Lapas attēli

namely, the section with respect to systematic copying. And we areas opposed to modification of what we learned this morning is bei challenged, namely the preceding subsection, which inhibits many copying.

Much of the copying that Professor Low spoke about this mon his poor boy in Arkansas who wants to copy a page, is per111.*:«; under the principles of fair use. In addition, much duplicat194 435 and above these permissible limits would be permitted under lin : the American Library Association's Subcommittee on ('opyrigla! which Professor Low, I believe, was chairman, was more candid it committee report which was submitted last July to the Library Association than, I think, he was with you this morning.

He said in that report and I'm quoting-"We now have provints under section 108 permitting photocopying of archival mate? copying for preservation; freedom of liability for copying doze!! users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the important provision permitting the making of single copies for t:ol. 1 interlibrary loan work."

"On the other hand," the report continues, “we have not been 3* as vet to reach agreement on systematic copying' a term used to Saribe copying in a system or network where one library annoyatovo continue its subscription to a journal and depend on another library the network to make photocopies of articles from this journal #' needed."

*('opyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe that spuit weer tems or networks constitute a potential threat to their rights ani ! to prohibit such copying without license. We, of course, would lipo see as few restrictions as possible."

Agreement has not been reached on sustematic copying. It hasret been reached, because the libraries, as Professor Low intimated to fill this morning, walked away three times from 12- and Mr. II.*** will elaborate on that- in our efforts to put flesh on a statutory design which by a series of milelines would establish what kind of copying is permissible, and what is not permissible.

ile stand ready to work out agreements with respect to 1.4 guidelines. We stand ready to ptablish a clearance and pavilhert wywfem at our expe n of the libraries'. But so far the library not been forthcoming in this regard.

Mr. DANIFI BOX. Well, you a tually have a minute left. (Lalighier'.

Mr. LIER. My friend was rushing me. I think he'd rather hear from Dr. (airns. I will yield to him. Thank you.

The prepare atatement of Charles II. Lieb follow :)

XIAL) MONT or (HAKI H 13, P MT for VWL FOR THE ASH 14 15

I am Charles 11 deh. I am a member of the law firm of Pashus, Gore !
Imam of New York City. I appear in behalf of the Ameation of American
Publif* Inc. Pers whom I #


A urine with me are Townwind Hr . Prv**lit at of the A l fon, friin bu you will hear !pte! Alexander (", I man of the whole day and company, Ine who is chairman of *** Tematian's fapie right cornmittee; and Numan Engelhart, the Assist:** atat direrir ferturight.

The Awajapy Allarian 14 beru a trade aslation of 1* in the liter! N o 1 * mittlerenpanies and mo!..dintre rii* ved to produce per cent or more of the dollar volume of books podbrd

in the l'nited States. Among its members are publishers of scientific and technical journals; some of its members are religious or educational not-for-profit organizations. We are grateful for the opportunity to testify at the hearing today which, we understand, is limited to the issue of library photocopying, and We muest permission to file at a later dute our formal statement as part of the

rd of today's proceedings. The following, in brief, is our position :

1. We believe that section 107 of H.R. 2223 is a helpful statement of the principles of fair use, and we support section 108 (f) (3) which makes it clear that litora ries receive the benefit of that doctrine.

2. Although in some respects harmful to the interests of copyright proprietors, we support the copying privileges extended to libraries by Section 108.

8. We are opponed, however, to any further limitations on the rights of authors and nther copyright owners, and we are opposed in particular to the elimination of sertion 108 (g) (2) with respect to "systematic coring"

Much of the copying done by libraries would be permitted under the principles of fair use which would be clarified by Section 107. In addition, much library duplication over and above the permissible limits of fair use would be prunitted under the provisions of section 108. This freedom to conduct normal library operations was candidly described in a July 1974 report of the American Library Association copyright subcommittee, a copy of which we offer as an exhibit. It reads in part :

*We now have provisions [under Sec. 108) permitting photocopying of archival material, copying of material for preservation, freedom of liability for copying done by users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the highly important prorixion permitting the making of single copies for normal Interlibrary loun work. (Underscoring and bracketed material supplied.) On the other hand, we have not been able as yet to reach agreement on "systematic coring," a term used to describe copying in a system or network where one library agrees to discontinue its subscription to a journal and depend on another librury in the network to supply photocopies of articies from this journal when nerdedi. (lopyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe such systems or networks constitute a potential threat to their rights and want to prohibit such copying by them without some sort of license. We, of course, would like to see as few restrictions as possible placed on dissemination of information through cooperative effort."

Agreement has not been reached on systematic copying; instead, librarians are now urging the elimination of section 108 (g) (2) so that they will be free to take copies not only for normal use but for library system and network operations as well.

"Systematic copying" as the term is used in section 108 should be distinguished from copying done pursuant to "isolated single spontaneous requests' such a takes place in normal library procedures. Systematic copying occurs when a library makes copies of materials available to users, either directly or through other libraries, under formal or informal arrangements "whose purDose or effect" is to have the reproducing library serve as the prime source of such material. (Senate Report 93-983, 122)

Systematic copying, in other words, substitutes the copying for the original which otherwise would have been purchased from the publisher. The library world appears to be divided on whether or not licensing procedures should be worked out for systematic copying. Some insist that no distinction should be admitted between unauthorized systematic copying and copying pursuant to Isolated requests, and that payment should be made for neither. Others concede the difference in principle, but say that the kind of copying that should be paid for is too imprecisely defined in section 108, and that no practicable proxedures have been established by which clearance can be obtained and pay. ments made.

We think it unnecessary to belabor the point that unauthorized systematic copying the kind of copying that is done at a research center, or at a central resource point for use in a library network is the functional equivalent of piratical reprint publication, Certainly, this kind of copying must be paid for if, as the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science puts it, “the economie viability and continuing creativity of authorship and publishing" are to be protected. (Synopsis of second draft proposal, June 1974.)

It is equally meretricious to complain that the "systematic copying" that is to be paid for is too imprecisely defined, or that payment cannot be made because payment systems have not been established.

Section 108(g) excludes from library copying privileges not only "systematic copying" but also the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of "multiple" copies. Systematic copying and multiple copying are general concepts; both are illustrated by examples in the Senate committee report (which closely follows the discussion of fair use in your 1967 committee report), and neither is more Imprecise than many other statutory or common law doctrines with which we are all familiar. The libraries do not claim an inability to understand the multiple copying concept; the systematic copying concept is no less viable or understandable.

What is missing of course is agreement among the parties to flesh out the statute--not only to formulate photocopying guidelines for the assistance of library patrons and employees, but to establish workable clearance and licensing procedures as well.

This is what your committee recommended in 1967 and this is what the Senate committee recommended in 1974. Had this been accomplished, we would not be here today. It has not been accomplished, and Mr. Hoopes in his testimony will place the blame squarely where it belongs.


COPYRIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE The Copyright Revision bill, S. 1361, which, due chiefly to the cable TV con. troversy, has resided in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee during all of last year and up to this date in this year, now gives evidence of beginning to move. The full Senate Judiciary Committee reported it out on July 3 and this last Monday issued the accompanying Senate Report (S. Rept. 93-983) explaining the legislative intent in its passage. It will now probably come to the floor of the Senate and be passed within the next month to six weeks.

We have had many conversations with the members of the Senate Subcommittee in the past several months about provisions in the bill affecting photocopying in libraries. We now have provisions permitting photocopying of archival material, copying of material for preservation, freedom of liability for copying done by users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the highly important provision permitting the making of single copies for normal interlibrary loan work. On the other hand, we have not been able as yet to reach agreement on "systematic copying," a term used to describe copying in a system or network where one library agrees to discontinue its subscription to a journal and depend on another library in the network to supply photocopies of articles from this journal when needed. Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe such systems or networks constitute a potential threat to their rights and want to prohibit such copying by them without some sort of license. We, of course, would like to see as few restrictions as possible placed on dissemination of information through cooperative effort.

In its report, the Judiciary Committee, in an effort to remove this impasse, recommended that "representatives of authors, book and periodical publishers and other owners of copyrighted material meet with the library community to formulate photocopying guidelines to assist library patrons and employees." We believe that such conferences can be promoted best through the office of some interested but impartial individual and believe that Miss Barbara Ringer, as Register of Copyrights. would be an ideal person for this. Not only does she have the confidence of both librarians and publishers in her fairness and impartiality, but she is also far and awav the most experienced of anyone in the country in the area of both domestic and foreign copyright.

In trying thus to meet the recommendations of the Senate Committee in this regard and to accomplish what we hope will be of benefit to all, we ask Council to transmit the following request to the Register of Copyrights.

The American Library Association urges the Register of Copyrights to arrange In such ways as deement feasible and appropriate conferences between representa. tives of authors and book and periodical publishers and of the library community to resolve so far as possible the different interests in copyright legislation, to

Institute studies of related problems, and to promote understanding on the part of the general public of the many complexities inherent in the copyright problem.

Presented to American Library Association Council, July 12, 1974,


AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Dr. CAIRNS. I'm Robert Cairns, and I have a very lengthy statement, which I will obviously not have time to present; I would like to submit it for the record.

Mr. DANIELSON. Without objection, it will be received in the record. I would appreciate it if you would give us a "once over lightly," I am sure you know the contents.

Dr. Cairns. I will do so. I have a summary, and I'll even have to summarize the summary.


Dr. Cairns. First of all, I would like to introduce my colleagues here, on my right, Dr. Richard Kenyon, who is director of our division of communications. And behind me is Dr. Stephen Quigley, who is director of our department of chemistry and public affairs, and Mr. William Butler, representing Mr. Arthur Hanson, general counsel of our society.

Perhaps the main objective of the American Chemical Society is the increase and diffusion of chemical knowledgeMr. DANIELSON. Your objection? Dr. Cairns. Our principal objective. Mr. DANIELSON. Ihank goodness. (Laughter.]

Dr. Cairns [continuing). That lays emphasis on the fact that we are interested very strongly in the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Mr. DANIELSON. That is the only basis under which we can have a copyright law, as I read the Constitution.

Dr. Cairns. Throughout the past 99 years, the American Chemical Society approach to achieving this objective has been to gather, to evaluate, to organize, and to control new scientific information into a form useful for publication, then to publish journals-16 in mumber, I believe-and deliver it to the scientific world, that is our position.

In providing a record of new scientific knowledge and maintaining the basis upon which it is gathered, evaluated, and organized for publication, the journals provide a constantly updated authoritative consensus of universally accepted knowledge in the fields concerned. We can speak, I think, on this theme for a great many scientific societies, although we are one of the largest.

The integral part played by scientific journals and scientific research renders them indispensible for our way of life. These journals provide the knowledge base for technical development, for answers to urgent problems faced in the United States and the rest of the world, such as the energy crisis, the world food problem, the delivery of adequate health service, and pollution abatement.

It is critically important that this system of organizing, evaluating, and providing scientific information remain healthy, that is our main contention.

Now, the central argument focusing on photocopying is essentially an economic one. I wish to call your attention particularly to the critical problem provided by the cost of bringing the research journal through the process of editing, collecting and evaluation, composition, and other production steps, up to the point of being ready to print the first copy. These costs are what we call “first-copy costs." In our system in making scientific information broadly available is to continue, we must continue to find ways to support these first-copy costs. as well as to pay the costs of the journals actually printed and delivered.

We are finding that subscriptions to our journals are decreasing. Since 1969, subscriptions have decreased from 12 to 18 percent. For example, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, which is our prestige journal, has dropped from almost 20,000 down to a little below 16,000 subscribers as of the end of 1974.

The Journal of Organic Chemistry has dropped from 10,500 to 9,500; the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 6,500 to 5,500; others have declined comparably.

If users are allowed, without paying for the journal, to receive copies of the journal papers, it is not likely that they will subscribe to the journal. Under such conditions, paid subscriptions can be expected to continue to drop rapidly.

While replacement of actual printed copies of the journal by photocopies would reduce the cost to the user, the large costs referred to as “first-copy costs” would remain uncompensated, it would have to be distributed over a decreasing number of journal subscriptions, and the result would be very expensive journals. This would mean that the cost would fall on the relatively small number of individual organizations which would continue to subscribe to the journal. Ob. viously, a continuous trend in that direction would threaten the economic stability of the journal system.

If, on the other hand, the copyright law is designed to require payment for photocopying of papers from journals of an adequate and equitable charge for the copy, this would distribute the cost of the system more equitably over those who benefit from it. The objective is not to prevent such photocopying, but, rather, to provide support for the basic costs of developing scientific information for distribution, thus keeping the journal system viable as a base from which the improving technologies for improved dissemination can draw; the result would be a more effective and more lasting total information system.

Now, there are a couple of studies to which I make reference in my main report. One, that the interlibrary loan requests by their own studies--grew from 859,000 requests in 1965 to double that figure in 1969, with projections as high as 2.6 million in 1974-75. So, we are getting up into millions, and millions, and millions of interlibrary loans, to give you an order of magnitude; and that is from their own data.

In another study the author discussed service by possibly a national periodical resources center. They estimated that from the collection of 10,000 titles the demand will start growing in the range of 38.000 to 75.000 in the 1st year, to a range from 23/4 to 5 million in the 10th vear. Yet, 90 percent of these would be filled by photocopies. These figures give you some indication of the increase in capacity of the

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »