On Sept. 18 Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters argued strongly against a provision in a pending bill, which would remove the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress and make it part of a new government corporation called the Intellectual Property Organization. The provision was subsequently tabled by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during a hearing on S.1961.
The bill requires that the Copyright Office be self-supporting and, in addition, contribute one-third of the funding for the umbrella Intellectual Property Organization.
"We have grave concerns about the impact of the specific provisions of Title I [of the bill], which would fundamentally restructure the copyright function of the federal government. … We are concerned about the potential impact on fees and the resulting damage to the existing system of copyright registration and deposit. … We have determined that a five-fold increase in [copyright registration] fees would be required. Such an increase would place a substantial financial burden on copyright owners. … History shows that registrations decrease in number whenever fees are increased; an increase of this magnitude would result in a precipitous drop in the number of registrations. Many copyright owners would be unable to afford registration for their works and would thus be barred from obtaining meaningful remedies against even willful infringers," Ms. Peters told the committee. The current registration fee for a copyright is typically $20. The proposed legislation could cause that fee to rise as high as $100, she said.
Senators in attendance, in addition to Chairman Hatch, were: Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) appeared before the committee and testified in support of the establishment of a government corporation for patents and trademarks.
In a written statement submitted for the record, Dr. Billington said that removing the Copyright Office from the Library made no sense: "Even though [S. 1961] does not change the copyright law's deposit requirements, the enactment of Title I [would] certainly mean significantly fewer copyright deposits coming to the Library. If Title I is enacted, the Library's collections will soon suffer serious loss and unalterable long-term damage. This great institution's role as our nation's library will quickly diminish and there will be a marked reduction in its ability to serve the Congress and the nation.
"Removing the Copyright Office is not simply pruning a branch. It is tearing away a part of the Library's roots. Indeed, this blow to the Library of Congress will ripple across the country, hurting our libraries, educational institutions, and industry; it will profoundly injure American research, scholarship and creativity."
In his written statement, Dr. Billington said, "The removal of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, as called for in Title I of this bill, would represent the single greatest threat to its future the Library has faced in this century - putting at risk an institution that the Congress has built into the greatest repository of knowledge in the history of the world."
The Librarian added: "There simply is no substitute for the range and quantity of works the Library receives through copyright and the close collaboration that now exists between the Library and the Copyright Office. … I can envisage no scenario where, upon removal of the Copyright Office from the Library, the Library will be assured of receiving the amount and scope of materials it now receives from copyright deposit.
"Almost $40 million worth of materials has been transferred from the Copyright Office to the Library's collections in the past three years alone. Each year, an average of 816,000 items are received through the copyright system, more than 500,000 of which are selected for the Library's collections. Copyright deposits are the Library's primary source for books, serials and other print materials published in the United States. Nearly all U.S. newspaper microfilms are received via copyright deposit. Our receipt of motion pictures and sound recordings is heavily dependent on copyright. Moreover, the 60,000 books not selected for the collections each year allow our Exchange and Gift program to exchange these books for important foreign works without cost to the taxpayer," Dr. Billington said.
In his testimony, Dr. Billington elaborated on the contribution copyright deposits currently make to the Library's collections:
- 37 percent of all books and serials added to the collections in the last three years;
- 20,000 books per year which are produced and distributed in limited editions and are difficult to obtain but critical for research;
- an average of 507,000 serials each year including newspapers;
- 55 percent of all U.S. law books and 60 percent of law serials in the Law Library. In addition, Dr. Billington said that for LC's special collections of items such as music, motion pictures, recorded sound, maps, prints, photographs, and playscripts, "Copyright deposits are the primary and critical source." For moving images and sound recordings, he said, "purchase is not a significant source in terms of quantity." Concerning sheet music and cassette tapes, Dr. Billington said, "such material is virtually unobtainable except by copyright."
Ms. Peters told the committee that increased user fees would hurt both copyright owners and the Library's collections: "The damage from increased fees would not be limited to copyright owners, but would also affect the public by reducing the number of works available to the Library through copyright deposits and diminishing public access to information about copyrighted works, which would be most unfortunate given the potential of the global information infrastructure where rights management information is so critical.
"Copyright policy," Ms. Peters said, "should not be entirely driven by economic concerns; copyright furthers other important values as well. In a qualitatively different manner from patents or trademarks, it has a unique influence on culture, education, and the dissemination of knowledge. Every member of the public is both a creator and a user of copyrighted works, and these works are the means by which his or her ideas and thoughts are communicated. In the words of the Supreme Court, 'Copyright [is] the engine of free expression.' These values may be slighted if copyright policy is wholly determined by an entity dedicated to the furtherance of commerce."
During the question-and-answer session, Sen. Thompson, who noted the importance of an effective copyright system to the music industry, said, "I wonder if what we have here is a solution in search of a problem. There clearly are some changes that need to be made on the patent side of things, but what is [S. 1961] trying to correct with copyright, Ms. Peters?"
"We don't know what the problem is," she replied. Sen. Simpson noted the requirement that contributing equally to a new intellectual property organization would place a much heavier burden on the Copyright Office than on the Patent and Trademark Office. "[The Copyright provisions in] Title I disturb me. … It's just not possible looking at the books. Copyright had '95 revenue that was only 3 percent of the amount received by the Patent and Trademark Office, $18 million compared to $600 million."
"Since 1870, things have been going well at the Copyright Office. As caretaker, they have captured and preserved the mint record of American creativity. . . . I'm hesitant to apply a solution where a problem does not exist" Sen. Simpson said.
After Sen. Simpson spoke, Sen. Hatch said, "We'll probably have to take Title I out of the bill. There's probably not time to consider it [during this Congress].
Other witnesses included who appeared before the panel were: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Bruce A. Lehman; Mary Ann Alford, chairman of the International Trademark Association; William Patry, a Yeshiva University professor of law and former Copyright Office employee; Saul Schniderman, chief steward, AFSCME Local 2910; Ronald J. Stern, president, Patent Office Professional Association; and Gary Griswold, president, Intellectual Property Owners.
