Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

internationally good it must be good for everybody. It is good for us. It is good for the other parties.

Why will it have a beneficial effect upon the United States? I believe I was expected on this occasion to go a little bit into the history of copyright relations in the United States.

International copyright relations so far as the United States is concerned began with the act passed in 1891. Before that the United States gave no protection by copyright to any foreigner. Foreigners had their works treated in the United States just as we have our works treated in Japan, in the Netherlands, and in many other countries now; but in the year 1891 the Congress enacted a law, under pressure of a group of American authors-Mark Twain I believe was a leading spirit at that time-of those who wanted the United States to assume what they considered a more moral attitude toward authors' rights, "authors' rights" and "copyright" meaning the same thing to them.

But the law that was enacted then was subject to a compromise. Now, our good friends the publishers and the printers were instrumental in this compromise. That compromise was that if American law admitted to copyright the works of foreign authors, they must go on manufacturing their works in this country. Now, that is the origin of this manufacturing clause that we have been discussing. That was the compromise under which any sort of international copyright was introduced into the United States.

As time went on that clause was modified so that it applied only to English works, and as time went on various arrangements, agreements, and treaties were entered into by the United States for the purpose of giving better protection to copyright of foreigners' works in this country and of our works in other countries, and gradually a little bit of international law was built up that way.

It has not been effectual. That is the reason we are asking for a better instrument, but it has grown up to some extent. In other words, there are precedents. We are building by evolution. We are not building revolutionarily, trying to introduce something new into the public experience of this country, but it became important more and more for this reason that we changed from being on an import basis for copyrightable articles to being on an export basis. In other words, before 1890 and before the early years of the present century the United States did not produce much that the world regarded as cultural. The world did not care for it very much and did not take it very much. The emphasis was the other way around. The United States wanted the works of culture and so on from the rest of the world, and we took them. We took them, but gradually we saw that our own authors, our own creative geniuses were able to do better than most of the rest of the world, and therefore it came about that the more farsighted among the American people realized that it became important to protect copyright all over the world, because the effect of that would be to protect Americans. That is why international copyright became for this country a matter of enlightened self-interest.

Formerly that type of "commodities"-if you use the usual commercial term-came into the United States in vastly greater quantities than they went out. Now, on the other hand, the export balance is very great. I believe Mr. Kilroe will not deny what I say when I

suggest that as to motion pictures it is several times as great as those coming in. We are more interested in protecting American motion pictures in other countries than we are

Mr. KILROE. You mean in the past, or at the present time?
Mr. MCCLURE. At any time.

Mr. KILROE. Since the war, very much more.

Mr. McCLURE. I mean at the present primarily.

Mr. KILROE. It is much more, since the war.

Mr. McCLURE. We are very much interested in protecting, both before and after the war, and the great future that is to come-we are more interested in protecting ours abroad than not in protecting somebody else's here. That is the point I want to make. The market is attractive, and it is better for the United States because it is better for an exporter than an importer, to have this protection in other countries. Now, the people do not always realize the full purport of that. I have heard the argument made that we ought not to give foreigners copyright, because that would give them an advantage over our own authors. Let me tell you how that works, in fact. Back before the Act of 1891 we did not give foreigners any protection; consequently foreign works were reproduced in this country without let or hindrance, without publishers having to pay 1 cent to the author for them. How could an American author who wanted to be paid for his works thrive in a market like that? The way to protect the American creator of literary and artistic works in his home market is to not let the American publisher have a free market for everything else, but, if Mr. Melcher will excuse me for saying so, let the American publisher pay for works of American authors. Give the American authors, in other words, a fair chance in their own home market. That is one of the reasons why we are asking for the fullest possible copyright protection, not only for ourselves abroad but against this vicious competition that in fact results from failure to protect the authors of other countries in the United States.

Now, that is the reason it is quite important from every point of view, commercial and otherwise. It has its moral aspects; I am not denying that, and I am not emphasizing that, because they are selfevident, but it is vastly important that we shelter our authors from that sort of unfair situation.

Let

Now, take again some of the cases that have been gone over. us take this case of Gone With the Wind. It has been pirated, as everyone knows, in the Netherlands. The case has been going through the courts for several years. Those courts are still sitting. The occupation, I am reliably informed, has not interfered with it. The highest court in the Netherlands will presumably hand down an opinion in that case in the very near future, and perhaps it already has handed down an opinion in it.

This convention provides that copyrights shall inure to one who first publishes in one of the countries of the union; and very generously it provides that if there is simultaneous publication in one of the countries of the union and also in the country of origin, that will be considered as fulfilling the requirements of first publication. The Dutch courts do not admit that if we send part of our works over to Toronto, and publish them at the same time as we do in New York, when only partial manufacture takes place in Toronto, that that constitutes what is technically "simultaneous publication." I do not

know whether that is right or not, but I do know that a Dutch court has said that if the United States had only been a party to this convention there would have been no question of this sort at all. Then there could have been no question but that first publication took place in a country of the copyright union.

That occurs very interestingly, I should suggest, rather unusually, in a judicial opinion, so we have it on very good authority that the whole trouble had in the Netherlands would have been wiped out had there been adherence prior to this case of the United States to the copyright convention.

Now, in order that we may forestall situations of that sort in the future, I would suggest that we enter the copyright convention now. It is a good thing from the point of view of our selfish interests as well as those of our large public policy.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I must leave, may I ask a question or two of the witness now? Senator THOMAS of Utah. Certainly.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Admitting all that you say-and I think I am quite in agreement with many things that you say-but do you not think this is the worst possible time for us to be putting over a particular convention?

Mr. McCLURE. If I may say so, sir, it seems to me that rather the reverse is true, for this reason, that we are so desirous at this time of doing anything that can emphasize law rather than the lack of law, order rather than the lack of order

Senator JOHNSON of California. Well, to whom are we going to furnish that example?

Mr. MCCLURE. To all of the countries of Latin America, for one thing to all the rest of the world, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Pardon me, I cannot agree with you on that, but I have got to go upstairs.

Mr. MCCLURE. I hope, sir, that I may be permitted to testify in your presence at some later time.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Oh, indeed; yes. I should be delighted to hear you, too, but it seems to me that we are dealing with a subject now that is an important subject; we are dealing with it at the very worst time that we could deal with it. That is nobody's fault, I am blaming nobody, saying that nobody is to blame for the matter, but that is how, to a realist, this seems.

Mr. MCCLURE. I shall do my best to persuade you otherwise.
Senator JOHNSON of California. All right, sir.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, before we recess, would it be possible to hear me for 2 minutes?

Senator THOMAS of Utah. If it will take you but 2 minutes, we will hear you now, Mr. Bloom.

STATEMENT OF HON. SOL BLOOM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. BLOOм. I just want to say this, that I agree with the thought that the United States should enter the Bern Convention. I have been a member of the Patent Committee of the House. I have been a publisher, a writer. I know the benefits that the Bern Convention, commonly called the "Copyright Union," would give to the authors, composers, publishers, and manufacturers of this country,

but I do not believe that this is the time to do it, neither do I believe that to do it under a treaty in this way would we be gaining, but on the contrary we would be losing a great deal.

There is no doubt in my mind that some way, Mr. Chairman, can be arrived at and determined upon, that we should go into the Bern Convention with certain reservations, but if we do it under a treaty now it would be impossible. I introduced the corresponding bill in the House, the Duffy resolution. I introduced resolutions in the House that the United States should enter the Bern Convention, many years ago, but if we should go into the Bern Convention under this treaty, and we should not pass a copyright bill, so as to give the protection to the authors, composers, and publishers, that protection which they so sorely need, not only at this time but that they have needed in the past and that they will need in the future, we would be making a great mistake.

I think that by placing the entire Bern Convention, hook, line, and sinker, you would find yourself in such a position at the end of the year, in view of the fact that no legislation has been passed, that you would be getting yourselves into great difficulties, and we would be losing a great deal, although, as I say, I am in favor of entering the Bern Convention, but not at this time, under the present conditions throughout the world, and not under the treaty, without some protection.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I think if we just wait, now-we have waited over 50 years-and if I could explain to the committee what happened in the 4 weeks that I sat in Rome at the Bern Convention in 1928, I think, you would realize the different applications that arise between the different governments of the world with reference to copyright and protection for the authors and composers; but within a year or so we will find the world is in such a different condition that we will be able to give to the world a convention for the protection of these people that will be far greater than what you are asking here, now; so therefore I suggest that this treaty not be acted on favorably at this time.

Thank you.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you. We will stand in recess until 1:10, at wich time Mr. McClure will continue, to be followed by Mr. Melcher.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., a recess was taken until 1:10 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the subcommittee met again at 1:10 p. m., and proceeded further, as follows:

Senator THOMAS of Utah. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has called a meeting of the full committee tomorrow morning at 10:30, so that means we will not be able to meet in the morning. I just told Mr. Flynn that we would meet in the morning, when I came in, but the clerk has just told me. We must stop here this afternoon at 2:15. We cannot do anything but recess then until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock. That may be quite an inconvenience for a number of persons who have come here expecting a 2-day hearing, but it is the type of inconvenience over which I have no control.

I want to say this, that if you have a prepared statement and wish to submit it, the clerk will be glad to receive that at any time, and then when we recess at 2:15 today we will recess until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock-subject, of course, to the usual orders from those who plan the other things we have to do.

If it is agreeable, Dr. McClure says he can stand aside, since he will be here Thursday.

Mr. KILROE. Mr. Chairman, I cannot be here Thursday. I have only about four questions to ask Dr. McClure. Then I will hand in my statement.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Can you do that now? Is that agreeable? Mr. KILROE. Has he finished?

Mr. MCCLURE. I should like to have a little more time on Thursday, but if it will serve anyone's convenience

Senator THOMAS of Utah. You can take that on Thursday. I think we had better try to meet the convenience of everyone, if Mr. Kilroe is anxious to ask Dr. McClure, himself, some questions.

Mr. KILROE. That is right.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Proceed, Mr. Kilroe.

Mr. KILROE. Doctor, if the United States at this moment adheres to the Berne Convention it will have as its principal partners, won't it, Japan, Mussolini, Hitler, and his gang of scoundrels?

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Kilroe, the method of your description is not such that I can answer either way.

Mr. KILROE. Well, use your own term on the scoundrels.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Mr. Kilroe, you must remember that this is the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. KILROE. I think at a public hearing like this any member has a right, or anybody sitting at the hearing that is being heard can have his right, to express his opinion.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. I think that since this is a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and since we refrain from judgments on foreign countries, if you will restate your question in such way that Dr. McClure can answer it, he will do so.

Mr. KILROE. I will just modify it by saying "Hitler and his Hun associates."

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, in replying to the question that has been put to me, I should be glad to file with the committee a complete list of the parties to the convention. I will furnish a list in accordance with my information from the Department of State. (The information referred to is as follows:)

COUNTRIES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS

(According to the records of the Department of State, April 15, 1941)

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »