products of the other country, and forbids the prohibition of the other country's products unless the product of third countries are similarly prohibited.

In conclusion, the Department of State believes that the updating of the U.S. copyright law is most desirable, and we support the enactment of H.H. 2223. A modernization of the copyright law to take into account the important technological advances in the copyright field is in the interest of all members of the copyright community. It is also important in bringing the United States in step in copyright with the other principal countries of the world. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the objections to the bill that I have noted will be given serious consideration by your committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Biller. I appreciate your statement and your appearance. In the past, we have had Mr. Harvey Winter from time to time representing the Department and we know him well.

May I ask as to what extent does your Department coordinate its view with respect to the legislation under consideration with either the Copyright Office, the Department of Commerce or the Department of Justice?

Is there any particular coordination of views with respect to, say, representing the view of the Administration on the bill?"

Mr. BILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there is. We maintain daily contact with other agencies on the international aspects of the bill. We are aware of the views of the other agencies and certainly on an informal basis there is a great deal of consultation.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You indicated you opposed one section, referring to the manufacturing clause section.

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. But, you indicated a reservation about section 104 (c). I wonder whether you could, by using a hypothetical, demonstrate precisely the effect of that in terms that we would understand.

For example, if country a would insist that copyrights within its nation were, in fact, state held or state owned it could move in our forums to represent that state as the holder of a copyright, notwithstanding the fact that the author we would normally recognize him to be a different entity than the state. Is that what you're driving at? Mr. BILLER. No; our position is that we favor the enactment of that section in order to promote to the maximum the individual freedom of authors. If a particular author lived in a country whose domestic system required that the government of that country hold the copyright and that author managed to publish his work in the United States, even though the government of his country was the legal holder of the copyright, we would favor the enactment of this legislation to prevent that government from suing in the U.S. courts to prevent the publication.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I can understand the policy reasons on both sides of that one. It would be very difficult. I understand the basic motivation.

How could you expect to have some continued comity with that government with respect to the field of its endeavor?

Mr. BILLER. Well, there are two points I would like to make. First, we believe that the importance of promoting freedom of thought and

the importance of communication across international borders is more important than some of the other considerations involved. Second, with regard to some of the countries which have this kind of system, we have no indication whatsoever that they have any intention of bringing suit in American courts.

So, we don't believe it is a real problem that we would have. In the case of the government of the Soviet Union, for example, which has such a system, we have no indication that they will bring suit in American courts to prevent the publication in the United States of works of dissident Soviet authors.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I see. It is the policy of the State Department, notwithstanding the success of the Universal Copyright Convention and its membership, that we should be in a position to adhere to the Berne Convention nonetheless; is that correct?

Mr. BILLER, Yes.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. In your view, does the passage of this bill, in its present form, qualify us for entry, for adherence to the Berne Convention?

Mr. BILLER. What it would do, Mr. Chairman, is remove one of the principal obstacles that now exists to our adherence, that being the term of protection, by extending the term of protection to the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. That would remove that obstacle because that is the term provided for in the Berne Convention. There are some other obstacles which would have to be overcome, but I think it would be quite possible to work them out.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Are those obstacles outside of the perimeter of what the statutes provide for?

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. You have discussed the term in that connection? Is it not the fact that there are one or more countries moving away from life plus 50; is there not at least one major European country that has moved to a longer term than that?

Mr. BILLER. I am not aware of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. As far as you are aware, all the Western European countries have life plus 50?

Mr. BILLER. I believe so.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Perhaps I ought to put it this way, what countries in the world other than ourselves have a term other than life plus 50?

Mr. BILLER. I don't have a list of them with me. If you would like, I can submit such a list for the record.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. We would appreciate that.
Thank you very much, for your testimony.

[The material referred to follows:]

A COMPILATION OF NATIONAL COPYRIGHT DURATION STANDARDS FOR LITERARY, MUSICAL, AND ARTISTIC WORKS

BACKGROUND

The copyright duration of life of the author plus 50 years was first advanced as an international standard in the 1908 revision of the Berne Union. Although this term was not made obligatory at that time, in 1948 the Berne Convention was amended to make life of the author plus 50 years the minimum term of duration for members of the Convention. Today the "life plus fifty" standard is the most widely accepted standard for the duration of copyright protection.

The following list of national copyright durations was compiled from Copyright Laws and Treaties of the World or from other more recent sources.

Life of the Author plus 50 years (74 countries)

Argentina; Australia; Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Burundi; Cameroon; Canada; Central African Republic; Ceylon (Sri Lanka); Chad; China, Republic of; Congo (Brazzaville); Costa Rica; Cyprus; Czechoslovakia; Dahomey; Denmark; Ecuador; Egypt, Arab Republic of; El Salvador, Republic of; Ethiopia, Empire of; Fiji; Finland; France; Gabon; German Democratic Republic; Greece; Guatemala; Holy See; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Republic of Ireland; Israel; Italy; Ivory Coast; Japan; Laos; Lebanon; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Madagascar; Mali; Monaco; Morocco; Nepal; Netherlands; New Zealand; Niger; Norway; Pakistan; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Portugal; Rwanda; San Marino; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Singapore; South Africa, Republic of; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Togo; Tunisia; Turkey; Uganda; United Kingdom; Venezuela; Yugoslavia; and Zaire.

Life of Author plus 20 years

Poland.

Life of the Author plus 25 years (13 countries)

Ghana; Iraq; Kenya; Liberia; Libya; Malawi; Malaysia; Malta; Mauritius; Nigeria; Tanzania, United Republic of; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and Zambia.

Life of the Author plus 30 years (9 countries)

Bolivia; Chile; Dominican Republic; Iran; Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of; Korea; Mexico; Nicaragua ; and Thailand.

-Life of the Author plus 40 years

Uruguay.

Life of the Author plus 60 years

Brazil.

Life of the Author plus 70 years

Germany, Federal Republic of.

Life of the Author plus 80 years (4 countries)
Colombia; Cuba; Panama; and Spain.

Variable Copyright Term

In the following countries the duration will vary depending on the category of the author's heirs. In all the countries listed below, an author enjoys copyright protection during his lifetime. The term beyond the author's life, however, is controlled by the nature of the author's heirs. (3 countries)-Albania; Haiti; and Romania.

Miscellaneous Categories (Unrelated to life of the Author)

Afghanistan-20 years; Burma, Union of-10 years; Honduras-10, 15 or 20 years; and United States-28 years, renewable for 28 years.

Countries without copyright laws, or for which accurate information is unavailuble

Algeria; Andorra; Bahrain; Barbados; Botswana; Cambodia; China, Peoples Republic of; Equatorial Guinea; Gambia; Guinea, Republic of; Guyana; Jamaica; Kuwait; Lesotho; Maldive Islands; Mauritania; Mongolia; Nauru, Republic of; Saudi Arabia; Somalia; Southern Yemen; Sudan; Swaziland; Trinidad and Tobago; Upper Volta; Viet-Nam, Republic of; Western Samoa; and Yemen. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. RAILSBACK. How serious is the Canadian exception you have alluded to on page 6; what effect could that have as far as preventing us from joining the Berne Convention?

Mr. BILLER. I think the effect on our general trade policy and the negotiations we are engaged in in Geneva are more serious than the effect on our joining the Berne Convention.

What the provision does, Mr. Congressman, is introduce a new element of discrimination, which is quite clear and is patently discriminatory, in our legislation.

Mr. RAILSBACK. The Canadian exception?

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir. This would occur at a period in time where we are engaged in major initiatives to have other countries reduce or, hopefully, eliminate their discrimination and nontariff barriers. This would be adding a discriminatory character to a continuing nontariff barrier.

Mr. RAILSBACK. So, now your authors publish not only in this country, but also in Canada within a 30-day period in order to derive some benefits that they otherwise would not have?

Mr. BILLER. The Canadian exception does not exist now.
Mr. RAILSBACK. The exception does not exist now?

Mr. BILLER. It would be introduced by the legislation.

Mr. RAILSBACK. I guess I am referring to something else; I am a novice in this.

Mr. BILLER. The 30-day provision is, if a work is published within 30 days of its first publication in the United States, it is deemed to be published simultaneously in other countries.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you. I yield my time.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. In your statement you used the acronym GATT; what does that mean?

Mr. BILLER. That is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Mr. DANIELSON. I assume that is a treaty of some sort, is that correct?

Mr. BILLER. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Mr. Danielson, is a multilateral treaty which we entered into with most of the major trading countries of the world in late 1948 by which we established the rules that establish international trade.

Mr. DANIELSON. It is a treaty?

Mr. BILLER. It is an executive agreement, Mr. Danielson, I am told. Mr. DANIELSON. What is an FCN?

Mr. BILLER. FCN stands for Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation. Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation and the standard types of bilateral treaties which we enter into with other countries to assure them we will not discriminate against them or their nationals. Mr. DANIELSON. Are they uniformly a two-party agreement? Mr. BILLER. Yes, they are always bilateral, and they follow the same nondiscriminatory pattern.

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. I have no questions but I want to thank Mr. Biller. I would just like to say that I commend him for his testimony and it is nice to be in agreement with the Department of State from time to time.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York.

Mr. BADILLO. I just wonder what is the Department's feeling about other U.S. agencies that are drafting language of their own. Who is drafting language; I understand there are other agencies drafting their own language?

Mr. BILLER. The Copyright Office, I believe, has some language of its own. It is not our intent to cause bureaucratic problems. We want to make clear that we agree with the language.

Mr. DRINAN. But the present language is not acceptable?

Mr. BILLER. No; it is acceptable. But, we would support any alternative language if it were to achieve the same objective.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison. Mr. PATTISON. I have no questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have just one. You devoted quite a bit of your statement to the manufacturing clause. Really, 8 to 10 years ago we tried to limit the effect of it on the theory that eventually it might well be phased out consistent with national policy.

I am not sanguine about how it presently appears in H.R. 2223. I rather agree with the thrust of your statement and wonder it if might be useful for our purposes internationally to place a further restriction on that section which would limit the effect of, actually limit the effect of the manufacturing clause to a term certain, for example, 6 years from date or some other such specific period of time whereinafter it would no longer have any force or effect? Would that not be helpful to the State Department with respect to its dealings with Great Britain and other countries?

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir, I think it would. We fully realize that there could be a difficulty posed for some American manufacturers if protection like this, which has existed in legislation for many years, were suddenly terminated.

If the Congress should decide that in order to achieve a desirable transition that some sort of phaseout period is necessary, we would support such a position.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank you, Mr. Biller and your colleagues this morning.

Mr. DANIELSON. May I ask an additional question?

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Certainly.

Mr. DANIELSON. Concerning section 104(c) I have been puzzling here. Maybe you can give me a short cut. Does a foreign state have standing in the U.S. courts to bring the kind of an action contemplated, on the communities referred to in 104 (c) ?

Mr. BILLER. At the present time?

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes.

Mr. BILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELSON. In another sub of this committee-Mr. Railsback was on it, I believe-we have been considering the advisability or the lack thereof permitting foreign states to bring action in the United States and you feel it does have that?

Mr. BILLER. I don't know, I just wanted to try and clarify it for you. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. We appreciate your appearance here this morning and that of your colleagues. Thank you.

[Witness excused.]

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The Chair would like to call upon Deputy Assistant Attorney General Irwin Goldbloom of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Would you please identify your colleagues for the committee.

Mr. GOLDBLOOM. On my left is John Murphy and on his left is Miles Ryan. On my right is Michael Werth. All of these gentlemen are from the Justice Department.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I notice that you have a 36-page statement which you may deliver in its entirety or if you care to, you may summarize. Mr. GOLDBLOOM. Thank you.