Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Mr. MCCLELLAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S.J. Res. 143]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 143) extending the duration of copyright in certain cases, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the joint resolution do

pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this legislation is to continue until December 31, 1970, the renewal term of any copyright subsisting on the date of approval of this resolution, or the term as extended by Public Law 87-668, by Public Law 89-442, by Public Law 90-141, or Public Law 90-416 (or by all or certain said laws) where such term would otherwise expire prior to December 31, 1970. The joint resolution would provide an interim extension of the renewal term of copyrights pending the enactment by the Congress of a general revision of the copyright laws, including a proposed increase in the length of the copyright term. This resolution would be the fifth such interim extension of copyright. The fourth extension (Public Law 90-416) will expire on December 31, 1969.

This legislation merely provides for the prolongation of the renewal term of copyright and does not involve creation of a new term of copyright.

STATEMENT

This legislation arises from a study of the U.S. copyright system authorized by the Congress in 1955. After extensive preparatory work, copyright revision bills were introduced in both Houses during the 88th Congress and again in the 89th and 90th Congresses. The

House of Representatives on April 11, 1967, passed H.R. 2512 of the 90th Congress for the general revision of the copyright law. This committee's Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights held 17 days of hearings on copyright law revision, but no further action was taken by the subcommittee. On January 26, 1969, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights introduced S. 543 for the general revision of the copyright law. This bill is now being actively considered by the subcommittee. Both, S. 543 and the bill passed by the House of Representatives in the 90th Congress would increase the copyright term of new works from the present 28 years, renewable for a second period of 28 years, to a term for the life of the author and for 50 years thereafter. They also provide for a substantial extension of the term of subsisting copyrights.

While several major provisions of the copyright revision legislation are controversial, the provisions relating to cable television systems have been the principal, if not exclusive, factor delaying action on this legislation. Throughout 1969 the principal parties involved in the CATV question have been engaged in negotiations seeking to reach agreement on a joint recommendation to be made to the appropriate committees of the Congress. While these negotiations were being actively pursued, it has not been feasible for the subcommittee to undertake to act on this issue. The negotiations are still in progress, and it remains uncertain whether they will result in a compromise agreement. Meanwhile, the copyright legislation has been necessarily delayed and the archaic act of 1909 remains in effect.

Under these circumstances, the chairman of the subcommittee in introducing Senate Joint Resolution 143, suggested that the subcommittee may wish to consider the feasibility of separating the cable television question from the general revision bill, and consider the cable television question in separate legislation. No decision on this matter has yet been reached by the subcommittee. Regardless of what procedure is followed by the subcommittee, it is the hope of the committee that during this Congress legislation will be enacted providing for the general revision of the copyright law and the resolution of the cable television question.

Since the general revision bill has been unaviodably delayed, it seems desirable that the terms of expiring copyrights should be extended so that the copyright holders may enjoy the benefit of any increase in term that may be enacted by the Congress. It is the view of the committee that the same considerations that led to the enactment of the previous extensions warrant the approval of this joint resolution.

After a study of the joint resolution, the committee recommends that the legislation be favorably considered.

Attached, hereto, is the report of the Librarian of Congress, dated August 22, 1969.

S. Rept. 91-447

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS,

Washington, D.C., August 22, 1969.

DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1969, requesting our report on Senate Joint Resolution 143, extending the duration of copyright protection in certain cases. This joint resolution continues, until December 31, 1970, the renewal term of any copyright that would otherwise expire before that date, including renewal copyrights previously extended to December 31, 1969, by Public Laws 87-668, 89-442, 90-141, and 90-416.

The resolution, if enacted, would be the fifth in a series of interim extensions to continue temporarily the renewal term of expiring copyrights pending enactment of a comprehensive revision of the present copyright law. The proposed new copyright law (S. 543) increases the duration of copyright and extends the total available term of all subsisting copyrights from 56 to 75 years. The purpose of the joint resolution, and of previous interim extensions, is to prevent works already in their second copyright term from falling into the public domain for the time being, so that they may enjoy the 75year term when the anticipated new copyright law becomes effective. The urgent need for complete revision of the anachronistic 1909 copyright law now in effect is widely recognized. Rapid development of new information, entertainment, and communications media creates a progression of copyright problems. Ironically, while expanding technology increases the need for copyright revision, it also creates new and difficult issues whose resolution has delayed the revision program. Significant steps in the advancement of the 1967 revision bill (H.R. 2512, S. 597) were its passage by the House of Representatives on April 11, 1967, and the conclusion of public hearings before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary during the 90th Congress. Further congressional action in the 90th Congress was precluded by the continuing controversy over cable television. The Supreme Court's 1969 decisions on the copyright and regulatory aspects of cable television have failed to bring this problem any closer to a solution.

A series of subcommittee-sponsored and privately initiated meetings has also failed to resolve the problem, although some progress has been reported. A proposed agreement worked out by the staffs of the National Association of Broadcasters and the National Cable Television Association was not accepted by the board of directors of the NAB. Under these circumstances Senator McClellan, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, introduced Joint Resolution 143 on August 5, 1969. At that time he issued a statement indicating that he is "now reluctantly prepared to support the separation of the CATV issue from the general copyright revision bill," and noting his concern that, unless this is done, "the entire revision effort may well collapse."

I share Senator McClellan's hope that, with the CATV controversy removed, the general revision bill will be promptly enacted. In any event, another interim extension is necessary to preserve subsisting copyrights until Congress acts on the general bill.

S. Rept. 91-447

I strongly support Senate Joint Resolution 143 as a means of preserving the continuity and momentum of the program for general revision of the copyright law. At the same time, I share the concern that to delay enactment of a new copyright law any further will seriously jeopardize its chances for eventual passage. I hope that this fifth interim extension of subsisting copyrights will be the last of the series, and will be closely followed by the enactment of a much needed new copyright law for the United States. I believe this goal is sufficiently important to warrant the efforts essential to its achievement before the expiration of the extension on December 31, 1970.

Sincerely yours,

[blocks in formation]

91ST CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 91-448

PROVIDING FOR THE HOLDING OF COURT IN PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

OCTOBER 2, 1969.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 981]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 981) to provide that the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland shall sit at one additional place, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

On line 8 of the bill strike out the word "Hyattsville" and insert in lieu thereof the words "at a suitable site in Prince Georges County not more than five miles from the boundary of Montgomery and Prince Georges counties."

PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

The amendment provides needed flexibility for location of a court facility most suitable for the expanding population and potential future development of the area.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

S. 981 amends section 100 of title 28, United States Code, to authorize the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to sit at a suitable site in Prince Georges County, as well as at Baltimore, Cumberland, and Denton, Md.

STATEMENT

At the present time the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland sits only in Baltimore City, although it is also authorized to sit in Cumberland, located in the western part of the State, and Denton, located on the State's Eastern Shore.

« PreviousContinue »