Mr. BRYSON. I thought of when you go to the library, you pull out the drawer and it gives you the name of the author. That does not look difficult.

Mr. BRACKEN. Of course, it is possible that that data will be selfevident not only from the book itself, but from the supporting documentation as it comes in. I have heard it said that it cost more than $4 to compile such a card. Of course I am not prepared to comment on that. That seems to me, offhand, a statement which I think I would like to hear more about from the standpoint of justification. But, nevertheless from the standpoint of principle we are faced here with imposing a further formality upon the acquisition of copyright between countries.

You have heard Mr. Farmer say that when an American author produces something in this country it is not too difficult for him to acquire copyright protection. He does not have to deposit, make out catalogs, or do various other things simply because he publishes it here and perhaps puts copies on sale in a Berne country. He acquires protection and I think that as a matter of general principle the State Department would do what it can to eliminate the imposition of any further formalities or prerequisites for securing copyrights with respect to alien authors or proprietors.

We have what I call the third point, namely, that the Copyright Office offers to operate as a conduit for books in countries which apparently require deposit and we are opposed to that provision. It requires a finding on the part of the Register of Copyrights that the arrangements for deposit or registration in any one country are satisfactory. We feel that this would tend to encourage a system of deposit for registration within a country, within any one country, to feel that where an official of the United States Government is required to examine into a deposit and registration within a country, is required to make a finding of it, that that will tend toward those countries setting up such systems and in the Department we at the present time are not prepared to accept the imposition of that type of formality if possible. Mr. Chairman, those are the three major points in the legislation and I might add one further thing. I indicated a few moments ago that we are in accord with any proposal to ameliorate the $4 fee.

I might say that at the present time we have the active consideration and possibility that an interpretation of section 9 (b) of the present act would give the President of the United States the power to defer this payment with respect to those countries where it is probably difficult for the foreign author or proprietor to secure dollars. There are many countries of the world where a foreign proprietor or author, I suppose, today can secure dollars rather readily. There are many countries of course in which he cannot. I am not prepared to say definitely that we may do this under the interpretation of the present statute as it stands today. I say that it is under very active consideration.

I may further point out that the Department would of course support any proposal which placed in the President of the United States the authority to eliminate or to ameliorate these fees as he saw fit and in the framework of our international regulations.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Goodwin.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would be interested in getting further amplification from the gentleman on the position of the Department of State with reference to the manufacturing clause. Apparently we have a bill here which is supported by labor, by the printing trade, and by the publishers.

Mr. BRYSON. And by the Register of Copyrights.

Mr. GOODWIN. I am thinking of the impact on our own domestic economy. Here is a thing which is supposed to be in the interests of American business and American labor. Do I understand the State Department to say that we ought to forget those considerations and look only to the question of how this is going to effect international good will? Are we going to continue to hear that when ITO comes up for approval; that we must subjugate the American interests and American labor to a higher consideration that here is something which perhaps somebody across the sea may not like, or that we will hurt somebody's feeling abroad?

Mr. BRACKEN. Mr. Congressman, I will attempt to answer that in this way. No. 1, I am not an expert on the ITO charter. Mr. Brown, who heads the division which has had the responsibility of developing the ITO charter is appearing today before another congressional hearing. I might say that I am sure that those people who have developed the ITO charter feel that they are doing everything in their power to help and assist American business and American industry. I think that perhaps they feel that they are taking the long range view toward American industry and American labor and American productive enterprise.

We are approaching, I am sure, a situation where retaliation from an economic standpoint and other standpoints could be very imminent. We wish to avoid that. It is highly possible that to eliminate the manufacturing clause today, which may to some extent—and we are not prepared to admit this-lessen the amount the American printers make to some degree, has to be weighed against the entire assets of a multilateral treaty throughout the world which limits retaliatory measures.

I do feel the subject is one which requires public hearings and requires everybody to be heard. It requires just as detailed a study as we are able to give it and as detailed a presentation of it as we are able to give it.

I am concerned that this proposal, which may be termed a stop-gap measure will not permit the full and adequate consideration which we feel should be given to it. I have a feeling about this and to the extent that it ameliorates the manufacturing clause, we are in general accord. I suppose it is like reducing a fever from 104 to 103. The question is: What is producing the fever? That is what I think we have to get to. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, unless you have further questions. Mr. WILLIS. As I understand your position, you feel that the consideration of the portion of the bill covered by sections 1 and 2 would be the sections having to do with the manufacturing?

Mr. BRACKEN. That is right.

Mr. WILLIS. That field of legislation should be gone into more carefully after this ITO organization has been formalized. In other words, you are not indicating that you would be opposed to this but you think it is premature for the time being?

Mr. BRACKEN. That is right.

May I say that it is not a question of waiting until the ITO charter is accepted and formalized. When the Department of State presents the ITO charter within the next few weeks it will feel it necessary to present this legislation.

Mr. WILLIS. In other words, you might be here later on sponsoring a measure somewhat like this or with other phraseology attached to it. Mr. BRACKEN. Yes.

Mr. BRYSON. Are there any further questions, gentlemen?

Mr. Strackbein?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. That was the testimony that I referred to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRYSON. Could you reply to it briefly, please?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. Yes.

Mr. BRYSON. All right, we will hear it at this time.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. This is the question of the present relationship of the bill to the ITO charter and the timing of the two.

Mr. BRYSON. You propose to reply somewhat to Mr. Bracken's position?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. That is true.

Article 20 of the Havana charter for an International Trade Organization provides-and I will read only this paragraph that relates to the present situation-as follows:

No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes, or other charges whether made effective through quotas, import or export licenses, or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any member on the importation of any product of any other member country or on the exportation of or sale of any product destined for any other member country.

The point there is that the manufacturing clause might be interpreted to be in conflict with this article.

That no prohibitions or restrictions other than duties shall be instituted or maintained by any member on the importation of any product of any other member country.

Now the manufacturing clause might be interpreted to be one such prohibition or restriction other than a duty and that therefore could not be instituted or maintained.

Mr. WILLIS. In other words, if I understand you right, the adoption of this charter would mean that it would be in conflict with the manufacturing clause and one would have to yield?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. That is correct; it might be so interpreted. If the question were raised by a member country the question would be disposed of through the machinery of the International Trade Organization and not unilaterally by an act of Congress of the United States.

Our feeling has been that by relaxing the manufacturing clause in the manner proposed under the bill that for all practical purposes it would satisfy the countries that are interested perhaps in eliminating the manufacturing clause and, therefore, the question might never arise even if the ITO charter was adopted. Therefore, we have felt that it was entirely proper to bring this matter up as a separate proposal, particularly because it would gain much more specific attention under such circumstances than it would if it were left to the time when the charter as a whole is considered, which is a very broad document. I believe that the possibility of obtaining a specific attention to the manufacturing clause when the charter as a whole is considered is

comparatively small; that the matter of the manufacturing clause will be one of many other considerations, many of which will be regarded as much more important, so that the issue will be lost almost completely when the charter itself is considered. It was for that reason that we thought it was feasible and proper and wise to bring this matter up before the charter itself came before the Congress.

Mr. WILLIS. Well, this bill before us does not eliminate the manufacturing clause, it modifies it.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. It does not. We feel that it would change it so that for all practical purposes it would satisfy all those countries that have objection to it at the present time.

Mr. WILLIS. Since you expressed the thought that the manufacturing clause might come in some way in conflict with this charter, would that not be one more reason to be cautious in adopting this particular legislation when we know that there is an over-all piece of legislation that we will have to face not so long from now?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. We feel that were the ITO charter adopted and the manufacturing clause not amended, there is little doubt but that a country might challenge the manufacturing clause under the ITO. We feel that if the manufacturing clause is relaxed as suggested here. that they might never bring it up.

Mr. WILLIS. Do you not believe it might be a thing to tackle at the time of the ITŎ and test the temper of these countries on this think and, after passing, ameliorating without affecting the manufacturing clause?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. It is a question of which is the more appropriate approach. That is purely a question of judgment, of course, and your judgment might be different from mine.

Mr. WILLIS. I am not expressing a judgment; on the contrary, I want as full a discussion of the subject as possible.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. We feel that we would get a more complete consideration of this question if it were considered separately on its merits than it would receive as simply a part of the consideration of the charter in general.

Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Tackett.

Mr. TACKETT. In order to know in what way this clause modifies the manufacturing clause in existence, would you give us just a short snyopsis of the coverage of the present such clause?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. This would extend the time under which a book printed in a foreign country in the English language may be registered in this country with the Copyright Office from 60 days to 6 months. Mr. TACKETT. Yes.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. In addition to that it would permit the importation of 1,500 copies within a period of 5 years in order to test the American market. Then, if any additional sales under copyright protection were to be made in this country, such books must be manufactured in the United States.

As it is now, any book of this character must be manufactured in the United States if it is to enjoy copyright protection. This relaxes the time in two respects, it relaxes the 2 months period to 6 months within which they must deposit their books with the Register of Copyrights, and then this permits 5 years in which to being it up to 1,500 copies in order to test the market. Those 1,500 copies could be

printed abroad, but with that quantity we feel that they could test the marekt and if the market justified any further manufacturing, the manufacturing would take place in this country. That is a relaxation and liberalization of the present law.

Mr. TACKETT. I would like to know just where that would be beneficial to the printers' union?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I represent the printers' union. The limitation of 1,500 copies that could be brought in, we feel, is an adequate protection for the manufacturing clause. In other words, 1,500 copies do not represent any real threat toward the undermining of our labor standards.

Mr. WILLIS. Let me ask you this question if you care to answer it. Am I correct in assuming that possibly what is in the back of your mind is the very threat involved in this charter and that you are presenting this legislation in this fashion in anticipation of the later harm that you might suffer under the charter; that if it were not for the idea that this charter is coming for consideration, probably you would let the matter lie?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I think you have anticipated quite correctly our position. I want to add this, however, that in the absence of the charter we might let this matter lie. If a threat of retaliation overseas arose, then naturally we would study the content of that threat to determine what it was worth, to determine whether we wanted to relax the manufacturing clause, but it is bound up with the ITO.

Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Tackett?

Mr. TACKETT. I have nothing else.
Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Goodwin?

Mr. GOODWIN. No questions.

Mr. BRYSON. Next we have Mr. John Shulman of the Authors' League of America.

STATEMENT OF JOHN SHULMAN, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHORS' LEAGUE OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. SHULMAN. My name is John Shulman, attorney, 120 Broadway, New York City. I appear here as the representative of the Authors' League of America, an organization which goes back to 1912, among whose membership is between eight- and nine-thousand authors, people who make their living from writing books.

Mr. BRYSON. Do you represent the same organization as Mr. Farmer?

Mr. SHULMAN. No; I am appearing for the people who produce the raw material which Mr. Farmer's clients print and publish and which our friends, the printers, actually print. We are the producers of raw material.

Mr. BRYSON. You furnish the brain work?

Mr. SHULMAN. We furnish more than the brain work, we furnish what goes down on the paper. However, we never arrogate to anybody the sole possession of brains.

We produce the raw material which is then processed through the printing plant, through the publishing houses, and then it is sold. Of course, as creators we are very much interested in this whole subject. I think that in considering this problem there have been a number of things that have been thrown on the table which are very important, namely, that this is part of a larger problem, larger process.