Lapas attēli

a clause in the original draft of the Bill. There is no question that it was first incorporated in copyright law, and has remained there in modified form in the face of repeated efforts to eliminate it, because of pressure from printers. In our view especially in recent years, this pressure has no economic justification and book manufacturers and the printing trades unions would be helped rather than hurt if the clause were completely eliminated. The United States is predominantly a book exporting country and has no need for protection in the field of book manufacture. Many of our university presses export 20% or more of their entire production.

As a part of the copyright law, it is rankly discriminatory against American authors. There is no provision in the copyright law denying copyright protection to films or phonograph records manufactured outside the United States. Only the authors and publishers of books are singled out to jeopardize their permanent property rights for what is essentially a matter for tariff regulation. If you had designed and built a house for yourself, which required imported materials for its successful completion, you would not object to paying reasonable tariffs on these materials, if they were required to protect American manufacturers. But you would object-strenuously and on principle-if such foreign manufacture threw a cloud on your title to the house you had built. An author's book is the house that he designed and built. The copyright is his title to that house. It is outrageous that such title should be jeopardized for anything other than malfeasance or no feasance on his part.

The Association of American University Presses speaks with special vehemence on the manufacturing clause because its member presses publish the works of many scholars that require complex composition, as in mathematics and foreign languages, in which foreign manufacture does on occasion provide significant economies. Sometimes such economies make the difference between publication and non-publication. Publications of this character do not bulk large in the total volume of the printing trade, yet they make a significant contribution to the diffusion of knowledge. In stating our objection to the manufacturing clause, we feel that we are arguing for the scholar as well as the scholarly publisher. But above all, we are opposed in principle to the manufacturing clause because, in the field of authorship it qualifies without just cause a right of property that should be held sacred.


University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama.
The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Bollingen Foundation, New York, New York.
The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.

The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Fordham University Press, Bronx, New York.
The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii,

Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California.
The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky.
Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec 10, Canada.
Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

McGill University Press, Montreal, Canada.

The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.
National University of México Press, México 20, D.F.
University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.

The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
New York University Press, New York, New York.

The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois.

University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.

Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, New York.

The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.

The University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois.

Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, Texas.

Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.

The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada.

The United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland.
Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tennessee.

The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan.

The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Mr. CARROLL. I shall now comment briefly on our views.

The first matter is that of Government copyrights. The far-reaching activities of the Federal Government touch every quarter of our lives, and the Federal presses will have a steadily increasing role in the production of knowledge. For example, the proposed National Humanities Foundation will, in its areas of activity, affect the inception and output of scholarly inquiry as the National Science Foundation has done in its field. It is of great importance that the products of Government research be given proper dissemination and a program of Government-controlled copyright is necessary if effective distribution beyond Government channels is to be achieved. Publication by the Government Printing Office is not sufficient, for that outstanding facility is not fully set up to do a publishing job. Only rarely are its publications reviewed in appropriate media or advertised to appropriate audiences. Books issued by the GPO are not listed in the weekly record of the publishing trade magazine, Publishers' Weekly, and their availability is difficult to determine through normal book purchasing channels.

Partnership of Government and the publishers of the country can be achieved if language can be established in the new copyright law permitting the copyrighting of principal Government works and per

mitting nongovernmental professional publishing organizations to achieve additional circulation for those documents, books, and pamphlets concerning those publications. One may ask whether assignment of Government copyright might not be giving monopoly on public property, but I think royalties might be paid to the Government for the right to publish. It is in the public interest that much of the material issued by the Government should be in the public domain. It is equally in the public interest that some of the material produced by the Government be controlled by copyright and made available to customary publishing channels.

I should like now to comment on the fair use section.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is that what I was discussing with the previous witness, the fair use clause?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. I should like to confine my remarks to photocopying.

Just as the invention of movable type in the 15th century transformed the multiplication and distribution of the products of man's mind, so does the 20th century copying machinery transform the dissemination of knowledge. At the present rate of photocopying, it seems as though we shall all soon be hip deep in copies of one thing or another. There can be no birth control for this kind of reproduction. Senator MCCLELLAN. How did that get into this thing? That is not copyrighted yet.

Mr. CARROLL. It is control at the source of a material.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Neither is that copyrighted, the source of birth control.

Mr. CARROLL. There can be no birth control for this kind of reproduction.


Mr. CARROLL. For the copying machine should be as free as the printing press. However, the copier, as the printer, must recognize the property rights of the creator of the material being reproduced has and must not infringe on these rights or detract from them in any way. Our association supports the present wording of the bill, wherein fair use is not defined. We also recognize the principle of freedom to make one copy of a portion of a book or a periodical or a document in a nonclassroom situation as a substitute from manual notetaking. We believe that the making of multiple copies without authorization, for whatever purpose under whatever auspices, is not fair use. It is proper that the doctrine of fair use be recognized in the bill but that the burden of definition be left to the courts, as is the situation at present.

As you may know, several of the book publishing associations, the American Book Publishers Council and the American Textbook Publishers Institute, are seeking better definitions of certain phrases and statements in this general part of the bill, and we subscribe to their efforts to have a clearer understanding of what is meant by transmit, exhibit, perform, and the like.

The last section on which I should like to comment is the manufacturing clause. The Association of American University Presses has consistently opposed without qualification the inclusion of a manufacturing clause in the new copyright bill since the matter of foreign manufacture is one for tariff regulation and is not only inappropriate

for a law regulating intellectual property, but also indefensible, since it places at a disadvantage American authors whose works are manufactured abroad. I think that there should be no tinkering with the language of the chapter, no trading back and forth of the number of copies which may or may not be imported, no closing of loopholes in the language. I think that this wall, this barrier, should be completely removed. It is an artificial barrier and I think one of the things that may face us if the manufacturing clause is retained is that other countries may impose on our country, which is a major book exporting country, the same kind of manufacturing restrictions dealing with the use of American books in their own countries.

I would like to call to the committee's attention one brief section in my prepared statement dealing with the manufacturing clause.

If you had designed and built a house for yourself, which required imported materials for its successful completion, you would not object to paying reasonable tariffs on these materials, if they were required to protect American manufacturers. But you would object-strenuously and on principle-if such foreign manufacture threw a cloud on your title to the house you had built. An author's book is the house that he designed and built. The copyright is his title to that house. It is outrageous that such title should be jeopardized for anything other than malfeasance or nonfeasance on his part.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much, sir.

With your statement, as with all others, we are going to have to review it and study it. We are kind of hurrying along here to make this record, because we work under such stress in the Congress today, there are so many things that are pressing and require attention that it is just impossible to fully appreciate and understand all of the arguments that are presented to us pro and con on the issues that are involved in some of this highly technical legislation.

Thank you very much, sir.

The next witness?

Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Feist.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Mr. Feist, I notice you have a prepared statement, a rather lengthy statement. Would you like to insert it in the record and highlight it, or do you want to read it?


Mr. FEIST. I would like to insert it in the record, Mr. Chairman, and to read certain parts and attempt to summarize other parts. Senator MCCLELLAN. The statement will be printed in full in the record, and you are at liberty to select passages from it and read that if you like and comment upon it and fill in anything you think you may have omitted in your statement, or emphasize anything therein you think of special importance and urgency for the committee's consideration.

Mr. FEIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Leonard Feist. I reside at 180 East 79th Street, New York City, and appear before this committee today as

chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Music Publishers Association of the United States, an organization of which I am a past president.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Does that have any relation to ASCAP?

Mr. FEIST. No; members of the MPA are affiliated with ASCAP insofar as performing rights are concerned.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. FEIST. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this committee on S. 1006, the copyright revision bill. Apart from all other considerations, it has a very unique meaning for me and I beg your indulgence if I make a brief personal comment. During the years from 1906 to 1909 when the last previous copyright revision was being considered, my father, a publisher of popular songs of some eminence and incidentally a founder of ASCAP-made many journeys to this city. He came on behalf of the publishers and composers of his day to participate in the development of a new copyright law for the United States which would be more effective and workable in the light of those conditions in the field of music which had developed in the first decade of this century. My own music publishing activities have been concentrated on concert music, but my purpose at this time is identical with that of my father in his time-to urge passage of a new copyright law which will afford proper protection for composers and publishers in terms of the situation which prevails today. And thus, in my journeys to this city, I feel a deep sense of historical continuity, both personal and professional.

The Music Publishers Association of the United States is the oldest of music's trade groups, having been established in 1895. It has a membership of some 50 leading publishers of concert, educational, and sacred music. Generally, we are referred to as "standard" music publishers. But as time goes on, the line of demarcation between standard publishers and popular publishers becomes less and less sharply defined.

Our counsel may wish and we hope will have the opportunity of commenting on certain technical and clarifying portions of the bill, but I wish to say at this time that our ogranization appears here to express its wholehearted support of this bill.

We would like, at this point, to congratulate the Register of Copyrights and his able staff and to express our admiration for the successful resolution of the many complex problems which faced them in developing a copyright revision bill that would be appropriate to the times.

The standard music publishing business has changed remarkably in the 56 years since the passage of the last copyright law. In 1909, our business consisted entirely of the sale of paper, of sheet music. We depended entirely upon that for our income and it was a business of some profit. We did not even at that time receive royalties on phonograph records, because they became a subject of protection only on July 1, 1909.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is that when you first began to make phonograph records?

Mr. FEIST. The phonograph was invented, Mr. Chairman, in 1878. Music, I believe, was first recorded on records in 1904. But only with the passage of the 1909 statute were records susceptible of payment of royalties to the composer under the copyright law.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »