shall not be placed at a disadvantage in relation to their United States brother members" and "is strongly in favour of fair and equitable arrangements for both United States and Canadian members governing the flow of work between the two countries, and to this end will support the efforts of the Canadian members to adjust the inequities and will make representations to the appropriate United States Government Committee to achieve this objective." IAPTA membership includes the International Typographical Union, Lithographers' & Photoengravers' International Union, International Printing Press (The following chart accompanies paragraph 35.) U.S. Exports of Printing Machinery & Equipment (1965) Canadian Imports of U.S. Printing Machinery $23,308,387 (Canadian Dollars) $77,902,488 (U.S. Dollars) men & Assistants' Union of North America, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, and International Stereotypers' & Electrotypers' Union. 38. The printing industry of the United States-management (specifically including the book manufacturers) and labor-has been urging relief for Canada; and, most certainly, it is not asking to be protected from Canada by means of a manufacturing requirement or other unusual devices. 39. With this great body of supporting opinion and representations, we feel that the United States Senate will be thoroughly justified in acting so as to ensure effective relief from the manufacturing clause, which is uniquely and overwhelmingly discriminatory against Canada. This effect can be quickly grasped by glancing at Appendices C, F, and G, which are reproduced from reports of the United States Department of Commerce. 40. As we have already said, whether or how United States law shall be changed is solely for Americans to decide. We in Canada can only do our best to explain and to emphasize the seriousness of the problems created by the manufacturing clause, and to give examples of economic damage done in particular cases. 41. In conclusion, we repeat and re-emphasize, the effect of the manufacturing clause is to exclude the product of Canadian labor, resulting in depression of Canadian labor and industry. If impact of the manufacturing clause on Canada were removed, the United States would continue to enjoy an enormously favorable balance of trade with Canada in printed products, but then, and only then, would we approach reciprocity and equity in principle in the realm of printed matter. Respectfully submitted. W. S. CURRY, Chairman. APPENDIX A. Additional examples of damage to Canada flowing from the present law. B. U.S. exports of books and periodicals, 1966 and 1965. C. U.S. printed exports by categories and destinations, January to September, 1966. F. Official comment on U.S. exports, July 1966. G. Official comment on U.S. exports, October 1966. H. Canadian printed imports, via customs only, 1956-65. I. Canadian printed imports, by categories, 1965. J. Canadian printed exports, by categories, 1965. K. Printing and bookbinding machinery and equipment, 1965. L. Comparative statistics, United States and Canadian printing and publishing industries, 1963. APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF DAMAGE TO CANADA FLOWING FROM THE PRESENT LAW (The following cases amplify the examples given in the chapter entitled, "The Effect of the Law upon Canada") (1) A leading American magazine has been interested in having part of its circulation requirements supplied by a Canadian printer for distribution in neighboring states of the Union. Discussions proceeded to the stage of specific pricing and exact delivery arrangements, when the magazine's legal advisers intervened to warn of the penalties under the United States Copyright Law. Worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars, this contract was cancelled. (2) An American customer engaged a Canadian printer to produce a book at a price of $10,000, and was considering the use of the same printer to produce a monthly magazine worth about $100,000 a year in terms of printing production. The customer was advised that he had lost his copyright in the book by reason of the manufacturing clause. Accordingly he was not prepared to enter into any contract with a Canadian printer for the production of his magazine for fear of violating the manufacturing provision. (3) A Canadian printing firm reports that it has been working on a project whereby certain customers on both sides of the border would achieve substantial savings on the same class of printed material by sharing certain expensive presses, which the Canadian printer is prepared to install. The American customers have indicated that they cannot go through with this arrangement, as the United States Copyright Law would frustrate their interest. As a result, the Canadian printer is abandoning a plan to buy specialized American printing presses at a cost in excess of $1,000,000. (4) A Canadian printer is manufacturing copies of American textbooks for Canadian use. His prices are competitive with those of American printers, and the American publisher has been sufficiently satisfied to wish the Canadian firm to print copies for the United States market and for export. The United States Copyright Law prevents the Canadian printer and the American customer from transacting any such business. (5) Because the regular printer of an American magazine could not cope with the work load in the time available, the magazine asked a Canadian printer (in 1959) to print a 48-page section for one of its regular issues. The cost would have been $30,000. When the magazine publisher was advised of the penalties under the United States Copyright Law, this mutually beneficial arrangement had to be abandoned. (6) In 1964 an American printer, presumably when his own plant was working to capacity, asked a Canadian printer to produce a pocket book for one of his publisher customers. The order amounted to $17,000, including the cost of paper. Upon learning of the application of the United States Copyright Law if he imported this pocket book from Canada, the publisher customer instructed the United States printer to cancel this attempt to co-operate. (7) In 1964 an Eastern Canadian book manufacturer printed and bound for a New York publisher a textbook for use in Canada. The publisher was sufficiently pleased by the printer's quality and price that he asked if the printer would do more work of this nature, for delivery to the United States. Subsequently he telephoned to say that problems arising from the United States Copyright Law would prevent him from making much more use of the Canadian printer. (8) A Canadian firm was successfully soliciting typesetting contracts from some American book manufacturers, and was supplying reproduction proofs. In one case, before the book went to press, the United States publisher decided to print by letterpress rather than offset, and insisted upon provision of typesetting in the form of plastic plates instead of reproduction proofs. Because the United States Copyright Law has tolerated reproduction proofs in practice, but not plates, the Canadian printer learned-to quote him-"that production of plastic plates in Canada for United States printing, if not barred when crossing the border, would be subject to extreme harassment." The customer instructed the printer to kill the type, and the latter states, "It is doubtful that this manufacturer will give us the opportunity of setting type on future jobs where the ultimate method of printing is not firmly established." (9) Publishers throughout the world have working agreements whereby the same titles may be issued in different countries under the imprints of different publishers. Clarke, Irwin & Co. of Toronto has such an agreement with an American publisher, and asked a Canadian printer to produce a supplementary run of one title for the American publisher with the latter's imprint. The printer writes: "We gave our price on an extended run but lost the job. Because of the copyright regulations, the reprint was produced in the U.S." The same printer adds, "There are many more instances which I could relate. The unfortunate part is that each incident automatically closes the door to further opportunity for doing this type of work. In other words, once the American customer has been hurt, he is not likely to return for further damage.” It should also be observed that bad news travels fast. Book manufacturers, like other printers, frequently meet to exchange ideas, problems and experiences. Just as the United States Copyright Law intends, other Americans are deterred from buying in Canada and are induced to concentrate their buying at home. (10) The University of Toronto Press, the leading Canadian publisher and printer of scholarly works, wrote as follows under date of October 3, 1966: "Because we publish for an international constituency, viz., the academic and scholarly market, we frequently are called upon to produce books and symposia containing contributions by authors who are U.S. nationals. . . "Needless to add, it is the Canadian printer rather than the Canadian publisher whose interests are most immediately affected by the manufacturing provisions in the United States Copyright Law. He not only loses much book printing, but is in practice excluded from even tendering on a vast amount of book manufacturing of all kinds, while the 'Printed in U.S.A.' label provides him with competition on every side in his domestic market. "But I do not mean by this to say that the Canadian publisher's interests are not affected: all segments of the book industry in Canada, beginning with authorship, derive much of their momentum from the health of that industry." APPENDIX B. U.S. EXPORTS OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, 1966 AND 1965 [In dollars] 66,927 192, 291 382, 145 2,644 477, 608 7,274 1,314 26,327 190,4,288 7019,476 3,220 698, 099 Source: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Prepared by BDSA, Printing and Publishing Industries Division. NOTE.-The numbers shown for each product classification are export statistical classification (schedule B) codes. |