And if the second course is chosen, namely, if only foreign works coming under the Berne Convention were to be excepted, my prediction is even more likely to be correct since foreign works that would come under the Berne Convention only represent a small fraction, I am told some 5 percent, of the total deposits and registrations in the Copyright Office.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I mention that there is no admission procedure in the Berne Convention. If a country wishes to adhere to it, it deposits its instrument of accession with the Director General of WIPO. Nobody is consulted, and nobody has to agree. No foreign government and no intergovernmental body is asked to, or is making spontaneously, a judgment concerning the compatibility of the national law of the new member with the Berne Convention. The sole judge of this question is the new member itself. In the case of U.S. accession, only the United States of America is judge.

I am convinced that the present 76 countries party to the Berne Convention would enthusiastically welcome U.S. accession. They believe in a high-level copyright protection. They want a strong ally to be able to continue on that level. They see such an ally in the United States of America. And, of course, as already stated, the United States itself is vitally interested in a high level of protection worldwide.

These, Mr. Chairman, would be the reasons that in my humble opinion militate in favor of U.S. accession to the Berne Convention. Thank you.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much, Dr. Bogsch. Public perception is sometimes a curious thing. The way the public perceives a title or a name is very important to how willing the public is in accepting a concept or an idea. To some peopie perhaps the very name World Intellectual Property Organization may seem threatening.

Can you dispel that fear? Can you give us some perception of what the World Intellectual Property Organization really does and the treaties that it administers?

Dr. BOGSCH. First, I want to say that I fully agree with you that public perception is a curious thing. I can testify that on the international scene that is also so.

The World Intellectual Property Organization is an organization of governments. The members are governments. There are some 130 members, and the secretariat of this organization in Geneva, which is about 300 employees, is in charge of administering a dozen multilateral treaties which deal with the protection of intellectual property.

The Paris Convention is the most important one in the field of industrial property covering inventions and trademarks, and the Berne Convention is the most important one in the field of copyright. There are several subconventions which protect various specific aspects.

WIPO is a forum in which the countries meet and discuss what to do in order to take into account the changing economic and social circumstances in the world. It is a forum in which countries try to influence each other to extend or resist the extension of protection in cases where new phenomena, technological phenomena,

make the direct application of existing treaties and conventions somewhat more necessary.

In the field of copyright, we have a host of such problems which were caused, or are being caused, by computers, cable television, copying of television broadcasts on video tapes, and the easy piracy of all kinds of manufactured products that include artistic works. In the field of industrial property the problems exist in the biotechnological field, if biotechnological inventions should be patentable and to what extent, in the field of computer programs and in that of integrated circuits.

It is in the WIPO meetings, of which there are about 20, 30 each year, that the delegates meet and discuss what they can do about those problems and whether the time is ripe to make an international treaty.

Finally, I would say that, in those meetings, WIPO takes very great care to always invite representatives of the private sector. Our organization is very different from most of the other intergovernmental organizations in the fact that the subject matter it deals with is private property. It is a subject matter, therefore, whose handling requires the constant presence and influence of those who in their everyday lives protect, or do their best to ensure that these private properties be protected, not only in their own countries but worldwide.

Senator MATHIAS. From your answer I would conclude that the definition of intellectual property has been expanding.

Dr. BOGSCH. As we use the term, sir, it has two branches. One is industrial property, which is patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and the like; and the second branch, equally important, is copyright, that is literary and artistic works. And we have also a category called neighboring rights, neighboring on copyright, the rights of performing artists in particular.

Senator MATHIAS. In the 18th century, copyright, for example, would have been primarily concerned with the printed works, and today it contemplates other areas of intellectual creation. It has proven to be elastic and accommodating to changing times and conditions.

Dr. BOGSCH. This is perfectly correct. It started out with printing, and then it had to assimilate first phonograph records, then radio broadcasting, then television broadcasting, and today those other fields which I just mentioned.

Senator MATHIAS. What would be the view of the other members of the Berne Convention toward the adherence of the United States? Would it be welcomed or would it meet with opposition?

Dr. BOGSCH. They ardently desire it. They would welcome it without qualification.

Senator MATHIAS. Why would this be so?

Dr. BOGSCH. Because they think that in today's world where private property, particularly if this private property is in the hands of foreigners, which is the case in the field of copyright in many countries, the constant attacks against private property in general, and in the form of intellectual property in particular, needs the strongest possible alliance to resist such an erosion. And they think that, naturally, the strongest possible ally in this field is the

United States of America because of its economic power and because of its deep belief in private property.

Senator MATHIAS. I think both of those assumptions are correct, and I would agree with them.

Do you think that the other member states understand not only that the United States, as part of the act of adherence, will have to make some changes in its domestic copyright laws, but also that we expect current member states to exercise some flexibility in accepting features of our law as being compatible with the present Paris text of the Berne Convention?

Dr. BOGSCH. Yes, sir. I think that you can count on a certain amount of flexibility, and I will say as to your first assumption that changes in the U.S. law that are necessary, in my view, are minimal, if any, with the exception of what I said about formalities. I think you can count on the flexibility of the other countries. The more so as the most important countries among them, the Western European countries, your main partners, are all in the Universal Copyright Convention. They are used to the American system and they live with it. They have accepted it under the Universal Copyright Convention, so they really have not much reason to ask for something different, as they have agreed to it already. Senator MATHIAS. Because you follow these things very closely, you know that the controversial subject here has been, and I think still is, the manufacturing clause.

Dr. BOGSCH. The manufacturing clause as it is today affects only very marginally foreigners, and if what is written in the law will become a reality; namely, that it expires next year, the question will disappear by itself. But let us say that it is prolonged. I think that there, too, one can envisage a solution, if at all necessary; namely, that those residual, very rare cases where non-American authors could be affected by the manufacturing clause would be exempted. That would have no influence, in my view, at all on the interest of the printing industry of the United States of America. Senator MATHIAS. Before I yield to Senator Leahy, let me ask you one more question.

You have said that the other member states would like to see the United States adhere to the Berne Convention because we have a strong tradition of respect for intellectual property rights and because of the strength of our economy and the effect it has on the rest of the world.

Is there also a hidden motive? Is there any feeling that this will give them greater access to the U.S. market and result in any further drain on our own economy? We already have a record trade deficit, a record net accounts deficit. Is this going to accelerate or exaggerate that problem?

Dr. BOGSCH. I am deeply convinced that it is not the case. I think the economic situation of the world member countries is not going to change. They are not going to get more protection in the United States than they have today and, therefore, there is no reason to believe it will change at all the balance of payments of the United States. I do not think there is a hidden motive of this kind or of any kind.

Šenator MATHIAS. Let me yield to Senator Leahy.
Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, the United States, as has already been indicated, is a member of WIPO as a result of adherence to the Paris Convention. Does the U.S. Government exercise any influence or world leadership on issues before the Berne Union by virtue of our role in WIPO?

Dr. BOGSCH. The answer is no, sir, because the United States is in a curious position in the field of international copyright relations. It is not a member of Unesco, which is an organization also in the U.N. system of organizations which deals with copyright. Of course, the United States remains a member of UCC, but the program activities of Unesco, which are funded by the Unesco budget and are the consequence of a program which is voted by the General Assembly of Unesco, are activities in which the United States would have no influence any more, no direct influence. And in the World Intellectual Property Organization, although you are a member, the fact that the United States is not a member of the Berne Convention, in which the substance of copyright is discussed, means that in copyright you have no influence. It is in the governing bodies of the Berne Union-this is the club of the countries, members of the Berne Convention-that the substantive discussions take place. In such organs of the Berne Union, which deal with copyright, the United States is not a member. Once a member, the United States will have the ideal solution: It will have a forum in which it can exercise leadership in international matters of copyright.

Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Are the current compulsory licenses contained in the U.S. laws consistent with Berne?

Dr. BOGSCH. I think the only real problem that we have is with juke boxes. But the others are compatible with the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention admits compulsory licenses for phonograph records and in the field of broadcasting. These are two fields in which you have compulsory licenses in the U.S. law.

As far as full protection in case of juke boxes is concerned, I would say it could be regarded as a matter of not sufficient importance from an economic viewpoint, so that nobody would be very excited about it, even if you don't change your law.

Senator LEAHY. Except the juke box may be changing over before long to being a videotape machine, especially video discs, either using video discs or something of that nature.

Dr. BOGSCH. Then, I think, you would have to change your law, and if you are a member of the Berne Convention, I hope you would not do so. But as the juke box provision stands today, it deals with a technology, is based on a technology, which is likely to be replaced to a great extent and in the near future.

Senator LEAHY. That is what I mean. We see in the Congress a number of proposals to create new laws, new compulsory licenses, especially in the home taping area, and I wonder if we adhere to Berne does that limit the congressional ability or options to create or not create new compulsory licenses?

Dr. BOGSCH. In the home taping area, I think there is no impediment in the Berne Convention, because that area is not falling necessarily under the prohibitions of the Berne Convention.

In other areas, my personal conviction is that having the least possible provisions on compulsory licenses is best. One should have the most possible contractual solutions. Particularly, an international convention should not allow too much possibility for compulsory licenses because not all the countries are like the United States of America where, even under compulsory licenses, the author can obtain a relative or complete satisfaction.

But if you delegate to the government of each country to decide what are fair conditions under a compulsory license, the government of X country may decide to give merely lipservice to the compulsory license. So, internationally, I think compulsory licensing should be resisted as much as possible. It goes against the basic concept of private property.

Senator LEAHY. You are saying you would limit the ability of Congress to act for the United States in this area?

Dr. BOGSCH. Outside of broadcasting and outside of making phonograph records, yes, sir.

Senator LEAHY. I gave an opening statement and talked about what the world was, or alluded to what the world was at the time that the Berne Convention was formulated, a time very different from today, and now today in a world in which one or two nations can flood the world with pirated copies of copyrighted works. Is the Berne Convention really the right solution today?

Dr. BOGSCH. Well, it is not the only answer to fight piratical copies and importation of piratical goods. Every country has an arsenal of weapons at its disposal, but I think one of the most basic ones is copyright, thanks to the Berne Convention.

Senator LEAHY. But are there changes that are necessary in the Berne Convention? I was thinking about Singapore, which could and does flood a lot of the world with pirated works.

I was amazed, just walking through some of the huge stores in Singapore and seeing all the pirated material there which shows up in Europe, Canada, the United States, and just about everywhere else. Are there some changes or possible changes in Berne that would make it more effective against piracy, and thus also make it more attractive to a country like the United States?

Dr. BOGSCH. I do not think so. There is no likelihood that the Berne Convention will be revised in the foreseeable future, but I think its present provisions would make such a practice that you have described in Singapore completely illegal. I think the present provisions are sufficient to make piracy illegal, to outlaw it and to enable authors who are members of the Berne Convention to enforce their rights.

Of course, Singapore would have to be adhering to the Berne Convention too, to make the practice illegal in respect of American works.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MATHIAS. Dr. Bogsch, we are very conscious these days of the cost of things.

How much would it cost to join the Berne Convention and what would be the annual cost?

Dr. BOGSCH. The annual contribution of the United States of America that it would have to pay would be the dollar exchange