Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 168.djvu

 Clause (3) permits importation of copies for governmental use, other than in schools, by the United States or by “any State or political subdivision of a State.” Clause (4) allows importation for personal use of “no more than one copy of any work at any one time,” and also exempts copies in the baggage of persons arriving from abroad and copies intended for the library collection of nonprofit scholarly, educational, or religious organizations. Braille copies are completely exempted under clause (5), and clause (6) permits the public distribution in the United States of copies allowed entry by the other clauses of that subsection. Clause (7) is a new exception, covering cases in which an individual American author has, through choice or necessity, arranged for publication of his work by a foreign rather than a domestic publisher.

What constitutes “manufacture in the United States” or Canada

A difficult problem in the manufacturing clause controversy involves the restrictions to be imposed on foreign typesetting or composition. Under what they regard as a loophole in the present law, a number of publishers have for years been having their manuscripts set in type abroad, importing “reproduction proofs,” and then printing their books from offset plates “by lithographic process * * * wholly performed in the United States.” The language of the statute on this point is ambiguous and, although the publishers’ practice has received some support from the Copyright Office, there is a question as to whether or not it violates the manufacturing requirements.

In general the book publishers have opposed any definition of domestic manufacture that would close the “repro proof” loophole or that would interfere with their use of new techniques of book production, including use of imported computer tapes for composition here. This problem was the focal point of a compromise agreement between representatives of the book publishers and authors on the one side and of typographical firms and printing trades unions on the other, and the bill embodies this compromise as a reasonable solution to the problem.

Under subsection (c) the manufacturing requirement is confined to the following processes: (1) Typesetting and platemaking, “where the copies are printed directly from type that has been set, or directly from plates made from such type”; (2) the making of plates, “where the making of plates by a lithographic or photoengraving process is a final or intermediate step preceding the printing of the copies”; and (3) in all cases, the “printing or other final process of producing multiple copies and any binding of the copies.” Under the subsection there would be nothing to prevent the importation of reproduction proofs, however they were prepared, as long as the plates from which the copies are printed are made here and are not themselves imported. Similarly, the importation of computer tapes from which plates can be prepared here would be permitted. However, regardless of the process involved, the actual duplication of multiple copies, together with any binding, are required to be done in the United States or Canada.

Effect of noncompliance with manufacturing requirement

Subsection (d) of section 601 makes clear that compliance with the manufacturing requirements no longer constitutes a condition of copyright with respect to reproduction and the distribution of copies. The