Home page for digital-law-online.info

- Table of Contents -

Introduction to the online version

Chapter 1 – The Commission and Its Recommendations

Chapter 2 – The Establishment, Mandate, and Activities of the Commission

Chapter 3 – Computers and Copyright

Chapter 4 – Machine Reproduction – Photocopying

Chapter 5 – Summary

Appendix A – Summary of the Legislative History of Computer-Related Issues and the Photocopy Issue

- Computer-Related Issues

- The Photocopy Issue

Appendix B – Public Law 93-573 and Public Law 95-146

Appendix C – Commissioners

Appendix D – Staff

Appendix E – Lists of Witnesses

Appendix F – Alphabetical Listing of Persons Appearing before the Commission

Appendix G – Transcripts of Commission Meetings

Appendix H – Summaries of Commission-Sponsored Studies

Appendix I – Bibliography

Appendix J – Selected Provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Office Regulations

Full table of contents

PDF version of the report

Picture of commissioners and staff

Final Report of the National Commission on New Technology Uses of Copyrighted Works

Appendix A – Summary of the Legislative History of Computer-Related Issues and the Photocopy Issue

Computer-Related Issues

During the early discussions of copyright re­vision from 1961 through 1964, copyright ques­tions with regard to computer programs and the use of copyrighted works in conjunction with computers were largely ignored. Section 5(a) of the Preliminary Draft for Revised U.S. Copy­right Law dealt with the exclusive rights to copy or record:

§ 5. Exclusive Rights Comprised in Copyright . . .

    (a) The right to copy or record. Copyright shall include the exclusive right to copy or record the work in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which it can be visually or aurally perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. It shall in­clude the right to reproduce the work in visual copies, to make or duplicate sound recordings of it, to make a translation, adaptation, or any other derivative work from it, and to reproduce it in any form in the programming or operation of an information storage and retrieval system [empha­sis added].1

In addition, a proposed section 6 dealt with fair use.2

During a meeting held at the Library of Congress on February 20, 1963, the relation of these two sections to the use of copyrighted works in machine-readable forms was discussed.3 Throughout the period when the preliminary draft was being considered, the primary concern seems to have been with this use of com­puters. Several interested parties suggested changes in section 5 during the 1963 discus­sions4 and in statements submitted in the sum­mer of 1964.5

The Eighty-Eighth Congress

The 1964 Revision Bill

The three identical versions of the revision bill introduced in the second session of the 88th Congress had a modified section 5:6

§5. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.

(a) General scope of copyright.—Subject to sections 6 through 13, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do or to authorize any of the following:

    1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

    (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

    4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

{Page 82}

    (5) in the case of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, to exhibit the copyrighted work publicly.7

At a meeting held in New York City on Au-gust 6, 1964, Morton David Goldberg, Esq., raised significant questions, which might be paraphrased as follows: (1) Are computer pro­grams “copyrighted works”? (2) Does “the right to reproduce the copyrighted work” in­clude reproduction, storage, and retrieval de­vices? (3) Is the fixation of magnetic impulses in the storage unit a derivative work? (4) Are computer programs “literary works”? and (5) What are the performing rights of a computer program?8

The Register of Copyrights replied, “I don’t think there are any more difficult or important problems than the ones you have raised.

We deliberately avoided any specific references to ‘computers’ or ‘information storage and retrieval units’ in this clause. We think that there are many developments that are going to come in the immediate future, and we think it safer to draft general language which can be interpreted by the courts to apply to particular usages.”9

The General Electric Company made some specific suggestions on the copyright protection which should be extended to computer pro­grams.10

In May 1964, the Copyright Office announced that it had “taken the position that copyright registration for computer programs is possible under the present law” (i.e., the 1909 Act).

In the announcement of the practice, the fol­lowing statement was made:

    The registrability of computer programs in­volves two basic questions: (1) whether a pro­gram as such is the “writing of an author” and thus copyrightable, and (2) whether a reproduc­tion of the program in a form actually used to operate or be “read” by a machine is a “copy that can be accepted for copyright registration.

    Both of these are doubtful questions. However, in accordance with its policy of resolving doubtful issues in favor of registration wherever possi­ble, the Copyright Office will consider registration for a computer program as a “book” in Class A if:

    (1) The elements of assembling, selecting, ar­ranging, editing, and literary expression that went into the compilation of the program are sufficient to constitute original authorship.

    (2) The program has been published, with the required copyright notice; that is, “copies” (i.e., reproductions of the program in a form perceptible or capable of being made perceptible to the hu­man eye) bearing the notice have been distributed or made available to the public.

    (3) The copies deposited for registration con­sist of or include reproductions in a language intelligible to human beings. If the only publica­tion was in a form that cannot be perceived vis­ually or read, something more (e.g., a print-out of the entire program) would also have to be de­posited.11

The 1965 Revision Bill

When the 1965 Revision Bill was introduced in the 89th Congress,12 the Register of Copy­rights explained the deletion of the granting of an exclusive right “to reproduce [the work] in any form in the programming or operation of an information storage and retrieval system” as follows:

    We became convinced . . . that it would be a mistake for the statute, in trying to deal with such a new and evolving field as that of computer technology, to include an explicit provision that could later turn out to be too broad or too nar­row. A much better approach, we feel, is to state the general concepts of copyright in language, such as that in section 106(a), which would be general in terms and broad enough to allow for adjustment to future changes in patterns of re­production and other uses of authors’ works.

    At the same time, we should emphasize here that, unless the doctrine of “fair use” is applica­ble in a particular case, the bill contemplates that certain computer uses would come within the copyright owner’s exclusive rights. It seems clear, for example, that the actual copying of entire works (or substantial portions of them) for “input” or storage in a computer would constitute a “reproduction” under clause (1), whatever form {Page 83 }the “copies” take: punchcards,punched or mag­netic tape, electronic storage units, etc. Similarly, at the “output” end of the process, the “retrieval” or “print-out” of an entire work (or a substantial part of it) in tangible copies would also come under copyright control.13

The bill also specifically removed the “per­formance” aspects of a computer from section 106(b) (1), with the deletion explained as fol­lows:

    A computer may well “perform” a work by run­ning off a motion picture or playing a sound recording as part of its output, but its internal operations do not appear to us to fall within this concept.14

During hearings on the then pending revision bill, ­the following individuals presented on statements in computer-related issues:15

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1131-32

Alanson W. Willcox, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1132-33

John V. Vinciguerra, Atomic Energy Commission, 1135-36

John F. Banzhaf, Computer Program Library, 1144-50

Larston D. Farrar, Farrar Publishing Company, 1150-51

Maxwell C. Freudenberg, Department of Defense, 1163-72

Mark Carroll, Association of American University Presses, 1216

Bella L. Linden, American Textbook Publishers Institute, with Kenneth B. Keating, Esq., and Lee Deighton,1420-49, 1455-59

Carl T. J. Overhage, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1455

Abraham L. Kaminstein, Register of Copyrights, 1861

Graham W. McGowan, Electronic Industries Association, 1898-99

Reed C. Lawlor, Esq., 1914-16

Hearings were held before the Senate Judi­ciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright, on S. 1006, the companion bill, in August 1965. Alanson W. Willcox, general counsel of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, submitted a statement which made several recommendations with respect to the rights of libraries to duplicate “by any process now in existence or which may hereafter be developed, including such processes as photo­copying, sound recording, and computerization, any work in its collections or in collections available to it . . .” (emphasis added), and went on to outline specific conditions under which those copies could be made.16

The House Committee on the Judiciary re­ported H.R. 4347 on October 12, 1966, and made the following statements on the applica­tion of the proposed law to computer systems on the right of public display:

    Clause (5) of section 106 represents the first explicit statutory recognition in American copy­right law of an exclusive right to show a copy­righted work, or an image of it, to the public. The existence or extent of this right under the present statute is uncertain and subject to chal­lenge. The bill would give the owners of copyright in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly.”

    With the growing use of projection equipment, closed and open circuit television, and computers for displaying images of textual and graphic ma­terial to “audiences” or “readers,” this right is certain to assume great importance to copyright owners. A recognition of this potentiality is re­flected in the proposal of book publishers and producers of audiovisual works which, in effect, would equate “display” with “reproduction” where the showing is “for use in lieu of a copy.” The committee is aware that in the future electronic images may take the place of printed copies in some situations, and has dealt with the problem by amendments in sections 109 and 110, and with­out mixing the separate concepts of “reproduction” and “display.” No provision of the bill would make a purely private display of a work a copy­right infringement. . . .

{Page 84}

    The corresponding definition of “display,” as amended, covers any showing of a “copy” of the work, “either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process. The phrase “motion picture” before the word “film” has been omitted to avoid confusion. Since “copies” are defined as including the ma­terial object “in which the work is first fixed,” the right of public display applies to original works of art as well as to reproductions of them. With respect to motion pictures and other audio­visual works, it is a “display” (rather than a “performance”) to show their “individual images nonsequentially.” In addition to the direct show­ings of a copy of a work, “display” would in­clude the projection of an image on a screen or other surface by any method, the transmission of an image by electronic or other means, and the showing of an image on a cathode ray tube or similar viewing apparatus connected with any sort of information storage and retrieval system.17

On reproduction and uses for other purposes the report stated:

    The concentrated attention given the fair use provision in the context of classroom teaching ac­tivities should not obscure its application in other areas. The committee emphasizes again that the same general standards of fair use are applicable to all kinds of uses of copyrighted material, al­though the relative weight to be given them will differ from case to case.

    For example, the doctrine of fair use would apply to all stages in the operations of informa­tion storage and retrieval systems, including input, and output in the form of visual images or hard copies. Reproduction of small excerpts or key words for purposes of input, and output of biblio­graphic lists or short summaries might be ex­amples of fair use in this area. On the other hand, because the potential capabilities of a computer system are vastly different from those of a mimeo­graph or photocopying machine, the factors to be considered in determining fair use would have to be weighed differently in each situation. For rea­sons already explained, the committee does not favor any statutory provision that would exempt computer uses specially from copyright control or that would specify that certain computer uses constitute “fair use.”18

The 89th Congress adjourned without taking action on either H.R. 4347 or S. 1006.

The Ninetieth Congress

In the 90th Congress, Rep. Emmanuel Celler introduced a revision bill, H.R. 2512, on Janu­ary 17, 1967; a companion bill, S. 597, was introduced in the Senate six days later.

The House Committee on the Judiciary re­ported H.R. 2512 on March 8, 1967. The re­port deals with the use of copyrighted works in information storage and retrieval systems in the following language:

    Although it was touched on rather lightly at the hearings, the problem of computer uses of copyrighted material has attracted increasing at­tention and controversy in recent months. Recog­nizing the profound impact that information stor­age and retrieval devices seem destined to have on authorship, communications, and human life it­self, the committee is also aware of the dangers of legislating prematurely in this area of explod­ing technology.

    In the context of section 106, the committee believes that, instead of trying to deal explicitly with computer uses, the statute should be general in terms and broad enough to allow for adjust­ment to future changes in patterns of reproduc­tion and other uses of authors’ works. Thus, un­less the doctrine of fair use were applicable, the following computer uses could be infringements of copyright under section 106: reproduction of a work (or a substantial part of it) in any tangible form (paper, punch cards, magnetic tape~ etc.) for input into an information storage and re­trieval system; reproduction of a work or sub­stantial parts of it, in copies as the “print-out” or output of the computer; preparation for input of an index or abstract of the work so complete and detailed that it would be considered a “derivative work”; computer transmission or display of a visual image of a work to one or more members of the public. On the other hand, since the mere scanning or manipulation of the contents of a work within the system would not involve repro­duction, the preparation of a derivative work, or a public distribution, performance, or display, it would be outside the scope of the legislation.

    It has been argued on behalf of those interested in fostering computer uses that the copyright owner is not damaged by input alone, and that the development of computer technology calls for unrestricted availability of unlimited quantities of copyrighted material for introduction into infor­mation systems. While acknowledging that copy­right payments should be made for output and possibly some other computer uses, these in­terests recommended at least a partial exemp­tion {Page 85 }in cases of reproduction for input. On the other side, the copyright owners stressed that computers have the potential, and in some cases the present, capacity to destroy the entire market of authors and publishers. They consider it indispensable that input, beyond fair use, require the consent of the copyright owner, on the ground that this is the only point in computer operations at which copyright control can be exercised; they argue that the mere presence of an electronic re­production in a machine could deprive a publisher of a substantial market for printed copies, and that if input were exempted there would likewise be no market for machine-readable copies.

    In various discussions since the hearings, there have been proposals for establishing voluntary licensing systems for computer uses, and it was suggested that a commission be established to study the problem and recommend definitive copy­right legislation several years from now. The Com­mittee expresses the hope that the interests in­volved will work together toward an ultimate solution of this problem in the light of experi­ence. Toward this end the Register of Copy­rights may find it appropriate to hold further meetings on this subject after passage of the new law. In the meantime, however, section 106 preserves the exclusive rights of the copyright owner with respect to reproductions of his work for input or storage in an information system.19

The House passed H.R. 2512, with several amendments, on April 11, 1967.

In March and April of 1967, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the compromise bill S. 597.20 During the course of those hearings the witnesses expressed con­cern over the provisions of the bill relating to computers and information storage and retrieval systems. They addressed the specific problems of whether copyright royalties should be levied at the input of copyrighted works into automated retrieval systems or on output; whether compu­ter programs should indeed be copyrightable; and whether a clearinghouse for payment of royalties on computerized works would be feasible. A number of these witnesses also urged the creation of a study panel or other body to gather data and to deal with computer problems so that the legislative process would not be delayed while Congress considered them. The witnesses who testified on S. 597 are as follows:

Herman Wouk, Authors League of America, Inc., 41

Irwin Karp, Authors League of America, Inc., 43-58

Jesse W. Markham, Horace S. Manges, Lee C. Deighton,and Bella L. Linden, American Textbook Publishers Institute, and American Book Publishers Council, Inc., 64-96

Fred Siebert, Arthur R. Miller, Anna L. Hyer, and Robert Taylor, Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Revision, 199-201

Julian T. Abeles, National Music Publishers Association, 426

W. Brown Morton with Edison Montgomery, James G. Miller, and Arthur R. Miller, Interuniversity Communications Council (EDUCOM), 547-81

Benjamin Kaplan, Harvard Law School, 579-81

Anthony J. Oettinger with John D. Madden, Association for Computing Machinery, 581-89

Charles F. Gosnell, American Library Association, 589-614

Norton Goodwin, Esq., 731~5

Don White with Elsworth C. Dent and Charles Stewart, National Audiovisual Association, Inc., 589-614

John C. Stedman, American Association of University Professors, 900-915

Graham W. McGowan, Electronic Industries Association, 969-74

Bella L. Linden, American Textbook Publishers Institute, 1055-57, 1063-65

W. Brown Morton, EDUCOM, 1058-63

Horace S. Manges, American Book Publishers Council, Inc., 1065-66

Irwin Karp, Authors League of America, Inc., 1066-67, 1150-56


Written statements from the following in­dividuals appear in the appendix to the hearings:

John S. Voorhees on behalf of the Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, 1162-65

H. R. Mayers,General Electric Co., 1188-89

Norton Goodwin, Esq., 1189-90, 1191-95

Abraham L. Kaminstein, Register of Copyrights, 1190-91

Nathan M. Pusey, Harvard University, 1195-96

William T. Knox, McGraw Hill, Inc., 1198-1202

Reed C. Lawlor, Esq. 1204-6

Carl F. Flow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1208-11

Curtis G. Benjamin,McGraw.Hill, Inc., 1212-18

{Page 86}

The National Commission

The Senate subcommittee convened a meeting on July 25, 1967, to discuss a draft bill to es­tablish a national study commission. The at­tendees, some 150 representatives of authors, publishers, librarians, educators, computer users, and government agencies, unanimously sup-ported the creation of such a commission. Sen­ator McClellan made this statement when intro­ducing S. 2216:

    During the subcommittee hearings there was con­siderable testimony concerning the relationship between such technologies as information storage and retrieval systems and various forms of ma­chine reproduction, and the copyright law. The Congress, at the present time, lacks sufficient in­formation on which to base an informed judgment as to what changes in the copyright law may be necessary in the light of these scientific advances. On the other hand, the need for modernizing the copyright law is urgent and should not await the resolution of these new issues.

    I, therefore, concluded that the most desirable course of action would be to proceed with the consideration of the pending copyright revision bill, but establish at the earliest opportunity a national commission to study the copyright impli­cations of these technological advances and to make recommendations to the President and Con­gress concerning the need for any changes in our copyright law or procedure.21

The report accompanying this bill amplifies further the necessity for establishing the Com­mission.

    Prior to the introduction of copyright revision legislation in the Congress, exhaustive study was given by the Copyright Office and various inter­ested groups to those issues that it was anticipated would require attention by the Congress during the revision program. The current or potential impact of computers and other information stor­age and retrieval systems on the copyright revi­sion effort was not foreseen and consequently the bill submitted to the Congress did not take into account the significance of this new technology.

    The first extensive consideration of these mat­ters in the Congress occurred during the hearings of this committee’s Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights on S. 597, the gen­eral copyright revision bill. At the same time within the executive branch the Committee on Scientific and Technological Information of the Federal Council of Science and Technology was also exploring these problems. It became apparent during the subcommittee examination of this sub­ject that if the Congress were to undertake at this time to make a final determination concerning the possible necessity of modifications in the copyright law, because of various technological advances, it would delay for at least several years the enact­ment of a general copyright revision bill. Such a delay would be extremely undesirable in view of the obvious need for revision of the copyright statute, which is essentially that enacted in 1909. More importantly, sufficient information is cur­rently not available to provide the foundation for a sound judgment concerning the future develop­ment of the technology and the necessity for modification of the copyright statute.

    Another important copyright issue arising from technological developments is the reproduction of copyrighted material by the use of various machines. Photocopying in all its forms presents sig­nificant questions of public policy, extending well beyond that of copyright law. No satisfactory solutions have emerged in the limited considera­tion devoted to this problem during the current revision effort.22

Also in the report is a supporting statement from the Librarian of Congress, who observed:

“As I see it, the goals of the National Commis­sion should be to seek and find genuine answers to what now promises to develop into one of the most significant problems in the history of copyright law.”23

The Senate passed 5. 2216 on October 12, 1967, but the 90th Congress ended before the House of Representatives took any action on the bill.

The Ninety-first Congress

On January 22, 1969, Senator McClellan in­troduced a bill which combined most of the provisions of S. 597 and S. 2216 from the pre­vious Congress. To effect a compromise between those who proposed a three-year moratorium on copyright infringement for uses in compu­terized systems and those who adamantly op­posed such a moratorium, section 117 was added to S. 543.

{Page 87}

§ 117. Scope of exclusive rights; use in conjunc­tion with computers and similar information systems

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 though 116, this title does not afford to the owner of copyright in a work any greater or lesser rights with respect to the use of the work in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, proc­essing, retrieving, or transferring information, or in conjunction with any similar device, machine, or process, than those afforded to works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on December 31, 1970, as held applicable and construed by a court in an action brought under this title.24

The Ninety-second Congress

Senator McClellan introduced S. 644, a bill almost identical to S. 543, on February 8, 1971, but neither House took any action on it.

The Ninety-third Congress

The Copyright Revision Bill was reintroduced as S. 1361 on March 26, 1973. The following witnesses testified at hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on July 31 and August 1:25

Harold E. Wigren, Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision, with others, 180-187

Irwin Karp, Authors League of America, Inc., Ross Sackett, Association of American Publishers, with W. Bradford Wiley and Charles Lieb, 210-19

Bella L. Linden, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., and Macmillan, Inc., 222

Lloyd Otterman, Education Media Producers Council for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 260

Paul G. Zurkowski, Information Industry Association, with J. Thomas Franklin and Charles Lieb,266-75


Statements from the following individuals and organizations appear in this appendix:

Robert W. Cairns, American Chemical Society, 555-56

Howard B. Hitchins, Association for Educational Communications & Technology, Association of American Publishers, 570


The report to accompany S. 1361 described section 117 in the following manner:

    Use in information storage and retrieval systems-As section 117 declares explicitly, the bill is not intended to alter the present law with respect to the use of copyrighted works in computer systems. . . .

    As the program for general revision of the copyright law has evolved, it has become increas­ingly apparent that in one major area the prob­lems are not sufficiently developed for a definitive legislative solution. This is the area of computer uses of copyrighted works: the use of a work “in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, processing, retrieving, or transferring in­formation.” The Commission on New Techno­logical Uses established by Title II is intended, among other things, to make a thorough study of the emerging patterns in this field and, on the basis of its finding, to recommend definite copy-right provisions to deal with the situation.

    Since it would be premature to change existing law on computer uses at present, the purpose of section 117 is to preserve the status quo. It is intended neither to cut off any rights that may now exist, nor to create new rights that might be denied under the Act of 1909 or under common law principles currently applicable.

    The provision deals only with the exclusive rights of a copyright owner with respect to com­puter uses, that is, the bundle of rights specified for other types of uses in section 106 and qualified in sections 107 through 116. With respect to the copyrightability of computer programs, the owner­ship of copyright in them, the term of protection, and the formal requirements of the remainder of the bill, the new statute would apply.

    Under section 117, an action for infringement of a copyrighted work by means of a computer would necessarily be a federal action brought under the new Title 17. The court, in deciding the scope of exclusive rights in the computer area, would first need to determine the applicable law, whether State common law or the Act of 1909. Having determined what law was applicable, its decision would depend upon its interpretation of what that law was on the point on the day before the effective date of the new statute.26

{Page 88}

A section of the report also deals with Title II of the bill “to establish a National Com­mission to study and compile data” in language similar to that of S. 90-640, cited above.27

On July 9, 1974, S. 1361 was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. It was then re­ported with several amendments on July 29 and was passed by the Senate on September 9 of the same year.

Immediately after the Senate had passed S. 1361, Senator McClellan introduced 5. 3976, stating, “[I]t is doubtful that the House of Representatives will have time in this Con­gress to complete action on the copyright re­vision bill which was just passed by the Senate. There are several provisions of the omnibus bill which require action before the adjournment of this Congress. . . . [I]t is desirable to establish this year the National Commission which is pro­vided for in Title II of S. 1361 to prepare for the resolution of the copyright issues which are arising from the rapid development of new technology.”28 The Senate considered and passed the bill that same day, September 9, 1974.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on S. 3976 on November 26, at which the Register of Copyrights supported Title II of the bill:

    The inadequacy of the present law to deal with the problems arising from the use of copyrighted works in computer Systems is certainly something that no one can deny. This is still in a develop-mental stage. We really have no experience with the copyright patterns-the concepts and the needs that will arise from this new technology. In the many discussions that took place on this subject the feeling was that what was being expressed on both sides were fears rather than facts. 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 copyright own­ers on the other, to have a study of this subject, so that they could base their suggestions on facts rather than fears.

    The revision bill literally does nothing to solve this problem. The compromise, if you can call it that, was to specify expressly that the status quo would be preserved. In other words, whatever is the copyright law now with respect to computer uses of copyrighted works would remain the law.

    This is not very desirable as a legislative solu­tion, but it was tied in directly with the under­standing that a Commission would be operating in this area, and would be studying and recom­mending on a rather short deadline.29

The House Committee on the Judiciary amended section 202(3) of Title II to include “that at least one of the four public members shall be selected from among experts in con­sumer protection affairs” and reported S. 3976 on December 12, 1974, with a dissenting view by Rep. Robert F. Drinan opposing the estab­lishment of the Commission.30

The House of Representatives considered and passed 5 3976 on December 17, 1974, and President Gerald R. Ford signed the bill on December 31.31

The Ninety-fourth Congress

The Copyright Revision Bill came before Congress again early in the 94th Congress when Senator McClellan introduced 5. 22 on Jan­uary 15, 1975, and Representative Kastenmeier introduced H.R. 2223 on January 28, 1975. The bill was substantially the same as S. 1361, which had passed the Senate in the previous Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported S.22 on November 20, 1975,32 and the Senate unani­mously approved it on February 19, 1976.

In the meantime, the House Judiciary Sub­committee had been holding hearings on H.R. 2223, during which the following witnesses dis­cussed computer-related issues:33

Bella L. Linden, Linden and Deutsch, 311-13

Edwin Meell, Educational Media Producers Asso­ciation, 321

Paul G. Zurkowski, Information Industry Associa­tion, 332-40, 366-67

{Page 89}

The Copyright Office submitted to the House subcommittee a series of eighteen briefing papers on issues raised by H.R. 2223. The section “Computer Uses of Copyrighted Works” out-lines the background of the issue and includes summaries of the arguments for and against considering “input” as infringement, a state­ment of the tasks to be undertaken by the Na­tional Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, and an analysis of sec­tion 117.34

The House subcommittee then held public markup sessions on H.R. 2223 and reported the bill on August 3, 1976. The full Judiciary Com­mittee of the House reported the bill without further amendment on September 3, 1976.35

The Committee of Conference reconciled the different versions of the bill as it had been ap­proved by the Senate and House of Representa­tives and issued its report on September 29, 1976.36 Both Houses of Congress approved the Conference Committee version of S.22 on Sep­tember 30, 1976, and the Copyright Revision Bill finally became law when President Ford signed it on October 19.37

Next section: The Photocopy Issue

1 U.S. Congress, House, Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision, Part 3: Preliminary Draft for Revised U.S. Copyright Law and Discussions and Comments on the Draft, 88th Cong., 2d sess., 1964, p.4; hereafter referred to as Copy. Law Rev., Pt. 3.

2 See this appendix under the section Eighty-eighth Congress, the 1964 Revision Bill.

3 Copy. Law Rev., Pt. 3, supra note 1, p.120.

4 Ibid., p 374 (statement of Reed C. Lawlor, Esq.).

5 U.S., Congress, House, Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision, Part 4: Further Discussions and Comments on Preliminary Draft for Revised U.S. Copyright Law, 88th Cong., 2d sess., 1964, pp.269 (statement of American Book Publishers Council, Inc., and American Textbook Publishers Institute), 315 (Authors League of America, Inc.), and 392 (National Audio-Visual Association, Inc.); hereafter referred to as Copy. Law Rev., Pt. 4.

6 U.S., Congress, 88th Cong., 2d sess., S. 3008, July 20, 1974, sponsored by Senator McClellan; H.R. 11947, July 20, 1974, sponsored by Repre­sentative Celler; and H.R. 12354, August 12, 1974, sponsored by Representative St. Onge.

7 U.S., Congress, House, Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision, Part 5.. 1964 Revision Bill with Discussions and Commenls, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965, p.4: hereafter referred as to Copy. Law Rev., Pt. 5

8 Ibid., p.62.

9 Ibid., p.63.

10 Ibid., p. 271.

11 Announcement SML-47 from the Office of the Register of Copyrights, May 1964; Copyright Office Circular 31D (January 1965).

12 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965, H.R. 4347 and S. 1006.

13 Congress. House. Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision. Part 6: Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965, p. 18; hereafter referred to as Copy. Law Rev., Pt. 6.

14 Ibid., p. 22.

15 Congress, House, Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision: Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, House Committee on the Judiciary H.R. 4347, H.R. 5680, H.R. 6381, H.R. 6835, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965; hereafter referred to as Hearings before Subcommittee No.3.

16 Congress, Senate, Judiciary Committee,Copyright Law Revision; Hearings before the Sub­committee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 1006, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965, p. 50; hereafter referred to as Hearings on S.1006.

17 89th Cong.. 2d sess., 1966, H. Rept.2237, pp.55, 57.

18 Ibid., p.64.

19 90th Cong., 1st sess., 1967, H. Rept.90-83, p.24.

20 Congress, Senate, Judiciary Committee,Copyright Law Revision; Hearings before the Subcommiltee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrighis of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 597,90th Cong., 1st sess., 1967; hereafter referred to as Hearings on S. 597.

21 113 Cong. Rec. 20909 (1967).

22 90th Cong., 1st sess., 1967, S. Rept.640, p.2.

23 Ibid., p.7.

24 91st Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 1969, S. Rept. 543 [committee print].

25 Congress, Senate, Judiciary Committee, Copyright LawRevision; Hearings before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademark, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1361, 93d Cong., 1st sess., 1973; hereinafter referred to as Hearings on S. 1361.

26 93d Cong., 2d sess., 1974, S. Rept.983, pp.112, 154 [Star print].

27 Ibid., p.208.

28 120Cong. Rec. 30516 (1974).

29 Congress, House, Judiciary Committee, Copyright Miscellany; Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee of the Judiciary on S. 3976, 93d Cong. 2d sess., 1974, p. 6; hereinafter referred to as Hearing on S. 3976.

30 93d Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept.1581, 1974, p.17.

31 P.L. 93-573 (1974).

32 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975, S. Rept.473.

33 U.S., Congress, House, Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision; Hearings before the Sub­committee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Admin­istration of Justice of the House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 2223, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975; herein­after referred to as Hearings on H.R. 2223.

34 Ibid., p. 2075.

35 94th Cong., 2d sess., 1976, H. Rept.1476.

36 94th Cong., 2d sess., 1976, H. Rept.1733.

37 P.L. 94553 (1976).