries, unless the copies are produced in, or are made from type set in, or plates made in, the United States or Canada. We are pleased that section 601 would, on the whole, move in the direction of liberalizing the present manufacturing clause. For example, a violation of the manufacturing clause as regards a book would not affect the right of the copyright proprietor to authorize a motion picture version or other use of the book. It would merely affect enforcement of copyrights with respect to publication as a book. Further, the number of copies manufactured abroad that may be imported has been increased from 1,500 to 2,000. Despite this liberalization, however, section 601 would continue the protectionist features of the manufacturing clause. This kind of protection is fundamentally inconsistent with basic U.S. policy in international trade. For several decades we have pursued a policy of reducing tariffs and nontariff barriers in the interest of promoting an open international economic system. We believe that the broad trading interests of the United States and its people continue to be the best served by a general reduction of trade barriers including nontariff barriers. This is the policy we are carrying forward in the current multilateral trade negotiations being undertaken in Geneva under the authority of the recently enacted Trade Act. During this round of negotiations attention will be focused particularly on nontariff barriers, and one of our major negotiating objectives will be to reduce or eliminate nontariff barriers of other countries which restrict U.S. trade. We believe that it is important to note this inconsistency in considering the continuation of the manu facturing clause. Furthermore, the exception for Canada introduced by this bill into the manufacturing clause would violate our obligations under the GATT and various bilateral treaties. The United Kingdom has protested and we expect that other foreign countries which are being discriminated against by this measure will protest, thereby introducing an element of discord and potential retaliation into our relations with those countries. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the exception would violate our obligations under article XIII of the GATT which requires nondiscriminatory application of quantitative restrictions, and the United States would be obligated to seck a special waiver from the GATT contracting parties to permit this exception. This procedure would be particularly undesirable at this time in view of the opening of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations at Geneva. The exception would also violate commitments in various FCN treaties, which we have concluded with most of the other industrialized nations. These treaties normally impose obligations on the United States to notify and consult before it introduces nontariff barriers on important 57-786-76-pt. 1 |