165
The principal arguments for elimination of the manufacturing requirement can be summarized as follows:
- 1. The manufacturing clause originated as a response to a historical situation that no longer exists. Its requirements have gradually been relaxed over the years, and the results of the 1954 amendment, which partially eliminated it, have borne out predictions of positive economic benefits for all concerned, including printers, printing trades union members, and the public.
- 2. The provision places unjustified burdens on the author, who is treated as a hostage. It hurts the author most where it benefits the manufacturer least: in cases where the author must publish abroad or not at all. It unfairly discriminates between American authors and other authors, and between authors of books and authors of other works.
- 3. The manufacturing clause violates the basic principle that an author’s rights should not be dependent on the circumstances of manufacture. Complete repeal would substantially reduce friction with foreign authors and publishers, increase opportunities for American authors to have their works published, encourage international publishing ventures, and eliminate the tangle of procedural requirements now burdening authors, publishers, the Copyright Office, and the United States Customs Service.
- 4. Studies prove that the economic fears of the printing industry and unions are unfounded. The vast bulk of American titles are completely manufactured in the United States, and U.S. exports of printed matter are much greater than imports. The American book manufacturing industry is healthy and growing, to the extent that it cannot keep pace with its orders. There are increasing advantages to domestic manufacture because of improved technology, and because of the delays, inconveniences, and other disadvantages of foreign manufacture. Even with repeal, foreign manufacturing would be confined to small editions and scholarly works, some of which could not be published otherwise.
The following were the principal arguments in favor of retaining some kind of manufacturing restriction.
1. The historical reasons for the manufacturing clause were valid if originally and still are. It is unrealistic to speak of this as a “free trade” issue or of tariffs as offering any solution, since book tariffs have been removed entirely under the Florence Agreement. The manufacturing requirement remains a reasonable and justifiable condition to the granting of a monopoly. There is no problem of international comity, since only works by American authors are affected by section 601. Foreign countries have many kinds of import barriers, currency controls, and similar restrictive devices comparable to a manufacturing requirement.
2. The differentials between U.S. and foreign wage rates in book production are extremely broad and are not diminishing; Congress should not create a condition whereby work can be done under the most degraded working conditions in the world, be given free entry, and thus exclude American manufacturers from the market. The manufacturing clause has been responsible for a strong and enduring industry. Repeal could destroy small businesses, bring chaos to the
