Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

-14

cataloging registrations and recording documents, including a successful Backlog Reduction Project, which

reduced the number of multiple titles in documents to be entered. Recordation throughput time improved to

14.4 weeks, well under the target of 24 weeks. The turnaround time for cataloging registrations was 10.9

weeks, slightly lower than the target of 12 weeks.

Copyright Education

The provision of information on copyright law and its application is a principal function of the

Copyright Office. The demand for the information is growing, as the growth of the digital environment

exposes more Americans to copyright issues in the course of their daily lives.

In fiscal 2000, the Office responded to almost 400,000 information requests of which nearly 12,000

were via electronic mail. The use of our Website increased by 67% over the prior year. We expect this

demand growth to continue and our efforts in this area to grow as well.

Security Program

The Copyright Office successfully completed several fiscal 2000 scheduled action items in the

Library's Security Plan. Among the items accomplished were: laser engraved ownership marking of compact

disc and video cassette materials; secure transport of high-risk materials, and item bar code labeling and

security tagging of book materials.

In fiscal 2001, the Copyright Office will focus on continued

improvements in physical security, inventory, and preservation controls.

Copyright Office security initiatives planned for fiscal 2002 include incorporating Item Level Tracking

and Inventory Control as part of the Copyright Office reengineering plan, creating in-process records at the

point-of-entry, installing electronic access control, and installing a closed-circuit video system in the Mail

-15

Copyright No-Year Account and Fee Projection for Fiscal Year 2002

The “No-Year” account was established by the Technical Amendments Act, P. L.105-80 and holds

fees which have been paid by those who use Copyright Office services. We want to use the funds in the No

Year account to improve our public services to those who pay these fees. Our principal use of the No-Year

account will be for Business Process Reengineering implementation and development of our information

technology systems. We need to insure that adequate funds remain in the account for these critical public

service improvements.

The No-Year account balance at the end of the last fiscal year was $4,289,902. The Copyright Office

does not expect to add any funds to the No-Year account this year. The Office could use up to $2 million from

its No-Year account funds to make up the shortfall caused by the fiscal 2001 net appropriation reduction.

Status of Future Fee Adjustments

The 1997 Technical Amendments Act gives the Register the authority to recommend copyright fees

based on certain criteria, with Congress retaining the authority to disapprove a fee increase. In setting fees,

the law directs the Register to conduct a study of costs for the service provided. Based on the study, and

subject to congressional review, the Register is authorized to fix fees at a level not more than necessary to

recover reasonable costs incurred for services plus a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Congress

specifically mandated that the fees should also be "fair and equitable and give due consideration to the

objectives of the copyright system.” These objectives include creating a comprehensive public record of

copyright ownership and obtaining works for the use of the Library of Congress for its collections or its

-16

The Copyright Office went through an elaborate and extensive process in establishing the present fees,

which became effective on July 1, 1999. This process included hiring two contractors to conduct a cost study

and to provide expertise in the new "Federal Managerial Cost Accounting Standards." Since raising fees each

year would be costly and disruptive, we indicated that the current fees have a minimum duration of three

years. This decision was widely publicized.

The Office is now in the process of assessing the current fee schedule to determine if fee adjustments

are warranted for fiscal 2002 and expects that the long-term effect of the July 1999 fee increase will be similar

[ocr errors]

10 the experience of the 1991 increase, where claims dropped, then leveled off for the next three years. Even

if the Office were to implement a fee increase on July 1, 2002, it would not impact the fiscal 2002 fee receipt

[ocr errors]

projection since the new fees would be in place for just the last quarter of the fiscal year. Based on past

experience, we would see a high incidence of “short” fees submitted in that quarter. Based on this historical

evidence, the fiscal 2002 fee receipt forecast

the same as fiscal 2001. Based on the receipts received in the

[ocr errors]

first half of this year, the Office may see a higher level of receipts for Fiscal Year 2001 than originally

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The Copyright Office looks forward to working with Congress in addressing the significant copyright

issues facing the United States both at home and abroad. Our two major initiatives for Fiscal Year 2002 –

planning and developing our information technology systems and implementing recommendations for

-17

Account and existing resources. They will provide us with the technology and innovation necessary to

continue to fulfill the Copyright Office's mission in the digital information environment.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. TAYLOR. I also have a question regarding the Copyright Office that I submit to be answered for the record.

[The question and response follows:)

COPYRIGHT OFFICE The biggest program increase for the Copyright Office is a request for $2.6 million dollars for the Copyright Office electronic registration, recordation, and deposit system (CORDS) full large scale production system. These funds will be used to transform the presently limited small-scale system into a full large-scale production system during fiscal 2003.

Question. To date what has been the total expenditures for the CORDS system? What are your estimates of the additional costs to bring the system up to full production? What are your estimates of savings achieved from the CORDS system?

Response. The Library has withdrawn the Copyright Office CORDS request of $2.6 million. The request would have accelerated development of CORDS, which is now processing 30,000 of 600,000 copyright registrations annually.

The Copyright Office re-engineering team recommended that the accelerated development be delayed until further evaluation of the Office's overall information technology requirements were completed. Since 1993, approximately $6.5 million has been spent on the CORDS project. Projected costs and savings will be determined once we complete the full evaluation and the technology requirements of the Copyright Office.

STANFORD LIBRARIES

MBRS EQUIPMENT REQUEST Mr. TAYLOR. In the furniture and furnishings request, there is a $3.2 million request for the purchase of preservation equipment for the Motion Picture Broadcasting and Recording Sound Program. Would you explain, Dr. Billington, the need for such a large requirement in a single year, and could this equipment be procured over several years?

Dr. BILLINGTON. Mr. Chairman,-the big expense, is for a machine called a Telecine, which is not something that is mass produced or you can buy off the shelf. It has to be custom made. It is essential for converting movies into usable videotape or video format that researchers and other people can make use of. In other words, you can't use these old fragile films; we need to convert them into a usable format for a reader or for a user. The Telecine is basic equipment, and the whole audiovisual world is—like the National Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, very equipment-intensive. We have no capital budget to handle these very large and expensive pieces of equipment. These machines were acquired way back in the early 1980s. They are old, worn out, and barely function. The two other processing machines, which are also essential, are not functioning at all. So if we are going to make video material usable for viewers, this equipment is really essential. They are particularly essential as the Culpeper audio visual center becomes available. The Telecine, which is the most expensive piece, has to be specially crafted and made. It is very important that we get a functioning machine, or we are going to have a situation where we have material, but it is virtually unaccessible. Those are big capital items that have just worn out and have lasted actually longer than their normal life.

Mr. TAYLOR. Dr. Billington, could you for the record provide us with all the reprogramming documents and the other committee approval actions.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »