ཐ

h would diminish the effectiveness of the program. Such a diminution, if ⠀ «mprei would be as mu h against the interest of the publi hers as against the etwas the Braries serve. Let me give you an illustration from my home state of a which I ki ow well. A few years ago, the Western Plains Library wester was established consisting of four counties in Western Oklahoma. At the pice of its organization, there was a single library in each of two counties. The eter two had no libraries. Now there are seven libraries in the four counties p*f two bookmobiles are operating regularly. At the beginning the two original ii raries aufmeribed to 20 periodicals between them. The seven librari ́s now m'arribe to over 300. The combined annual book budget of the two original forures was under $2500. The annual book budget for the seven is now $42.000, 1 ad liten, they have encouraged school libraries to develop collections of perimet vis and books and are now promoting with success the creation of home collections of books and periodicals. This tremendous increase in acquisition of patera's has obviously benefited the publishers of materials as well as the Gliders the libraries serve,

This kind of multi county library is now found in every State in the Union, ar fover the two decades the Library Services and Construction Act has been in ey vetre rillions of dollars of federal money and matching local funds have been expended for this kind of service. The importance of this netivity was reer red in the Senate report last summer accompanying 8. 1361 (8. Rept. ali in the portion disenssing systematic reproduction by saving. “The photong reeds of anch operations as multi county regional systems must be met,” but to provision was made in the law to specifically provide for these zeids, ʼn 10sig)(2) would prohibit their copying activity and do much mischief It was also pointed out to our publisher friends that many systems are not ntestined for the purpose of copying materials of any kind. For example, one of Pe large "systems” is SOLINET, an acronym for Southeastern Library Net**k T' is 1s a group of about 100 libraries in the Southeastern States devoted • ty to providing centralized cataloging and entalog card preparation and disbugten to member libraries. Other systems have the purpose of encouraging thu holdt g of better library collections and the bringing to the area more jour*** meta and be liographies not now represented in the areas. To say that a Creepy merely because it happens to belong to such a "system" is prohibited fries, plot sev pring where if it did not belong, it would be permitted to do so, Been a fringu fyrfetched indeed

We are also concerned with secffon 10%(h) which would limit the rights other. wise granted under section 10% by excluding a musical work, pictorial, graphic artofter antational works. These exclusions are fllogical. The need of the fording research in music for a copy of a portion of a score is as leg timate Inger as that of the scholar doing any of) er kind of research. Likewise, the te of one map from an atias or a page of diagrams and plans from a techternal may be just as important as any other kind of material for

It sumnje tri tam that libraries enght to be et couraged to ex lleet and preserve all of the forma in which knowledge is published and distributed and that it should be becilile for neers of libraries to have access for their study and scholarship

of thinner fingow, not fast some of them. If a student of the enema asks a liigay to pake a copy for him of a few selected frames of some famous motion raw? 1, de la Perle g atty fled, so that he may consider at his leisure a certain kerturat which is made in an article he is reading, we think the library ought to Meg Nash Nommer of the Muse Library Association is with us today and (mylle further Inform ation shout the problema posed by thễu sextion of the to ang to myste Dr Frank M. Keren, of the Special Ibraries. Asso Igu fwa mifere and can discuss the problems in relation to atlas or other grag hie Eater als in law ko nei periodicals

În retorttig & 171 last July the Senate Juftetary Committee recommended That The reventatives of authors hok and periodical publishers and other owners rotegifel faterisi meet with the library, con munity to foro siste 13

*ɛ gullet sem to assist library patrons and employees”. And concertig rary pli frungaống practices not authorized by the tv je rted 101 the Confer anded that workable clearance ari li er alt g, procedrines be devel pe 1, revjadise to this request by the Senate Judiciary Committee, representatives

of the different views on this subject were convened in November 1974 by lavitation of the Register of Coyprights and the Chairman of the National Comnisoa 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 va frequent occasions to consider and prepare papers on a variety of technical atal 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 worka de mechanism has yet been advanced in that it still appears it would take dolars to collect dimes. There has also been no agreement as to the categories of pub lications to which such a mechanism should be applied and no change in the poption 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 provisi- faš 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 pre 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 $500 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 antics pated copying. Some journal publishers have received substantial federal assistance 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 bim 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 historical 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 information concerned available to those with current, specific needs for it, library photocopying fosters the basic purpose of the authors of such articles, But whea it is also noted that there is no evidence that the libraries' policies have caused publishers any harm whatsoever and may actually increase their wibscriptions, it is clear that sich demands are completely unjustified and the public interest requires that they be rede ted by Congress,

For the reasons we have advanced above, we urge that sections 10% g) (1) and (2) and ch) be deleted from the bill. This won'd 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 surgie artice or excerpt from a copyrighted periodical or book for a patron's use without Incurring labelity for copy right royalties,

It has been a pleasure to appear before you tod iv, Mr. Chairman, and I assure you that we are ready to be of assistance in any way we can toward a satisfactory resolution of tl is very difficult but important probiem.

[The following prepared statements and correspondence were received for the record:]

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. McDonald, Executive DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

The Association of Research Libraries, an organization of the principal uniters,ty and research libraries in the country, believes that the copyright revision bol mitimately approved by the Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justión Nubeommittee must include provisions which will ensure that the evit mary long established library service of providing a single photocopy of a ⚫e article or excerpt from a copyrighted periodical or book for a patrons je vate use may be continued without incurring liability for copyright royalties, The bill adopted by the Senate last year, and reintroduced in the 94th Congress as II R. 2223, gives explicit recognition to and protection for library photoprying. However, that bill also incorporates provisions in Section 108(g) which eseller and confuse the expressly recognized right to an extent that would severely hamper libraries' service to the public and exclude practices which are present a lawful. It is imperative that the bill be amended to restore to Libraries all the puble the rights which they presently enjoy to make limited photocopies of copyrighted works Section 108(g) (2) should be removed from, ti e ball beertise: 1. It retract practices which are reasonabie, customary and lawful under the đền in the Withms & Wilkins case, 2. Copyright owners teg, publishers) hive advanced no evidence showing that such practices in any way injure their et fate" [titetests, much less evidence that it is in the pubije interest to forind 3. The cost of the libraries and ultimately the public of prohibiting or ** lg a royalty requirement upon such practices will be extremely high 4. De primary purpose of the authors of the sorts of articles most frequently eved is to disseminate the results of their research, not to earn royalties,

1

At jasne 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 medirai begenade of scient file or technical periodlenis, or they may be passages from

jailed works They are made in response to individual requests for vrdie exques, although more than one individual may request a copy of a parcartart of a work in a library's collection. In providing this service, a library msir vár a copy from a work located on its premises, or in the case of a work hits own collection, it may request the copy from another library Just na igt obtain the original work itself on an inter library loan for a patron who wished to borrow it The right to make a single copy for personal use is imbertast to a wide variety of set,olars and other library users, from the high ** student who wants a copy of an article in a issue of a magazine for a de ate or science project to the physician requiring the material for research work or patient care. In the overw! elting number of cases it is the only way in ha researcher can obtain a copy of an article from a issue of a periodical tereference

Beth Peraries and the puble have traditionally considered the making of Buħ ergies to be a natural and necessary part of libraries services to their Bowers. It in mirup'y one way in whien psonshed material is made accessible. Such es have been made by plotographie and other reprographie teel fi ques since re the enactment of the 100 Copyright Act No court þas ever held at tese traditional practices result in lialaity under the copyright law, and in • pot com 'r sght by pu. fishers, Wiliuma ɗ Wilkins v. United Stat a the Court of Claims held that the libraries' practims were a farne of the 10. Juhani materiais That bidding was recently affirmed by the United States

in vital flat the copyright revision 11 recognize the right of libraries to Prie si g'e photocopies of works for the private use of patrons with at incir

ty under the copyright law A?!gh W... 1 • AW A few in nutrity Det tred for a „trary photoexposing is within the doctrine of fair use" exhiếc má *ary treats, ent is necessary to remove the threat of suit against 11' rar. « a from vary ng judi tal intery refat, tw of what is or is not fair use Jew, hjp .. fis would a nod to "l in area of toate fatale life. fi, mti con d lead to farther ev at y lit ga't n

1:|:ཀ རི

Copyrights Subcommittee at the last minute (after public hearings had been hel and is only vaguely and confusingly explained in the committee report, it is in *** sible to determine exactly what it means. Such cursory explanation of the litlation as was offered by publishing interests before this Subcommittee seems to confuse it with "related or concerted" reproduction-which is separately treated by Section 108(g)(1) of the bill-and merely disguises the real import of the restriction. It appears, however, to be potentially applicable whenever a likraty makes a photocopy of an article or other portion of a published work in the c text of a "system". There are, of course, many such systems of libraries, from city or county branch library systems to the university with branch cat] ses to regional library consortia. When it applies, Section 108(g) (2) would rea a the making of a single copy for a single requester, of any part, however sra..... of a copyrighted work. It is precisely the right to make such copies which Sect, a 10% was intended to confirm.

The Senate Judiciary Committee report states that systematic reproduction of distribution within the intent of Subsection 108(g) (2) occurs "when a iitrary makes copies of such materials available to other libraries or groups of ters under formal or informal arrangements whose purpose or effect is to have the reproducing library serve as their source of such material." An example which seems to fit this description would be arrangements under which the Legislative Research Service of the Library of Congress provides copies of materiais, such as articles from economic or business periodicals, at the request of Members of Congress. An example listed by the Senate committee's report is the case in which a branch of a library system obtains at a user's request a copy of an article which it does not carry in its own collection. The example most frequently cited by publishers is the regional medical library system, by which local hospital and medical school libraries have access upon request to seldom-read and higi specialized periodicals carried by regional medical libraries or the National La brary of Medicine. Each of these examples involves practices which are trile tional and obviously reasonable. Just such photocopying practices of the NIM were at issue in the Williams & Wilkins case and were held to be lawful.

The sole rationale offered for the new restrictions is an assertion that they are necessary in order to prevent present and potential subscribers from relying on library photocopying machines in the place of journal subscriptions. That assets tion is simply and clearly not valid. The argument has a certain surface p'aus:tility, but in spite of the many opportunities presented to them, notably in the Williams & Wilkins case and most recently at the hearings before this. Su «* ** mittee, publishing interests have never offered any evidence to substantiate their claims of damage or to show that their fears for the future have any basis in fact within the context of the limited library photocopying which would be recog nized under subsections (a) through (f) of Section 10s. In Williams & WLÀ.28 such an inference of injury mistakenly indulged in by the presiding Commissioner was overruled by the Court of Claims which held instead that "this record ... fails to show a significant detriment to plaintiff but does demonstrate injury to medical and scientific research if photocopying of this kind is heid unlawful" The publishers' reference to practices by the University Microfilms subsidiary of the Xerox Corporation has no relevance to library photocopying, and the firm & profit-making (and royalty-paying) enterprise geared to the rej rinting of multiple copies of articles and entire journal issues would clearly be outside the provisions of Section 108 in the absence of Subsection 108(g).

What evidence is available strongly suggests that traditional library photocopying does not injure publishers, and in many instances may actually increase subscriptions. It is reasonable to suppose that libraries which have frepent requests for particular works will purchase those works, if they are availible, to better serve their users and avoid the delay and administrative expense neces sarily involved in inter-library loan transactions, Resnits of ARL's examination of one inter-library loan network showed a very low rate of coincidence ametag requests Rarely was the same article requested by the libraries. It also revealed that 54 percent of all requests were for foreign periodicals and domestic puls

l; ations not covered by copyright, and that of the remaining 46 percent, 29 perrest of the requests were for publications more than 5 years old, and only 17 pervent of all requests were for materials five years old or less. In view of the fa ts that the overwhelming volume of photocopying involved neither current passat, ins por multiple copying of the same publications, it is manifest that the photocopying by the libraries was not taking the place of subscriptions, Indeed, library photocopying services may actually help to increase subscriptions, by providing a kind of advertising for the periodicals in which requesters find ar, escf value.

We there is no evidence that prohibiting traditional library photocopying. or compelling libraries—and ultimately the public-to pay copyright royalties for such photocopying will make any contribution to the promotion of science or the arts, or that there would be any other benefit to the public, it is manifest that the direct and indirect costs of the prohibition will be great. Simply to ascertain that a rovalty is payable and to collect, account for and remit the royalty will involve heavy administrative costs. If these accounting charges are passed on to rary patrons, they will magnify the direct cost impact on the public, and discourage use. If the cost is charged to the libraries' periodicals budget, it will mean, redared subscriptions, resulting in a decrease in the periodicals available terary users and loss of subscription income to publishers. Another cost W... be in fuased theft and mutuation of publications; and the more libraries Lave to sjæld for repair and replacement of mutilated material, the less they i have to spend on new books and journals. But perhaps the heaviest cost of all will be the intar gë le cost to scholarship, research and education resulting from the deterrent effect which imposition of a royalty fee will presumably have in arndents and other researchers whose work is assisted and simplified by resity access to photo oples for reference,

Tue question which this Rubeommittee is called upon to answer may be simp'r pt bò uid a library be prohibited from making, at a user's request, a single opy of a journal article or of an excerpt from another published work, or liable for a rovnity fee simply because it obtains the copy from, or supplies it to a branch ubrary, a library member of a county or regional library system, or orger evt wortium of libraries? Because it is clear that such customary copying În „drares is responsive to specific, specialized needs of library users provides Boves to materials which would otherwise be unavailible and des sis fact serve as a pul stitute for subscription to the p blications concerned, staver minst be that Draries shou'd not be so prohibited or so Hable. It is it the poltubers' ipsister ce on a provision which won'd li°.it WP›raries in - megand 2-a little or rothing to do with concerns over netnal or potential · pron, Jones. For the most part asriptions have increased, with tem je many po tyg diues being due to heavy emtetition from efter publishers er to fe we some Inj angha rijt in rates which in recent years live outpaced enumer • Indetes be real reason for the conflict over library photocopying lies in Me attarent puitential as a lucrative new source of rovalty income. Indeed it is 10th (beral Iranitence that the libraries agree to pay rovalties on their fair *g wht h, has been responsible for the breni down of the many aften p ́s the parties together to res. Ive photocopying issies

The Assat,tion of Research Libraries wubits that the direct and Indirect mat to the pritje of imposing the restrictions on traditional librare ph time peri *gated by Nubarction 10%/g==2) far outweigh any foreseesile lærert mit that Nubsection (g)(2) is totally. It consistent with the errority, a in mar fated of tective of coptricht legislation to prom

1 uwful Arts and alould be deleted from 11 1

STATEMENT OF CLARA STEUERMANN, PRESIDENT, M ́sic Limary AssxIATION

Die het alf of the Music Library Asstation, I sl. n°1 lke kauf

(6, the proga w«1 1..l for the revision of copyright (HR 225 a 1 rojot that