« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Dext: are typical of the two thousand small and medium-sized colleges through fe: the perinert. While our library is liberally supported and spends every (rut teran afford on populi ni muhuriptions, re cantant posibly have the Inkere
of a unii palty like the one at Gainesville or at Tallaba see. Yet out sely better if they tuaintain a good quality of track.lis and if the sun #ill morritutes to it, tunat have acces by rand a potom opus 11.5 at 19.** !!! t: +1.781 pm loptions in the state and elsewhere.
It is may not known that the Interlibrary loan arrangement often ello'ir1 the en'ering of additional sutriptions his the library rather than runs t'e t'mra. is often charred, it is a truism that a librarinn oud prefer to 17. 11'le at r.ber than to hare to borrow er en under the f** (931). *59,9 ciptaan (istiquently, men t! e time parul de la bear to por con the let of prioriral striptions, the norr of interl'1% din mfne ani title are me luded from which articles have been try*** sted with
po netyring the year. Whlie the situation varies, in a',r librors the
r! i : 11 we have had two or nese R4738* for articles ft sh** .111.** riador ir bir yrarme c'era sufription. This bothly and is locate prendre man help the parte diral polishers, but also indicans thout if wil olie art. Be to be from a title during a sma", the fernale!!nit hinson het dat ditrrials in the premye* It is to pray that will maksmis ulosta
effet l'adres photoshopping Weir elim.nafel. Dostsor; the poi loints at Wenna af Mirtienia would also be perrrly put to it to enintale turperinn In ante wat and it is thrup scholars who arrunt for the the for writing for 1 baris journals. The Journals themselies, therefore, have a niche in *** I cutter) in a framble way.
Isorto have song revanised that some reproworth of pipilane of a mosrite! Work for meque por- of retricism, teaching. #holarship or postup! is desire
and this jurial para pt, known as "inir mue,"Is Inerrimae In Arms 1. Mai ef the pravi pot cerin bill libraries buipomirited all 11 mesein uiler this Dan mlae but it in the strnnre of freeet'm of lithility ft m bordas.
te librar an nevete in his work. This fair use concept in nerearliy strand in peral language in the MII, mallrarian all not be able tulemadre,
'er derides a partirular ca**, whether his acting, undertahrow!'h the Durattin'rn'in in de patron, is er is not an infringement Ilais ls plads 31*******d toy the fr*****ls derd«! pipri brottas mei!1.00441 mp of 1 * & Wys the latexul Ullrary of Melline at the Natial It l'u! Hun feup palenseestrar T!.is erit mas institute in 1'*' fonly 20.0f???" Home f./'180'1* opereret! 3172-* of tray thertors of dr.'lari on eard. Alle bien Her firmi ined 'hat the drfer!!!write
p't!**n? the I waltung sol. rn that is net pralls a right to an any kiven in but ulla del in the intro if one tv sto This threat of nuit, esen If nie is able to tha'n'a li bre 1 *** in urt le very real "Atup sults are putty in propria foto
*f..ch robe ** ** T?! FR$ af bord gup** fefer to it als u deset !!!
semarrs, but ..e one on the need for statul: ry datans tapa bitkil ***) top aneh Inglie fi.fni.kru'. T., harassi1.6 but unles!: r** *P'y inii..!!! Hall
I of the wewe !!!.rari1974 Prelegent in silla to SM 1907
ratur un further print! Is ne alıd to murr !.at it is f***asil.ru teu per a agir *** *' in taschig atiduran b ft din alif ($ ** Batea', fore you stranu lon trata sufi, a111.* ! Din ill,!.'
L'arri na to $****;lip #tit 1:1. Assuralarlo. lauro y moti, in parts of wavlen 111* in thrush it, fit **l ** arr 1019 *** Ipirr, We are 119 pred *,* te mi!' of it and wro'
i altor Bihu Ihr-opar poput ... Wilsonlir !!!!!!! * - - ... *19.d in 1" I what ttr 1 rt'in 1 1."s #1 TV","?
89 ','y welare la tutul";' ! RT 1: De
** .rnata) oot ! 11 a!
* * * * * * * *
my for the propriin: ' funir ertuitur in celo #fr testes, ...
some ten men and women sitting around a table, that they read an arse Milton's poetry that appeared ten years ago in Publications of ini diure Language Association, and if two of them over the next werk were to go to work college's library and look at that article and decide that they wanted to take copies back to their dormitory for further study, we don't see how to el 3** practical way in which a library can prevent that kind of reproducts o * (ps on separate occasions, and we don't think they should have to, Audib. Sinute Committee report on S. 1361 (s. Rept. 33-343) cites such an il simit
Secilan 10818) (2) says that the rights of reproduction and distribu:10: extend to a library which "engages in the systematic reproduction or disitows's of mile or multiple copies or phonorecords of material descrilmd in 0:
d)." The materials referred to in (d) are journal articles or sua. puitis ofner copyrighted works.
The question immediately arises as to what constitutes systematic raporton tion. To the extent that we are able to puzzle it out, it appears to be !** aimed at practiers of the kind which were upheld as fair use by the ti Clains in the l'illiams & Wilkins case. In listening to my publisher and also friends, the preeminent example which they give of systematic reprimix l. ulat xiways been ide Regional Medical Library System, with the National Lilitary Medicine at its apex. Those practices of the National Library of Medicif **r. of cure, upheld by the Court of Claims in Williams & Wilkins in a derisa whicti was a tired this year by the United States Supreme Court.
Vow, bow do the Regional Medical Library srutem really work? W! It ***rts off with the lat, who disenters that he needs access to win jart" saad! Information, often found in an article in a professional journal in the borden! feld. ile usually starts off by going to the library in the hospital with what is practice is athliated, and may find it there. If it is one of the must portal journals, the hospital may well have it. But, since there are thousands of janual in the medical and braith orience field, the chane * are that the hospital KIT may not base this particularly if it is older material The request wud ti ed es toine of the eleven Regional llelical Libraries over the conatry which are *** prostril bog Congress, and from there as a last resort to the top of the piano weh is the National Library of Melicine and which w has over 125 MW **** en journals, the biggest 101ical (ubiection in the world. It is ott 012-13 foto put title for the smaller hospital library, or sometimes even the Regional Vedi a! Ibrary, to have a sizabile portion of this vast amount of material. w some kind!
*** *12h as photocopyiniz. mut be relied ujmin to get the infirmation to be durinr or the other health profimfanal when urgentis needed. This hand of one mization of acup* to scientide and technical knowledge seems to us to k**!** 11,4ply my nt way of doing thitike. It is uld be noted also that the RrogaVer ! Libraries are not onls sriviriş to ruzment their collaretia nn as run! 16 prezbite bozt likesine are urking the smaller himpital ibraries to unrude 1:*. than providinate all along the like an eies-increasing numer to pull scopata * with copying increased financial gain for the publishers. Mr. Joan Tiles A1111., of the Viral Library Assaviation, who is with us herp tray, an um file for any of the Committee members are intervind further detais altas 11. bis miguifieant work in the the tru! and braith Driels.
Anetter lark and hixhly immptant type of wsstem for which this systematic reproduction powest problems is that of the county and multi-county library as to thrughout the whole country. Tliep Wrari came into being largely t1 taha thappwort'ınlty provided by the fresal Library Series and (-01 thry Art. This was alu still in an effort to bring bowiks and other library alerais to the 1.1}}}* of jwple, often in rural arrax, who had not herritofore hari library Myrt available. To get cot*3*-* to join to po***8, Bop the Dressary taxes, antee 1a ru!!1.45 81.2 barid, and in aon timils on the mitos Pa antra! Ibu borary and for the ladies mazuliste liraris in the simtein is a ditta ule lande le te raft pe unde pusilole only by the profil m** to the 01:12+0 of med broader arriol indikacion which will be uade available for barn me onls frotar umalib?! Fanningen mellemnefern in each tilwert. , byt a tiputinii loans frutta che mentral istrars and through it fr in lamarano divani e impiderr. In tuds, we cursinki perisul al artis *** 94, 19.3 moistul. be at den 12 restait in foues a
in fact, thefore the fortal : Shang o! there we ubraries there were ! I wengint. 11 "Tigre) ne af al. ir. Il rar
Hewanne 11 *zoommert linn is ont * Pof the plal plates in tempe wholeh has been so mu biliy 12.6. it all, it is urna. w restraizola live bluse me move
which would diminish the effectiveness of the program. Such a diminution, if it curred, would be as much aguinst the interest of the publishers as against the citizens the libraries serve. Let me give you an illustration from my home state of Oklahoma which I know well. A few years ago, the Western Plains Library Bystem was established consisting of four counties in Western Oklahoma. At the time of its organization, there was a single library in each of two counties. The other two had no libraries. Now there are seven libraries in the four counties and two bookmobiles are operating regularly. At the beginning the two original libraries subscribed to 20 periodicals between them. The seven libraries now subscribe to over 300. The combined annual book budget of the two original libraries was under $2500. The annual book budget for the seven is now $12,000. In addition, they have encouraged school libraries to develop collections of perifiicals and books and are now promoting with success the creation of home collections of books and periodicals. This tremendous increase in acquisition of materials has obviously benefited the publishers of materials as well as the citizens the libraries serve.
This kind of multi-county library is now found in every State in the Union, and over the two decades the Library Services and Construction Act has been in existence millions of dollars of federal money and matching local funds have been expended for this kind of service. The importance of this activity was recognized in the Senate report last summer accompanying S. 1361 (s. Rept. 93-983) in the portion discussing systematic reproduction by saying, “The photocopying needs of such operations as multi-county regional systems must be met," but no provision was made in the law to specifically provide for these needs. Section 108(g)(2) would prohibit their copying activity and do much mischief indeed.
It was also pointed out to our publisher friends that many systems are not organized for the purpose of copying materials of any kind. For example, one of the large "systems" is SOLINET, an acronym for Southeastern Library Network. This is a group of about 100 libraries in the Southeastern States devoted solely to providing centralized cataloging and catalog card preparation and distribution to member libraries. Other systems have the purpose of encouraging the building of better library collections and the bringing to the area more journals, sets and bibliographies not now represented in the areas. To say that a library merely because it happens to belong to such a "system” is prohibited from photocopying where if it did not belong, it would be permitted to do so, seems to us farfetched indeed.
We are also concerned with section 108(h) which would limit the rights otherwise granted under section 108 by excluding a musical work, pictorial, graphic and other audiovisual works. These exclusions are illogical. The need of the scholar doing research in music for a copy of a portion of a score is as legitimate and proper as that of the scholar doing any other kind of research. Likewise, the cupring of one map from an atlas or a page of diagrams and plans from a techmical journal may be just as important as any other kind of material for researrh.
It seems to us that libraries ought to be encouraged to collect and preserve all of the forms in which knowledge is published and distributed, and that it should he possible for users of libraries to have access for their study and scholarship to all of these forms, not jnst some of them. If a student of the cinema asks a library to make a copy for him of a few selected frames of some famous motion picture which is being studied, so that he may consider at his leisure a certain kry point which is made in an article he is reading, we think the library ought to henble to do that.
Mrs. Susan Sommer of the Music Library Association is with us today and can provide further information about the problems posed by this section of the bill in relation to music. Dr. Frank McKenna, of the Special Libraries Associatinn. Is also here and can discuss the problems in relation to atlas or other graphic materials in books and periodicals.
In reporting S. 1361 last July, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that "representatives of authors, book, and periodical publishers and other owners of coprighted material meet with the library community to formulate photocopying guidelines to assist library patrons and employees.” And concerning Wrary photocopying practices not authorized by the reported bill, the Committee recommended "that workable clearance and licensing procedures be developed."
In response to this request by the Senate Judiciary Committee, representatives of the different views on this subject were convened in November 1974 by invitation of the Register of Coyprights and the Chairman of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. The resulting "Conference on Resolution of Copyright Issues” established a smaller working group to carry out preliminary discussions. The working group and several subcommittees have since met on frequent occasions to consider and prepare papers on a variety of technical and procedural matters.
There are, of course, different views of the significance of the work performed to date by the Conference and its working group. The work has focused upon the mechanics and the feasibility of possible mechanisms for collecting payments for photocopying of copyrighted materials. It must be emphasized, however, that there has been no agreement as to whether such a payment mechanism is acceptable to libraries even if it is workable, and also I may say no seemingly workable mechanism bas yet been advanced in that it still appears it would take dollars to collect dimes. There has also been no agreement as to the categories of publications to which such a mechanism should be applied and no change in the position of libraries that their current photocopying practices are entirely lawful and within the fair use holding of the Williams & Wilkins case, and should not in any respect be treated as infringing rights of the copyright proprietor in the provisions of any new legislation.
The publishers will probably tell you that they, too, are for photocopying but they want money for it without any outlay or trouble on their part. I should like to point out some reasons why licensing and payment of royalties by libraries for the photocopying they do is not justified. First, many publishers already have variable pricing for journals; that is, they charge a considerably higher price for the same journal for a library subscription than for an individual subscription. These prices to libraries often run quite high--subscriptions of $100 to $300 per year are not uncommon; a few run $1,000 or more; and the $50 to $100 price is quite commonplace in the scientific field. These higher subscription prices to libraries presumably are designed in many cases to include charges for antici. pated copying. Some journal publishers have received substantial federal assist. ance in modernizing their editorial and manufacturing procedures. Other journals, and also some of those just mentioned, have already had major contributions of public funds in the nature of per-page charges, usually in the range of $50 to $100 per printed page paid by the author or by a federal grant which is financing his work. The author is usually not paid by the publisher for his work in writing the article but the library or the institution where the author is located often spends a sizable amount for interlibrary loan postage and handling to aid him in preparation of his article which the periodical then receives without cost. As an example, my own small library spent during this past year over $100 on interlibrary loan expense for books to enable a professor to write an article for an bistorical journal, but the journal did not pay him anything for the article.
In light of these contributions which the libraries and the public already make to the publication of these works, it seems unreasonable for journal publishers to demand still further payment from libraries, and eventually the public, for the occasional photocopying of individual articles for library users. It seems even more unreasonable in view of the fact that by making the infor. mation concerned available to those with current, specific needs for it, library photocopying fosters the basic purpose of the authors of such articles. But when it is also noted that there is no evidence that the libraries' policies have cansed publishers any harm whatsoever and may actually increase their subscriptions, it is clear that such demands are completely unjustified and the public interest requires that they be rejected by Congress.
For the reasons we have advanced above, we urge that sections 108(g) (1) and (2) and (h) be deleted from the bill. This would also be in accord with the Williams & Wilkins decision and would permit libraries to continue the long established library service of providing a single photocopy of a single article or excerpt from a copyrighted periodical or book for a patron's use without incurring liability for copyright royalties.
It has been a pleasure to appear before you today, Mr. Chairman, and I assure you that we are ready to be of assistance in any way we can toward a satisfactory resolution of this very difficult but important problem.
[The following prepared statements and correspondence were received for the record :]
STATEMENT OF John P. MCDONALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AssociatION OF
RESEARCII LIBRARIES The Association of Research Libraries, an organization of the principal unirerity and research libraries in the country, believes that the copyright revision bill ultimately approved by the Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice Subcommittee must include provisions which will ensure that the customary, long-established library service of providing a single photocopy of a single article or excerpt from a copyrighted periodical or book for a patron's private use may be continued without incurring liability for copyright royalties.
The bill adopted by the Senate last year, and reintroduced in the 94th Congreus As II. R. 2223, gives explicit recognition to and protection for library photocaping. However, that bill also incorporates provisions in Section 108(g) which encumber and confuse the expressly recognized right to an extent that would severely hamper libraries' service to the public and exclude practices which are presently lawful. It is imperative that the bill be amended to restore to libraries and the public the rights which they presently enjoy to make limited photocopies of copyrighted works. Section 108 (g)(2) should be removed from the bill because: 1. It restricts practices which are reasonable, customary and lawful under the decision in the Williams & Wilkins case. 2. Copyright owners (e.g., publishers) bare advanced no evidence showing that such practices in any way in jure their economic interests, much less evidence that it is in the public interest to forbid then. 3. The cost of the libraries and ultimately the public of prohibiting or imposing a royalty requirement upon such practices will be extremely high. 4. The primary purpose of the authors of the sorts of articles most frequently cupied is to disseminate the results of their research, not to earn royalties.
At issue is the making, whether at the request of a patron or at the request of another library, of single copies of copyrighted matter for the private use of a scholar or other reader. Such copies may be of articles from law reviews, medical journals or scientific or technical periodicals, or they may be passages from other published works. They are made in response to individual requests for single copies, although more than one individual may request a copy of a particular part of a work in a library's collection. In providing this service, a library may make a copy from a work located on its premises, or in the case of a work not in its own collection, it may request the copy from another library, just as it might obtain the original work itself on an inter-library loan for a patron who wisded to borrow it. The right to make a single copy for personal use is important to a wide variety of scholars and other library users, from the high school student who wants a copy of an article in a issue of a magazine for a debate or science project to the physician requiring the material for research work or patient care. In the overwhelming number of cases it is the only way in which a researcher can obtain a copy of an article from a issue of a periodical for reference.
Both libraries and the public have traditionally considered the making of such copies to be a natural and necessary part of libraries' services to their Usrh. It is simply one way in which published material is made accessible. Such copies have been made by photographic and other reprographic techniques since before the enactment of the 1909 Copyright Act. No court has ever held that these traditional practices result in liability under the copyright law, and in the test case brought by publishers, Williams & Wilkins v. United States, the U.S. Court of Claims held that the libraries' practices were a fair use of the poblished materials. That holding was recently affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.
It is vital that the copyright revision bill recognize the right of libraries to ma ke single photocopies of works for the private use of patrons without incurring liability under the copyright law. Although Williams & Wilkins is authority that traditional library photocopying is within the doctrine of "fair use", express katutory treatment is necessary to remove the threat of suit against libraries arising from varying judicial interpretations of what is or is not "fair use". Failure to include such provisions would abandon this area of major public interext to judicial "legislation", and conld lead to further costly litigation.
Section 108 of H.R. 2223 extends the necessary recognition, but limitations written into its provisions, principally in Subsection 108(g)--and particularly clause (2) of that subsection-seriously erode the rights which it intends to recognize.
Clause (g)(2) excludes from the library photocopying permitted under Sec tion 108 any instance of "systematic reproduction and distribution". Because this restriction was written into the bill by the Senate Patents, Trademarks and