Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

We should also like to recommend the addition of a new requirement connected with the notice. The publication of a "derivative" work in which copyright is claimed on editing, or the like, should include a clear statement as to the nature of the "new" material, similar to the phraseology used on the copyright application.

These editions which claim copyright are for the most part of works already in the public domain. They are not based on transcriptions or arrangements which involve new composition, but frequently only on such things as fingerings for the instrumentalists, suggested dynamics, or an explanatory or historical introduction to the work. The music itself is the same as that which has been in the public domain for decades or even centuries, but the user has no way of knowing this. We feel strongly that copyright claimants of such derivative works should be required to explain in the notice the new material on which the claim is based.

It is also illogical not to require prompt registration and deposit of copies and to deny legal redress when infringement occurs if the formal requirements of copyright have not been fulfilled. Forfeiture of copyright is the only appropriate penalty in cases of failure to comply, willfully or not.

The majority of the membership of the Music Library Association seems to support the position on duration taken by the Joint Libraries Committee; that is, they favor the fixed term both for the published and unpublished material. On the other hand, we have many members who feel otherwise and support the life plus 50 years term in the new bill and point out that it would be more difficult to determine the date of creation for a manuscript work than the death of a composer. We strongly recommend that the publication of the Catalog of Copyright Entries should be required by law, duly provided for by annual appropriations, in a specified form, and at intervals of every 6 months. For music librarians, this is an invaluable reference tool. Unless required by law to be published with regularity, the Register might be left helpless in times of budgetary stringency. Lack of funds could seriously curtail publication or make necessary but regrettable changes in the form. Under such circumstances, the catalog would become less than useless and constant contact with the Copyright Office would become necessary.

Finally, there is one point omitted by the Joint Libraries Committee on Coypright which is of tremendous importance to the music librarian. We refer to the inclusion of phonorecords in the bill before Congress. We welcome this and endorse it wholeheartedly.

At present, the sound recording is in a "no man's land." Every record librarian is frequently asked for permission to copy for scholarly use an old recording no longer on the market. The librarian really does not know whether or not he can grant this permission. Since the old law makes no provision for recordings, there is no term of ownership for this type of publication and, therefore, no public domain. Since all libraries of the country already have large collections of recordings or are in the process of acquiring them, we welcome a legal clarification of the problems connected with them.

I would like to make one other informal statement. I have only recently seen the draft report of the Joint Libraries Committee, and we would like to go on record as not endorsing the last paragraph which they include there, endorsing the ad hoc committee recommendations.

Mr. ST. ONGE. You do not endorse the recommendations of the ad hoc committee?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; we dissent.

Mr. ST. ONGE. I can understand the reason for your recommendation. I think it would be, under our present system, extremely difficult for a legislative committee to provide for annual appropriations in a specified form. The Appropriations Committee might object to that. Mr. CAMPBELL. I realize that.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Are there any questions of the witness?

If not, thank you very much.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.

Mr. ST. ONGE. This will conclude the hearings for the day, and the committee will stand in recess until Wednesday, August 11, at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10a.m., Wednesday, August 11, 1965.)

COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; and Allan Cors, associate counsel.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The hearing will come to order, please.

The Chair has two announcements: first, the Chair notes that the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary yesterday reported to the Senate House Joint Resolution 431 extending copyright protection in certain cases. This measure was introduced by Chairman Willis and processed by our subcommittee.

The Chair also wishes to announce that the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Poff, is absent because he is attending a meeting at the White House, and other members of the subcommittee are absent at this moment because they are similarly in attendance at a meeting at the White House but we expect them momentarily.

Today and tomorrow, the subcommittee will hear testimony on chapter 6 of H.R. 4347, and companion measures, which deals with the so-called manufacturing clause of the copyright law.

Our first witness is Mr. Robert W. Frase, director of the Joint Washington Office of the American Book Publishers Council and the American Textbook Publishers Institute.

Mr. Frase is accompanied by Mr. Chester Kerr, director of the Yale University Press; Mr. Raymond C. Harwood, director, Harper & Row; and Mr. J. Stetson Barnes, vice president, John Wiley & Sons. Gentlemen, you are all welcome before the subcommittee.

Mr. Frase, will you come forward and identify yourself and your associates?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. FRASE, DIRECTOR OF THE JOINT WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL AND THE AMERICAN TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS INSTITUTE; ACCOMPANIED BY CHESTER KERR, DIRECTOR, YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS; RAYMOND C. HARWOOD, DIRECTOR, HARPER & ROW; AND J. STETSON BARNES, VICE PRESIDENT, JOHN WILEY & SONS Mr. FRASE. Mr. Kerr is not only director of the Yale University Press but also president of the Association of American University Presses.

Mr. Harwood, next on my right, is the president of Harper and Row and also president of the American Book Publishers Council; and Mr. Barnes is representing Mr. W. Bradford Wiley, president of John Wiley & Sons, who is this year president of the American Textbook Publishers Institute. Mr. Barnes is also an expert on book manufacturing.

You have before you a tabbed copy of my testimony. I propose to read only certain key sections which I will identity as I proceed. I will summarize other sections and in other cases speak from these charts over here which are a graphic representation of the numbered tables in the text of this statement.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Without objection, the Chair will receive your entire text and make it part of the record. (The statement follows:)

THE MANUFACTURING CLAUSE THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR REPEAL Testimony of Robert W. Frase on behalf of the American Book Publishers Council and the American Textbook Publishers Institute

My name is Robert W. Frase and I am director of the Joint Washington Office of the American Book Publishers Council and the American Textbook Publishers Institute. I am testifying today on behalf of these two organizations, the members of which publish more than 95 percent of the total volume of all books produced in the United States. Members include not only commercial firms but many of the university presses and the publishing departments of religious denominations.

My statement is concerned solely with the manufacturing clause and related import restrictions which, reduced to essentials, now require American (but not foreign) authors to have their books manufactured in this country to secure full-term U.S. copyright. We believe that this trade protection device, first adopted over 70 years ago, no longer serves any useful purpose for the printing industry and is a handicap to American science, technology, and scholarship. We join with other organizations in urging complete repeal of these manufacturing provisions, rather than the modifications proposed in chapter 6 of H.R. 4347. Other groups advocating repeal include: the American Council on Education, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Guild of Authors & Composers, the American Library Association, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, the American Society of Magazine Photographers, the Association of American University Presses, the Authors League of America, the Composers & Lyricists Guild of America, the Joint Libraries Committee on Copyright, the Magazine Publishers Association, the Music Publishers Association of the United States, the Music Publishers Protective Association, and the Society of Magazine Writers.

As the staff economist of the Council, I have given special attention to the economics of the manufacturing clause over a period of more than 10 years. In 1954 I presented an analysis to this subcommittee and the similar Senate subcommittee on the economic effects of the partial repeal of the manufacturing clause required if the United States was to adhere to the Universal Copyright Convention. I predicted then that the elimination of the clause for works produced by citizens of other countries adhering to the UCC, which was subsequently adopted by the Congress, would produce positive economic benefits to American authors, publishers, book manufacturers, members of the printing trades unions, and the American public at large. This turned out to be the case despite the contrary predictions of the opponents of the Universal Copyright Convention. In the 9 years from the U.S. Census of Manufactures of 1954 to the same census in 1963 the dollar volume of U.S. book sales more than doubled, from $665 million to $1,502 million. In the same period the favorable balance of U.S. book exports over imports increased in about the same ratio, from $17 million to $40 million. These are the official Government figures, which are acknowledged to underestimate exports seriously because small shipments are not counted.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »