Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Librarian of Congress, L. Quincy Mumford, sat before this subcommittee and said:

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.

As Dr. Mumford said, one simple principle underlying copyright is the encouragement and reward of individual creativity. This principle is, I would suggest, a basic corollary of the principle of freedom of speech and press. It is a recognition that those parts of our civilization that have endured are the product of individual creators, and the principle of copyright is basic to civilization itself.

But the principle of copyright is also rooted in the present, and the practical concerns of authors and all those who disseminate and use their works. Since 1909, the pace of technological innovation, especially in communications, has been breathtaking.

In these hearings you will hear those who argue, forcefully and in good faith, that technology threatens to strip copyright of its meaning and value. Others, in equally good faith, will stress that copyright is impeding the application of technology to the growing informational needs of society.

Congress must chart the way, and, difficult as that task is, it can be made easier, I believe, by keeping always in mind the underlying social premises of copyright in a free society.

Recognizing the equities on both sides of the arguments you will be hearing, the Library of Congress urges favorable consideration of H.R. 2223. This legislation is the culmination of 15 years of painstaking negotiation and compromise.

It does not provide all of the answers, but it does provide a modern framework for growth and change: New tools for the courts, the Copyright Office, for the authors and the users of copyrighted materials, to meet the challenges of the future.

This is the kind of effort that involves little widespread recognition and a great deal of difficulty and toil. But I am convinced that, when all is said and done, your work will have a significant impact on the lives of all Americans-those who create and those whose lives are shaped and changed by their creations.

As the present administrator of the world's greatest collection of those creative works, I believe that your success in this endeavor will 'be one of your greatest legislative achievements.

Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Lorenz.

Mr. Kaminstein?

Ms. RINGER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the privilege of introducing Mr. Kaminstein.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes, of course, Ms. Ringer.

Ms. RINGER. The current program for general revision of the copyright law started in the fifties under Arthur Fisher, who was a great Register of Copyrights. He charted a course which we endeavored to follow, and he put his personal stamp on the revision program.

Arthur Fisher died in 1960, at a crucial point in the revision program, and was succeeded by Abraham L. Kaminstein. It is hard to

realize how difficult it was for Kami to take over an ongoing program of that sort, one that had as much of a personal stamp on it as the revision program had in 1960, and to make the changes that were necessary to make it go, and eventually to chart a different course because there were many things in the original planning that had to be changed.

All of these Mr. Kaminstein did. He made a number of personal sacrifices, including sacrifices in his health. The revision program certainly would have gone nowhere without his disinterested optimism and his willingness to explore every possibility, his spirit of good will, and his personal integrity. He earned everyone's respect.

As a personal note, he hired me out of law school, and everything I know about copyright I either owe to him directly or to the opportunities he gave me to learn. He is a loyal friend and a noble human being, and it is a great honor for me to introduce him.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Kaminstein?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Abraham Kaminstein, and I hold the position of Honorary Consultant in Copyright at the Library of Congress. Despite this fancy title, I must state that I appear before you representing only myself and without any brief except for my own profound belief in the value of the legislation you are considering.

I am privileged and pleased to appear before you in support of H.R. 2223 for the general revision of the copyright law. This legislation, which many of you are now involved with for the first time, has been for me almost a life's work.

Before my retirement in 1971 I spent 23 years in the Copyright Office, the last 11 of them as the Register of Copyrights. Interestingly enough, it is almost exactly 20 years since my immediate predecessor, Arthur Fisher, asked for and was granted funds by Congress to initiate studies leading to the overall revision of the copyright laws.

Published between 1956 and 1960, 35 major studies examined current interpretations of the 1909 Copyright Act, analyzed its shortcomings and inequities and set out alternative measures for reform. Well over a decade later, they still remain vital and enduring contributions to our law.

In the early 1960's the Copyright Office sponsored a series of roundtable discussions based on recommendations made in the 1961 Register's Report on Copyright Revision and the preliminary legislative drafts that began to emerge. The talks filled four volumes; they were sometimes difficult, but they did succeed in identifying areas of agreement and dispute, thus sharpening the issues.

By 1964, it was possible to submit a bill for the general revision of the law, and to participate in hearings in 1965 before your subcommittee and under your dedicated chairmanship. Looking back to 1965. I am startled by the scope of our achievements and I have become a bit philosophical about the problems we failed to recognize at the time. As incredible as it may seem now, our first proposals said nothing about cable television, and photocopying was not regarded as an issue which required special legislative provisions. Some of these problems were aired in the extensive hearings which you conducted. Mr. Chairman, and new provisions were added, and when, in 1967, the House passed the bill, we seemed well on our way to success.

We all know that the entire bill reached an impasse in the Senate because of the inability to solve the issue of cable television. I must confess that in 1968, recognizing that nothing was going to move unless somehow the CATV issue could be solved or dealt with separately, I gave in to some despair.

Testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, I said that I had been musing on Yeats' poem, "To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Nothing." Nothing much to encourage me happened for a long time.

Certainly I feel no such despair today.

At the last session of Congress, the Senate passed the revision bill by a margin of 70-1, and every indication seems to point to a consensus in that body that this is a measure whose time, at long last, has come. Although insufficient time remained in the last session for House. consideration, the status of the general revision legislation was one of the points covered in your subcommittee's hearings on November 26, 1974, on S. 3976, a short bill whose enactment effective December 31, 1974, appears to pave the way for favorable action in both Houses during the current Congress.

I should like to close my statement by offering some personal observations based on years of involvement with copyright revision. I should like to recall the constructive spirit of the 1965 hearings for I fervently hope that they will be repeated in the work you begin today. Nine years ago, Mr. Chairman, your subcommittee met for 51 executive sessions, over a 7-month period, to prepare a bill for the full Judiciary Committee.

Congressmen, members of a busy subcommittee, were willing and glad to spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort on a bill that could not have meant much to them politically, that could not gain them any votes. What made this extraordinary effort possible, and indeed successful, was the prevailing spirit of compromise-constructive and reasonable, rather than destructive and extreme. I called it "An Experiment in Legislative Technique." It was the most exhilarating experience of my legal career.

All of us are special pleaders, no matter how moral we feel our case to be. For my part, I make no bones about favoring authors, composers, and artists. But I know, nevertheless, that everyone must make some compromise. My experience convinces me that there are no easy shortcuts in copyright, and no side can afford the luxury of a complete victory. Neither can we embrace categorical solutions; what they possess in simplicity, they sacrifice in ordinary justice. What is needed is a responsible and considered compromise, for only such a compromise will best serve the interests of all.

This will require statesmanship of the highest order, and I hope you will feel the personal satisfaction that comes with a job well done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Kaminstein, for a most eloquent and personal statement on a subject many regard as impersonal.

I am almost sorry, however, to mention that in 1966 we had 51 executive sessions over a 7-month period. You will detect some trepidation among my subcommittee members who have not been through that experience. [Laughter.]

Much of that work will not have to be redone, I expect. Perhaps this is not the time, as I introduce the next witness, to commend people

before our task is completed for indeed historically one day I am sure that the names of Fisher, Kaminstein, and Ringer will, in terms of copyright and its history of this country, have an extraordinary place. For my part, legislatively, I would like to recall that the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Celler, who served Congress so well for so many years, has always felt so deeply about and has been a very great patron of copyright.

From the legislative standpoint I think he also deserves very special recognition.

In any event, I would like to call on the person on whom we are going to have to lean heavily, not only this morning but in days to come, in resolving whatever of the issues still remain.

We would be very pleased to hear from our Register of Copyrights, Ms. Barbara Ringer.

Ms. RINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied by Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the Copyright Office, who I hope will get me out of trouble if I get into it.

The Copyright Office has prepared portfolios consisting of 19 folders. 18 of which deal with separate issues or chapters of sections of the bill. Some are much more important than others. On the left side of each folder we have put the relevant sections on the particular issue, and on the right side we have tried to summarize the contents of the bill, give some of the background of the provisions and analyze the contents of the bill in a rather simple, brief way.

Some of the provisions of the bill, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, do not yield their meaning readily on a first, or second, or even third reading.

In any case I hope that they will be useful to the committee. They are intended for reference and not as fundamental legislative history. But I hope the material on the right side can be considered, in effect, my statement on the issues that are involved at this point and be made a part of the record of the hearings. I have also a prepared statement which is for the record and I don't think I need to go into it in vast detail because both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Kaminstein, have referred to the comments I have made in it.

I would, however, like to make a few points from it and then go on to a summary of the principal issues speaking more or less from these briefing papers.

[The material referred to appears in app. 2.]

As I see them now but without in any way trying to predict what other witnesses will say during the course of these hearings because I don't think anyone, no matter how close they are to the subject, can do that

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I urge you not to oversummarize. We do hope that we regard your testimony as very important at the outset to get certain frames of reference for the committee. Some of it may be lost to us if it is confined exclusively to the record.

Ms. RINGER. I take your point, Mr. Chairman. Then I will read at least a major part of this statement.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ringer follows:]

STATEMENT OF BARBARA RINGER, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS

Mr. Chairman, I am Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. I appear today in support of H.R. 2223, to review its long and difficult legislative history, and to try to answer any questions you have about its contents, its status, and the issues remaining to be settled. The Federal copyright law now in effect in the United States was adopted in

1909 and has been amended in only a few relatively minor ways. It is essentially a Nineteenth Century copyright law, based on assumptions concerning the creation and dissemination of author's works that have been completely overturned in the past fifty years. A Twentieth-Century copyright statute is long overdue in the United States, and the present need for a revised law that will anticipate the Twenty-First Century is so obvious as to be undeniable.

It is startling to realize that the program for general revision of the copyright law actually got underway more than 50 years ago, in 1924, and produced four distinct legislative efforts before World War II: The Dallinger, Perkins, and Vestal Bills in 1924-1931, the Sirovich Bill in 1932, the Duffy Bill in 1934–1936, and the "Shotwell" Bill in 1939. One of these measures passed the House, and a later one passed the Senate, but in every case the revision program ultimately failed of enactment because of fierce opposition to particular provisions by certain groups. The history of U.S. copyright law revision in the 1920's and 1930's teaches a basic lesson: the need to work out accommodations on the critical issues in an atmosphere of good will and give and take. It is a great deal easier to recognize the validity of this proposition than to put it into practice.

The failure of the earlier efforts at general revision of the copyright law has been blamed on one group or another, and on the face of it there does appear to be quite a bit of blame to go around. At the same time it is important not to forget that the main purpose behind some of the revision bills was to permit U.S. adherence to the International Convention of Berne. There can be little doubt that some of the Congressional opposition to copyright law revision stemmed from basic objections to U.S. acceptance of foreign principles of copyright jurisprudence and to U.S. assumption of the international obligations involved in becoming a member of the Berne Union.

After World War II the proponents of copyright law reform adopted a new approach. It was assumed, on the basis of past experience, that efforts to revise the copyright law in a way that would permit adherence to the Berne Convention would continue to be futile. It was also recognized that the emergence of the United States as a major exporter of cultural materials made our adherence to a multilateral convention essential. Thus, efforts to secure general revision of the copyright law were temporarily deferred in favor of a major program aimed at developing and implementing a new international copyright convention to which the United States could adhere without major changes in our law. These efforts, under the leadership of Register of Copyrights, Arthur Fisher, achieved success in 1952 with the signing at Geneva of the Universal Copyright Convention, followed in 1954 by the enactment of revisions to the 1909 statute permitting U.S. adherence to the UCC, aud by the coming into force of the Convention in 1955. Noteworthy as it was, the achievement of bringing the United States into the international copyright community also served to dramatize once more how archaic and inadequate the U.S. copyright statute of 1909 had become. The autumn of 1955, which saw the coming into force of the Universal Copyright Convention and the inauguration of the current program for general revision of the copyright law, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. In August 1955, Congress authorized the formation of a Panel of Consultants on General Revision of the Copyright Law under the chairmanship of the Register of Copyrights, and the Copyright Office undertook a series of basic studies of the major substantive issues involved in revision. At the same time began what has become a seemingly endless series of meetings and discussions with representatives of virtually every interest group affected by the copyright law. By now these discussions, which have been as valuable as they have been time-consuming, must literally run into the thousands.

The study phase of the current revision program began almost exactly 20 years ago, in 1955. It was supposed to take three years, but it took about six. It produced 35 studies covering most of what we thought at the time were the substantive issues in copyright revision. These were published, together with a large body of comments from the Panel of Consultants, and I am proud to say that they are all still in print.

The culmination of this effort was the publication, in 1961, of the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on General Revision of the Copyright Law. The Register's Report was the first of many major contributions to the general revision program by Abraham L. Kaminstein, Mr. Fisher's successor as Register of Copyrights. The purpose of the Reports, as Mr. Kaminstein said in his 1962 Annual Report, "was to furnish a tangible core around which opinions and conclusions could crystalize-to achieve the widest possible agreement on basic principles

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »