Search

This hearing addressed three major issues: How should copyright law respond to technological change? Should copyright law accommodate changes initiated outside the law, or attempt to delay change by preserving existing rights? and How should the legal dividing lines be drawn between the sometimes competing demands of consumer and proprietor? Statements and testimony from the following individuals and organizations are presented: (1) John F. Banzhaf, III, professor of law, George Washington University Law School; (2) Joseph F. Coates, president, J. F. Coates, Inc.; (3) Benjamin M. Compaine, executive director, Program on Information Resources Policy, Harvard University; (4) David Lange, professor of law, Duke University School of Law; (5) Frederick Weingarten, program manager, Communication and Information Technologies Program, Office of Technology Assessment; (6) Edward M. Cramer, president, Broadcast Music, Inc.; (7) Roy N. Freed; (8) Arthur J. Levine; and (9) Richard H. Stern. Four appendices include materials from the Congressional Copyright and Technology Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, FL, February 4-6, 1984; materials relating to an Office of Technology assessment study on intellectual property rights in the age of electronics and information; reprints of six articles; and judicial decisions and legislative materials. (JB)

This hearing addressed Senate Bill 1384, which deals with the copyright issue and seeks to alter the 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Mills Music case. The question under consideration is whether the law should be made explicit to the effect that the class of intended beneficiaries of all royalties under the termination rights provisions consists exclusively of authors and their heirs (and the other statutory renewal claimants), and that the class of intended beneficiaries of the derivative works exceptions consists exclusively of those who create derivative works, or whether the status quo should be allowed to remain so that a substantial shield against termination is granted to those primary publishers who, under assignments from the author, themselves authorize the preparation of derivative works. Statements and testimony from the following individuals are presented: (1) Howard L. Berman, U.S. Representative, California; (2) Barbara Ringer, former Register of Copyrights; (3) Dean Kay, executive vice president and general manager, Welk Music Group; (4) Michael S. Oberman, counsel, of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel; (5) Irwin Karp, counsel, the Authors League of America, Inc.; and (6) George David Weiss, president, Songwriters Guild of America. Two appendices contain a letter to Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., from Richard Colby, attorney, November 20, 1985, and a letter to Senator Arlen Specter, from Burton L. Litwin, vice president, Belwin Mills Publishing Corp., December 10, 1985. (KM)

This discussion of the difficulties of protecting copyright for audio and video recordings focuses on the application of the 1976 Copyright Act and the Fair Use principle to educational off-air taping and private home recording. Court cases such as Encyclopedia Britannica Educational Corporation versus Crooks and Universal Studios, et al. versus Sony Corporation of America, et al. are discussed as well as German and British copyright legislation. (RBF)

The Copyright Act of 1976, particularly the guidelines on fair use, did much to clarify the ambiguity of the 1909 Copyright Act in relation to new electronic media. Although some specific guidelines for teachers were included, it should be noted that microcomputers and disk drives were not yet widely available in 1976. Because experts were divided on what direction the protection of computer programs should take, Congress turned the question of copyright over to the National Commission on New Technological Uses (CONTU). Based on the recommendations of CONTU, the Copyright Act was amended in 1980 to define computer programs as literary works and to specify how a computer program may be used. Several points should be noted by educators: (1) it is illegal for anyone other than the owner of the program to make duplicate copies; (2) although a back-up copy may be produced, this is an archival copy and should not be used on another computer; (3) it is illegal to make multiple copies without a licensing agreement; (4) it is illegal to boot a series of microcomputers sequentially with a single disk; and (5) it is illegal to modify a program so that it may be accessed by multiple users via networking. Five references are listed. (MES)

Whether words that are first spoken to an interviewer but end up as an edited transcript for the use of scholars and writers can receive copyright protection under the 1976 Federal Copyright Act is discussed. Ample precedent exists to determine that oral history is copyrightable. (MLW)