« AnteriorContinuar »
$269. So you will see a considerable gap between the British rate in the printing trades and those prevailing in this country.
Vest Germany's were higher than in Britain and higher than the in France. Vorway and Sweden and Switzerland have distinctir higher rates than these other countries.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you. We have a system of allocating time to witnesses, and you have exceeded your 5 minutes' time, unle Mr. Van Arkel wishes to concede all of his time. He, too, has 5 minutes.
Jir. V'AN ARKEL. Why don't I give him 3 minutes and
Jir. KASTENMEIER. Well, I think he has already consumed 3 mingis of your time.
Vr. STRACKBEIX. You mean I have consumed that much of his tine bevond my own!
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.
Mr. STRACKBEIN. Well, in that case, I have just about completel the whole statement, by picking up these rates Switzerland does laid the highest rate amongst the countries that were tabulated, but Su.. zerland is not a country that I think will give us trouble in this tirida
Mr. KASTEN MEJER. IT'ell, thank you.
STATEMENT OF 0. R. STHACKBEIX. LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, INTIASATIYAL
ALLIED PRINTING TRADES ASSOCIATION I apar before you as the Legislative Reprentative of the Internatirtal All Printing Trade Asiation to testify on 1.R. ***), a bill for the brai resimjen of the top right law4.
The international Allied Printing Trades A iation is cutn ourd of the 1 bined printing trades unions athliated with the American Federation of lar and tongry of Industrial Organizations
These ( nions are: The International Trigraphical linion: 13* Graf* 4*** International l'nion; The International Printing and Graphic minum aibus , (nian.
The Graphic Arts International l'nion rented from a merger of the Bew.** binders, Phokengra rers and the Lithographers I'niens
The international Printing and Graphie ('ouumunications I'nin farmer!! ** wisted of the Printing Premrd and the Stereotyper and Eat ers ( alo'.
T!le nimbina metarship of these unions is aan of 375 (NO)
Since the last Kineral r ight law revision in 19*** the ring hare with pwortel, Hirst the tinson and, wund, the prelition of the mind I'l! ! phone ne can of our ton blow in the ext)
winoethit 'me tip (****)*** ( wwdied in Chapter 6, Neyton ull of HR **3) has t mention only nar
We believe that it should be retnined as it stands in HR , unmodifiral. The orixinal pur, 3 tle (lause it if frålns undi dangd. Sumerus *11 bure in made asinst it or the year but it is tow the trust and tir It
not nevar her to stw Il out the 11,411 of the (111p etter than to
y! **h a wife he rilan all whes of Indramic literary materiil. authored by an Afy*P14:01 najal. p19fel in the English lan misaf ! tvrder to pti) Diright protects in this (untry, be hanutitund in this (v0nTM tr T. er*** t in tint of 2 )
to it to 1)* 1 II.art Tv r s vዕን ክr 1 ክf 5 ኮ ነ ተ¥3°ተጓ! » »• mግ ኔ ታ የ ምትጊግ ዝቅ ! !ryካ፡ ዝዩ ፣፣ (“በt n ! turint leivo ! Am a tnind 119 for work
1.* .at an in ker in* W* .* ***11ndefidt lade her and inntainedores de terra.
Ioril ratly ferebD Wall de leirls have remaid at leirls fir ko * pr**ing in this wuntry, inring the printr* tride Witte during the tent wor**ile intrapre nd paspoor
har On the nursewing « the
w i ferential may the terminary. It he will quite wide in any prent importo 111 gopptret matter by the country has inry from
7 million in 1*** to $1713 nl.vain 14:4. Tils rrrverbis a near tng of 11jutta
Some of this sharp increase may be attributable to the removal of our duty on books under the Florence Convention which was negotiated under the auspices of UNESCO (Cnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ratified by the Senate. It took effect in 1966.
Opposition to the Manufacturing Clause is often based on the simplistic objec. tion that it is protectionist. However, a copyright is itself protectionist in the sense that it bestows a monopoly on the author. That purpose is contained in Section , Article I of our Constitution. The purpose is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries",
The t'niversal (opyright Convention extends copyright privileges in this country to foreign publishers but does not preclude this country's setting forth the conditions under which the monopoly privilege may be enjoyed. Foreign authors are not excluded from the enjoyment of copyright in this country. They muet merely conform to the conditions that will place them on the same plane a.American authors.
The importation of books (free of duty) has increased from $48.000.000 in 1947 to $123,000,000 in 1974. They are included in the more general classification of printed matter and represent nearly a half of the total as recited in a prerding paragraph.
With importation free of duty the principal inducement to manufacture books abroad, as indicated above, lies in generally lower wages prevailing in many foreign countries. Of principal concern to the printing trades in this country are possible sources of cheap labor such as still prevail in the bar East and across our borders in Mexico.
Wage comparisons admittedly leave much to be desired if the purpose is to determine comparative costs of production. Rates of wages must be translated throngli exchange rates, and when these fluctuate as they have in recent times we encounter considerable difficulty in arriving at satisfactory comparisons, Moreover productivity, which is to say, ontput per man-hour, varies considerably from country to country. The so-called fringe benefits may also vary froin country to country.
Yet when all this has been said two other considerations will contribute to the relevance of comparative wage rates. In recent years productivity in other industrial countries has advanced quite sharply. The United States no longer enjoys the great lead in this respect that was formerly her advantage. The higher wages here went hand-in-hand in many instances with higher output per man-hour. Modern technology, including that of the printing industry, is now quite widely diffused.
Secondly, the wage differentials between the American printing industry and the foreign are in some instances still very wide, especially so far as countries of the Far East are concerned, as well as Latin America.
In the t'nited States the average gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the manufacture of books, was $161.93 pr werk in 1973, or $1.11 per hour. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, C.S. Department of Lalor, March 1974). There were, of course, higher rates as well as lower ones. The average pay of compositors hand or machine, ranged from $5.52 per hour in Atlanta to Sh. 10 in New York in October 1973. Bookbinders (marhine sewing) in the same centers received an average pay from $4.15 to $4.33 in Atlanta and San Francisco, respectively, for females; from $5.78 to $7.39 in New York for males. Press operators ranged from $7.52 to $8.10 in Atlanta and New York, respectively.
In Mexico machine or hand compositors (adults) earned 93.6 cents per hour in 1973. Press operators, rotary or flat, received an avera ge of $1.07 per hour. l'n killed workers earned only 66.6 cents per hour. (Source: Bulletin of Labour Statistics, 2nd quarter, 1974. International Labor Office, Geneva).
Here we see a strong contrast with the earnings in this country. The differential is over 4 to 1 in the United States in relation to the level in Mexico.
In Hong Kong for hand compositors the hourly wages were 66 cents per hour in 1973 while machine compositors received an average of 91 cents. Bookbinders received from 49 cents to 60 cents depending on whether they were female or male. Press operators received an average of 71 cents. (Source: same as for Mexican wages).
Taiwanese earnings are given on a monthly basis. In 1973 the monthly earnings in Taiwan in the printing industry ranged upward from $79.96 in May to $89.60 in November (the conversion from the Taiwanese dollar to the U.S. dollar made at rate of 38.33 to 1 U.S. dollar). Typesetting and bookbinding rates ranged from $60.18 in April to $64.17 in December 1973.
The monthly hours from which these rates were derived were generally in the range of 230 to 250 hours. If the monthly rates as shown in the preceding paragraph are reduced to hourly rates, their low level becomes glaringly obvious. An $80 per month rate drops to the low level of 34 cents if converted to an hourly rate, assuming the number of hours worked per month was 230 or some 53 hours per week. If 250 hours are used as a base, the hourly rate drops to 32 cents. (Source: Monthly Bulletin of Labor Statistics, June 1974. Executive Yuan, China). Additional compensation in all manufacturing (includ. ing printing) is estimated to be 15-20% in Taiwan. This addition would, however, not affect the differential between U.S. and Taiwanese wages significantly,
Korean wages are reported on a monthly basis, based on "regular employees." In printing and publishing the rate is shown as $74.90 per month for 1973. The number of days worked averaged 25.3 per month. The daily average rate was therefore $2.96, or about 33 cents per hour. By 1975 the pay had risen to $105 per month or $4.32 per day. This would represent some 48 cents per hour. (Source Monthly Statistics of Korea, June 1975, Economic Planning Board, Korea.) The conversion from the Korean won has been made at the rate of 398 won per $1 U.S. for 1973.
The report states that an addition from 25-30 percent should be made to the wage rates as reported. However, such an adjustment would still leave the hourly rate of 1973 which was calculated at 33 cents no higher than about 42 cents. The 1975 rate would be lifted to about 61 cents per hour.
The areas of such low wages are potential sources for the development of book-printing at low cost. Books so printed could enjoy copyright protection in this country under Universal Copyright Convention. The maintenance of the conditions now in effect in the form of the Manufacturing Clause, assuring manufacture in this country as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of a monopoly in this market, is both legally justified and fair as a quid pro quo to enjoyment of our market, particularly since the duty on imports has already been removed.
European wages in the printing trades, though varying substantially among some of the countries, are well above those prevailing in the Far East and Mexico.
France and Britain are on the low side. According to the publication, “International Graphic Federation Journal," the standard rates of pay per week for skilled labor in the printing trades were at the level of $62-$64 in Britain, for typographers, lithographers and gravure printers, in 1974. Conversion was at $2.36 to the £. The French rates ranged from $83 to $89, while bookbinderg and packagers were at the lower level of $55 per week. The American rate for bookbinders was $150 while the rate for lithographers was $212 and that of gravure printers was $269.
Both West Germany and Belgium had higher weekly rates. The Belgian rates ranged from $103 for packaging and $120 for bookbinding to $140 for newspaper offices. From 9% to 14% should be added. Typographers, for example, at $124 received an additional 1212% bringing them to about $140.
West German rates ranged from $126, average for all trades, to $142 for machine compositors, the highest. Bookbinders, in the highest age and wage group were paid $122.
The highest European wages in the printing trades were paid in Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. The Norwegian rates ranged from $143 per week for packaging to $191 for lithographers. The Swedish rates ranged from $119 for bookbinders and packaging to $176 for skilled typographers. Lithographers and gravure printers received $175. The Swiss rates ranged from $169 for packaging to $212 for machine compositors. American rates, however, were still above even the Swiss rates, the highest in Europe, in some of the trades.
While some European countries are much nearer to our level of wages than those of the Far East. they nevertheless still leave a considerable gap. What applies to the Far East and Mexico is therefore also applicable to Europe with respect to retention of the Manufacturing Clause, albeit with somewhat lesser force.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Our next vitness is Mr. Gerhard Van Arkel, general counsel, International Typographical Union. Mr. Van Arkel has an extensive statement with materials appended to it, which will be received and accepted and printed in full in the record.
[The statement of Gerhard Van Arkel follows:]
BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE; SUBCOMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT
I have previously testified before this Subcommittee. I have re-read my earlier testimony and statement on the subject of the manufacturing clause, and believe that no major changes or additions are required. I have therefore taken the liberty of resubmitting my earlier testimony and statement as my statement to the Subcommittee on this series of hearings. Respectfully,
GERHARD P. VAN ARKEL, COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
August 12, 1965, Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF GERHARD VAN ARKEL, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL TYPO
GRAPHICAL UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOE BAILEY, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Mr. Vax ARKEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Gerhard Van Arkel, of the firm of Van Arkel & Kaiser, Washington, D.C. I represent here the International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, which has long been interested in this subject matter, in support of the Register's recom. mendation that a manufacturing clause be continued in our copyright law.
Will me is Mr. Joe Bailey, a vice president of the International Typographical Inion, who does not plan to testify but who will be available to answer any questions which the subcommittee may wish to put to him.
I have subinitted to the committee a statement setting forth our position on the issues which are involved in this matter. I shall try to summarize, in my presentation here, and I shall try to do it somewhat more brietly than Mr. Frase did yesterday on behalf of the publishers. I hope the members of the committee will understand that I do this out of respect for the time pressures that I know are on this committee, and not because I could not, if I chose, talk as long us Mr. Frase or because we are less interested in this subject matter than he is.
I would strongly urge that in considering this problem the thought that should be uppermost in your minds is that we are not talking about free trade. Insofar as the American market today is concerned, there is free trade in books. There is a purely nominal tariff of 3 or 7 percent only. There is no other restriction of any kind imposed by statute, regulation, or otherwise which restricts, in any respect, the number of books that any person, or the type of book which any person, American or foreign, can import into the United States. We have thus absolutely free trade in books.
You gentlemen have been considering amending the copyright law, and witness after witness who has appeared before your committee has stressed the obvious fact that the grant of a copyright is the grant of a monopoly.
Now I do not have to develop the thesis that monopoly and free trade are at the opposite ends of the pole, and that they are not reconcilable.
Our position here is that foreign manufacturers should have the right, which they now have, to have their work performed anywhere in the world by that labor which is most exploited and works under the most degraded conditions, and to import that product into this country without restriction.
As I say, that right they now enjoy. Or that they can by American law exclude American manufacturers from the American domestic market under certain reasonable conditions.
But we object to their being granted both this unlimited right of importation and an unlimited monopoly of the American market at the end of it.
I suggest to the committee that there are only two questions properly before you. The first is, may the Congress impose reasonable conditions on the grant of copyright? The second is, is the manufacturing clause a reasonable condition?
Now the first of those need not detain us. Your whole hearings have been directed to the question what kind of conditions should be imposed on the rest of copyright. Who may have a copyright, what does the copyright extend to, wbo is the infringer, and all the rest of it. This we think is in line with the constit tional power granted to Congress in this field.
Vow as to the second question, whether or not the manufacturing clause is a reasonable requirement, about 15 years ago the Honorable Sam Bass Warner, w. bad been a Register of Copyrights and who was a stanch defender of the manafacturing clanse, did a very perceptive study of this clause and its origins.
He found that at its inception this clause was exactly what we assert it bon to be. That is to say, at that time it was an entirely acceptable condition imposed the grant of a very much desired privilege; namely, the right to have a motor of the American market. As he pointed out, this was the method that the Congres adopted to reconcile tbe interests of the British in obtaining copyright in the l'nited States and the desire of the American public to have English editi$ under reasonable conditions.
Prior to that time, as has been pointed out, there was no protection for foreina nationals in this country and there was no protection for American author England. The rexult was that English titles were pirated in this col.l* generously and that American titles were pirated in Great Britain.
A good bit of the coyness that was shown by the witnesses yesterday aby's unethical practices, if I can call them that, of American publishers in jur.:'.': British titles was quite unnecessary because the British were doing exact.y the same thing with our titles.
So that the grant of copyright accompanied by the manufacturing clothes the method which the ('ongress and all other interexts chose to imp as a condition on the grant of this very much desired privilege in the l'n is!
Ii is, of course, dimcult to compare wage rates in different countries Il." statement I have made an effort to do si), On De 4 Mr. Furhs prints ont I neglected to say in the tatement that the age rates the riprend to a wa rais of printin irade Workers abroad. But those compari.
* 41 the country which minst harly all prolimates our wage rates, 1?tih f Sie! bi uprap 18 title of 'ess th:2 ha!! of ours. I should fare for his fil Canada, wlup rates are approximately equal to our
The lowest of them, Belgian women, is only alront a tenth of our wage ratne I have not been able to obtain statistics, but we know that wage ra's to the Far East ard in large parts of South America are below even them !er.'
So this ports up the glaring discrepancies twtween wage rates about 1 in this country and it !}ustratos, I think, our busic point that we ? OUI . create a condi'ion in which work can be done under the most degradert ! (edit:or'aan here in the world and still have unlimited entre foto thril:,'.! Senip and a right to exclude American manufacturers from our domestic market as it conseqtebie.
Now we have made certain points in this statement which I should Ille to
11: the first place, we would welmme a provinden which would prempt Carada particularly from the manufacturing clanse. This is a bearing on a liit of the te'mol, t'a! ws given torlis. W el was p
*! that are
n o ! frition with the l'aradars, and we think pat , WP rape are cutlet rase. :et are bettern Canada and the l'rilen
er th, that tu le pie pirnilinin made, we suggest br war of a P-- !rnin' fi:,ig that if another miydi'ry has Wagerne evnija ralle to ours then the
Pion of the manutri: R 11 trud nye aripi'y *This in tamil. pp.1.1. , ant 18 ani tyler erwirt nie fo vint 0. urist:) Wr. F- Parry'idio Pilli Testerills T - sh ineet OPTI* from t. 1': Stores ir
par mit 4: Tut of myr ext. r o Carri!, and well .pt ! yo'lr nicola Prim ( !) 11!
the (mailan ngurts ont of the 11. lix that Mr Free rowers | I lar. the Ilne a far rey (I. de priture the pe St. 'II
' Darrell world make it appear. 1 bien, frokon, a'ii. *** 40 perynt of our im'orts are from Great Brita'
u r As Great Britain is unrerird, iberp is hardly any ineyality
I would just like to all that our tirer is not with fair competition. It wage
are approximately equal in another country. We are confident that American manufacturers and American workers can get along with them. But we think that this is a desirable change to make with respect to the manufacturing clause.