$269. So you will see a considerable gap between the British rate in the printing trades and those prevailing in this country. West Germany's were higher than in Britain and higher than those in France. Norway and Sweden and Switzerland have distinctly 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, unless Mr. Van Arkel wishes to concede all of his time. He, too, has 5 minutes. Mr. VAN ARKEL. Why don't I give him 3 minutes and Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Well, I think he has already consumed 3 minutes of your time. Mr. STRACKBEIN. You mean I have consumed that much of his time beyond my own? Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes. Mr. STRACKBEIN. Well, in that case, I have just about completed the whole statement, by picking up these rates. Switzerland does have the highest rate amongst the countries that were tabulated, but Switzerland is not a country that I think will give us trouble in this field. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Well, thank you. [The prepared statement of O. R. Strackbein follows:] STATEMENT OF O. R. STRACKBEIN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL ALLIED PRINTING TRADES ASSOCIATION I appear before you as the Legislative Representative of the International Allied Printing Trades Association to testify on H.R. 2223, a bill for the general revision of the copyright laws. The International Allied Printing Trades Association is composed of the combined printing trades unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. These Unions are: The International Typographical Union; The Graphic Arts International Union; The International Printing and Graphic Communications Union. The Graphic Arts International Union resulted from a merger of the Bookbinders, Photoengravers and the Lithographers Unions. The International Printing and Graphic Communications Union formerly consisted of the Printing Pressmen and the Stereotypers and Electrotypers Unions. The combined membership of these unions is upward of 375,000. Since the last general copyright law revision in 1909 these unions have supported, first the inclusion and, second, the retention of the so-called Manufacturing Clause of our Copyright law. In the sixty-six years since that time the Clause (embodied in Chapter 6, Section 601 of H.R. 2223) has been modified only marginally. We believe that it should be retained as it stands in H.R. 2223, unmodified. The original purpose of the Clause itself remains unchanged. Numerous assaults have been made against it over the years but it has stood the test of time. It is not necessary here to spell out the meaning of the Clause other than to say that with a reasonable exception all books of nondramatic literary material. authored by an American national, printed in the English language must, in order to enjoy copyright protection in this country, be manufactured in this country. The exception is that of 2,000 copies to permit testing the market. The reason for this requirement is the maintenance of employment in this country at levels of compensation and under working conditions that are in keeping with the standard of living achieved here and maintained over the years. Until recently foreign wage levels have remained at levels far below those prevailing in this country, including the printing trades. While during the recent world-wide inflationary period foreign wages have risen, the narrowing of the wage differential may be temporary. It is still quite wide. In any event imports of printed matter by this country has increased from $97.2 million in 1966 to $271.3 million in 1974. This represents a near tripling of imports. 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 (United 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 objection 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 8, 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 Universal Copyright 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 must merely conform to the conditions that will place them on the same plane as American authors. The importation of books (free of duty) has increased from $48,000,000 in 1967 to $125,000,000 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 preceding 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 Far 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 through 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, output per man-hour, varies considerably from country to country. The so-called fringe benefits may also vary from 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 United States the average gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the manufacture of books, was $161.93 per week in 1973, or $4.11 per hour. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 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 $10 in New York in October 1973. Bookbinders (machine sewing) in the same centers received an average pay from $4.15 to $4.53 in Atlanta and San Francisco, respectively, for females; from $5.78 to $7.39 in New York for males. Press operators ranged from $5.52 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 average of $1.07 per hour. Unskilled 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 (including 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 bookbinders 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 12% 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 witness 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, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE STATEMENT OF GERHARD VAN ARKEL, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOE BAILEY, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION Mr. VAN 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 recommendation that a manufacturing clause be continued in our copyright law. With me is Mr. Joe Bailey, a vice president of the International Typographical Union, 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 submitted 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 briefly 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 as 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 grant of copyright. Who may have a copyright, what does the copyright extend to, who is the infringer, and all the rest of it. This we think is in line with the constitutional power granted to Congress in this field. Now as to the second question, whether or not the manufacturing clause is a reasonable requirement, about 15 years ago the Honorable Sam Bass Warner, who had been a Register of Copyrights and who was a stanch defender of the manufacturing clause, 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 now to be. That is to say, at that time it was an entirely acceptable condition imposed on the grant of a very much desired privilege; namely, the right to have a monopoly of the American market. As he pointed out, this was the method that the Congress adopted to reconcile the interests of the British in obtaining copyright in the United States and the desire of the American public to have English editions under reasonable conditions. Prior to that time, as has been pointed out, there was no protection for foreign nationals in this country and there was no protection for American authors in England. The result was that English titles were pirated in this country generously and that American titles were pirated in Great Britain. A good bit of the coyness that was shown by the witnesses yesterday about the unethical practices, if I can call them that, of American publishers in pirating British titles was quite unnecessary because the British were doing exactly the same thing with our titles. So that the grant of copyright accompanied by the manufacturing clause was the method which the Congress and all other interests chose to impose as a condition on the grant of this very much desired privilege in the United States. It is, of course, difficult to compare wage rates in different countries. In my statement I have made an effort to do so. On page 4 Mr. Fuchs points out that I neglected to say in the statement that the wage rates there referred to are wage rates of printing trade workers abroad. But those comparisons show that the country which most nearly approximates our wage rates, which is Sweden, has an average wage rate of less than half of ours. I should have mentioned Canada, whose rates are approximately equal to ours. The lowest of them, Belgian women, is only about a tenth of our wage rates. I have not been able to obtain statistics, but we know that wage rates in the Far East and in large parts of South America are below even these levels. So this points up the glaring discrepancies between wage rates abroad and in this country and it illustrates, I think, our basic point that we should not create a condition in which work can be done under the most degraded working conditions anywhere in the world and still have unlimited entry into the United States and a right to exclude American manufacturers from our domestic market as a consequence. Now we have made certain points in this statement which I should like to discuss briefly. In the first place, we would welcome a provision which would exempt Canada particularly from the manufacturing clause. This has a bearing on a good bit of the testimony that was given yesterday, where it was pointed out that there is a lot of friction with the Canadians, and we think that where wage rates are comparable, as they are between Canada and the United States, that there ought to be some provision made, we suggest by way of a Presidential finding, that if another country has wage rates comparable to ours then the provision of the manufacturing clause should not apply. This is particularly significant if you consider the export figures and import figures which Mr. Frase presented to you yesterday. Those figures show an excess of exports from the United States over imports, but about 45 percent of our exports go to Canada, and we import practically nothing from Canada. So that if you take the Canadian figures out of the statistics that Mr. Frase presented to you yesterday, they make a far less one-sided picture than the statistics which he produced would make it appear. By the same token, almost 40 percent of our imports are from Great Britain so that, insofar as Great Britain is concerned, there is hardly any inequality whatsoever. I would just like to add that our concern is not with fair competition. If wage rates 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. |