Lapas attēli

of date. (A rough average length of time for setting a technical book in type and getting all proofs corrected and OK'd is about 6 months.) And finally some scholarly works might never be published because the author, faced with the Hobson's choice of no copyright protection or no publication, might choose the latter. Ultimately the Nation would suffer because students would be deprived of some necessary tools for learning, scholars would be deprived of knowledge of the latest advances in their respective fields, and the spread of learning would be reduced. All this to provide a segment of industry with protection against an unreal and illusory threat.

Although the book manufacturers through their institute are loud in their call for retention of an iron-clad clause forbidding any foreign work on the book of any American author on pain of losing his rights under the copyright law, they have no hesitancy in purchasing and using the latest equipment available from abroad. Any concerted effort by book publishers to demand that all work be performed with American-made printing presses and other machines would be surely met with cries of outrage. It apparently never occurs to book manufacturers that foreign trade is a two-way street. There are no statistics regarding the annual dollar volume of overseas book composition, printing, and plate making ; but judging from my own experience, both as a buyer of such services, and now as a sales representative for a foreign typesetter, I would be very much surprised if the total of such work exceeded $2,500,000 annually. On the other hand, U.S. imports of complete books were valued at $37,800,000 in 1963, the latest year for which figures are available, while in the same year exports of books from the United States exceeded $125 million. If we were to cut off or materially reduce the services now provided U.S. publishers by overseas printers and typesetters, it could hardly come as a surprise if our customers abroad were to materially reduce their purchases of finished books from us. This in the long run could be far more damaging to American book manufacturers and labor than the relatively small amount of work now leaving our shores.

Although the Book Manufacturers' Institute makes a strong show of solidarity within its ranks regarding the retention-and strengthening-of the manufaeturing clause in the new law, there has been at least one large defector from their group. At the end of last year American Book-Stratford Press, a large New York manufacturer and member of the BMI, relaxed its opposition to the clause to the extent of calling for no restrictions on overseas typesetting, composition by any method, the importation of any kind of type proofs, plates, illustration plates, or sheets manufactured abroad. They suggested other rerisions liberalizing the clause as well.

Perhaps the most compelling arguments against the manufacturing clause in the proposed revised copyright law are ethical and moral rather than economic. It is ironical that under the proposed new copyright law, an author who is the national of any country which is a member of the Universal Copyright Convention automatically receives full copyright protection for his book in the United States, no matter where manufactured. Authors who are nationals of all other countries may be granted full and automatic copyright protection for their works by Presidential proclamation, if it is deemed in the national interest. In other words, any and all of the world's authors of books either are or may be granted full copyright protection in the United States—all, that is, except authors who are U.S. citizens or who are domiciled here if their books be manufactured in whole or in part abroad.

What a traresty on the elementary concepts of justice: penalize our authors by depriving them of their rights to their own work in order to continue the fiction of “protection” for the printer-a protection forced into the original Copyright Act of 1891 by unprincipled printers of the day in order to assure continuation of the profits they had gained by pirating the books of the world's authors without the payment of royalty or fee. What underlines the discriminatory nature of the clause is the fact that it is aimed solely at books, and books of prose only. It specifically exempts dramatic works, and does not limit other rights an author may have in his work-movie rights, magazine rights, TV rights, and so forth. It limits his rights only in the original work-the book if it is partly or wholly produced outside the United States. But this is understandable, of course, for book manufacturers derive no benefit from motion pictures, magazine publication, or TV adaption.

There might be some excuse for thus penalizing the author if he were in fact responsible for having his book manufactured abroad, but actually he is not. Almost all author-publisher contracts leare sole discretion for publishing in the hands of the publisher, and this means responsibility for the production and manufacture of the physical book.

The fact of the matter is that the Book Manufacturers' Institute is clinging to a dying cause. The trend of today is toward wider and freer trade among nations, not narrower; toward a greater diffusion of knowledge, not less. The elimination of all restriction on copyrights for our authors' works, no matter where produced or manufactured, will promote the spread of knowledge to the rest of the world and bring a thousandfold return in the form of many more books distributed around the world. At the same time elimination of all restrictions on full copyright protection for book authors will foster a better understanding of us abroad and provide encouragement and assurance for our writers and scholars at home.

I respectfully urge that the Judiciary Committee strike the manufacturing clause, section 601, from the revised copyright bill (H.R. 4347) when this comes before you for your consideration.

VILLANOVA, PA., August 16, 1965. Mr. HERBERT Fuchs, Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. FUCHS: I appreciate your letter of August 13th, in which you say that a prepared statement of my reasons for opposing the present draft of H.R. 4347 would be brought to the subcommittee's attention and possibly made part of the record on this legislation.

Herewith I enclose my statement, a statement which gives not only my reaction to sections 107-109 of this bill, but also those of my husband, the betterknown writer of our team, and of several other full-time professional writers who like us are appalled at the implications of the proposed legislation. Thank you for your kindness in presenting my statement to the subcommittee. Yours sincerely,



Schools pay for supplies, teachers, and janitorial services. Do writers come free?

At a time when President Johnson is pushing for fair treatment of all Americans and is urging the raising of cultural standards in our Nation, the advocates of proposed law H.R. 4347 are planning a course of action that will discourage the writing of good texts and nonfiction books for young people. They are also depriving writers of their hard-earned income.

House bill 4347 would aid writers by extending the copyright period to author's life plus 30 years. But, in its present form, the bill would work a far greater hardship on writers than does the present U.S. copyright law with its inconvenience of having to renew copyright for each work at the end of 28 years.

Sections 107, 108, and 109, as I understand it, permit teachers to duplicate as much of our books as they wish, without asking permission or giving the author any remuneration. With the current improvements in duplicating machines and microfilm, they will soon be able to reproduce all of our writings by simply borrowing a book from the library and having the material reproduced in the school office. (No wonder the NEA likes this bill so much.)

My husband and I are full-time writers of nonfiction books particularly suitable for adolescents and young adults. We work long hours preparing a book and receive no greater compensation than a skilled factory worker. Yet, in the guise of “protecting" us, the bill is threatening our very livelihood. Schools are one of our largest sources of sales. Without the hope of school sales, publishers would not put out many of the books we, and other writers like us, produce.

This is a matter of elementary economics: the bill, if passed, would discourage the writing of clean, educational, nonsensational books—the very kind of books the good public and private schools depend on most in planning their In a period when more and better schools are being built, when school transportation is a lively topic of conversation, when Federal funds are being given to State and municipal colleges, when teachers' salaries are being raised-in such a time, it would be short-sighted indeed of our legislators to pass a law that would surely lower the quality and guantity of new educational materials available to these larger schools and better teachers.

For, if the sales to schools were curtailed by the use of cuplicated materials, taken from our books without remuneration, writers like my husband and myself would be forced to seek our living in other fields of writing where, let us hope, the copyright law would give us some measure of protection.


In short: our Nation pays a big bill for education. It pays well for schools, supervisors, teachers, and janitors—must writers come free?


Washington, D.C., May 8, 1965. Subject: Bill to revise the copyright laws-H.R. 4347 (S. 1006). Mr. EDWIN E. WILLIS, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee No. 3, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WILLIS: The Electronic Industries Association offers its endorsement of your efforts to obtain revision of the copyright laws. We favor the objectives of H.R. 4347 and S. 1006.

Although many portions of the bill have already had extensive discussion and debate, there are portions relating to programs for computers and information retrieval systems which we believe should be expanded.

Your attention is directed to our concern for the need of additional limitations on the exclusive rights of a copyright owner and the following comments are submitted for the subcommittee's consideration.

The limitations herein suggested would appear to us to be reasonably neces. sary to accomplish a legitimate public purpose. There is no significant disadvantage to the copyright owner involved since the work is in unintelligible form when in a computer. By including these limitations in the bill, it will help to clarify an area that is presently developing with the potential for serious legal problems.

I. CONCEPT It should not be unlawful to ascertain in visual intelligible form with the aid of a machine or by other means the content of a copyrighted work otherwise unintelligible. Reasons for concept

Computer programs on magnetic tape can be copyrighted under the bill even though they are not visual to humans and can only be made intelligible with the aid of a machine or device. When the copyright law provided protection to such unintelligible works it created a new problem.

The problem created involves one of the basic purposes of the copyright laws which is the promotion of the dissemination of information. The copyright grant is given to authors because the public benefits from his creative activities. The public benefits because it is free to use the ideas contained in a copyrighted work. For example, the public is free to copy a mathematical formula from a copyrighted book. Computer programs are basically mathematical formulas in the form of instructions to a computer.

This objective of the copyright laws cannot be achieved if one who lawfully obtains a copyrighted magnetic tape cannot reduce it to intelligible form to see if it contains a usable mathematical formula. Insofar as copyrighted computer programs on magnetic tape are concerned, the ideas are not ascertainable without a print-out of the work in visual form. If an intelligible copy could not be made, such a medium of expression could be substantially maintained in secrecy. Therefore, one of the basic purposes of the copyright laws will not be fulfilled unless one can make an intelligible copy to ascertain its contents. Proposed change

Limitations on exclusive rights.—Exemption of unintelligible works.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for the owner of an unintelligible copy lawfully made and obtained under this title to make one copy to ascertain in visual intelligible form with the aid of a machine or by other means the contents of a copyrighted work otherwise unintelligible.


It should not be unlawful to incorporate a copyrighted work lawfully obtained into an information retrieval system for machine processing. Reasons for concept

Some authors apparently feel they should be entitled to a fee every time the copyrighted work is processed by the computer as to whether it is pertinent. This is no different than a person combing books in a library to determine which ones he is not interested in.

From a public policy point of view, the copyright owner should not be able to thwart the progress of information retrieval. It is in the public interest to have an efficient information retrieval system. This does not significantly impair the profit of the copyright owner up to this point, since it is intended he be compensated for the purchase of the copyrighted work and thereafter for any print-outs made by the machine. It is recognized that a copyright owner should receive fair compensation for his efforts. We feel he will get this whenever there is an intelligible print-out made by the machine. However, while the work is in machine language it is intelligible only to the machine. It becomes visually intelligible to humans when it is reduced to printed form. The copyright owner should then be compensated by payment of a fee. It is felt that the copyright owner would receive more revenue from such copies than from the sale of books. Proposed change

Limitations on exclusive rights.-Exemption of information retrieval systems.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright to incorporate a copyrighted work, lawfully made and obtained under this title, into an information retrieval system for information retrieval machine processing purposes. Very truly yours,

GRAHAM W. McGowan,

General Counsel.


Swarthmore, Pa., May 14, 1965. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,

D.C. DEAR MR. CELLER: It has just come to my attention that hearings are currently being held on H.R. 4347 to revise the copyright law. I wish to support the provisions being put forth by the Society of American Archivists, as follows:

1. That provision be made to permit libraries, archives, and other repositories to microfilm or otherwise make facsimiles of manuscripts for the purpose of depositing copies in other institutions.

This would not adversely affect copyright interests in the manuscripts in any way. It would, in effect, merely extend the repository's ability to show its manuscripts to scholars and others, and, at the same time, would make it possible to house security copies at a distance

from the originals. 2. That the new law include a provision which will automatically limit the duration of literary property rights to the author's lifetime plus 25 years, or to the 50 years from the date of origin of the writing, in cases where the death date of the author is unknown, unless those rights are protected by registering them with the Copyright Office, in which case the longer period of protection shall apply.

This would make more readily available to scholars and others a vast amount of material that has little or no monetary value but which may be of vital concern for research in such fields as literature and

history. I hope very much that you will support these changes in the proposed legislation. Very truly yours,

A. L. EMMONS, Curator.


Chicago, Ill., September 29, 1965. In re H.R. 4317, H.R. 5680, H.R. 6831, HI.R. 6835, for the general rerision of the

copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C. Sir: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., and Encyclopædia Britannica Films, Inc., have prepared the enclosed statement to point out certain problems inherent in the proposed copyright bill, H.R. 4317, which have not been considered in any of the other materials presented to the House Subcommittee No. 3. The heart of the statement concerns importation of foreign copies and distribution of copies, both foreign and domestic, made or distributed without authorization of the copyright owner. It particularly emphasizes the detrimental effect which may be caused by application of the proposed bill to nonprinted materials when the bill apparently was designed chiefly with printed works in mind.

The following problem areas which arise under the proposed bill are discussed in the statement :

1. Unlimited copies of American works may be lawfully made and imported, without the consent or authorization of the copyright owner for library use by an organization operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes. See section 602.

2. The manufacturing clause does not apply to dramatic, musical, pictorial, and graphic works. Even if changed to include such works, the manufacturing clause would not prevent unauthorized copies allowed by section 602 unless modification of the educational exemption and clarification of the 3.500-copy exemption to the domestic manufacturing requirement were accomplished.

3. Unauthorized reproduction by almost anyone having a copy of a copsrighted work is possible under section 110 and transfer and distribution of all copies owned is permissible under section 108. Read together these sections allow extensive domestic reproduction and distribution of copies

not authorized by the copyright owner. Since availability of copies not authorized by the owner of a copyrighted work will result in a substantial diminution of the available market, which in the case of educational motion pictures and filmstrips would be a large percentage depletion, modified wording of the pertinent proposed sections is suggested. This wording corrects the unprotected problem areas by preventing the making, distributing, and importing of unauthorized copies,

It is absolutely essential to the continued development and production of educational materials that a major portion of the available market not be taken away by allowing access and use of unauthorized copies. The protection must be just as effective when applied to materials of a nonprinted nature as when applied to printed materials. We strongly recommend that changes accomplishing these mandatory corrections be implemented. Very sincerely,




Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Maurice B. Mitchell, president of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., is engaged in the production of many materials used extensively by scholarly and educational organizations. Our sister corporation, Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc., is one of the leading producers in this country of educational audiovisual supplies.

Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopaedia Britannica Films present this statement in order to draw attention to certain very important defects in sections of H.R. 4347 which have not been mentioned in the oral presentations or written statements submitted to this subcommittee, but which could vitally affect producers of educational materials. In addition these areas have not been discussed by the Register of Copyrights' in supplemental materials prepared

1 Statements credited herein to the Register of Copyrights are taken from "Copyright Law Revision, Part 6," a House committee print concerning the 1965 revision bill.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »