Imágenes de páginas

in June, and a very few, mainly technical, points that I felt I should na ilipendently since no one else has mentioned them,

1.un supplementary report is nearing completion in draft forin, 21.1 I plan to present it to the Librarian of Congress for submission to Cirman Rodino of the blouse Judiciary ('ommittee and Chairhan bantiand of the Senate Judiciary Committee as soon as possible. II. ?tw final form, the report will consist of about 15 chapters organized by ruisjes't matter in roughly the same order as the bill. At the begin. 10.5" of each chapter the report will identify the sections involved 11. the 10es remaining to be decided. The body of each chapter will, in saring was depending upon the nature of the problem, review tix listound and content of the provisions of the hill in que-sion and e arn the nature of the issues raised and the arguments with 1 ,1 totleni.

Tplast Action in each chapter will consist of comments and recommrtelat sols put forward by me as Register of Copyrights. In some cam, I will put forward alternatives or suggeste posibilities for Darls of compromising disputed issues. Jei purpose inre is not t stel one more burden to the alrealy heavy load of propesas you Nered to conceder, but to help you to find was of dessing along the do-paterad proportin and debated points you already listeljore you. Ide oplow on one of the letters before you and I will be hoient Bla) | ptptng them when need be, but I have no ap to grind.

ou live Matters of the subcommittee, are the only decisionum ÁN in l. omn. My aim is not to influence you; it is to help jord, in any Alcan, toko jour legatise job. l'util.guiy muheduiet 2 days of testimony, I will fint grek to give

thoseriew of the bill and to show how its many part fit tortier. 1.then start with chapter l of the new ttle 17 of the US (onde, as nimed by the bill, and prond by sbjert latter through to the el 1. I en attaching to this statement the drafts of the fint tive chiare of lart

m olestart rrport, whh I wil uman as time for all polit of !! te

toni. Independing on the amount of time we have an tar will the bearing on this morning, I will prob'y read more # m!. frontat dalt.

010) ites, I will do my but to give you the draft text of the Ni. Il ligners

Tens. I will try to coure the following topless (1) Su! jent matter of cutive glad. Fair link and repro- 100 on for millational and W. apny pp. ) Reprodution by libraries and arrisponib (primal 1...'lton on performing rishta. Sen ondary trade inh8.42. (A Born: al. 11:01 11 * caliptors.0.

Internet dewele tine thrremot insultant anal dilult in 10% 1.2...

118) nr 1 on 1 in luptptt ull of life" , pelle of metal le solution, Ju look in that my trotilval. the tonne Wi. -2m2 up the

poults of the stadium on tuhando-tips Brit Wilmin borip our commitspiked on halute top fra on. a': 1,0 1,1 potting a good till.

1.41k verd.

Vir hind u . I look you, V 1991. It Post I NUDI ( Pinead to onerie tint tliet

pullon on the lo tit. hond vote on linquetion of HR 1701, I will have to try

briefly. We will, I hope, be back very soon. I hope you will indulge 13 in this difficult task of competing with the House floor for attention We will recess for 10 minutes. Perhaps we can come back sooner.

(Recess. ]
Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order.
You were saying, before we were so rudely interrupted ?

Ms. RıxGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had just finished my short opening statement. Perhaps I could give you, at this point, a brief summary of what the Senate full committee, the Judiciary Com. mittee, did on Tuesday. I could do it later. It is a little hard to know exactly how to fit it in, Mr. Chairman. It is going to be obtrusive any time that I do it. I think perhaps now is as good a time as any.

One of the subjects I was going to talk about this morning was directly affected by the Senate Judiciary Committee's actions, and only one.

Vir. KISTENMEIER. Well, Jis. Ringer, use your own judgment in the matter.

Ms. RixGER. All right. To summarize the information I hare--and I have seen nothing in writing, for I just have notes of the conventions--the Senate full committee completed all action and ordered the bill reported, with certain amendments. The Senate will be in recres next week, and the expectation, as I am told, is that there is no me pect of floor action until Sovember, but there is a good posibility of it then, and that the chances of any referral to the ('ommerre ('omimittee in the Senate, as happened last year, are remote.

There were three amendments to section 111 on cable television, and I think I will just skip over them, because I am going to be discussing that today. They were just clarifying amendments.

There was an amendment effecting the liability provision of ption :501(c), which, as I am tolil, means that the subsection which prstu ts local broadcasters to sue as copyright owners in infringement actions unles spation 111, would be retained, but would be limited to (8-of willful and repeated violation.

The other amendment, which I think is the most important one with rasprt to cable, was in Chapter 8 of the bill. I must confess that the information I have is slightly unclear as to the some of this aper:ment, but at least as far as cable, and perhaps with respect to the other THW activities of the ratemaking part of the tribunal is concerned apparently the time limits, the so-called stretchout, was expande fiom 6 months and j Years to 3 years and 10 years. In other words the review periods would be substantially increased, leaving the epito jsir formellert con slemblr longer

Ilith r ent to the mechanical royalty prition, there we one clari. frine amendment, which I don't think I need to go into, But the moment s rtant thing is that the 3 «ent rate was reduced to me Thit nga very simple amendment.

I think the votes there were not record votes, but I canot le site T),{m informal information I w grisen.

Mart of the wisdomiantina dimdam]on in the Judiciart ('ommittee je over the lithias amendment, which, as you can tall is not befor you in the form of legislation, and was introclul on'r at the fri! committee marknp spion. I really don't know erartly what the lanvunget i but, in effet, the Mathias amen iment was acerpted. The would sit up a compulsory license for performances by a nonprofit

[ocr errors]

public broadcasting organization. Instructional television has an exP..pution, but the public broadcasters, both radio and television, would are a compulsory license for performance of nondramatic literary and mNal works. I gather that there were some minor amendments in favor of the copyright owners, but essentially the Mathias amend";^!16 was arrepted. I am told it was pretty one sided. I was told that there were three supporters of deleting or not accepting the Mathias Enriment, and that probably the other eight were in favor of it.

Ile Bash amendment was not put forward. I gather Senator Bayh, montiere, indicated that he had changed his mind and was with: drawing it. This is the amendment of section 112, that would take any !!" It ist of the number of video tape recordings that an instructional bude astep could make and shop around. That, apparently, has been 11n out of issue, as far as the Senate is concerneal.

Ise Judiciary ('ominittee adopted the changes that the subcommittee 1:8-wg ed in section 301, which is the section dealing with the pelliption of State law. But, an additional isstie, which has been 13 and by the Juntre Thepartment, that had not been adopted by the

w??imittee, was raimer in the full committee. In amendment was it forward by Senator Burdick which was accepted, and this would "Inp plop promption of State common law not applicable to sound porn online that had been fire before February 13, 1972. In other

ind, 11.fome would still be subject to protection, or whatever you 11" to call it, under the varione State laws that had been enacted

'sp more piracy became a big problem. This is obviously some. 1 I will address myself to in detail when we come to that chapter.

Probably the most startling thing that happened was a proposal by taylor bourryk to shorten the copyright term. I don't know all the dtal of this, apparently it was not accepted, but the vote was very

imp, I think most people had not expected it to be an issue, so what intui,ame genrprise.


r u mine semion of a so-called ballroom operator'erempe *.0, ws: hhs not been put before you in testimons but has been dine po i internate, I think you may have received some mail on it. J! *7* tot down. This was a proposal that ballroom o rator and

" Ir entrepreneun be free from varion- or related liability in to pronqr of a funtion where an independent contrator on their

ost: ** **tually chexing the 11 to be placed. In this (2-, the quo ,1 forrit one wided a t the amendment.

Timpul proprangeto delete the entire rosalty tribunal, and this If Irpet bi A voice vote, prirently, this wa- not mileli wolpe two mai are notenent. I wonl. 1, of the thing the spate dal, the 1,. **!!!:hter, this statebont, and obs joues, the latlla ameniment,

thin t'i fut important nnje nalmente, !! Bow has many questions, I will try to answer them, but I mit nel 11 information in whatahr. " KA L IR. I the not consider the wrformane rosalty

Y River Vrim popramomjon is that the point unw not raised or die por een lan!! Labdeh directly and receive a direct answer, that the first one of printrational etomiptions and library photocopying were hotelror Jiwwwdnt all.

V: Riinat K. May I auk a question!


Mr. RAILSBACK, Well, what reason was given, or what reason ever has been given for not taking up the performance royalty in the ate! I think there must be a reason. Is it because another comitter might take it up, or what?

Ms. RixGER. No, it is somewhat complicated, but let me try to explain it, as I understand it. Sertion 114 of the 1974 bill b'fore the Senate action was the most controversial issue in the Senate la t year, It was one of the reasons for the referral to the Commerce ('outlet of the bill for the 15-day period. And the Commerce Committendi pe port the bill after the 15-day referral, with some changes in sertion it. When it came to the floor, the issue was very vigorously debate on the first day of the debates. And it was pretty apparent that it wasn't going to go.

And after considerable discussion, 3 days later, I believe, ter Senate deleted the whole provision as far as the performing rights are concerned. There is still section 111, but the perforining rights mit


In his final remarks in the Senate, Senator McClellani!.. dicated that this did not preclude Senator Scott, who was the p* cipal supporter, from reintroducing the bill as separate legt, sier the I have forgotten exactly how this was declared, but a stateltunt ** marle publicly that Senator Scott would be expected to hold beari: on the separate legislat!on. In fact, in this fui ('ongium, he did .1., O duce this as separate legislation and Representative Danesc !.99 done the same thing. This is the same bill. It is in the form of an amendinent to the 19!aw.

And it was the subject of hearing in the Senate the day after purch had hearing on the sale subject. I believe that it is still luu!! 1912": sidered there in the context of separate levination as an allen I of the 1990 law. One could infer that the manager of tiell, w!...! include, obviously, Senator JoClellan and Senator Scott, have agir to deal with it a- a separute problem and not put it into the di una in the committee of the general revision bill.

Mr. RULA h. Thank you.

Ms. RINGER. I Do you have any other questions? .lll right, I will r« bech to give you a very inef overview of IIR. , to try to profie a mirch more detailed disussion of the individual sitions and chup ter-andinseln

The earliest drafts of the bill were prepared in the Copyright 2 after the dy period was over. I brein that it is appropriate to into a little doul of what was done. We did coilert a man of writ. on the sitkoppet. 11:00-1.000jionirigit reun011, ob souny, hasa? 11.-on anili Tillman alvorinou amount of rommentary. Ipild

thonghail of this in an attempt to omrve what it containes 11 a mi,471813e way. More important.1, for the pur , Wput toget! all of the timon bile that hart en antruired, wong link to t'e 1:1 and 111:!)$tantis, t'hi poetist of a very major ellort that had been conducted in-t beforp World llar II, *huh prolei wlat ** kno natin Sofuell bil. I hemmablue ribadi otmitteln by JH.If weil of the Lage of lations and columbia l'uver wtv fame. It hal pemurnian exclient Lill for the 1 s but it

died when the war came. I don't think that speaks to any fault in the billitself, but the impetus just went out of it.

We also put together, by subject, all of the foreign bills we could find that bear on this. They fall into very clearcut patterns. And we attempted to try to integrate all of this information to see how all of these different things decided or proposed to decide certain questions. We did this to make sure we weren't missing anything and to see how others have tried to fit the subject matter together in some kind of rational way.

I don't think in the end we really copied anything. We integrated and absorbed it, but I don't think there is anything in this bill now that was ever really copied from anything else.

On the other hand, it is a curiosity to find that your bill has been adopted in some foreign countries and in some foreign treaties. In other words, we had legislated and made treaty law by this longdrawn-out legislative process. There is a certain irony to that. It is startling to see the language we are familiar with here turning up in translation in other laws.

In any case, patterns are detectible throughout the whole range of this previous effort and the etiort throughout the rest of the work. These things do fall into predictable categories. I think if you go back and read our earliest drafts from 1963 and the 1964 bill, which was our first essay in this field, I think you will find the structure almost the same. There have been, of course, some additions.

Title I of the bill is the basic revision of the present title 17 of the United States Code, which is the 1909 law, as amended. That is all it is. It does not contain anything else.

The title falls into eight general subject beadings, which are the chapter headings listed on the first page of the bill. I certainly don't need to go over them for this purpose. But, this does not exhaust the subject matter of the bill.

I might add in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that the eighth of these was added in the Senate after you finished your work on the bill in 1967. It does establish the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, which has grown in the scope of its duties since its original introduction into the bill. Originally, we had only seven chapters. And then tucked Letween titles I and II are a whole range of transitional and supplementary provisions which are very detailed but contain some interesting little nuggets here and there. And I will try to point them out to you, when we come to them, although I do not believe that any of them were raised in any of the testimony except that of the Government witnesses on the second day. And I will try to point those out to you when we come to them.

Then we have title II, which is a completely separate piece of legislation, namely, the Design Protection Act, which was the subject of hearings in the House and it passed the Senate three times. It passed twice separately and the third time as part of this legislation in 1974. But, it has not been integrated quite as well as it should be. It just starts out “title II” and then you have the introduction. And I think someone, and I believe it was the Department of Commerce, said that it should be integrated better, because it may not be clear in a different context, if this were enacted into law, what titles you are talking

57-786-76-pt. 3- 26

« AnteriorContinuar »