Lapas attēli

some ten men and women sitting around a table, that they read an a Milton's poetry that appeared ten years ago in Publications vi inte di un Langtiage Association, and if two of them over the next werk were to go to 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 be there *** practical way in which a library can prevent that kind of reliruductio n (py on separate occasions, and we don't think they should have to. Aude!. Sinute Committee report on S. 1361 (s. Rept. 33-343) cites such an isim

Suilon 10818) (2) says that the rights of reproduction and distribu'. extend to a library which "engages in the systematic reproduction or disiroties of mizle or multiple copies or phonorecords of material described in 0 m idi." The materials referred to in (d) are journal articles or small part 3 ofaer copyrighted works.

Ine question immediately arises as to what constitutes systematic mission tion. To the extent that we are able to puzzle it out, it appears to have in aillie at practice of the kind which were upheld as fair use by the Cotti Clains in the Williams & Wilkins case. In listening to my publisher and auto friends, the preeminent example which they give or stotematic reprimit to a local stiwas been the Regional Medical Library System, with the National Library Medicine at its apex. Those practices of the National Library of Medical **". of arke, uploid by the Court of Claims in Williams & Wilkins in a derisa whicti was a tirined this year by the United States Supreme Court.

vow, bow do the Regional Jelical Library frater really work? W . It gurts off with the fluor, who discuters that he needs access to all fart" wall Inforination, often found in an article in a professional journal in the

. field. ile usually starts off by going to the library in the hospital with warunt prartice in a fhliated, and may find it there. If it is one of the then 11koriat journals, the hospital Day well have it. But, since there are thousands of jewel in tlie medical and brüith wcience field, the chances are that ihe hospital 11111 nay na base this particularly if it is older material The request wouid it to mas te 17*,* of the eleven Regional leclical Libraries over the conatry which are also the morto il by Cottre at:d from there as a last resort to the top of the pa m eh in the National Library of Juicine and which w has over 3 en journals, the biggest 114tien) (ubinetion in the world. It is ott 012-1) Rasbo po 18

be for the finaller hospital library, or wometimes even the Regional Mendial Ibrary. to have a sizalie portion of this vast amount of material, the kind! Hi! t sich as photoxopying. Intit be relied u n to get the intuition fe! door or the other health profilenal when urgentis needed. This hita. Ora nization of acute to srjentine and technical knowledge welis to us to be 11.p msnt way of doing think It uld logo movies also tht the R+ 2101 111 ! Libre are not only striving to Augment thar (wilentii nu as rule 18

submit but likelnr are ur ing tlie smaller lejoitalibraries to rade 1!*. the providiline all along the lilie an eier-increawing number of put word .* with acrop ying inosened financial gain for the publishers, Joan illes A1111. of the V aal Library A miati in, who in with us here today, in tim puide for any of the fathmittpop mennra are interned further detais #1 »» 1.1 .3 Bitheant work in the latt! and daith Dels.

Another larke and immiftarit type of smitem for which this sustentie reproduction problems is that of the counts and 0:ti-cutlots library S6 tituit throtzhout the whole muntry. The librarien calle into bring larry ti putih tl. opportunity provided by the faderal Lilirary Sent and (vostre tiny 17t. This was and still in an effort to bring baik and ottier library Laterials toten}}}s of *ple, often in rural arrax, who had not be refofose hai inary

porte available. To grl putin*}** to join tu o r, in the resears taxes, attre ti a run! *11er!.* bard, 31 den fines on the site fr a attra! 1* bars and for the lankides mairlite IP.raries in the intein is a diftult tash It is

p nde xustle ofily by the prolilta tar c1:12* Las of the broader arre infortunion which will hapo wade available to tell **only from their malih

it. Allein in p h 1.**.twirl. 1. bit krutimii luis frutas the antral Itars and t!. lxl it fr nl.rar

i nn Riderrr. Tu tieds, Ir ( 10) T ! al artistas p l oad 1) 11. Bristl. botat do not nestit in fyller 1 rijf, in fact for the fits :

113 on the delibraries there were l? Imm). A tif at al. 11 tl para

Beste li pomirt In Isot of the pl planes in this 14pt whl: h huis teen so m any m"!. keski tas ali, it is urah i due retriinua kelas

which would diminish the effectiveness of the program. Such a diminution, if it wurred, 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 System 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 suhscribe 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 peri(iicals 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. 23-083) 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, frems 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 srbolar 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 Opring 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 key point which is made in an article he is reading, we think the library ought to benhle 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 Associa. tinn, 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 prighted material meet with the library community to formulate photocopying guidelines to assist library patrons and employees." And concerning Library 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 Resolation 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 has 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 pusition 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 antipated 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 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 infor. mation concerned a vailable 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 canxed 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 (b) be deleted from the bill. This would also be in accord with the Williams & Wilking 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 :]


RI DARI LIPILARIES The Asawlation of Rearch Librarier, an organization of the principal unt. ***** arah libraries in the untry, believes that the pririt rrrista

nately proud by the Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration Just nudowmmittee must include provisions which will ensure that the t art lang patahlished library sort of providink a single platocopy of a .ee article or pirerpt from a frighted prioral or buik for a jann prste top may te potilaue without iturring liability for pyrisht ti ya 11:49 itse ki adapted by the Nnate last year, and reintroduent in ti e Mth

* 11 R ***) vive exploit rernition in and protection for library potention

[ocr errors]

tofuse the piprasly renin risht to an extent that w

[ocr errors]

1 1 11 i 11 runt: etlint the bill

b e

tarvutite te librarie # *' 1M!lir tineri te whaikh they prownir enjoy to make limited photo s rence work setinn 1011?wboud te iruotrdiruthatte bil

tup: 1 It retrits practions which ar rewahle, mustotary and lawful tinder the


tene n 11.4 that noh pritle** in any way in jure their 11,sro internts, much les evidence that it is in tlie putnie internet to forbid 3 "The most of the libraries and nitimately the public of prohibiting or *** a unity turotient uw such practice will be putretely forbih

l ary pur of the anthor of the wirts of articles most fruquently ed ie to diurninate the results of their research, not to earn monities,

[ocr errors]

* .99 1.brary, of single pes of copyrighted matter for the private uses 2.), atrof ot! r trader ute es may be of antib* fron las prii , med

orals er ment ne or tehnioni ferialonls, or they may be piss Teen ! !11., werkThey are made in resmen to in lividual n ee for ** **, all town t tore than one individual nay T int a t of a four. a rt of a work in a intrarellertion in providing this time, a library

r a n frun a work toward on its firmius, or in the up of work

**** rotant m. Tverytfest the fr***) Another library, in 19 i t.B**ith the orikinai *** 1'*pit n an interlllorary lian farartfon who


*arit te # wide variety of w1.0nn and other librar time from the hill 1 **ant to san'.

A s of an artile in a le-te sofa margine for a s ur « pruert to the patysician puring the insteini foup trwarrh

" atarnt are in the overwhelming numtor of ons it is the only way in mob. wander an altain a row of an article from a f e of a * r al !. 1 lirarle and the fall. Mase traditionally prinden te making of o to tem naural *.d

ry art et libraries wer: irr. talp It is my one in w « lielmaterialism to posible , tu A lr by to be n otief r rrapp tapt. ***** ' fime practise tot of the 10

t h Art Trenirt has rir held fat s trad: forarte ante in limbalut under the pasforig.t taw tuin

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

Copyrights Subcommittee at the last minute (after public hearings had l** !! and is only vaguely and confusingly explained in the committee report, it is sible to determine exactly what it means. Such cursory explanation of the lir..'a. tion as was offered by publishing interests before this Subcommittee mes to confuse it with “related or concerted" reproduction which is separately treated by Section 10818) (1) of the bill-&nd merely disguises the real import of te restriction. It appears, however, to be potentially applicable whenever a Luary makes a photocopy of an article or other portion of a published work in tbe text of a "system". There are, of course, many such systems of libraries in 3 city or county branch library systems to the university with branch cao to regional library consortia, When it applies, Section 1080g) 12) woud ma a the making of a single copy for a single requester, of any part, however stale a copyrighted work. It is precisely the right to make such copies which sesta 105 was intended to confirm.

The Senate Judiciary Committee report states that systematic reproduction distribution within the intent of Subsection 108(g) (2) occurs "when a library makes copies of such materials available to other libraries or groups of tots under formal or informal arrangements whose purpose or effect is to have the reproducing library serve as their source of such material." An example who mpms to fit this description would be arrangements under which the legislative Research Service of the Library of Congreso provides copies of materials, sub an articles from economic or business periodicals, at the request of Members Congress. An example listed by the Senate committee's report is the cas in which a branch of a library system obtains at a user's request a copy of an article wuch it does not carry in its own collection. The example most frequently to my publishers is the regional medical library system, by which local bospital al medical school libraries have accesg upon request to seldom-read and big! specialized periodicals carried by regional medical libraries or the National la brary of Judicine. Each of these examples involves practices which are (73 tional and obviously reasonable. Just such photocopying practice of the were at jente in the Williams & Wilkins case and were held to be lawful.

The sole rutionale offered for the new restrictions is an axertion that the are necessary in order to prevent present and potential subscribers from reiying to library photocopying machines in the place of journal subscriptions. That su** tion is simply and clearly not valid. The argument has a certain surface plade til its, but in spite of the many opportunities presented to them, notably in be Williaus & Wilkins cu and most recently at the bearings before this su 49 mittee, publishing interests have never offered any evidence to substantiate tirar claim of damage or to show that their fears for the future have any bas in fact within the context of the limited library photoxopring which wou de nimi d under subsections (a) through (f) of Nation 104. In Williams & W1.4.1 such an inference of injury mistahetly induixrd in by the presiding commissioner KAOverruled by the Court of Ciaids which held instead that this record ... fails to phw a simnificant detriment to plaintiff but does demonstrate injury to medical and mrientific research if photoxopying of this kind is held uniawful The publishers' referrhap to practices by the l'airersty Jlicrotilms subsidiary of the Nerox Corporation has no relevante to library photocopying, and the dirt protit-making and royalty-pasink) enterpringeared to the mi rinting of mofte copies of articles and entire journalix*1 Would curly be outride the prosim of Nation IOS in the all of

S tian 108). What evidrace is Available strongly surzust that traditional library phix

pring does not in jure publishers, and in many instances may actually inate subscription. It is inble to u s that libraries which have frent request for particular works will nur ban those works, ir they are aval.stit, to twentier Merie tlir Umr ard aid tse delay and adınınistrative exp Det sarily involved in inter library lan transactions. Retits of ARI's examinatio of one interiorary loan network what a very low rate of coincidene am recepta. Rarely is the mne article m uted by the laboruriee It also reaind that perrot of all ***** Were fut fureisn monoxiials and domestic palm

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »