Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1975

Hot'NE OF REPRESENTATIVIS,
SUBM MUITHE on ('ourts, Civi. LIBY ITIIS,
AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JI'STI F OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washingtım, D.. Lp.nonnittee met, pur unnt to notire, at 10.10 a m. in room ! ! karburn llou-e Ohie Building. Ilon, Robert W. Kasteeler

urulan of the sulmomiuteel profiling. Prent: Representativas kautenter, Daniel an, Pattisol, and Jl. ml. 1.-) prropont: Ilerter Fuchs, counsel, and Thomas E. Vol.

ute coutu. Vir K MOUR. The hearing will pome to orilor on the third on

frarstis on copyright law teil on. Tlie auf undirilmesin primi 110kpal idrison of time turfuernthen in favoruri theme pam : nih.de will be invited to disde 30 minutes of trom! 1: *'. If timbre, and you will be extend to stay within tnt time

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

Sciences Library. She has been in the Medical Library Association in virtually all of its positions, including the board of directors Suelismo wise hoids positions in the University of Louisville on its faculty mejo ate. And without necessarily knowing all the nuances of the bill live for me you, which is very complicated, I would like to commend her testimony.

Tiank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Jr. KASTENMEIER, Thank you for this introduction. I sar to my ml. league I am sorry we can't introduce all our witnesses as fully in teri..3 of their biographies,

The Chair would like to welcome Mrs. Adams and Mr. Low. I urde. stand Mr. Low this morning will make the major presentation on beha? of the libraries. Jir. Low, you may want to introduce your o:her cul. leagues. You may proceed as you wish. TESTIMONY OF EDMON LOW, REPRESENTATIVE OF SIX LIBRARY

ASSOCIATIONS Mr. Low. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Edmon Low, and I w1 today present the views of the American library community as rep.zo sented through six major library associations. Il'ith me are represet:tives of each of the six associations. I am happy to present to you Me. Julius Marke, representing the law livraring and chairman of their copyright committee. Mr. JicDonald, at my right, is the executive director of the Association of Research Libraries. At my left Mr

Adams-and Mr. Vazzoli, we share your enthusiasm for Mrs. I als and her work in our library cominunity. Vext is Mrs. Sommer, who us Ippresenting the Music Library Association, and who is the chairman of their copyright committee; anal Vr. Frank Jekenna, who is lie executive director of the Special Libraries Association. And then with lis we have the members of counsel, sitting behind us here, Mr. Sarat, I ho riprenents the Harvard University Library; Jr. William Vorteile representing the American Library sociation, and Mr. l'hui.p Lion, representing the issociation of Research Libraries.

Mr. KASTEN VEIER. Thank you.

Mr. Low. Because of our time limitation, with your permission, Vr. Chairman, I shall omit some of my testimony and ask that this statement be admitted into the record.

Vr. KAMIENMUIER. Withont objection, your statement in its entirely will be mreived in the record. You may proceed, sir.

Mr. Low. Thank you.

We are here today to talk about library conving and the prorisions of the promisralt puis on bill. II.R.)). I shall be presenting, so far as I am able, the concerns of all these various library groups. However, carh of the oranizations will also be filing a statement of its own. saiting forth in greater detail its individual concerns about pm 419 of the bill. All of the reprezintatives will assist me in answering partieular questions you may have concerning our testimony and the ins}}{* Tampil

Nihongli or tratimony today is limited to library photocopying which is the subject of this hearing, there are other provisions of the But which concern 14, and about which we may be making further matements as other hearing are sheduled.

I would like first to point out that, although this copyright revision bill has been under consideration for 10 years, the library photocopying issue is still an important unresolved subject. In brief, as we see it, a question which Congress and this committee must decide is whether libraries will be permitted-at no additional expense to continue to serve the public by the long-standing practice of providing single copies of copyrighted material for users' research or study. It is an issue with direct and widespread impact on the general public and involves both the right of access to library materials and the cost of that access.

In the past year there have been two major developments affecting this question. In the first case ever brought by a publisher, the Williams & Wilkins Co., against a library the courts have upheld the photocopying of single copies of copyrighted medical journal articles as being within the doctrine of fair use, and not constituting infringement of copyright. It is in part because this case consumed 7 years and major financial outlay that libraries are concerned about the speond major development, which is the introduction last year into the Senate bill, without any hearing, of a new and undefined limitation on the rights of libraries; namely, the concept of "systematic reproduction" of either single or multiple copies of copyrighted material.

Now when we talk about library copying, we are not talking about something for the benefit of libraries or librarians, we are talking about something that is carried on for the benefit of users of libraries who include citizens from all walks of life throughout the country.

When we are talking about library copying practices, we are talking about the schoolboy in California who may need a copy of an article in the Los Angeles Times for a project he is working on in his ninth-grade class; or about a judge in the county court in Middlesex County, Mass., who may find he needs a copy of a law review article which bears directly upon a difficult question of law which has arisen in the course of his work. Or about the doctor in downstate Illinois who has a patient with an unusual and rare disease and the only recent material to be found is contained in an obscure journal published in Sweden, and available only through the Regional Medical Library system, but which article may aid him in saving his patient's life.

And we are talking about, even, a member of this committee asking the ('ongressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress for an article dealing with copyright. Or, we are talking about a musician who is preparing a scholarly article on the music of Mozart and needs to take with him to study a copy of a portion of a recently edited wore of one of Mozart's works with which he is concerned.

The list is endless, but I wish to emphasize that we are talking about an issue that very broadly affects the ability of people in this country to make use of their libraries which are the repository and storehouse of man's knowledge.

I should note here that copyright is not a constitutional right, such as trial by jury of one's peers. The Constitution simply authorizes the ('ongress to create such a right. It is therefore a statutory right, one created by law, which may be changed, enlarged, narrowed or abolished altogether by the Congress here assembled. It is a law enacted not for the benefit of an individual or a corporation, but for

57-786–76-pt. 1--13

the public good and with the purpose, as the Constitution expresses it, “to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

Consequently, in revising the copyright law the problem for Congress is to design provisions which both encourage the creation of original works and permit the widest possible access and dissemination of information to the public; and, where these goals compete, to strike a balance which best serves the fundamental objective of promoting learning, scholarship, and the arts.

I should like to go on to the top of page 5. At present I am director of the New College Library at Sarasota, Fla. New College is a small, but very fine, private college and its problems in this connection are typical of the two thousand small and medium-sized colleges throughout the country. While our library is liberally supported and spends every cent it can afford on periodical subscriptions, we cannot possibly have the large resources of a university like the one at Gainesville or at Tallahassee. Yet, our faculty members, if they maintain a good quality of teaching and do the research which contributes to it, must have access by random photocopying at times to the larger collections in the State and elsewhere.

It is the general experience of the library community that interlibrary loan encourages the entering of additional subscriptions by the library, rather than reducing the number, as is often charged by the publishers. It is a truism that a librarian would prefer to have a title at hand, rather than to have to borrow, even under the most convenient circumstances. Consequently, when the time comes around each year to consider the list of periodical subscriptions, the record of interlibrary loans is scanned and titles are included from which articles have been requested with some frequency during the year. While the situation varies, in our library the number is two; if we have had two or more requests for articles from the same title during the year, we enter a subscription. This not only indicates how the procedure can help the periodical publishers, but also indicates that if only one article, or none was copied from a title during a year, the journal could not have been damaged materially in the process.

It is not only the small schools which would suffer if such photocopying were eliminated, however; the scholars at Wisconsin or Michigan would also be severely put to it to continue their research in the same way, and it is these scholars who account for the major writing for the scholarly journals. The journals themselves, therefore, have a stake in seeing this procedure continued in a reasonable way.

The courts have long recognized that some reproduction of portions of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticism, teaching, scholarship or research is desirable, and this judicial concept was incorporated in section 107 of the revision bill. Libraries have operated all these years under this principle, but it does lack the assurance of freedom of liability from harassing suits. This fair use concept is necessarily expressed in general language in section 107 of the bill. So a librarian is not able to feel sure until a court decides a particular case whether his actions, undertaken with the best of intentions, is or is not an infringement.

This is pointedly illustrated by the recently decided and prior mentioned case of Williams & Wilkins. This suit was instituted in 1968 and now, only now, after years of litigation and expenditures of many

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »