sometimes three and sometimes four times as high as that of the foreign workers, but that is one subject I want to point out in which it is very dangerous to generalize, you have to be very specific and relate your observation to particular industries. In the case of printing, while I have not been in the printing establishments of England or other foreign countries, I believe that the productivity here is not so much greater that it would offset the difference in wage rates. It may be said of course, that because the United States offers a large market and therefore permits the printing of large editions that some advantage appears there that is not present in the printing in other countries where they do not have that broad, wide market. In other words, the volume of production does give an advantage in your unit cost. That does not necessarily mean that our printing establishments as such are equipped in a manner that raises their productivity above that of the foreign establishments. In other words, if the foreign establishments had the same broad market to cater to then they would also get the advantage of your large scale production and that productivity would, no doubt, approach our own. It is largely a question there of the type of equipment and the volume of output that your market can absorb. Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Willis? Mr. WILLIS. At the risk of repetition, but to satisfy my general unfamiliarity with this subject, will you go again over the ground as to the specific field of operation which is being relaxed; that is, whether the relaxation is in favor of the foreign countries, as I understand it to be, and tell me how the situation now operates and how it will be changed under the proposed amendment. Mr. STRACKBEIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a memorandum here prepared under date of February 1, 1949, which I think covers that point in full detail. Now I might either read that or put it into the record. Mr. WILLIS. Would you read it so that I will know what the point of beginning is after we hear the other witnesses? Mr. STRACKBEIN. The letter is addressed to Mr. Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and is from me as representative of the International Allied Printing Trades Council and Mr. Sam B. Warner, Register of Copyrights and reads: The purposes of the bill are two. The first is to ease what are believed to be unnecessarily severe restrictions on the copyright in the United States of books published abroad in the English language. The second is to permit applicants in foreign countries who desire United States copyright to substitute an extra copy of the work and a catalog card for the $4 fee. It is believed that this option will both make United States copyright available to many authors who cannot under present conditions secure American funds, and prive advantageous to the United States Treasury. The accomplishment of these purposes should increase the flow of foreign works into the United States. It should also increase the good will of foreign authors, publishers and readers toward us and hence the willingness of foreign countries to facilitate the importation of American books and other literary works. In short, the enactment of the bill should promote international cultural exchange of the advantages of democracy and of the American way of life. Below is a detailed account of the proposed changes in the copyright law. The bill is designed to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Section 16: To eliminate the technical defect in section 16 created by the omission of the words "or periodical" after the word "book" in two places in the section. As the section is now worded, foreign books may be accorded copyright protection in the United States if manufactured here, but foreign periodicals may not, if the section is to be interpreted strictly. The Copyright Office has always believed the section should not be interpreted strictly in this regard and has allowed the copyright registration of foreign periodicals manufactured in the United States. The bill will make such action indisputably legal. 2. Section 16: To allow the importation into the United States of 1,500 copies of a book that has been registered for ad interim copyright. The cost of printing and publishing a book in the United States is at present such that unless at least from 3,000 to 5,000 copies of the book are sold, the exact number varying with cost and price of the book, it is usually uneconomic to print and publish the book in the United States. The present situation is, therefore, that when a book is printed abroad in the English language unless an American publisher thinks he can sell more than 3,000 copies, the English publisher has no alternative but to proceed without American copyright. Since the book is not copyrighted in the United States, there is no limit to the number of copies that may be imported, subject, of course, to the payment of the tariff. It is hoped that the provision for the importation of 1,500 copies will allow English publishers to test out parts of the American market and thus enable them to demonstrate to American publishers that the book will sell in such quantities as to justify its printing and publishing in the United States. 3. Section 22: To extend the period within which registration may be made in the United States Copyright Office to 6 months and that within which printing and publishing must be done in the United States to 5 years. The present periods are 60 days and 6 months (60 days plus 4 months). It is believed that many books published abroad in the English language are not reprinted in the United States because the present periods are too short to allow the foreign author and publisher to make up their minds that it is worth while to try to publish in the United States, to make copyright registration, secure an American publisher, and then have the book printed and published. Before these matters can be accomplished, the copyright dates have passed and no American publisher will take the books, because if the book fails he alone must bear the loss while if the book succeeds, any other American publisher can also print it and thus cut into his sales. It is hoped that lengthening these periods will increase the number of foreign books in the English language that are reprinted and sold in the United States. 4. Section 215: To give a foreign copyright applicant of a book published in English or in any other language the option of securing American copyright by depositing one copy of the book and paying $4 or depositing two copies and a library card describing the book. At present, the law requires the deposit of one copy and the payment of $4. Exchange restrictions are such in many countries that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure a license to export $4 to pay the fee. Thus the foreign copyright owner may be deprived of his opportunity to secure American copyright. The proposed change in the statute permits the foreign author to substitute an extra copy of his book and a library card describing it for the $4 fee, if he so desires. In most cases, it will be to the advantage of the United States Treasury that he elect this option. The Library of Congress will want the extra copy of the book and the cost of cataloging the book will amount to more than $4. Determining the true names of foreign authors and securing the other information necessary to catalog foreign books is an expensive matter. It is much more economical to have the foreign national library, which must catalog the book for its own purposes, print additional cards to send to the Library of Congress, than for the Library of Congress to do the research necessary to make the card. 5. Section 215: The last part of this section permits an American copyright owner to use the facilities of the United States Copyright Office to assist him whenever arrangements have been made with foreign countries which will permit the Copyright Office to facilitate deposit or registration. This provision is an extension to other countries of the facilities which have been available for securing copyright registrations under the treaty of Mexico City of 1902. The Library of Congress has exchange arrangements with many national libraries and is equipped to perform this service for many countries. The act does not require the American copyright owner to use the facilities of the Copyright Office unless he so desires. Mr. BRYSON. Your principal purpose in being here is to give the views of labor on this particular subject? Mr. STRACKBEIN. Yes, sir. As I said before, I would like to reserve the right after the Department of State gives its position in this 8818049 matter to make some comments inasmuch as I do not know at this time what their position will be. Mr. BRYSON. We will see that you have that privilege. Mr. BRYSON. Next we have Mr. Arthur E. Farmer. Will you give us your full name and your official capacity in appearing here? STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. FARMER, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS' COUNCIL, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. FARMER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Arthur E. Farmer and I am a member of the New York bar, having been admitted in 1929. I have specialized in the copyright field and literary property generally, ever since my admission to the bar. I appear here on behalf of the American Book Publishers' Council, Inc., which is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, the membership of which includes the publishers of approximately 90 to 95 percent of all the trade books published in the United States today. If the committee is interested in the membership which I represent I have here a list of members which I will be glad to submit. Before making my statement I have been asked by Mr. Sydney Kaye who is chairman of the copyright committee of the association of the bar of the city of New York to submit to the committee this letter which is addressed to Congressman Celler, which expresses the tentative views of the committee on H. R. 2285. Mr. BRYSON. I received a long telegram yesterday from him. Mr. FARMER. Yes, this is to supersede that telegram. This is a more detailed and reconsidered statement. Mr. BRYSON. The telegram is to be disregarded and the contents of the letter substituted? Mr. FARMER. That is correct. Mr. Kaye also asked for leave of the committee to submit a full memorandum on these points during the coming week if that is feasible. Mr. BRYSON. That will be satisfactory. Now you want this letter put in the record? Mr. BRYSON. Yes. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, ROSENMAN, GOLDMARK, COLIN, & KAYE, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: The copyright committee of the association of the bar of the city of New York is grateful to you for having transmitted to me as its chairman, with your letter of February 10, a copy of H. R. 2285. As the result of a special meeting of the committee held last night, the committee formulated the following views which I am requested to lay before you. Because of the shortness of time and for other reasons, it has not proved practicable to have a representative of the committee appear before you tomorrow and it is, therefore, respectfully requested that this letter be made part of the record of the first hearing and, if possible, that a representative of our committee be permitted to appear before you at some convenient subsequent date. The committee regards the general objectives of the bill as desirable. It believes that the rigors of the manufacturing clause of the copyright law should be alleviated. It feels that provisions for the admission into the United States of 1,500 copies of books and periodicals in the English language printed abroad, without the sacrifice of copyright, will have a beneficial effect. It favors relieving the present necessities of foreign copyright proprietors who find it onerous and impracticable to pay $4 in American currency for the copyright of foreign works in this country, but it feels that this result should be accomplished in a way other than that set forth in section 3 of the bill. The specific suggestions which our committee has with respect to the bill as the result of its consideration thereof are the following: The provisions of title 17 of U. S. Code, to which section 1 of the bill addresses itself, have been regarded as applying to periodicals as well as to books. The committee agrees that the removal of any ambiguities in the act relating to such application to periodicals should be removed. This renders it desirable that the words "or periodical" should appear on page 2, line 8, following the word "book," and also that section 23 of title 17, U. S. C., should be amended to conform to the changes made by the bill. If it is desired to extend the privilege of importing 1,500 copies of separate lithographs or photoengravings, consideration should be given, the committee believes, to the insertion in section 1 of language specifically applying to such separate lithographs and photoengravings. The committee calls attention to the fact that in a prior bill intended to accomplish the purposes of section 1, the privilege of importation was not extended to books written by American citizens or to books written by foreign citizens resident in the United States. Whether such limitation should appear in the present bill should also, the committee feels, receive consideration. The committee feels that the draftsmanship of lines 1 and 5 on page 3 of the bill would be improved if the words "exceptions set forth in section 107" were stricken out and if there were substituted in each case the words "provisions of section 107, subdivision 'd'." With respect to section 2 of the bill, if it is intended that the passage of the bill should not shorten extensions of time established by Presidential proclamation, in accordance with the second proviso of section 9 of title 17, it is possible that ambiguity would be avoided either by express provision reserving such rights or by a statement to that effect in any committee report which may accompany the bill. In general, our committee feels that the admission of copies in accordance with the provisions of section 1 will serve the public interest by permitting the public demand for technical works of limited circulation to be filled and by permitting the desire of the American public for larger editions of works of general appeal more accurately to be assessed. Section 3 of the bill is designed solely to alleviate the situation of foreign copyright proprietors who now find it onerous and impracticable to pay the $4 copyright registration fee. Our committee has before it conflicting information as to the reaction of copyright proprietors in foreign countries to the suggested alternative method of registration and deposit, which section 3 of the bill suggests. It is informed that in the case of copyright proprietors of at least one important foreign country, the requirements of section 3 will be regarded as unsatisfactory and that, far from placating copyright proprietors, passage of this section may evoke some type of retaliatory action. Obviously in a section which is designed for no purpose other than to relieve the necessities of foreign authorship and publishing, the first question is whether it finds favor in the eyes of the persons whom it is intended to benefit. The committee hopes, therefore, that this question will be most thoroughly explored. Some other observations with respect to this section seem to be pertinent. The alternative method of deposit applies not only to books but to all other copyrightable material, including manuscripts, prints, sheet music, newspapers, and the like. Much of this material is both cheap in price and evanescent in value and the deposit of an additional copy would not appear in a large number of cases to be compensatory for the corresponding loss in revenue. Moreover, it may be difficult for citizens of many countries to produce a catalog card satisfactory to the Register of Copyrights and it may be taken for granted that the Register will not desire to refuse copyright for that reason. Our committee feels that that portion of the section which permits American copyright proprietors to use the facilities of the Copyright Office to forward copies, to other countries has disadvantages which outweigh the advantages. Requirements for deposit and registration in other countries are not inherently "satisfactory" to United States copyright proprietors and any encouragement of such requirements is not in the national interest. For these and other reasons, the committee would prefer to see some other method employed for the relief of foreign copyright proprietors. It has been suggested to the committee that the beneficent purposes of section 3 could be accomplished if the powers granted to the President of the United States under the second proviso of section 9 of title 17 were extended so that the President of the United States could, by proclamation, grant extensions of time for the payment of copyright fees for such periods and upon such terms and conditions as the President should deem appropriate. Among the advantages of such an approach to the problem would be that we would not enshrine in our basic copyright law a permanent discrimination (albeit of only a procedural nature and with justifiable reason) against our own national authorship and industry. If such suggested approach to the problem should not be regarded as satisfactory, then the committee has the following suggestions: (a) The committee regards with disfavor the provision made by line 4, page 4, that the last day of the alternative method of registration and deposit shall be 1 year from original publication. In effect, this is a definition for a limited purpose of the period of deposit provided by section 13 of title 17. If any period is to be stated, it is felt that the period should be the 6 months' period which the bill would put into effect under section 2 thereof for ad interim copyright. It is pointed out that the definition of any period may be regarded with disfavor by some foreign copyright proprietors. (b) As a matter of draftsmanship, the committee would prefer not to see the language in lines 7 and 8, which prescribes that a catalog card shall be “in form and content satisfactory to the Register of Copyrights.' The committee would prefer a provision that the Register should prescribe in advance a form which would indicate the information required. (c) The committee would definitely desire the omission of that portion of section 3, which commences on line 8 and ends on line 19 of page 4. As has previously been stated, the disadvantages to United States copyright proprietors would seem to be outweighed by, among other considerations, the impetus that this might give to require registration and deposit in foreign countries which it is not now demanded of our citizens. While this letter generally represents the views, I believe, of our committee, I should like an opportunity to formulate our suggestions in more concrete form. The committee desires more concretely to formulate its suggestions and to review its conclusions (arrived at only last night) at more length. It would, therefore, be greatly appreciated if the committee could be afforded an opportunity at a later date either to appear before your committee or, if this would be inconvenient or impracticable, to submit a further memorandum with respect to its position. Respectfully yours, SYDNEY M. KAYE, Chairman of the Copyright Committee, Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Mr. FARMER. As to H. R. 2285, in reality it consists of three parts, sections 1 and 2 being directed at the protection or extending of the protection which may be given to works of foreign origin in the English language so far as copyright in the United States is concerned. Section 3 may be subdivided into two parts. The first part includes the first sentence and is designed to give relief to foreign authors and publishers from the very great difficulties which they had been experiencing in obtaining United States currency to the extent of $4 per book or periodical or composition in order to obtain copyright in this country. The difficulty has been very great, and if you had, for example, 25 musical compositions to copyright it would amount to $80 and at the present exchange of the French franc and the great difficulty in obtaining licenses for foreign exchange abroad, this represents a serious handicap and I understand has led to a great deal of feeling against this country putting such difficulty in the way of creators known as composers of original compositions. The second part of section 3 is an attempt to make it easier for creators of printed, mimeographed, and lithographed work in this country to comply with the formalities of copyright in other countries by empowering the Register of Copyrights to forward copies of |