Copyright Office has made the studies upon which the present bill is based, and the fairness to the interests involved with which it has been drafted. Truly the present bill is better than the situation that now obtains, better than the law under which we now operate. The remainder of my statement, gentlemen, consists of statements on the copyright of Government works, which our association favors; on fair use, in which we subscribe to the present language, particularly, of section 107; and on the manufacturing clause. I should like to read the section on the manufacturing clause. Chapter 6 of the bill, the so-called manufacturing clause, which denies copyright protection (with some minor exceptions) to books and other printed materials of American authorship manufactured outside the United States, should be eliminated entirely. This has been the unanimous opinion of the members of the Association of American University Presses, recorded at its annual meetings, for a number of years. Most of the associations representing publishers or authors have also gone on record against, as have a number of educational organizations. The Register of Copyrights omitted such 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. University presses can testify to this out of their own experience. Many of our presses export 20 percent 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 manufactured outside the United States, or phonographic 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. An example: 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 honse 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 nonpublication. 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 arguing against 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. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. You heard the Department of Defense testimony this morning? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Do you have any exception to anything they said relating to copyright in U.S. Government works? Mr. CARROLL. I did not make a quick and ready summary of the statement by the two gentlemen and I would prefer not to comment on it until I am able to review their testimony. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The Association of American University Presses actually is a fairly large association, but some of your members are quite large and others quite small. Mr. CARROLL. Yes. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The University of Chicago Press, Harvard, and perhaps Yale University are large, and the others are relatively small? Mr. CARROLL. The per title production of publications each year of the presses ranges from perhaps 5 to 10 titles to 130 to 150 titles. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Has your association participated in or contributed to the Copyright Revision Panel over the years in connection with the manufacturing clause? Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. On page 2 of the statement, which section I did not read, the first full paragraph beginning on line 4 indicates that we have been in touch with other book industry organizations through the years on general matters of copyright revision. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Edwards? Mr. EDWARDS. No questions. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Tenzer? Mr. KASTENMEIER. If there are no further questions, we want to thank you, Mr. Carroll, for representing the organization here and for submitting this statement on your views. Mr. CARROLL. Thank you. Mr. KASTENMEIER. With Mr. Carroll's testimony this concludes today's hearings. Accordingly, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 24, 1965.) COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, St. Onge, Edwards, Tenzer, and Poff. Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel, and Allan Cors, associate counsel. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair would like to announce it is informed that we are going into session at 11 o'clock this morning. This means we will be subject, presumably, to interruptions. We will, nonetheless, try to complete hearings as expeditiously and in as good order as possible. Also, the Chair would like to announce that one of the witnesses, the last one scheduled for the day, American Broadcasting Co., will not appear today. The committee is pleased to welcome this morning as its first witness Mr. Ernest Jennes, general counsel of and representing the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Jennes. STATEMENT OF ERNEST W. JENNES, ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM MALONE Mr. JENNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ernest W. Jennes, a member of the law firm of Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., general counsel to the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. My associate, Mr. William Malone, is here with me. MST's membership includes more than 160 television stations both VHF and UHF and commercial and educational, which operate at the maximum power permitted by the Federal Communications Commission and which serve small, medium-sized, and large cities throughout the country. The association is deeply concerned about a number of problems presented by the great expansion and the change in the nature of socalled community antenna television systems (CATV) and with the impact of these developments on our system of television broadcasting which up to now has been supplied free to the American people. 52-380-66-pt. 237 1223 MST already has filed extensive pleadings before the Federal Communications Commission with respect to various facets of these CATV problems which are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. MST has also participated in the hearings before the Subcommittee on Communications and Power of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on such matters. Late in April, the Commission moved toward regulation of the operation of CATV systems, as I will discuss further below. However, some very basic CATV problems fall squarely within the copyright area, and over these problems the Federal Communications Commission has expressly disclaimed jurisdiction. With the typical television station on the air 120 or more hours a week, television broadcasters use vast quantities of copyrightable materials. A television station's programing comprises, first, locally created programs owned by the station, for example, local documentaries; second, locally created programs owned by others and produced by the station on television under exclusive territorial license, for example, sports telecasts; third, recorded non-network programs as to which the television station has purchased exclusive territorial broadcast rights-for example, feature film and syndicated programs; and, finally, national, regional, and special network programingboth live and recorded-as to which the station has geographical exclusivity by contract and network practice. The television networks and the individual television stations expend enormous sums of money for television programs. It has been estimated, for instance, that the three national television networks' annual program production costs alone total in excess of $600 million a year. And that figure only begins to reflect television's total program production costs. The entire fabric of our free system of television propgraming depends on the exclusivity of television program rights. The ability of a television network to persuade an advertiser to include a particular station on the network lineup and the revenues which the network and the station will receive depend upon whether that station. is the exclusive outlet for the network in the particular city, since a network advertiser will usually not pay twice for the same coverage. In the case of non-network programing, the ability of a station to obtain audience, the size of that audience and the amount of revenue that can be obtained from advertisers are all interrelated and directly affected by whether the station has exclusive rights to the programs it broadcasts. Each time a program is viewed, a portion of the audience potential disappears; because of the nature of television, a single broadcast of a program over a station will be seen by a large portion of the homes in its market. It is for such reasons that programs are generally licensed exclusively to a single television station for use in a specific market area during a specified period of time. Without such exclusivity, the value of the program to the broadcaster and, hence, the amount he would be willing or able to pay-directly or indirectlyfor television broadcast rights, would be greatly lessened. In such event, the producer's inducement to produce the program in the first place would be greatly lessened or would be nonexistent. |