£9/1

/0 ;2 .c )

3-59 CO PY RIGH T M IS C E L L A N ^^ V

OVERNMENT

;tora°

e 124 1S/0

L-l k_J > t z-\ l f

KANSA S STATfci U N IV fc rt SIT l H E A R IN G

BEFO RE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIV IL LIBERTIES, 

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

OF T H E

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIA RY 

HOUSE OF REPRES ENT ATIVES

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS

SE CO ND SESS IO N

ON

S. 3 9 7 6

TO AM EN D T IT L E 17 OF T H E U N IT E D STATES CO DE TO 

RE M OV E T H E E X PIR A T IO N DATE FO R A L IM IT E D CO PY ­

R IG H T IN SO UN D RE CORD IN GS, TO IN C REA SE T H E C R IM INA L PE N A L T IE S FO R PI RACY AN D C O U N T E R FE IT IN G OF 

SO UN D REC ORDIN GS, TO E X TEN D T H E D U RATIO N OF 

COPY RIG H T PROTECTIO N IN CER TA IN CA SE S, TO ESTA B ­

L IS H A NAT IO NA L CO MMISSION ON N EW TE CHNOLOGIC AL 

US ES OF COPY RIG H TED W ORK S, AN D FO R O TH ER 

PU RPO SES

NOV EM BE R 26, 1974

Serial No. 59

P ri n te d f or th e u se o f the C om m ittee on th e J u d ic ia ry

44-123

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 

WA SHINGT ON : 1975
v

CO MMIT TE E ON T H E JU D IC IA R Y

PE T E R W. ROD INO ,

HA ROLD D. DO NO HU E, M as sa ch us et ts 

.7 AUK BR OO KS , Te xa s 

RO B ER T W. KAST EN M EI ER , W isc on sin 

DON ED W AR DS , Cal ifor ni a 

W IL LIA M L. HU NG AT E, M iss ou ri 

JO H N CO NY ER S, J r., Mi ch iga n 

JO SH U A EIL BERG , Pen ns yl va ni a 

JE R O M E R. WAL DI E, Cal ifor ni a 

W ALT ER FL OW ER S, Al abam a 

JA M ES R. MAN N, So ut h Car ol in a 

PA U L S. SA RB AN ES , M arylan d 

JO H N F. SE IB ERLIN G , Ohio 

GEO RG E E. DA NI EL SO N, Cal ifor ni a 

RO BER T F. DR IN AN , M as sa ch us et ts 

CHA RLE S B. RA NG EL, New York 

BA RB AR A JO RD AN , Te xa s 

RAY TH OR NT ON , A rk an sa s 

ELIZ A B ET H HO LTZM AN , New York 

WA YN E OW EN S, Utah 

ED W ARD ME ZV INSK Y, Iowa

J r., New Je rs ey , C hair m an

ED WAR D HU TC HIN SO N, Michig an 

RO BE RT McCLORY, Il linois 

HE NR Y P. SM IT H III, New York 

CH ARL ES W. SANDMA N, J r., New Je rs ey 

TOM RA IL SB AC K, Illino is 

CH ARL ES E. W IG GI NS , C al ifor ni a 

DA VI D W. DEN NIS , In dia na 

HA MILTO N F IS H , J r., New York 

W IL EY MAYNE, Iowa 

LA WRE NC E J. HO GA N, M ar yl an d 

M. CA LD W EL L BU TL ER , V irgi ni a 

W IL LI AM S. CO HE N, Maine 

TREN T LO TT , M issis sip pi 

HA RO LD V. FRO EH LIC H , W isc on sin 

CARLOS J. MOO RH EA D, C al if or ni a 

JO SE PH J. MARA ZITI, Ne w Je rs ey 

PA UL N. Mc CL OS KS Y, J r., C al if or ni a

J ero me M. Zeif m a n, G en er al C ounse l

Garner J. Cl in e, A sso cia te G en er al C oun se l

Herbert F u c h s, C oun se l

Wil li am P. Shatt uc k, C ounse l

If. Chr st oc he r Nolde, C ou ns el

Alan A. P ar ke r, C ouns el

J am es F. F alco, C ou ns el

Mau ric e A. Barboza, C ou ns el

F ran kl in G. P olk , C ou ns el

T ho ma s E. Mooney, C ou nse l

Mic hael \V. Blo mme r, C oun se l

Alex and er B. Coo k, Counse l

Const anti ne J. Gek as, C ounse l

Alan F. Coff ey, J r., C ounse l

Ken n eth K lee, Cou ns el

S ubcom m it te e on Courts , Civ il Lib er tie s, an d t ii e Ad m in is tra tio n of

J U ST IC E

RO BE RT W. KAST EN M EI ER , W isco ns in, C hair m an

GEO RG E E. DA NI EL SO N, Cal ifor ni a 

ROBERT F. DR IN AN , M as sa ch us et ts 

WAY NE OW EN S, U ta h

EDW ARD MEZ VINS KY , Io wa

TOM RA IL SB AC K, Illino is 

HE NR Y P. SM IT H III, New York 

CH ARL ES W. SANDMA N, J r., New Je is ey 

W IL LI AM S. CO HE N, M aine

H er be rt F u c h s, C oun se l

Wil li am P. Dix on , C ou nse l

Bruce A. Lehm an, C oun se l

T ho ma s E. Mooney, A sso cia te C ou ns el

(H )
C O N T E N T S

Page

Text of S. 3976__________________________________________________

Testimony o f:

Ringer, Barbara, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Otlice, Lib rary 

of Congress; accompanied by Dorothy Schrade r, General Counsel, 

Cop yr ight Office__________________________________________________

Schrader, Dorothy, General Counsel, the Copyright Office______~~~~~

Additional inform ati on:

Mumford, L. Quincy, Lib rarian of Congress, letter, dated November IS,

1974, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., chairman, Committee on the 

Judicia ry _________________________________________________

Ringer, Barba ra, prepared statem ent____________________________ 134* 4*

(n o

COPYRIGHT MISCELLANY

TUESD AY , N O V EM BER 26 , 19 74

H ou se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S u b c o m m it tee on C ourts , C iv il L ib e r t ie s,

a nd t h e A d m in is t r a t io n of J u st ic e

of t h e C o m m it t e e on t h e J u d ic ia r y,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2237, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert M. Kastenmeier (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Owens, 

Railsback, and Smith.

Also pre sent: Iler b Fuchs, counsel: Bruce A. Lehman, counsel; and 

Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel.

Mr. K a s t e n m e ie r. The hearing will come to order.

We are meeting this morning to receive the testimony of Ms. Barbara Ringer. Register of Copyrights, on S. 3976, an act to amend title 

17 of the I liited States Cotie to remove the expiration date for a limited copyright in sound recordings, to increase the criminal penalties 

for piracy and counterfeiting of sound recordings, to extend the duration of copyright protection in certain cases, to establish a National 

Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, and 

for other purposes. A copy of the bill will be inserted in the record.

| S. 3976 follow s:]

[S. 3976, 93d Cong., 2d se ss .]

AN AC T To am en d ti tl e 17 of th e U ni te d S ta te s Cod e to remov e th e ex pir at io n date for 

a lim ite d co py ri ght in so un d re co rd in gs , to in cr ea se tli e cr im in al pen al ties fo r pi ra cy 

an d counte rf eitin g of so un d re co rd ings , to ex te nd th e dura ti on of co py ri ght pr ot ec tion 

in ce rt ai n cases, to es ta bl is h a N at io na l Co mmiss ion on New Tec hn ol og ic al Us es of Cop yrighte d W orks, an d fo r oth er pu rposes.

Be it en ac ted by th e Sen ate an d IIo ux c of R ep re se nta ti ves of th e Un ite d

S ta te s of A mer ica in Co ng ress assemb led,

T IT L E I— AM EN D T IT L E 17 U NIT ED ST ATES CO DE , AN D FO R OTH ER 

PU RPO SES

Sec. 101. Se cti on 3 of th e Ac t of Oc tobe r 15, 1071 (85 Stilt . 30 1) , is am en de d 

by st ri kin g o ut “a nd be fore Ja n u a ry 1, 1075”.

Sec. 102. Se cti on 104 of ti tl e 17, U ni ted S ta te s Cod e, is a m en de d—

(1) by st ri kin g o ut “A ny per so n” an d in se rt in g in lie u th ere of “ (a ) Exc ep t 

as prov id ed in su bs ec tio n (b ), an y pe rs on ” ; an d

(2 ) by a dd in g a t th e en d th er eo f th e fo llo wing ne w s ub se ct io n :

“ (b ) Any pe rson wh o w ill fu lly an d fo r profit sh all in fr in ge any co py righ t provide d by section 1 (f ) of th is ti tle, or who sh ou ld kn ow ingly and w illfully ai d or 

abet, su ch in fr in ge m en t, sh all be fined no t more th an $25,000 or im pr ison ed no t 

mor e th an th re e ye ar s, or bo th, fo r th e firs t off ense and sh all be fin ed no t more 

th an $50,00 0 o r im pr ison ed no t more th an seve n ye ar s, or bo th, fo r an y s ub se qu en t 

offense.”
9

Sec. 103. Se cti on 2318 of ti tl e 18, U ni ted S ta te s Cod e, is am en de d by st ri kin g 

o u t all a ft e r -fin ed ” an d in se rt in g in lie u th ere of "n ot mor e th an $25,000 or im ­

pri so ned fo r no t more th an th re e ye ar s, or bo th, fo r th e fi rs t off ense an d sh al l be 

fine d not. mor e th an $50,000 or im pr ison ed no t mor e th an seve n ye ars, or bo th, fo r an y su bs eq ue nt off ense.”.

Sec. 104. In an y ca se in which th e re new al te rm of co py righ t su bs isting in an y 

w ork on th e date o f a pp ro va l of th is bill, or t he term th er eo f as e xt en de d by P ub lic 

L aw 87 -66 8, by Pu bl ic La w 89-142 , by Pub lic Law 90-141 , by Pub lic La w 96-416 , 

by P ubli c Law 91-147, by Pub lic Law 91-55 5, by Pub lic Law 92-170 , or by Pu blic 

L aw 92 -566 (o r by al l or cert ain of sa id la w s) , wou ld ex pir e pri or to De cemb er 

31 , 1976 , su ch term is he re by co nt in ue d unti l Dec em be r 31, 1976.

T IT L E I I —N AT IO NA L CO MMISSION ON NEW TE CH NO LO GIC AL USE S OF 

COPY RIG H TED W OR KS

E S TA B LIS H M E N T AN D PU RPO SE OF CO M M IS SIO N

Sec. 201. (a ) Ther e is he re by cre at ed in th e L ib ra ry of Con gr es s a N at io na l 

Com m ission on New Te ch no logica l Us es of Cop yr ig ht ed W or ks (h ere aft er ca lled 

th e C om m issi on ).

(b ) The pu rpos e of th e Co mm iss ion is to st udy an d co mp ile d ata on:

(1 » th e re pr od uc tion an d use of co py righ te d wor ks of au th ors hip —

(A ) in c on ju nc tion w ith auto m at ic sy stem s ca pa bl e of s to rin g, pr oc es sing, re trie vi ng , an d tr an sf err in g inf or m at io n, an d

(B ) by va riou s fo rm s of mac hi ne re pr od uc tion , no t includ ing re pro ­

du ctio n by or a t th e re ques t of in st ru cto rs fo r use in face -to -fac e te aching a c ti v it ie s: a nd

(2 ) th e cr ea tion of new wor ks by th e ap pl ic at io n or in te rv en tion of such au to m ati c sy stem s or m ac hi ne re pr od uc tio n.

(c ) T he Co mm ission sh al l mak e reco m m en da tion s as to su ch ch an ge s in copy ­

ri g h t law or pr oc ed ur es th a t ma y be ne ce ss ar y to ass ure fo r su ch pu rp os es acce ss 

to co py righ te d works , and to pr ov id e re co gn iti on of th e ri ghts of co py righ t 

ow ne rs .

M E M B E R SH IP OF T H E C O M M IS SIO N ’

Sec. 202. (a ) Th e Co mm iss ion sh al l be comp ose d of th ir te en vo tin g me mb ers , 

appoin te d as fo llo ws:

(1 ) F our mem be rs, to be ap po in te d by th e Pre si de nt, selected from auth ors 

and ot her co py rig ht ow ne rs ;

(2 ) F our me mbers, to be ap po in te d by th e Pre si den t, selected fro m us er s 

of co py righ t w ork s;

(3 ) F our no ng ov er nm en ta l mem be rs to be ap po in te d by th e Pre si de nt , 

se le cted from th e pu blic gen era ll y;

(4 ) Th e L ib ra ri an of C on gress.

(b ) The Pre si den t sh al l ap po in t a C ha irm an , and a Vice C hai rm an who sh al l 

act a s C ha irm an in th e ab senc e or dis ab ility of th e C hai rm an or in th e ev en t 

of a va ca nc y in th at office, fro m am on g th e fo ur mem be rs s elec ted from th e pu blic 

genera ll y, as pr ov ided by cl au se (3 ) of su bs ec tio n (a ). The R eg iste r of Co pyri g h ts sh al l se rv e ex officio as a no nv otin g mem be r of th e Co mm ission .

(c ) Seven vo ting mem be rs of th e Co mm iss ion sh al l const it ute a qu orum .

(d ) Any va ca nc y in th e Co mm iss ion sh al l no t affect its po wers and sh al l be 

fille d in th e sa m e m an ner as th e or ig in al ap po in tm en t was made.

COM PE NSA TIO N OF M EM BE RS OF CO M M IS SIO N

Sec. 203. (a ) Mem bers of th e Co mm iss ion , ot her th an officers or em ploy ees of 

th e F ed era l Gov ernm en t, sh all rece iv e co mpe ns atio n a t th e ra te of $100 pe r da y 

w hi le en ga ge d in th e ac tu al pe rf or m an ce of Co mm iss ion du ties , plus re im bu rs em en t fo r tr av el , subs ist en ce , an d oth er ne ce ss ar y ex pe ns es in co nn ec tio n w ith 

su ch duties .

(b ) An y mem be rs of th e Co mmiss ion wh o are officers or em ploy ees of th e 

F ed era l G ov er nm en t sh al l se rv e on th e Co mm iss ion w ithout co mpe ns ati on , bu t 

su ch m em be rs sh all be re im bu rs ed fo r tr avel, su bs istenc e, and oth er ne ce ss ar y 

ex pen se s in co nn ec tio n w ith th e pe rf or m an ce of th eir du tie s.
3

STA FF

Sec. 204. (a ) To as sist in its stu die s, the Com mission ma y appo int a staff 

which shall he an ad m in istrat iv e pa rt of the Lib ra ry of Con gres s. The staff 

shall be hea ded by an Executive Direc tor, who shall be res ponsi ble to the Commission for the Ad minist ratio n of the du tie s en trus te d to th e staff.

(b) The Com mission may pro cure tem po rary an d in te rm itte nt servic es to the 

sam e ex tent as is au thorized by section 3100 of tit le 5, Un ited St ates Code, but a t 

ra te s not to exceed $100 per day.

EXPENSES OF THE CO MM ISS ION

Sec. 205. Th ere ar e hereby au thorized to be ap pr op riat ed suc h sum s as may 

be nece ssa ry to c ar ry out the pro visions of th is tit le.

REPORTS

Sec. 206. (a ) W ith in one ye ar a ft er the f irs t me eting o f t he Com mission i t sha ll 

sub mit to the Pres iden t an d the Con gres s a pr elim inary repo rt on its activitie s.

(b) With in thre e years af te r the en actm ent of th is Act the Com mission sha ll 

sub mit to the Pr es id en t an d the Congress a fina l re po rt on its stu dy an d inve stigatio n which shall inc lud e its recom me ndations an d suc h proposals fo r leg isla ­

tion and ad m in istrat iv e actio n as may be necessa ry to ca rr y ou t its recom ­

me nda tions.

(c) In ad ditio n to the preli minary repo rt an d final re po rt requ ire d by thi s 

section, the Commission may pub lish such interim repo rts as it may de termine, including bu t not lim ite d to co ns ul ta nt ’s repo rts , tran sc ripts of testimony , 

semi na r rep orts, and othe r Commission findings.

POWERS OF TH E COMM ISS ION

Sec. 207. (a ) Th e Commission or, with th e au th or ization of th e Commission, 

an y three or more of its mem bers, may , for the purpo se of ca rryi ng ou t the pro ­

visi ons of this tit le, hold he aring s, ad minist er oaths , an d requ ire , by subpoe na or 

oth erw ise, the at tend an ce and testim ony of witne sse s an d th e productio n of 

docume nta ry ma teria l.

(b) With th e con sen t of the Commission, an y of its me mbers ma y hold 

any mee tings, sem ina rs, or con ferenc es con sid ere d ap pr op riat e to pro vide a 

for um for discuss ion of th e problem s w ith which it is dea ling .

TERM INA TIO N

Sec. 208. On th e sixt ieth day af te r the da te of th e sub missio n of its final 

report, the Com mission shall te rm in ate an d all offices and employment under 

it sha ll expire.

Pa sse d the Senate Sep tem ber 9,1974.

A tt e st:

FR AN CIS R. VALEO,

Secretary.

Mr. Kastenmeif.r. As its title indicates, this measure deals with 

three major issues:

(1) It would establish a National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted W orks;

(2) It would* extend the duration of expiring copyright in certain 

cases, and

(3) It would render permanent the prohibition against piracy of 

sound recordings.

Inasmuch as the hearing this morning is limited to about 10 o’clock 

or thereabouts because of the full committee hearings on th e Rockefeller nomination, I will not make extended remarks, but I should 

state tha t the purpose of the provision establishing a national commission to be established by the bill is stated in the report accompany-
4

ing S. 1361, the Senate’s omnibus copyright law revision bill passed 

by the Senate as follows:

To establish a National Commission to study and compile data on the reproduction and use of copyrighted works of authorship (1) in automatic systems 

capable of storing, processing, retrieving, and transferring information, and (2) 

by various forms of machine reproduction; and the creation of new works by 

the application or intervention of automatic systems or machine reproduction. 

The Commission is directed to make recommendations to the President and the 

< ongress concerning such changes as may be necessary to assure for such purposes access to copyrighted works and to provide recognition of the rights of 

copyright owners.

The proposed extension of the duration of expiring copyrights involves the enlargement of the term of copyrights that would, under the 

existing term of 28 years plus 28 years, plus earlier extensions, expire 

pri or to December 31,1976. I f adopted, this provision would make the 

nin th such or similar extension of copyright term tha t has come before 

this subcommittee since the revision program’s beginning. It is no 

secret that I have opposed enactment of the extension on the last two 

such occasions publicly.

The Register is expected to comment among other things on the 

identity of the beneficiaries of extension and the impact of the extension on them.

Beyond this, the Register has been asked to review generally the 

present status of copyright law revision, with particular reference to 

S. 1361, the Senate copyright law revision act that passed the Senate in 

September.

Inasmuch as the House, on October 7, passed mv bill. H.R. 13364, 

dealing with the piracy of sound recordings, the Register is not expected to discuss that subject.

At this time the Chair is very pleased to welcome the Register of 

Copyrights, from whom we have heard so often in the past and who is 

so helpful to this subcommittee.

Ms. Ringer, would you identify the lady accompanying you?

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA RINGER, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS;

ACCOMPANIED BY DOROTHY SCHRADER, GENERAL COUNSEL OF

TH E COPYRIGHT OFFICE

Ms. Ringer. Mr. Chairman, I am Barbara Ringer, the Register of 

Copyrights in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. I am 

accompanied by my colleague, Ms. Dorothy Schrader, who is the General Counsel of the Copyright Office.

As you indicated, I am here at your request to testify on two aspects 

of the bill before you: Title II of S. 3976, and section 104 of title I 

of that bill, and lo report on the current status of the bill for general 

revision of the copyright law.

I should like to start with a discussion of title II of S. 3976. which 

would create a National Commission on New Technological Uses of 

Copy righted Works in the Library of Congress. This study commission. as you undoubtedly recall, Mr. Chairman, was first proposed after 

the revision bill had passed the House of Representatives in 1967. It 

emerged from testimony that was being given in the Senate at almost 

the same time the House was passing the bill. This testimony produced
5

a new issue that hadn’t been raised before your subcommittee 5 namely, 

the issue of computer uses of copyrighted material.

Actually there are a range of problems involving the impact of 

automation and technology on copyrights and vice versa. 'I'aken together they represented a whole new issue that had n’t really been 

recognized as such during your consideration of the bill in the middle 

sixties. As the result of this new development, the Senate independently 

developed a separate bill, S. 2216 which was intended to establish a 

National Commission to study the computer question. At that time the 

Commission was not intended to deal with anything else. The Senate 

passed that hill and referred it to your subcommittee in the OOtli 

Congress.

Since the revision hill seemed to he moving quickly at that time, 

the Commission bill was not taken up in the House, and was later 

incorporated with some changes in the package revision bill in the 

Senate. Unfortunately, that package bill pended in the Senate for 

quite a long time.

As things developed, the computer issue was not the only unsettled 

business relating to the new technology. The question of library 

reprography and photocopying, including library microphotography 

and storage in photographic or similar forms, had been brought before 

your subcommittee. It was considered something that was best dealt 

with through individual negotiations, and the issue was really left 

untouched in your bill back in the 1960's.

As time went on. it became apparent that this was an urgent copyright issue and it deserved consideration in the context of the general 

revision of tin* copyright law. As a result, revisions that accompanied 

reintroduction of the package revision bill in successive Congresses, 

the second part of the. Commission's mandate was added. This was 

basically intended to cover library photocopying and reprography for 

libraries.

'1'lie provisions establishing the Commission have stayed in the 

revision bill all these years, and on September 9 of this year they 

passed the Senate twice : Once as part of the general revision package, 

and again almost immediately, as the bill you are now considering.

I he ( ommission is intended to study and compile data on the use 

ot copyrighted works “in conjunction with automatic systems capable 

of storing, processing, retrieving, and transferring information, and 

by various forms of machine reproduction, not including reproduction 

by or at the request of instructors for use in face-to-face teaching 

activities.”

That lathei cryptic not including phrase is intended to leave 

alone an issue which was considered settle d; namely, that of classroom 

and instructional photocopying.

J he ( '.ommission would also study “the creation of new works by 

the application 01 intervention of such automatic systems or machine 

reproduction.”

The Commission as it was constituted would be appointed by the 

1 lesident. It would consist of 12 members with 4 each from among 3 

gioups. (1) authors and other copyright owners; (2) copyright users* 

and (3) the general public.

44 -1 23 — 75------ 2
6

Th e Lib raria n of Congress would serve as (he 13th voti ng member, 

and the Register of Copyrig hts would serve ex officio as a nonv oting 

member. Th e Commission would be set up in the Libr ar y of Congress 

with an executive d irecto r and a staff.

Th e Comm ission's mandate has rather short deadlines as to repo rting. W ith in 3 years after enactment of the hill the Commission would 

be called upon to make a final report includin g— and this is, of course, 

the real purpose of the Commission— recommendations for changes 

in the cop yright law for the purposes of assuring access to cop yrighte d work while pro viding app rop riate recognition of proprie tary 

interests. An interim report would he due w ithin 1 yea r o f the C ommission's first meeting.

From the very beginning there was some fee ling of urgency about 

this. It is a little ironic that here we are 7 years down the road, saying 

the same things.

Th e inade quacy of the present law to deal with the problems a rising 

from the use of copyrig hted works in computer systems is certainly 

som ething that no one can deny. This is st ill in a developmental stage. 

We rea lly have no experience with the copyright patterns— the concepts and the needs that will arise from this new techn ology. In the 

man y discussions that took place on this subject the feeling was that 

what was being expressed on both sides were fears rather than tacts. 

As the result, there was a genuine emphasis on the part of both the 

users and the potential users on the one side, and the authors and the 

copyrig ht owners on the other, to have a study of this subject, so that 

they could base their suggestions on facts rather than fears.

Th e revision hill lite rally does noth ing to solve this problem. I he 

compromise, if you can call it that, was to spe cify expr essly that the 

status quo would he preserved. In other words, whatever is the copyrig ht law now with respect to computer uses of cop yrighted works 

would remain the law. Th is is not very desirable as a legisla tive solution, hut it was tied in directly with the understan ding that a Commission would be ope rating in this area, and would he st inlyin g and recommending on a rather short deadline.

Now the Lib rary photocopyin g issue is slightly different. From the 

begin nin g that issue was well known and hotly debated. Both sides at 

the outset felt that it was better not to say anyth ing on the subject in 

the bill, and agreed for exa ctly opposite reasons to leave the whole 

subje ct untouched as fa r as st atutory language was concerned. Gradu ­

ally I think both sides came to realize that this was a mistake— that the 

problem was really agita tin g people all over the country and all over 

the world, and was too important not to deal with directly in the hill.

As a result, a rather modest provision concerning a rchival preservation that you had included in the 19(57 bill has grow n into a rather 

exte nsiv e provision dealing pri ma rily with the, mak ing of single 

photocopies by libraries. Th is provision— section IOS of the revision 

hill— is b y no means suflicient to solve the larg er problems of repr ograph y. especially in libraries. Moreover. as you well know, the problem is before the Supreme Court at this very moment. We are told 

that tin* ir/.zZ?7//?ns- ond lU/ZZ/n.s- case will be argued on the Kith or 

17th of December. Un til the Supreme Court makes its decision the 

issues involved in that case are up in the air too.
I

Neither the enactment of the revision bill in the form in which it 

passed the Senate nor a definitive decision of the Supreme ( ourt in 

the Williams and Wilkins case is going to settle the larger issues here, 

however. I think everyone recognizes that, and also recognizes th at 

they need study.

Discussions are underway in the private sector now on this subject, 

in recognition th at nothing the Congress does, and nothing the Court 

does, is going to solve th is issue for the futur e, and that it is an issue, 

that very desperately needs solving. Both of these important public 

issues; namely, computer uses and reprography, urgently need to be 

studied in depth by recognized experts.

Mr. Kastenmeier. On that point, is there any other way to resolve 

these issues other than a Commission in your view? If the Court decisions are not going to give us sufficient guidance and if the Congress 

is or is not able to reconcile or resolve these issues in legislation—and 

it may or may not—is there any other way to resolve them?

Ms* R inger. Well of course. Mr. Chairman, if the issues were not as 

urgent as they are, your committee and the corresponding committee 

in the Senate could undertake extensive hearings. I think that this 

would automatically produce quite a bit of evidence that could be 

sifted through and could result in legislation. But I think it was felt, 

when this bill was originally introduced in 1967, that this would be 

an unfortunate thing. Both Houses were actively involved in the 

broader issues of general revision.

The Copyright Office was considered as a possible source of study 

and consideration and a focal point of discussions, and so forth. The 

possibility was discussed at the time and I think there was a feeling— 

and I am quite blunt about this—a feeling on the part of some people 

that the Copyright Office was not completely objective. I think some 

of these feelings have changed, but different people would feel the 

same way now. I just don't know.

Obviously a government agency that has some expertise in this 

area could undertake this responsibility if the undertaking were 

funded. 1 also assume' that, it the Commission bill were passed in this 

form or some other form, the Copyright Office would provide some 

staff support by transfers within the Library of Congress.

It seems to me that what you need is some kind of organism to 

develop a factual basis for legislation, and provide a forum in which 

the representatives of the various interests involved can get together 

and suggest solutions to the problems under some sort of structured 

arrangement. I don't think the Commission is necessarily the only way 

of doing it. Mr. Chairman. There are others.

I should add that obviously this idea was first introduced at a time 

when commissions were much more popu lar than they are now. I 

think there is a certain amount of disillusionment with them, probably with some reason.

Mr. Kastenmedi. I might add that there is very strong congressional resistance to creating new commissioners even though I suppose 

the cost of the Commission is not large or extensive considering the 

overall resources, but nonetheless, there is very great resistance to 

commissions.

Ms. Ringer. I am well aware of that.
8

To summarize my answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, I do feel 

th at the purposes of this bill are worthy and deserve consideration 

either in connection with this hill or in connection with the general 

revision bill. We supported the separate hill at the outset, and then the 

provision in the revision bill, and we are now supporting it again as a 

separate piece of legislation.

Another point I think is worth making in this connection is that, 

as Senator McClellan remarked in introducing this bill, there is no 

need to wait for general revision before undertaking the studies and 

consultations contemplated here. The two are independent of each 

other. It is a mistake to think in terms of the one proceeding from 

the other; but, at the same time, the establishment of the Commission 

should not in any way impede the progress of the general revision 

bill. I would find it very unfortunate if the existence of the Commission were used as a reason for delaying further progress of the revision bill.

In supporting the purpose and provisions of title II of S. 3976, our 

hope is that the studies and consultations needed to provide solutions 

to the copyright problems presented by reprography and the storage 

and trans fer of information can be undertaken without further delay, 

and tha t they he considered independent of the general revision bill 

itself.

The second item on which you requested my views is the interim extension of subsisting renewal copyrights for another 2-year period, 

as provided in section 104. title I, of S. 3976. As you indicated in 

your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, if section 104 is enacted it would 

be the ninth in a series of interim extensions of the renewal term of 

expiring copyrights, which began in 1962 with Public Law 87-668. 

The first bill in the series—and I think they were joint resolutions, 

actually—was a 3-vear interim extension; it was enacted in anticipation of the general revision hill, which had not yet been introduced. 

It was then followed by a 2-year extension at a time when the activity 

on the bill was very, very great. 'Phis was Public Law 89-142.

And then followed five 1-year extensions. I won't read the numbers; they are in my printed statement. Finally, we had another 2- 

year extension, Public Law 92-566, which expires at the end of this 

year. S. 3976 would add another 2-year extension, ending on December 31,1976.

Throughout this long and—I take it everyone would agree—rather 

painful history, the principal, although perhaps not the only, justification for tiie extensions was the existence and pendency of the hill 

for general revision o f the copyright law. Enactment of the general 

revision bill would add 19 years to the renewal terms of all subsisting 

copyrights, making a total term of 75 yeai’S. We support this extension to 75 years very strongly.

We feel, and have felt from the beginning, tha t the United States 

is out of line with the countries of the rest of the world which give 

protection equivalent on the average to 76 years. The standard copyrig ht term throughout the world is the life of the author plus 50 years 

after his death, and this averages out to 76 years.

In the past, support by the Copyright Oflice of these temporary 

extensions was based on our view th at a total 75-year term for subsisting copyrights was fully justified. As long as the revision bill pro-
9

viding a 75-year term was progressing toward enactment, it was ±elt 

unf air to allow subsisting copyrights to expire while the bill was moving through the necessary legislative process.

Authors and their families are the direct beneficiaries of the royalties from the majority of these copyrights. This is a point I will return 

to. The Copyright Cilice has considered it a matter of equity to avoid 

throwing their works into the public domain during active legislative 

consideration of a bill tha t would definitively extend the term in all 

subsisting copyrights.

Variety, during the consideration of one of the extension bills, referred to the situation as a cliffhanger. You do see people who are in 

this cliffhanging position right now—awaiting enactment either of 

author extension or of the general revision, and seeing the prospect of 

what in some cases is really their livelihood going into the public domain before the general revision bill can be enacted, it should be noted 

tha t in no case would any of these works be given protection longer 

than the 75-year term, which was established as the norm under the 

revision bill.

Now as you know, and as we are all well aware, the revision bill became stalled in the Senate, but it didn’t become stalled over th is issue. 

The length of the copyright term has not really been an issue in the 

Senate. It became stalled because of the dispute over the cable television transmissions of copyrighted works. T his was completely unrelated to the length of the copyright term and was, in effect, a business 

or an interindustry dispute. Although the C opyright Oflice supported 

the last extension 2 years ago, we have been extremely concerned about 

continued extension of the term under the 1909 law unless there was 

good reason to hope for enactment of the revision bill.

As a personal aside, Mr. Chairman, when 1 came back to the Copyright Oflice about a year ago it looked as though the bill was pre tty 

solidly stalemated. 1 d idn't expect it to achieve the progress it has had 

in the last year. Last y ear this time 1 had grave doubts about sup porting any further extensions.

If the Senate had failed to pass the revision bill this year, I would 

have had considerable difficulty in supporting section 104 of S. 3970. 

The Senate voted passage of S. 1301 by a margin of 70 to 1, which 1 

thin k is pretty impressive. It means th at a good deal of the legislative momentum has been regained, and, of course, not a moment 

too soon. I f the Senate had not taken decisive action this year, 1 would 

have grave doubts about the future of the whole program. But the 

momentum does seem to have been regained, and as long as the 

revision bill is making rapid progress we continue to favor enactment 

of another interim extension of subsisting copyrights.

The prospect for revision does seem brighter now than at any 

time since 1967. A total of 150,000 valuable copyright properties 

are involved in section 104, and they are caught up in this question of whether or not an extension can preserve them until the revision bill can pick them up along with all later subsisting copyrights. 

About two-thirds of these works are musical compositions. In other 

words, out of 150,000, Mr. Chairman, about 100,000 are musical compositions. In the great bulk of these cases, the composers and authors 

or their heirs will benefit personally from royalty payments flowing 

from these works.
10

Under the str uc ture of the music indu str y in th is country , autho rs 

an d com posers get at least 50 percen t of the perfo rm ance roy alties 

fro m th ei r works. In some of thes e cases—a nd I know you have been 

to ld th is many times, Mr. C ha irm an , hut it is tru e nonetheless—th is is 

one of the principa l, if not the only, source of income for some 

au th or s and composers and the ir heirs.

As I hav e indicated, it is the sta tus and pro spe cts of the general 

rev ision bill that pro vid e the justifica tio n fo r an othe r int eri m exten ­

sion. In the debate on S. 1361 in the Senate on Septe mb er 6, Senator 

McC lel lan said :

Mr. P re si den t, it is do ub tful if th e Hou se of R ep re se nta tives wi ll ha ve tim e 

to a c t on th is leg isla tion in the re m ai ni ng we ek s of th is se ss ion. How ev er, Sen ate 

pass age of S. 1361 will se rv e a us ef ul pu rp os e in th a t it wi ll fa cil it ate fin al 

act io n on co py righ t revision le gis la tion in th e nex t Co ng res s. I anti cip ate th a t 

th e hi ll pa ss ed by th e Sen at e will he re in troduc ed a t th e sta rt of th e 94 th 

Con gr es s, an d it shou ld he th en proc essed ex pe di tiou sly. O ur goal sh ou ld he 

enactm ent of a new co py righ t sta tu te by t he en d of 1975.

Th ree day s lat er, af te r some amend ments, the Senate passed the 

rev ision bill. Th is is 7 yea rs and 5 mo nths af te r the House of Re presentatives passed a n e arlie r version o f th e same bill.

The House last held hearings on the revision bill in 1965 and 

fu rt her hearings will be necessa ry next year, at least on certa in key 

issues. I hope th at it will be possible to move ahead very early in 

the next session with House hearings, without wa iting for Senate 

act ion . Ex per ien ce has shown th at we should allow as much time as we 

can to assure final ena ctm ent in th e 94th Congress.

I am tol d th at Se na tor McClellan will introd uce t he revised Sen ate 

version of the bill on the first day of the next Congres s.

Th e Co py rig ht Office and its staff welcomes the op po rtun ity to assist 

the House Members in every possible way when you tu rn to con sidera ­

tio n of the bill next yea r. W ith yo ur ap prov al. I hope to prepare an ­

ot he r supp lem entar y rep ort of (he Register o f Co py rig hts , which will 

bring you up to dat e on what has hap pen ed th at pro duced the Sen ate 

version of the bill and what has remained the same. We should also like 

to pr ep ar e a series of briefin g papers, in other words, b rie f analy tical 

summ ari es o f the revision bill, iden tif ying a reas of g ene ral agre ement 

and are a where some pro posals for adjus tm ent, majo r or minor, might 

be expe cted.

Un questio nably the areas of agre ement fa r exceed the areas of disagree me nt. In terms of ch ap ter s and sections, the bulk of the bill, p robab ly SO to 90 percent of the Senate bill, passed the I rouse in 1967, a nd 

has been left alone. F un da men tal pro visions such as the single F edera l 

co py rig ht system, du ratio n based on life of the au th or plu s 50 years, 

ow ne rship and tran sf er of rig hts, subject matter, and form ali tie s are 

still int act. These represe nt the hea rt of the bill.

Th e key con trov ersies and the ma jor changes have aris en over certa in of the pro visions of ch ap ter 1. These are Ihe pro vision s dea ling 

with the scope of the c op yright o wners' r ights, and here you do find intere sts pitte d again st each oth er, These pro vision s have to do with 

m at te rs su ch as perfo rm ing rig ht s in sound rec ord ing s and the l ibrary 

ph otocop ying issue, and the notorious cable television pro blem—w hich 

is n otorious only because of the immense difficulty in findin g a s atisf acto ry solu tio n—and in the proposa ls fo r a Co py rig ht Ro yalty T rib un al, 

wh ich are tie d in with q uestion s in volving rig hts .
11

In ad dit ion, title 11, the N ational Com mission on New T echnological 

Uses, and title III. estab lishin g a new form of design pro tec tion, were 

not conside red by the Ilonse in 1967, alt ho ug h sim ila r des ign bills h ad 

previo usly been u nd er separat e considera tion in the House.

T'he leg isla tive phase of the copyright revision prog ram passed its 

l()th anniv ersary last Ju ly . It was not rea lly an an nive rsary to cele-__ 

brate , altho ug h I know of at least one private, ra th er b itte rsw eet commemoration, and at least one toa st to yo ur su bco mm ittee for its efforts 

in the mid dle s ixties. If it had not been for these efforts, we w ould ce rta in ly not be sitting here now.

In its essentials the revision bill is y ou r comm itte e’s, and rem ains a 

very good bill as it sta nds. Some phrase s, some pro vision s, some sections can be cha nged and will be chan ged . It will tak e a grea t deal of 

effort to bring it to ena ctm ent du ring the next Con gress, but it would 

be u nthin kable n ot to try .

Tha nk you, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. Kastexmeiek. T ha nk you. I should like the record to show th at 

the form er Re giste r of Co py rig hts , Abrah am L. Ka mi nstei n. is w ith us 

this mo rning, and we are very pleased to see him.

T have several questions, and I am sure my co lleagues have some b ut 

we won 't be long because we h ave anoth er h ea rin g th is m orning in the 

full committee.

In terms o f t he C omm issio n, t he first matter you raised , is there any 

not abl e opposition tha t you can iden tif y to the concept of th e Com mis ­

sion ?

Ms. Ringer. I think the ans wer is “No.” There was conside rable 

enthusiasm for the pro posal in the late sixties when the idea was first 

put forw ard and whe n the bill passed the Senate as separate leg islation. Th ere is stil l con siderable en thu siasm f or th at idea of m aking th is 

kind of ind epth stu dy and analy sis with recommenda tion s, if it were 

done as pa rt of the revision bill. Some question s have been raised by 

rep res entat ive s on both sides of the lib ra ry photo copying issue as to 

ha ving the Commission put forw ard as sep arate legisla tion.

I do th in k th at there would be lit tle opposition if you chose to pass 

it separat ely and get the stu dy und erw ay now, I th in k th is would be 

some thing th at would be accepted, and I th in k it would be a valuab le 

thing .

T d on’t think th at the feelings run very hig h on this pa rtic ul ar issue.

Mr. Kastexmeier. The second que stio n is, i f there is not opposition 

to the C omm ission, is the re opposition to its constitution as to the way 

it is c onstituted, as it ap pe ars in t his leg isla tion and does it ap pe ar th e 

same way in th e g ene ral revisio n legi slation ?

Ms. R inger. I un de rst an d your que stion, and it does a pp ea r t he same 

way in the revision bill. I have heard e xac tly t he same fea rs exp ressed 

by rep res entative s of lib rarie s and by representat ives of au thor s and 

pu blish ers; nam ely, th at the public mem bers would be we igh ted one 

way or the other. I th in k there are concerns, and T th in k th at there 

have been sugg estions tha t the comp osition be alte red somewhat or that 

the nu mb er o f members be enla rge d.

In pr ep ar in g th is leg islation we originally went thro ug h a lot of 

Com mission bills to try to find pa tte rns, and th is is the best we could 

come up with. I th in k th at almost any solution th at you find will be 

argu ed ab out because of fe ars th at th e person who does th e choosing, in
12

this case the Pr esident, will tend to lean one way or the other. T am not 

sure th is is a fair argument. T think there are dangers in making the 

Commission too large.

Mr. Kastenmeier. One of the problems with it as small as it is, the 

12 members plus the librarian, is that the four proprietary members, 

for example, may not comprehend sufficiently broadly all the proprietary interests in the field, and the same with respect to user groups. Ts 

that no t true ?

IXTs. Ringer. Yes. Actually the present composition was dra fted at a 

time when this was exclusively confined to computer uses, although T 

think tha t the point you make would have been valid eyen then. You 

are quite right. There is really a range of interests on both sides, and 

it would be hard to find four representatives for each of these interests.

Mr. Kastenmeier. Tn any event, is it not true that following the 

recommendation of the Commission those who constitute this subcommittee and its Senate counterpart would need in any event to have 

public hearings on the recommendations and those healings can be 

surely supplemented by any whose views are not adequately represented by the Commission. Is that not a fai r statement?

Mr. Rtnger. That is unquestionably true. The feeling at the outset 

in 1967, which T think is still valid is that it would be much better to 

have congressional hearings on specific recommendations made by the 

Commission afte r a thorough examination of the problem than to 

explore this totally unknown land as part of the general revision legislation. The two are really unrelated. There was considerable fear, 

which I think was well placed, th at if you had Congress holding hearings on computer uses at the same time the revision bill was pending, 

this would complicate matters considerably.

Mr. K astenmeier. Do I observe that the committee is in receipt of a 

recent letter from the Librarian of Congress dated November 18, of 

this year in which the projected cost of the Commission is set forth ?

Ms. Ringer. Yes.

Mr. K astenmeier. That letter as well as Ms. Ringer's prepared statement will be received and made a part of the record at this point.

[The letter and prepared statement referred to follow:]

The Librarian of Congress, Washington, D.C., November 18,1.9 74. Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.8. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Rodino: In accordance with your request, conveyed on your behalf 

by Mr. Fuchs, the R egis ter of Copyrights lias prepared an estimate of the cost to 

the United States if S. 3970 is enacted.

S. 3976 consists of two titles. Sections 101, 102, and 103 of Title I would make 

the sound recording copyright a perm anent fea ture of title 17 U.S.C., increase the 

criminal penalties for infringement of a sound recording copyright, under section 

104 of th at title, and increase the criminal pena lties for counterfeit records un der 

tit le IS U.S.C. The Copyright Office estima tes th at claims to copyright in 15,000 

sound recordings will be registered per year, and th at approximately $216,000 

will lie needed to supo rt this operation . There will he a ret urn of $90,000 in fees 

to the Copyright Office, based on the presen t registratio n fee o f $6.00. In addition 

to the fees, 30,000 deposit copies will he received with an estim ated value of 

$150,000.

Section 104 of Title I of the legislation would extend until December 31, 1976 

the copyright in works now in the ir second term of copyright and due to expire
13

on December 31,1974. This section will not result in any cost to the United States. 

The Committee may be interested to know that copyright in approximately 

124,000 works will expire on December 31 of this year unless an interim extension 

of the term is passed. Of this total, approximately two-thirds are musical compositions. The Copyright Office estimates that an additional 13,350 copyrights are 

due to expire in calendar year 1975 and 15,300 in calendar year 1976. By the end 

of 1976 the total of copyrights affected by interim extension legislation would be 

approximately 153,500.

Title II of S. 3976 would create a National Commission on New Technological 

Uses of Copyrighted Works, with the mandate to examine these uses and to 

recommend changes in the copyright law to deal with them. The Commission 

would report on the problem of machine reproduction of copyrighted works by 

photocopying machines and similar methods after one year, and would complete 

its work within three years.

In estimating the cost to the United States of this Commission, the Copyright 

Office has projected a staff of 45 technical, legal, and clerical personnel to support the work of the 13 Commission members. However, the full complement of 

staff would not be reached until the final year of the Commission; hence the 

cost the first year is slightly over half the cost for the third and final year of the 

Commission’s life. The Copyright Office has prepared the following estimate of 

the cost to the United States for the salaries of the 12 nongovernmental Commission members and the supporting staff and for all expenses, including travel, 

space, furniture, equipment, utilities, supplies, and printin g:

1st ye ar 2d ye ar 3d yea r

Tota r

3-y ear

cost

S ala ri es................................................................................................ $4 76 ,80 0 $6 92 ,80 0 $9 29 ,80 0 $2 ,0 99 ,4 00

Other ex pe ns es ................................................................................. 10 8,0 00 11 1,5 00 14 2,5 00 36 2,0 00 ’

T o ta l. ............................................................................................ 58 4,8 00 80 4,30 0 1, 07 2, 30 0 2,4 6 1,4 00

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Sincerely yours,

L. Q u in c y Mum fo rd , 

Librarian of Congress.

Sta teme nt of Barbara Ringe r, Register of Cop yr ight s

Mr. Chairman, I am Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights in the Copyright 

Office of the Library of Congress.

I am here at your request to testify on Title II of S. 3976 and Section 104 of 

Title I of tha t bill, and to report on the current status of the bill for general 

revision of the copyright law.

Title II of S. 3976 would create a National Commission on New Technological 

Uses of Copyrighted Works in the Library of Congress. This study commission 

was first proposed in a separate bill in the Senate, S. 2216, and passed that 

body in the first session of the 90th Congress. The proposal was later included 

as Title II of a package bill (including the copyright revision bill as Title I 

and the design protection bill as Title III) in the Senate Judiciary Committee 

print of S. 543 in December, 1969. This same format has been followed in the 

successive copyright general revision bills in the Senate. The National Commission proposal passed the Senate twice on September 9 of this ye ar : first as part 

of the copyright general revision package, S. 1361, and then as Title II of S. 3976, 

the bill you are now considering.

The Commission would study and compile data on the use of copyrighted 

works “in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, processing, 

retrieving, and transferring information, and . . . by various forms of machine reproduction, not including reproduction by or a t the request of instructors 

for use in face-to-face teaching activities.” It would also study “the creation of 

new works by the application or intervention of such automatic systems or machine reproduction.”
14

Twel ve mem be rs of th e Co mm iss ion wo uld be ap po in te d by th e Pre si den t w ith 

fo u r ea ch from am on g th re e g ro u p s:

(1 ) au th o rs an d oth er co py righ t ow ner s;

(2 ) co py righ t use rs ; an d

(3 ) th e ge ner al public.

T he L ib ra ri an of Co ng res s wo uld se rv e as th e th ir te en th vo tin g mem ber, an d 

th e R egis te r of Cop yr ight s wou ld se rv e ex officio as a no nv otin g me mber. Th e 

su p p o rt in g staf f, he ad ed by an Exe cu tive D irec to r, wou ld be an ad m in is tr ati ve 

p a rt of th e L ib ra ry o f C ongre ss.

W it hin th re e yea rs aft er en ac tm en t of th e bill, a fin al Co mm iss ion R ep ort 

w ou ld be mad e, in clud ing reco m m en da tio ns fo r ch an ge s in th e co py righ t law 

fo r th e tw in pu rp os es of as su ri ng ac ce ss to co py righ te d wor ks while pr ov id in g 

a p p ro p ri a te re co gn iti on of pro pri eta ry in te re st s. An in te ri m re port wo uld be du e 

w it h in o ne y ea r aft e r th e firs t Co mm iss ion me eting.

T he in ad eq ua cy of th e pr es en t law to de al w ith th e ra nge of prob lems ari si ng 

fr om th e use of co py righ ted wor ks in co m pu te r sy st em s is we ll-rec og nized, an d 

th e re vis io n bill do es not hi ng more th an pr es er ve th e sta tu s qu o in tliis ar ea . 

S im il arl y, even th ou gh se ction 108 of th e re vi sion bi ll de al s w ith cert ain as pe ct s 

of li b ra ry photo copy ing, an d oth er as pe ct s of th e pr ob lem are now be fore th e 

Sup re m e C ou rt in th e fa m ou s W illiam s an d W il kin s ca se, n eit her en ac tm en t of 

th e re vis io n bil l no r a de finitiv e de cision in th e ca se w ill solve th e co py righ t 

pr ob le m s pr es en te d by li bra ry ph otoc op ying or re pr ogra phy ge ne ra lly. Bo th of 

th ese im port ant pu blic issu es urg en tly need to be st ud ie d in de pt h by reco gn ized 

expert s, and to be review ed by a co mm iss ion or oth er or ga ni ze d body re pre se ntin g all of th e in te re st s affected . I t is fo r th is re as on th a t th e Cop yr ight Office 

h as su pp or te d cre at io n of a N at io nal Co mm iss ion as p a rt of th e ge ne ra l re vi sion 

bi ll or , if n ec es sa ry , as se para te le gi slatio n.

As Sen at or M cC lel lan ’s re m ark s in in trod uci ng S. 3976 su gg est, th er e is no 

ne ed to aw ait en ac tm en t of th e gen er al re vi sion pa ck ag e be fore undert akin g th e 

st u d ie s and consu ltat io ns co nt em pl at ed in T it le I I of th is bil l. At th e same 

tim e, of co urse , est ab li sh m en t of th e Co mm iss ion sh ou ld in no way be allo wed 

to im pe de pr og re ss on th e ge ner al re vi sion bill as a wh ole . In su pp or tin g the 

purp ose an d pr ov isio ns of T it le II of S. 3976, our ho pe is th a t th e st udie s an d 

co n su lt ati o n s ne ed ed to pr ov id e so lu tion s to th e co py righ t prob lems pre se nt ed 

by re pro gra phy an d th e st or ag e an d tr a n sfe r of in fo rm at io n ca n be under ta ken 

w it h o u t fu rt h e r de lay, an d th a t th ey be co ns id ered in de pe nd en t of th e gen er al 

re vis io n b ill it se lf.

T he second ite m on which you re qu es te d my view s is th e in te ri m ex te ns io n 

o f su bsi st in g re ne w al co py righ ts fo r anoth er tw o- ye ar pe rio d, as pr ov id ed in 

se ct io n 104, T itle I, of S. 3976.

If se ct ion 104 is en ac ted, it wou ld be th e nin th in a se ri es of in te ri m exte nsion s of th e re ne w al te rm of ex pir in g co py righ ts, which be ga n w ith Pub lic La w 

87 -6 68 in 1962. Th e first th re e- yea r in te ri m ex te ns io n w as follo we d by a two - 

y ear ex tens io n, Pub lic La w 89-142, th en by five su cc essiv e on e-ye ar ex tens ions , 

P ubli c Law s 90-141 , 90-416 , 90-147, 91-555 , an d 92-170 , an d fina lly by anoth er 

tw o-y ea r ex tens io n, Pub lic Law 92-566, which ex pi re s a t th e en d of th is ye ar . 

S. 3976 wou ld ad d an oth er tw o- ye ar ex tens io n, en di ng on Dec em be r 31, 1976.

T he pri nci pal ju st if ic at io n fo r th e ex te ns io ns w as th e bill fo r ge ne ra] revi sion 

of th e co py righ t law , wh ich wo uld ad d 19 yea rs to th e re ne w al te rm of all su bsis ti n g co py righ ts, m ak in g a to ta l te rm of 75 ye ar s. In th e pas t, su pp or t by th e 

C opyright Office of th es e te m pora ry pr oro ga tions was ba se d on ou r view th a t a 

to ta l 75 -yea r te rm fo r su bsi st in g co py righ ts w as fu lly ju stifie d. As long as th e 

re vis io n bi ll pr ov id in g a 75-ye ar te rm was pr og re ss in g to w ard en ac tm en t, it was 

fe lt u n fa ir to allow su bs is ting co py righ ts to ex pir e w hile th e bill was mo ving 

th ro u g h th e ne ce ss ar y le gi sl at iv e proc ess. A uth ors an d th eir fa m ilie s a re th e 

d ir ect be ne ficiar ies of th e ro yal ti es fro m th e m ajo ri ty of th es e co py righ ts, an d 

th e C op yr ig ht Office co ns id ered it a m att er of eq ui ty to av oid th ro w in g th eir 

w ork s in to the pu blic do main duri ng ac tive le gi sl at iv e co ns id er at io n of a bill 

th a t wou ld de fin iti ve ly ex te nd th e te rm in al l su bsi st in g co py righ ts. It shou ld 

be no te d th a t in no ca se wo uld an y of th es e w or ks be give n pro te ct io n long er 

th a n th e 75 -year te rm which w as es ta bl is he d as th e no rm und er th e re vi sion bill.

As yo u kno w, th e re vi sion bil l be came st al le d in th e Sen at e be ca us e of th e 

d is pute ov er ri ghts in ca ble te ’ev ision tran sm is si ons, an issu e co mp let ely unre ­

la te d to th e le ng th of co py righ t term . A lth ou gh th e Cop yr ig ht Office su pp or te d 

th e la st ex tens ion, we ha ve been ex trem el y co nc erne d ab out co ntin ue d exte nsi ons of th e te rm unde r th e 1909 la w un less th er e were good re as on s to hope 

fo r enac tm en t of t he v er sion bil l.
15

If th e Sen at e ha d fa iled to pa ss th e re vi sion bill th is yea r, I wou ld ha ve ha d 

co nsi der ab le dif fic ulty in su pp or tin g se ction 104 of S. 3976. Sen at e pa ssag e of 

S. 1361 on Se ptem be r 9, 1974, by a m ar gin of 70 to 1, m ea ns th a t a goo d de al of 

th e le gi sl at iv e mom en tum h as been re ga in ed , and no t a mom en t too soon. As 

lon g as th e re vi sion bi ll is mak in g ra pid pr og re ss , we continue to fa vor en ac tm en t of anoth er in te ri m ex tens io n of su bsi st in g co py righ ts.

The pr os pe ct fo r re vi sion see ms bri ghte r no w th an a t any tim e sinc e 1967. A 

to ta l of 150,000 va lu ab le co py righ t pro per ties are caught up in tli e qu estio n of 

ex te ns io n by th e en d of 1976. Ab out tw o-t liirds of th es e w ork s a re mus ical com ­

po sitio ns , and in th e bu lk of th es e ca se s th e co m pose r-au th ors or th eir he irs wi ll 

be ne fit pe rs ona lly from ro yal ty pa ym en ts flo wing from th es e works .

As I ha ve in di ca te d, it is th e st atu s an d pro sp ec ts of th e gen er al revisio n bil l 

th a t pr ov id e th e ju st ific at io n fo r anoth er in te ri m ex te ns io n. In th e de ba te on 

S. 1361 in th e Sen at e on Se ptem be r 6, S enato r M cC lella n s a id :

“M r. Pre si den t, it is do ub tful if tli e Hou se of R epre se nta ti ves will ha ve tim e 

to ac t on th is legi slat io n in th e re gai nin g we ek s of th is session. How ev er. Set at e 

pa ss ag e of S. 1361 wi ll se rv e a us ef ul pu rp os e in th a t it will fa cil it ate final ac ­

tion on co py righ t revi sion le gi slat io n in th e nex t Con gress. I an ti cip ate th at the 

bill pa ss ed by th e Se na te wi ll be re in trod uce d a t th e s ta rt of th e 94 tli Congress, 

an d it sh ou ld be th en proc essed ex pe di tiou sly. O ur go al sh ould be th e en ac tm en t 

of a new co py ri gh t sta tu te by tlie end of 1975.”

Thre e da ys la te r, a ft e r som e am en dm en ts, th e Sen at e pas se d th e revi sion bill, 

seve n ye ar s and five m on th s a ft e r th e Hou se of R epre se nta ti ves pas se d an ea rl ie r 

ve rs io n of th e same bil l.

T he Hou se la st he ld hea ri ngs on th e re vi sion bill in 1965, an d fu rth e r bearings wi ll be ne ce ss ar y nex t yea r, a t le as t on cert ain key issu es . I ho pe th at it 

wi ll be po ss ible to move ah ea d ve ry ear ly in th e nex t sess ion w ith Hou se hea ring s, w ithout w ai ting fo r Sen at e ac tio n. Exp er ie nc e has sh ow n th a t we sho uld 

allo w as mu ch tim e as we can to ass ure fin al en ac tm en t in th e 94 th Congress.

The C op yr ig ht Office an d its st af f welcome th e opport unit y to ass is t th e Ho use 

mem be rs in ev er y po ss ible wa y when you tu rn to consi der at io n of th e bi ll ne xt 

ye ar . W ith your ap pr ov al , I hope to pre pare an o th er su pple m enta ry Rep or t of 

th e R eg is te r of Cop yr ight s, th is lim e on th e 1974 Sen at e Bill, S. 1361. We sho uld 

also lik e to p re pare a se ri es of br ief, analy ti cal su m m ar ie s of th e im port ant pr ovi sion s of th e revi sion bill, id en tify in g a re as of gen er al ag re em en t an d ar ea s 

whe re som e pr op os al s fo r adju st m en t, m aj or or min or , m ig ht lie ex pecte d.

I nq ue stio na bl y th e are as of ag re em en t fa r ex ce ed a re as of di sa gr ee m en t. In 

te rm s of chap te rs an d se ctions , prob ab ly 80 to 90 per ce nt of th e Sen at e bill 

pa ss ed th e Hou se in 1967, an d ha s re m ai ne d su b st an ti all y un ch an ge d. Fund am en ta l pr ov isio ns such as th e sin gle I* e der al co py righ t sy stem , d u ra ti o n based 

on life of (he au th o r pl us fif ty ye ar s, ow ne rs hi p an d tr a n sfe r of ri ghts , su bjec t 

m at te r, an d fo rm al itie s are st ill in ta ct . Th e key ch an ge s ha ve oc cu rr ed in Ch apte r 1 in re fe re nc e to ex te m pt io ns to th e ex cl us iv e ri g h ts — pr in ci pal ly , sections 

10 S. 110, an d H i —am i in th e prop os al fo r a C op yr ig ht R oy al ty Tribun al . In 

ad di tion . T itle II , th e N at io na l Co mm iss ion on Ne w Te ch no logica l Uses, an d 

T it le Ilf, de sig n pr ot ec tio n, were no t co ns id er ed by th e Hou se in 1967, althou gh 

sep ara te de sign bi lls ha d pr ev io us ly been under consi der at io n in th e Ho use.

The le gi sl at iv e ph as e of th e co py righ t gen er al re vi sion pro gra m pa ss ed its 

te nth anniv ers ary la st Ju ly . It was no t re al ly an an n iv ers ary to ce lebrate, 

al th oug h I kn ow of a t le as t one priva te , bit te rs w eet co m m em or atio n, and a t le as t 

one to ast to your su bc om mitt ee fo r its st ead fa st ef fo rts in th e m id dle 60's.

I i it s es se nt ia ls , th e re vi sion bill is yo ur s, an d it re m ain s a ve ry good bill 

as it st an ds . Some phr as es ca n be im prov ed . Some pr ov is io ns will be ad ju st ed . 

If wi ll ta ke a gre at de al of effo rt to br in g it to en actm ent duri ng th e nex t Congr es s, bu t it wou ld be unth in kab le no t to tr y.

Mr. Kastenmeier. May I assume that you personally have worked 

on this?

Ms. Ringer. In p art, yes.

Mr. K astenmeier. And the 3-year cost is projected to be $2,461,400. 

Is tha t correct ?

Ms. Ringer. Yes.

Mr. Kastenmeier. Again, it will be very difficult to sell that to the 

Congress.

Ms. Ringer. I understand that.
16

Mr. Kastenmeier. In terms of costs particularly since the Commission itself is not very large with only 12 members.

Ms. Ringer. The request of your subcommittee for these figures 

was received at the same time the Libra ry was making a 10-year budget 

projection, which included estimates made by Copy rigid Office program and budget specialists covering a 3-ye.ar Commission. The figures 

in the Librarian’s letter were based on these estimates, recomputed 

on the assumption that the Commission would have to be set up 

immediately and outside the Copyright Office. Afte r the letter was 

sent, we had a budget review in the Library of Congress of the 10- 

year estimates, and agreed that the figures for the Commission come 

down somewhat.

Mr. K astenmeier. On a different subject, the extension of subsisting 

copyrights, you state that it is your belief that about two-thirds of the 

work are musical and in the hulk of the cases composers or authors and 

the ir heirs will benefit personally. Could you explain that ?

Ms. Ringer. The works that are involved in this legislation were 

copyrighted, either in published form or otherwise, between 1906 and 

1918, and they are the ones that were renewed at the appropriate time. 

In other words, the group of copyrights we are talking about here have 

substantially been narrowed by operation of the renewal provisions ol 

the. present law. I don't have these totals in percentages, but I will give 

you the exact figures—104.500 of the works are music and these were 

the musical compositions that were considered worthy of renewing 

in the late thirties or early forties. The remainder fall into three categories: books, periodicals, and everything else. There are only 23.000 

books and 17,000 periodicals. The other classes total about 9,000, making a grand total of roughly 153,500. So you can see that the very large 

bulk of the material is musical, and if you want to address yourself to 

music, I think you are on fairly firm ground in saying that in virtually 

all the cases the author or his heirs is henefitting directly. This is because of the structure of the music industry and the fact that renewals 

return the rights to the authors at the time the renewals were made. 

New deals were made at the time of renewal, but this was true even 

under the old deals.

As far as the income is concerned, it is principally for the performing 

rights. These are old standards like “Take Me Out to the Ball Came” 

and that sort of thing. In these cases, the constitutions of the performing righ ts societies insure that the authors or their heirs get a t least 

50 percent.

Mr. Kastenmeier. You make reference to livelihood, which to me 

means making a living and earnings, hut in rare cases is it not true, 

tha t a person would be involved? In other words, does the composer 

himself benefit or is it his heirs ?

Ms. Ringer. I would say that is probably true, the heirs are usually 

the beneficiaries, but there are some cases where the authors are still 

alive. I don't want to overstate this, Mr. Chairman, but 1 have met 

and corresponded with individuals in that situation. There are cases, 

they really do exist, where people are actually living on their roya’ties.

Mr. K astenmeier. Of course, we are talking about royalties of those 

partic ula r works which would have expired not other royalties in the 

interim years.

You indicated life plus 50, which equals about 75 years, which is to
17

suggest that after the given piece is composed, that on the average that 

person lives 25 years beyond that point, correct? So on the axeiage, 

lor example, for the year 1906, which 1 guess is the first year we extended on the average the author-composer would have died in 1931. 

This is now 1974 so that mathematically we are not talking about very 

many composer-authors?

Ms Ringer. Well, the revision bill, which as you know your 

committee debated extensively in 1965, 1966, and 1967, is based on the 

principle of a term consisting of the life of the author plus 50 years, 

with the 50 years being provided to take care of the auth or s heirs. In 

the example you give as an average or mean, an author whose work 

was copyrighted m 1906 could statistically be expected to have died 

around 1931 or 1932.

Mr. K astenmeier. Yes, that of course was prospective. I think we 

made a mistake in 1962 anticipating something we had no right to 

anticipate; namely, what a future Congress might do or when it 

might do it. It is my position we made a mistake and we compounded 

it each year by extending this mistake.

One last question, and tha t is about the general revision. I take it 

there are still some issues which remain which are relatively controversial ?

Ms. Ringer. There is no question that your committee will be 

impelled to hold hearings, because the bill is a complex and very comprehensive one. It is hard to say whether there are still very controversial issues.

'i'lie most controversial issue by far in the Senate was the proposal 

to create a performing right in sound recordings as such, as distinguished from the music on the recordings—in other words, to require 

royalty payments under a compulsory licensing plan for commercial 

use of records in disc jockey programs and juke boxes and so forth, 

with the royalties presumably going to the performers and the producers who created the record. The proposal was advanced very 

vigorously in the Senate by Senator Scott, among others but was pretty 

firmly voted down. I think there will probably be hearings on it as a 

separate issue in the Senate next year, but I don't expect the provision 

to be included in the bill. Senator McClellan will introduce at the 

beginning of the session. So, for all practical purposes, 1 think that 

issue is removed.

The cable issue remains an extremely difficult issue. There was. in 

the early seventies, a so-called “consensus agreem ent” in which the 

parties representing the interests involved did reach a sort of general 

understanding which included support of the copy right bill. Since 

then, there has been a Supreme Court decision fa voring the cable side 

of tha t issue. And while the consensus agreement has held up, there 

are now some new pressures on it, if one can rely on the trade press.

My own feeling, tryi ng to look at the thing as a whole at this particular moment, is that the consensus agreement will hold together, 

but that the protection the revision bill would offer to copyright owners 

as against cable operators will be reduced still further. The CATV 

problem is a major issue th at will have to be dealt with in the Senate 

before the Senate can pass the bill. But I don't look at this as fundamental. I think there will be a lot of fussing over it. just as there was 

over the sports provision in the cable section in the Senate earlier this
year. These are difficult issues, but they are not fundamental as fa r as 

revision is concerned.

Air. Kastenmeier. I appreciate your answer. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback.

Mr. Railsback. I want to also thank you. Is it your belief that the 

Senate will move expeditiously on the general revision this coming 

year ?

Ms. Ringer. Senator McClellan has promised this. He made the 

statement that I read, and another one to the same effect, during the 

Senate debates. There is no question that he wishes to push this forward. I have been fussing this bill now for-----

Mr. Railsback. Almost 10 years?

Ms. Ringer. A full 10 years, and it even goes back a little furth er 

than tha t. I have found the process usually takes three or four times 

longer than could be hoped for, but sometimes it can fool you and 

go fast er than you expect.

Mr. Railsback. And you generally approve of the Senate bill?

Ms. Ringer. Generally.

Mr. Railsback. And you are also going to come before our subcommittee with some recommendations for change?

Ms. Ringer. Actually no. I would hope tha t we could provide the 

raw material that would allow’ you and your staff to perfect the bill 

tha t comes from the Senate.

Mr. Railsback. I see.

Ms. Ringer. I think it is self-evident you are not going to accept 

wha t they send over without a careful reexamination and some redra ftin g. We will do everything we can to help you, but I don't 

think it shoukbbe our role to provide independent suggestions.

Air. Railsback. And you have no objection to the penalties that 

w’e put in our bill that is now’ pending in the Senate?

Ms. R inger. As 1 stated in my testimony on that bill. I didn't take 

a position on the increase. However, I feel that your committee's 

solution was a good one.

Mr. R ailsback. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kastenmeier. The gentleman from C alifornia. Mr. Danielson.

Mr. Danielson. I was just looking at the clock, Mr. Cha’rman. 

I don't want to cause any continuation of any anxiety around here, 

so I will state my position. 1 am prepared to support the interim 

extension of the bill at this time. I am not prepared to support anything else, but if it is appropriate, I would like to move to amend 

this bill.

We are not putting in the revision right now and we are just kidding ourselves if we think’-----

Air. Kastenmeier. It is not appropriate at this time.

Air. Danielson. All right, but that is my position on the bill. Thank 

you very much.

Air. K astenmeier. Air. Smith?

Air. Smith. Thank you. Air. Chairman. It is always good to welcome AIs. Ringer back here having had the good fortune to participate in tha t great exercise about 8 or 9 years ago in getting out a 

copyright bill.

I thin k. Air. Chairman, I would support this entire bill when it 

comes up for our markup committee. It seems to me tha t the provision
19

of a commission, even though commissions may not he too welcome in 

today’s Congress, is a good one because I don t believe this committee 

is going to have the time to take up the technical problems to detei mine 

the facts that are needed before they are incorporated into a general 

revision of the copyright law. I think it would be a good idea to have this extra help under a 

structure th at this committee will need when it comes to those quest ions 

as to the general revision. So 1 would be inclined to support the entire 

bill.

Mr. Kastenmeier. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Drinan, I want to thank Ms. Barbara Ringer also for her testimony and say we obviously have to continue the copyright law for 2 

years and I would be prepared to vote on that. I have difficulties with 

the Commission both in its composition and its projected budget. I assume we will have an opportunity to talk about that at a later date. 

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kastenmeier. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens.

Mr. Owens. In view of the time, 1 don’t think I have any questions 

of great worth. I do find the concept of the Commission very worthwhile in my viewpoint. I think there is a question in my mind whether 

you need 3 years to issue a final report in view of the fact tha t you are 

pressing for a revision law within the next year or 2. It seems that one 

might want to have a report of that Commission prior to the passage 

of the revision law and hence a question of whether it might slow 

down the revision. Is it absolutely necessary to take 3 years for that 

Commission report do you think?

Ms. Ringer. The usual pattern in commissions is to take about a year 

to get operational and then study for at least 2 years. I thin k that 

3 years is not unrealistic. On the other hand, I think the commission 

could be given a mandate to report earlier, and if it were. I think it 

would have to follow tha t mandate. I would agree with you, Mr. 

Owens, that the need for this is quite urgent.

Mr. Smith. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Owens. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Smith. Ms. Ringer, would it be fair to state that most of the 

technical background exists and somebody knows it at this time ? I t has 

to be brought together in other words?

Ms. Ringer. Yes.

Mr. Smith. And the people who deal with computers and your great 

word of reprography I think must have the technical background 

if it can be brought together. So perhaps. Mr. Owens, it could be done 

sooner. It would seem to me it could be done sooner than 3 years.

Mr. Owens. I have no fur ther questions.

Mr. Kastenmeier. In which case, the committee thanks you again 

for your appearance this morning.

The Chair will announce that the committee will meet fo r the pur ­

pose of considering legislation before us at some time in the future in 

the remaining weeks of this session. Until the time the subcommittee 

stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the subcommittee recessed subject to the 

call of the Chair.]

o
(