« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That:
(1) The National Council on the Arts expresses its views that modernizing and strengthening the copyright protection afforded to authors is of the utmost importance to the creative activity on which the strength and endurance of our cultural progress largely depends.
(2) The Council recommends the most favorable consideration by the Congress of these principles with the ultimate purpose of enactment at the earliest possible date of a new copyright law based upon these principles.
(3) The Chairman of the Council is hereby instructed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees under whose jurisdiction this legislation lies. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours,
CHAPLES C. MARK, Consultant.
PIERMONT, N.Y., September 9, 1965. Senator John L. MCCLELLAN, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MOCLELLAN: According to the New York Times of August 21, you said, “I don't think the author is entitled to a royalty for use of his material for education or nonprofit entertainment."
Your words were in support of the proposed change to the new Copyright Revision Bill. They may sound like noble words at first, but your logic is a shocking oversimplification.
Along with the powerful NEA and the rest of the Education Lobby, you advo.cate that any published material by a U.S. author or writer be exempted from the copyright provisions so that it may be copied, or borrowed, or stolen, or used by anyone in the name of education or nonprofit use.
Such a change in the new bill makes about as much sense as a bill that would stop salaries from being paid to U.S. Senators, such as yourself, and to all lawyers, such as the NEA's Mr. Rosenfeld, because your work in the Senate is a non-profit occupation, and because Rosenfeld labors for education.
But why stop with authors and writers? Why not also include in your proposed change in the new bill that carpenters, plumbers, builders and others who construct our schools, donate their services and labor free when involved in such educational activities? By the same reasoning teachers who now get paid also should work free when their efforts are expended for nonprofit or educational purposes.
And why should my local school district pay the RCA and Zenith Companies for their TV sets that we use for nonprofit use in our schools? You should follow through there, too. No royalty or profit should be allowed on all such products that are used for nonprofit or educational use. You do not advocate that?
But you single out authors and writers and propose that only they not be paid for the use of their material when it is copied over and over again ("stolen” would be a better word) for nonprofit or educational use.
You could also advocate that musical records be expropriated, in effect, when used in schools or for nonprofit entertainment. And no fees, royalties or salaries be paid to the musicians, singers, and record manufacturers when their records are used in the manner that the education lobby wants to use authors' work free. If, Mr. Rosenfeld, the NEA or you, however, ever proposed such an addition to the present copyright bill, the ASCAP union and the record industry would be down on you like a ton of bricks.
But for some curious reason you feel that the work of authors and writers is different—it can be swiped and used at will in schools without copyright protection. That raises another highly important question: Who will differentiate between material that is "copied” for honest educational and nonprofit use, and material that is copied by the truckload by chiselers for their huge personal and private profit? This lack by itself is a major flaw in your proposed revision to the new copyright law. By itself this flaw should be sufficient reason to have the proposed change in the bill killed outright.
If the NEA, Mr. Rosenfeld and you succeed in getting the change in the copyright bill passed, eventually many writers and authors simply would stop writing material that would be stolen scot-free by schools and others. You would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You also would be helping to kill off a profession that even now is not very profitable or economically rewarding to the overwhelming majority of its members.
In other words, stop paying someone for his labor and he stops laboring, just as if the NEA stopped paying Mr. Rosenfeld for his legal services, because they are a nonprofit educational group, I'd bet he sure would cease working for the NEA. You would never again see him up on Capital Hill on behalf of any educational group. Similarly, if such payment is arbitrarily cut off to authors and writers for the fruits of our daily labor, why would we continue to work at our profession?
I am a professional, self-employed writer and author, a member of the society of Magazine Writers and of the Author's League of America. I also have a wife and three children to support. And their support depends entirely on what people pay me for what I write every day. If your proposed revision to the new copyright bill is passed, it could seriously threaten the future well being of my wife and three young children, and similarly the future of literally thousands of others in this country whose livelihood is the writing field.
I strongly support the Copyright Revision Bill (which I believe is labeled SS 302 through 305).
However, I strongly oppose the proposed revision to the bill, advocated by the education lobby and you, among others, which would permit the material of authors and writers to be copied and legally stolen by schools and anyone else who purports to be acting in the name of education or nonprofit entertainment (as you reportedly put it).
I would like this letter to be made part of the official record of the testimony about the proposed copyright bill. It should be made part of the written testimony as a rebuttal to Mr. Rosenfeld's testimony of August 20th and your comments of the same day. Sincerely yours,
A. M. WATKINS.
Rochester, N.Y., September 24, 1965.
Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BRENNAN: I thought you might be interested to see a copy of a letter which I have directed to Mr. Fuchs, Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which is studying the Copyright Bill. We would like you to know how important this whole matter is to us, and this letter makes our position quite clear. You may wish to include this in your testimony. Sincerely,
J. C. WILSON,
Rochester, N.Y., September 24, 1965.
DEAR MR. FUCHS: We endorse the present efforts to bring the copyright law up to date, and we view with a sense of urgency the need to provide legislation that is meaningful and effective.
On behalf of Xerox Corporation, I want to express our firm conviction that the protection of legitimate rights of authors in their works is vital to the dissemination and exchange of information. Without adequate protection of these rights, many sources of valuable information would be unable to survive; their contributions to human knowledge would be lost. Moreover, failure to assure proper protection of copyrights would significantly reduce the incentive to creativity. To us, it appears self-evident, therefore, that sound copyright legislation is indispensable to the enrichment of our society.
Accordingly, we vigorously support H.R. 4347 now under consideration. In our judgment this Bill would provide a significant and necessary improvement over existing legislation, particularly in regard to the definition of the subject matter and scope of copyright, the notice provisions, and the extended duration
of copyright. In addition, the provision relating to "fair use" included in this Bill is far superior to that included in the Bill introduced in the 88th Congress. By recognizing fair use without attempting to define its scope, the present Bill is seen to permit a continued reasonable judicial development of this doctrine to meet changing conditions and needs.
Deeply involved as our Company is in the field of communications, both as a manufacturer of copying equipment and as a publisher of books and other educational materials, we ca appreciate the diversity of interests affected by copyright.
One of the most complex problems in this regard arises from modern technological advances in reprography. A great deal of imaginative thinking and sincere cooperation will be required to devise a workable system which will guarantee legitimate compensation to copyright owners, yet avoid unreasonable restrictions to the free flow of information.
Satisfactory solutions to problems of this nature are rarely provided by legislation, and it is best for all interests concerned that the present Bill make no attempt to do so. A voluntary system acceptable to all fair-minded parties is called for. We at Xerox shall continue to study every proposal advanced for accommodating interested groups as we have done in the past. Moreover, we intend to intensify our efforts to devise a workable system and to cooperate fully with others attempting to do so. Sincerely,
J. C. WILSON,