Lapas attēli

». for each title with a range from 500 to our top category of “best sellers" atel oot numit 3000 copies sold put title.

: l'immends on 107. Fair l'ae. --The Association is in agreeinent with the 4. seat or "fair use" as stated in $ 107. We fel, however, that it is becary tumia. Dent writically on one phrase in Itern (4):

di!he effect of the use upon the potential market for or ialue of the copy. pogled work. (Emphasi* indicated.] We moenie that there may be some validity in the claims of some publishers

dals that they may have some loss of income due to multiple photo ,single article from an (sue of the farledal that is still arutable in got If the faste li ou !--print (that is. If the publieber has not t1.mintain d 1. «* in-print or in-stock), it is difficult to conceive how a photoeps of et point na'rrial can cause any loss of income to the milli her.

P***P, the slow deilrery by publishers to fulfill an order for a single in print 18 iris tvially unacerptable to the needs of our specializad users who are *.*...!' for 'r maturkrnent dejali na there is little question that it is an :' *rative imusibility to secure pr?!lleher permatu fons to permit 1:"er.

qoyme within any reasonable tine. Jorever, the curts and delas10 $**" trb w missions would be prohibitire. D'aus nequear to note that the preparation of photocopafone of while!

« !n liar, can not cause a lot of income to the authors, Authors are Par , paid hy probelsbers of learned or trade perbeliais (either as a one tiile 1*! as peisal:y paymentu). Indeed, the oppite direction of pua y mint 121 borang petalent in rent years'a "page charap" 1s to be paid by the author Do finger to the publisher. These page charges are usually in the rain of ta $art printed page.

(minta on 14* Rrprodurtin by Libraries and Architet

Ripo, o fill .1!* Adall'11 15 (14?led with a ful! le lu'p. '11 of 1 10 su:

111 Tie periunetion or distribution is made in thout any purpose of direct ** Indirert rommemal ad. antaar: {}"phasis edile!) (+3!; * t!, traning of the elintang Innuage is nervury 19" a try out serial library operations are condurtrd for pur-** of *i!'rrut

** a! nam* when the titrary** ynnu nit orent rate! in the foop inese, Po! ***41. rip Ainyi al cothitlu'!*}** thru its pruducts and herv.17* It is P"!! misting language of Jaill) y haieleen intended to proste!!! * !. De trial adrantage“ to an authorised or unauthorized reprinter or rem

Drogethni materiais. borrelt! at vit erranntallreinted! 1,5 pleb.pop of ten a t'i 3) Hyndeling to len(1m sohıra e sul nu To provenin our disfp.1111!16.11 is nie wi" ne perguerite

trip fr.lisert mur? pful to riporanter uriga; ***878 m ld3992 I'miris*). I, appropriate a mi entare in the li''1'.17 1.! t. 11 R ne trees any in silipe fe** *7.''n

a terlup trd m'at tuon patent pop punase tip prezantos

Tans is rary NLA IN Re, part}'ular *rrudal ****** *1.5*** It's rariro grupwinlly the in favor prot ***,571,4*, . . ." *

98119' le damage to t!. tirtal estif$. no.) 20!!!!. 1,1... "!! **fer la pritrd in the etiace tant HR II ? " **** * **shte aflrt enactment of the law lle falfa d tri

1.- port. funt furat or fo for servir.... *

** 11 marie trusnester in D. Teorearr n.
**"tir the Irislonlar..] =104 1:11. Rigenft!.!.
tastali nel ter probe in spoty

Aust« ** ***giii) and $341 VFry****per
as1.rpfattar Metatr femrit. 01 | 131 44***

!! -.,*...**** ****,
7. in 1! y femati

*** sdgom

npr. ef materini dr. Plin 7. Il ** *** gnel! 1911 1*

2704 1. lo fa fa

kafe - fe = four p911

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

only negative examples can be developed, can there be any logical basis for the insertion of $ 108(g) (2) ?

The Association urges that $ 108 (g)(2) be: (a) Deleted entirely, or

(6) That it be amended by adding a concluding clause to read: "... of material described in subsection (d) so as to impoir the potential merir! for a copyrighted work." (Suggested addition italicized.)

The Association is concerned that the inclusion of 108 (g) (2)--as now statel-in any final Act will seriously impede the spontaneity of research and the new capability of organizations that maintain special libraries and informatius evi ters whose purpose is to provide access to learned, technical, or simulal.sed publications,

We are particularly concerned about any future construction that wou'll placed on allegations of “systematic reproduction or distribution" in & 109.8ind The single word "systematic" has been shown to have an almost endless nun? of interpretations during the discussions of the "Conference on the Resululla Copyright Issues" (Nov 197+ADE 1970). The Conference was jointly em-üst es ead by the Register of Copyrights and the chairman of the National Counseling Libraries and Information Science.

It is important to recognize that all libraries act only as agents for the clients who request and receive the photoxupies. Inclusion of the word als tematic" does not seem to comprehend the operations of libraries--or la ture of the repuents from clients of librariem Libraries provide phoinka upisend current or past publications in reuponse to single, spontaneous rejurais fr 9 the library's clients. Research workers are often thonght to be isolated individ uals, but research itself is not an isolatai activity. Therefore, spontaneous, 1 lated-get single-requests for photopies of the same article or s+zin 12 in a copyrighted publication may live received from more than one requerius med acting independently and spontaneously,

The word "systematic" has also been suggested to mean "within a lihrons system." Library systems have been in evintelee for many years ; public Library mysterus in cities or in counties or multiple special libraries within a corporal or within a government agency. In more recent years, the concept of brudra library systems (regional or statewide) has grown. Such systrois hare many other meaningful functions other than the preparation of photoesie* 1) me! achiere economies in library functions for example, shared catalaging, lie acquisition of foreign publications for of rare and unusual materials, atuitle improved arvess of all citizens to informational materials of all kindai. 11. though publisher reporu'ntatives are made classes that the bumier sal slalom seribers has been diminisbed twcu use of the existence of library systems, bu eridrdee has been presented that any loss of subscription income has central The above comments regarding $ 10 $72are also applicable to flig!!!!

(1) is aware ar bun substantial risen to kulirve that it is eazaine la tles related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies, whether made on one meranian ur osa a pud of time, and for Meta intended for aggregate war by one or more underwala or for sparate way

the indit dual sne mineral a groupi... Empluusin added ] If a number of mingle, imulated, kintane vuests are prired over a pe riad of time talie empoba ws* alvosei, a library funnet twevme aware of sneha series of events without iustitutisk an exitimde aixi comedy aj niem of records of past transactions,

In the name of multiple cope trepnews thirat ketet italie emphnsis abrei. Dir. ment of a per page rupting for to the problemer may bup thought to provide un equitalile walion prondel that the time to libraries for such reporting and payment meltanlets Disut lue dispruwertindale is great in relation to the reports fo* to be paid. However, the two pienille te hanisms propised Puie pas ment de *** cospiring for* completely neente thr erfu* pit of "fair use" as stated in 1107 The two mrtari-ms dyra

opel ar. Tai A varalle nulou rigold pricing strature with a higher cont to finisatire than to individuals ilus the library would baie nid a fee print! :cop i* ****etre

Di Atrin-arjen fre per page #eld result in the payment of a fregueren fir the first place fog of an Item prepared using the library were to set up a entis retirdi krepostitutaratients of ati guast photocopy red 100**

[ocr errors]

14. ajuns in past years had suggested a range of fees from $0.01 to $0 10 per gor in the immediate past months, potablisher representatives at meetings of

per referred to aboven have indicated that they wish to reerde 247 fee which they wil determine individually for each article in each *.1. al rather than a per page charge. It must be noted that many photocopy There's are for only one pace of a few pages of an article. Thus, this propmal 1 - 81000 te urd'riy costly to libraries and ibeir users.

Bud the final rule of the prodused legislation be a copsing fee payment, teipinlesed of the copying lee must be subject to determination by legislative 14 Ir.'l'ry action. Otherwise it in conceivable that a publisher might choose to po tlor level of a copying fre - whether for multiple copies of single copies-**; a high Irvel that access to some areas of published information could be pol, a 4,8117 porriented

: : Nordin duschi. The desciation forls that there is a real need to distuh twtwven two formats of musical works":

iei Printed mical work and

A Sound reprinductions of meal work.
To arep lue dimtinction, we stigkese two bible amendments to $10$ (h):

11 Delete the wonis "a musical work" because performances are insi cel in the subjeal parave, or other audio-visual work," or

13. Add a teddying statement me that I 10 b) will read :

"The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section do not apply too mun al work olher than a printed copy ..." (Suggested words are :18:, di

16.awtant that trurarch workers and students of musicology be allied 7.7 av to portions of printed music just as | 105TH112) partits "fair

Bu to textual materials. In $ 10ih) clear distinction must be made herfs ferformance in mu runding and music in printrd form.

finnon. Public libraries have been historicalls a fundamental develop Het and for the people of the ( nited States The Initintinn and arowth of

Soliflas propisemnt a unuie derelotnent in the l'nited States begin. &#'a the Israry of the l'argentere' (ompany of Philadelphia before the 4**. an Revolution; and also a curtierpe which has spread throughout the

More pg !!;e fiain functions of a library 1* public, srbel, university or swial. Madinitirps strive to in.pure a'id increp ready acopes boy the library :

pode to th:191" a "on that will endte li the fwfw.nal aspirarlane of the library 9 "#4.1','1' sr (m1)..'lr intetlir tirft, * utrurian or rural), and

**1980 ent of the propeta mainid of all segmen's ( o'r nation's

ne ! je 19 sufity grow and the dead andared as well as the advantageof). Mr *** gut?? 1:*:**** from te leidis foreiferten of orig'il fut

or to fifrirne lors Pump sop ponur ofiss 11e frutta fer riph'fui prines
pite the inifər any of muss neht protetion for creative au bors to
*****, f. fryt
po hlapos forol .lr piros 4***!! lie Irajputra Bup pp.

ng for Hirs, the politiet of inspired i pret;'* in !!.. "fit of the pritching reitt.munity at the two 11:18" , "ir" ?',**-.1 m3 .

$91fem,priui plan for at mi.l'.n'. ..! *** finet's*r **.914 tare **** inetra tortor allotments within

As 11. **** mar-ri'}* inerrine murhautpfes can Het lg **y perd far !U19 o'rtlanul * 1.8 II a 1.

[ocr errors]

1* tnt the poten film realiferte d'"[3*""|: 1**n te plaats €173.s in and by titraris et les 18. 1.'.

rri uun. ord** 11 !",$,

$$$'ta are 1. rat. : 4.2 log!:**' for meget rr** of eufor!! 10

nare Aslati i grafit to the war.!!*pe frunter for in. aur * * ***** :'11 mies for it. It

yo! !). Apt.111.**** de irret , tel.torre l'ith West'e and reputato e



Washington, D.C., October 2, 1975. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of

Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, House

of Representatives, Washington, D.O. DEAR BOB: I am concerned over current legislation in your Subcommittee, H.R. 2223, to revise the copyright law. If Section 108(g) (2) is retained in this bill, the only major biomedical source library in the State of Alaska will be in violation of the United States Copyright Law.

The Alaska Health Sciences Information Center serves as the source library for most of the material required by institutions and over 4,000 health-related personnel in the entire State of Alaska. This service makes it possible for doctors, nurses and physician assistants in the most remote Alaskan villages to receive the information they need to provide optimum health care. Because of poor communications, lack of transportation and other related problems common to rural areas in which a small number of people are scattered over vast distances, community health aides, private practicing physicians, Public Health Service personnel, hospitals and universities depend heavily upon the freedom to copy medical journals and texts for use in the bush areas.

Section 108(g) (2) will affect not only Alaska, but other sparsely populated areas of the United States as well. I urge you to consider the elimination of this Section of H.R. 2223, so that the current efforts of Congress to upgrade existing health facilities in these remote areas of the country will not be further hindered.

I have received over one hundred letters from physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, universities and state health personnel who protest inclusion of this Section of the bill. I have chosen a number of letters from each group of health personnel for your perusal. I request that these letters, as well as my own, be included in the testimony of the hearings on H.R. 2223. Sincerely,


Congressman for all Alaska. ALASKA METHODIST UNIVERSITY,


August 12, 1975. Representative Don Youxg, C.S. IIouse of Representatives, Washington D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE Don Young: I am writing to express opposition to the section on photocopying in H.R. 2223, section 108(g) (2) regarding Revision of the Copyright Law.

Photocopying of books and articles is extremely helpful to both students and faculty. It provides an inexpensive and rapid way to acquire, read and synthesize new materials, thus greatly enhancing the quality of education in schools and universities.

Regarding the need of nurses and other health professionals, I feel sure that you know it is impossible for nurses and health facilities to subscribe to all the journals they need to keep abreast of the vast volume of current information.

Therefore, I believe that health care of patients in Alaska may be compromised if the Alaska Health Sciences Information Center is no longer permitted to photocopy valuable articles for nurses and other health professionals. Very truly yours,

MONA RAVIN, R.N., MSX, Instructor Coordinator of R.V. Programs and Outrcach.


Anchorage, Alaska, July 9, 1975. Hon. PETER W. Ropixo, Jr., Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatires, Room 2462, Rayburn

Blouse Building, Washington, D.O. DEAR CONGRESSMAX Ropixo: I am writing to express my opposition to HIR 2223 (A Bill For the General Revision of the Copyright Law Title 17 of the l'nited States).

If this takes effect, the effect upon quality medical care nationwide will be adverse, and in Alaska will be even more significant, due to our relative isolation, there being no nearby university centers. To pass this resolution would be a significant step backward in medical care. Sincerely,


Department of Radiology. WRANGELL GENERAL HOSPITAL,

Wrangell, Alaska, July 22, 1975. Hon. DONALD YOUNG, House of Representatives, 1210 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.O.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN YOUNG: I am writing to you regarding HR 2223. (A Bill for the General Revision of the Copyright Law Title 17 of the United States.)

The passing of this bill would terminate all major medical library services presently provided by the Alaska Health Sciences Information Center in Anchorage. This library is the only biomedical source in Alaska and without this service to help small hospitals like ours, the quality of health care will surely suffer. Your help regarding this bill would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

(Mrs.) EMMA G. IVY, RW.,



Madison, Wis., May 6, 1975. Re Deletion of Section 108(g) (2) of the copyright revision bill (H.R. 2.223). To: Robert W. Kastenmeier (D-Wis.), Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil

Liberties, and the Administration of Justice. From: Nancy H. Marshall, Director of WILS.

As one of your constituents, I have always been grateful for your support of libraries and federal library programs, including your recent positive vote on the Roybal-Obey-Stokes amendment to the Education Appropriations Bill (HR 591).

I have written to you several times in the past on what I believed to be important issues and was gratified that you, also, shared my concerns. The issue in question is of such immediate importance that as a citizen of Madison, Wisconsin, and the nation, as well as a librarian, I must speak out.

Your concern over the past fifteen years or more with copyright revision makes you a recognized expert in Congress on this complex issue. You have heard the pros and cons and have had before you voluminous written arguments and testimony, with more to come. HR 2223 is a "good" bill, much needed and long overdue. My concern, however, is whether it is the intent of the Congress to severely limit or restrict altogether the public's access to library and information resources via library photocopying. I cannot believe this is the intent of the public's elected representatives. The nation's library collections are one of its greatest resources, and libraries maintain as a constant goal the widest possible access to those collections by the nation's citizens.

Although I am aware of the fact that national library organizations, and the publishing industry will be giving testimony to the Subcommittee on May 14, I am deeply concerned that the interests of the consumers of library and information resources be represented. Too often the user is overshadowed and not heard and remains the silent majority, even though s/he is the ultimate recipient for good or ill in many legislative actions. Thus, it may be in this case, and on behalf of the users I submit the following for your consideration.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »