Of course, Mr. Frase, you followed these hearings closely and you know many, many other organizations have appeared, many of them in behalf of the bill as it now stands, but I wonder whether you feel any of them would either be for or against the repeal of this section in this bill.

Mr. FRASE. I counted those that had actually come out one way or the other on it. I may have overlooked some. The organizations listed there are roughly of two types: those interested in the rights of the author, authors and publishers, and, more particularly, the scholarly organizations, because this is a matter that affects the scholars and authors. In that category are the American Council on Education, the American Council of Learned Societies, library groups, and so on. A good many of the other educational organizations have interested themselves only in the matter of copying, and I would think their interest would be just as much involved on the side of the repeal of the manufacturing clause as some of those listed there, like the American Council on Education and American Council of Learned Societies, but so far they have not interested themselves in it.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. That was the implication of my question.

You note major modifications in the manufacturing clause. There have been several since 1891. Historically, does it appear to you that the thrust of these modifications is in the direction of ultimate elimination of the manufacturing clause?

Mr. FRASE. This has been a steady trend that way with the one exception in 1909; that is when binding was put in; but since that time it has all been sort of downhill and I would hope it would continue.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. That is all the questions I have. I thank all of you gentlemen for your presentation this morning. You have contributed a great deal.

The Chair would like to call Mr. Walter V. Davidson, Jr., representing the American Book-Stratford Press.

Mr. Davidson, may I read the following statement given to me by my chairman, Mr. Emanuel Celler, the Congressman from New York. I quote Mr. Celler:

I am pleased to introduce to the members of this distinguished subcommittee Mr. Walter V. Davidson, vice president of the American Book-Stratford Press, New York. This is a renowned book manufacturing concern and Mr. Davidson is its very able and distinguished executive. I bespeak for him your kindliest consideration. I would have been present in person to offer this introduction of Mr. Davidson but I was asked to be at the White House on important matters.

STATEMENT OF WALTER V. DAVIDSON, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF SALES OF AMERICAN BOOKSTRATFORD PRESS, INC., NEW YORK

Mr. DAVIDSON. I will not read my statement in its entirety, although it is very brief, but part of it is redundant with the bill itself, and I will just refer to that as being in the bill.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, we will incorporate your statement in the record.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY WALTER V. DAVIDSON, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF SALES OF AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC.

I am Walter V. Davidson, Jr., administrative vice president and director of sales of American Book-Stratford Press, Inc. American Book-Stratford Press is one of the largest complete book manufacturers located in the United States having plants in Vermont, New York, and New Jersey. As well as having large letterpress and offset printing plants and edition bound and soft cover binding facilities, we have two major composing room operations. As an executive of this corporation, I feel that I am qualified to make certain comments on the manufacturing clause as it appears in H.R. 4347.

1. American Book-Stratford Press feels that until such time as more adequate protection for the printing and binding industry of the United States of America can be enacted by the Government, a manufacturing clause should be retained in the copyright law.

2. American Book-Stratford Press does not, however, agree in its entirety with the provision as set forth in section 601 of bill H.R. 4347. Specifically, we refer to (c) under that section.

3. I have not attempted to write a new paragraph (c) under section 601, but can report that American Book-Stratford Press would support section 601 if paragraph (c) would include the following changes:

(a) There shall be no restriction whatsoever on composition of any type or kind being performed abroad providing that the resulting repro proofs, film, tapes of any kind, or in the case of letterpress, mats or plates, will be used to perform printing in the United States of America. In the case of pictorial matter, we again feel that preparatory work should be permitted to be performed without restriction.

(b) As to works so composed, there would be a complete prohibition of printing and/or binding outside of the limits of the United States of America except that the following cases shall not apply:

(1) Where, on the date when importation is sought, the author of a preponderant part of said material is neither a citizen nor a domiciliary of the United States.

(2) Where, in the case of a work first published abroad, the Bureau of Customs is presented with an import statement issued under the seal of the Copyright Office, in which case a total of no more than 2,000 copies of any one such work may be allowed entry. The import statement shall be issued upon request to the copyright owner or to a person designated by him at the time of registration for the work under section 407 or at anytime thereafter.

(3) Where importation is sought under the authority, or for the use of the Government of the United States or of any State.

(4) Where importation, for use and not for sale, is sought: (a) by an individual with respect to no more than one copy of any one work at any one time; (b) by an individual arriving from abroad with respect to copies forming part of his personal baggage; or (c) by an organization operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes and not for private gain, with respect to copies intended to form a part of the collections of its library.

(5) Where the copies are reproduced in raised characters for the use of the blind.

(6) Where, in addition to copies imported under clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection, no more than 2,000 copies of any one such work, which have not been manufactured in the United States, are publicly distributed in the United States.

4. In making this decision of policy, AB-SP has spent a great deal of time investigating the various problems which foreign manufacturing might create. In addition, it has examined the problem as it pertains to the publisher and in this examination has found that were it not possible to perform certain types of complex composition abroad, many hundreds of very necessary technical books used in our higher educational system could never have been published due to the economic situation created by the high cost of complex composition in this country as opposed to the considerably lower cost available abroad. It might be well to be aware of the fact that this is not a self-serving rationalized decision as evidenced by the construction and equipping of an entirely new

composition plant in Brattleboro, Vt., by AB-SP at a cost of several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

5. In arriving at this decision, AB-SP feels that it is not necessarily one of long range importance since it is AB-SP's conviction that the price gap now prevalent in complex composition is being narrowed at a very rapid rate and in the not too distant future, the ability of U.S. compositors to use computerized composition and increases in wages of those compositors abroad will result in the return to this country of much of the work now being done abroad.

6. In addition to the above reasons for recommending the change in paragraph (c) we have other convictions that are important to the book manufacturing industry of the United States. We believe that, if restrictions on foreign participation to the extent herein outlined, namely composition and platemaking, are lifted, many books which today are too costly to be produced in the United States because of their limited interest and resultant small sales would be published. This increased publishing would generate more printing and binding in the United States and in turn would, to an extent, increase employment in these industries.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I am Walter V. Davidson, Jr., administrative vice president and director of sales of American Book-Stratford Press, Inc.

American Book-Stratford Press is one of the largest complete book manufacturers located in the United States, having plants in Vermont, New York, and New Jersey. As well as having large letterpress and offset printing plants and edition bound and soft cover binding facilities, we have two major composing room operations. As an executive of this corporation, I feel that I am qualified to make certain comments on the manufacturing clause as it appears in H.R. 4347.

1. American Book-Stratford Press feels that until such time as more adequate protection for the printing and binding industry of the United States of America can be enacted by the Government, a manufacturing clause should be retained in the copyright law.

2. American Book-Stratford Press does not, however, agree in its entirety with the provision as set forth in section 601 of bill H.R. 4347. Specifically, we refer to (c) under that section.

3. I have not attempted to write a new paragraph (c) under section 601, but can report that American Book-Stratford Press would support section 601 if paragraph (c) would include the following changes:

(a) There shall be no restriction whatsoever on composition of any type or kind being performed abroad providing that the resulting repro proofs, film, tapes of any kind, or in the case of letterpress, mats or plates, will be used to perform printing in the United States of America. In the case of pictorial matter, we again feel that preparatory work should be permitted to be performed without restriction.

(b) As to works so composed, there would be a complete prohibition of printing and/or binding outside of the limits of the United States of America except that the following cases shall not apply:

These cases are as listed under (b) of 601 and they run Nos. (1) through (6).

One change we would recommend under clause (2) is that where it calls for freedom of movement of 3,500 copies of new work, we would limit that to 2,000 copies.

4. In making this decision of policy, American Book-Stratford Press has spent a great deal of time investigating the various problems which foreign manufacturing might create. In addition, it has examined the problem as it pertains to the publisher and in this exami

nation has found that were it not possible to perform certain types of complex composition abroad many hundreds of very necessary technical books used in our higher educational system could never have been published due to the economic situation created by the high cost of complex composition in this country as opposed to the considerably lower cost available abroad.

It might be well to be aware of the fact that this is not a self-serving, rationalized decision, as evidenced by the construction and equipping of an entirely new composition plant in Brattleboro, Vt., by American Book-Stratford Press at a cost of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is a fully computerized plant in direct competition. with foreign suppliers.

5. In arriving at this decision, American Book-Stratford Press feels that it is not necessarily one of long-range importance since it is American-Book-Stratford's conviction that the price gap now prevalent in complex composition is being narrowed at a very rapid rate and in the not too distant future, the ability of U.S. compositors to use computerized composition and increases in wages of these compositors abroad will result in the return to this country of much of the work anticipated or now being done abroad.

6. In addition to the above reasons for recommending the change in paragraph (c), we have other convictions that are important to the book manufacturing industry of the United States.

We believe that, if restrictions on foreign participation to the extent herein outlined, namely, composition and platemaking, are lifted, many books, which today are too costly to be produced in the United States because of their limited interest and resultant small sales, would be published. This increased publishing would generate more printing and binding in the United States and in turn would, to an extent, increase employment in these industries.

That is the statement of American Book-Stratford Press.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

While you represent, in appearing here, only American BookStratford Press, does your view represent that of other book manufacturers, do you feel?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I can say it does not represent the majority view of other book manufacturers. There are probably some book manufacturers who would concur. This was not the policy set forth by our association.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Your association would be the Book Manufacturers Institute?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is correct.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. They will appear tomorrow.

Is it your conclusion that book manufacturing technology in this country will in the not too distant future be so far in advance of foreign countries that it will not only retain but will actually gain new work?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, the words "book manufacturing" would have to be broken down into composition, printing, and binding. Of the latter, printing and binding. I would not believe our technology is improving faster than Europe's, as witness the fact that a considerable amount of equipment now available to European manufacturers is

being imported by us so we can realize the economies built into the equipment.

In composition, however, I believe we are more advanced or more sophisticated than the foreign compositor, although this has not born fruition. The computerized composition of a highly technical nature is being studied and, as a matter of fact, some of it is being done, but is not competitive at all, and it will be some time until it is. However, this will be realized, and I think if we study the wage structure of England, let's assume, we will find it is going up at a more rapid rate than our own. So, at some place in the not too distant future these wage structures will meet and I believe the American publisher, the minute he can realize economies here, would much prefer to have his work done in this country.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You and I, Mr. Davidson, were able to listen to Mr. Frase and able to see his presentation charts. Would you agree with his economic analysis?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, I am not qualified to agree or disagree. I certainly cannot call him incorrect, so I would say, as much as he showed I would have to agree with; yes.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Part of his presentation graphically was that there is relatively only a small area in terms of money value of production, book manufacturing, that this country is losing, much of it set up by monotype and so forth.

On page 4, you suggest that if restrictions on composition abroad are lifted many books which today are too costly to produce in the United States because of their limited interest and resultant small sales would be published.

Is there much of a necessity for you to go after that particular field of manufacture considering that this is such a small percentage of the total?

Mr. DAVIDSON. We don't know how small it is, because we have been receiving present texts to a greater or lesser extent. We do not know what might happen in any of the three areas, printing, binding, and composition, if the manufacturing clause was removed. For instance, the four-color process work that is used in the encyclopedia and the encyclopedias, themselves, would readily adapt their manufacture to foreign sources and it would be considerably cheaper. They have not done this because of the copyright law.

To sum up, your question as to Mr. Frase's presentation is an almost unanswerable question in that, if you remove the entire manufacturing clause of the copyright law, nobody knows what is going to happen insofar as foreign manufacturing is concerned. Due to this, I would have to disagree with him that these charts would represent a valid situation before the removal of the manufacturing clause and after its removal.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Any questions?

Let me thank you for your presentation, particularly the brevity and the fact you have suggested concrete alternatives which I hope will be called to the attention of the other members of the committee not present today.

Thank you.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you.