abstracts number in excess of 361,000 yearly and its documents indexed in exces of 42000. The single greatest source of income for all ACS publications is subscription revenue.

As is indicated by the objectives of the American Chemical Society, we believe that the effective dissemination of scientific and technical information is eriti al to the development, not only of the society and economy of the U.S.A., but also of modern society worldwide.

These journals provide the knowledge base for technical development of answers to urgent problems facing the United States and the rest of the world. such as the energy crisis, the world food problem, the delivery of adequate health services, and pollution abatement. It is critically important that this system for organizing, evaluating, and providing scientific information rem vin bea.thy

Set darly journals are the major instruments for dissemination and recording of scientific and technical information. These journals are expensive to prodice, If the costs are not supported financially by those who make use of them they cannot continue. There is no adequate substitute in sight.

The scholarly scientific or technical journal is more than merely a repository of it formation. The scientific paper is the block with which is built our understanding of the workings of the world around us. In his papers, each scientist records his important findings for the permanent record. His successors then ha e that knowledge precisely recorded and readily available as a base from which they may start so the process continues in a step-by-step fashion from scien”ine generation to scientific generation, each worker having avalable to him or her the totality of the knowledge developed up to that time. Each scientist atâtals uj-n the shoulders of his predecessors,

But this analogy of simple physical structure is inadequate, for at least of eral importance is the continuous refinement that takes place. Before now arowledge is added to the record, it is reviewed, criticized and edited by authori fative scholars; then, once published, it is available in the record for contía ped tise criticism, and refinement New findings make possit ie the revelation of weaknesses in the earlier arguments and conclusions, so that as the structure of wien'ife knowledge is buiit higher it is also made stronger by the elimination of flaws. While it has been said that mankind is doomed to repeat its mistake, the system of scientific recording in journals is designed to prevent the repetition of machi mistakes and to avoid building upon erroneous conclusions. The schovat.) jurual record is the instrument for insuring this refining process,

In addition Journal papers form an importan' part of the basis upon which a wentara standing among his peers is judged. For this reason, scientific scholars

Foling to give their time and effort to help produce these evaluated records and are also willing to leave the management of the copyright on their papers in The hands of the scientife societies. These scholars are rarely concerned w. la private income from their pubished papers, but they are vitally concernest #11, the preservation of the intrinsic value of the scientific publishing mysteri Pub sling costs have risen and are rising continuou ly, making the en tinjati n of the scientific journal system increasingly difficult This has beeti tqzed by the 18. Government in acanowiedzing the phù mujhy that wvent.be research work is not complete until its results are pubished, and in estal Labing n policy which makes it proper that money may be used frotu federal *poort of research projects to help to pay the cost of journal pubucation. It is fia pwdy which provides most of the funds for paying page charaền, charges or pirally designed to pay the cost of bringing the research journal through t. miting eve pex,tion, and other production steps, up to the point of being ready toprint. However publishing eonta are how no high that these page charges no longer pay even for these initial parts of the publishing process, American (lemics) Moriety records in 1974 show that page charges supported one third of Bore of those costs for fewer than 30% of ACK Sourtinis

1o beishing cents must be shared by the users. If these users are allowed, witheut payment to the journal, to make or to receive from others copses of the jours iga ers they may wish to read it is not likely they will be willing to pay for #ibscriptions to these journals. If and as free plastocopying of journals proceeds, be dumber of subscribers will shrink, and mutim ription prices will have to rise The reduction of subscription income may continge to the point of financial

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

Much of the copying that Professor Low spoke about this mor his poor boy in Arkansas who wants to copy a page, is per..") under the principles of fair use. In addition, much duplication and above these permissible limits would be permitted under 1, A the American Library Association's Subcommittee on Copyrig t which Professor Low, I believe, was chairman, was more candid committee report which was submitted last July to the Libra Association than, I think, he was with you this morning.

He said in that report-and I'm quoting-"We now have provisi under section 108 permitting photocopying of archival mater copying for preservation; freedom of liability for copying does users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the hz important provision permitting the making of single copies for nort interlibrary loan work."

"On the other hand," the report continues, "we have not been a as yet to reach agreement on systematic copying' a term used to scribe copying in a system or net work where one library agrees te id= continue its subscription to a journal and depend on another libtar the network to make photocopies of articles from this journal needed."

"Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe that s tems or net works constitute a potential threat to their rights and to prohibit such copying without license. We, of course, would l see as few restrictions as possible."

Agreement has not been reached on systematic copying. It has t been reached, because the libraries, as Professor Low intimated to y this morning, walked away three times from us-and Mr. Has will elaborate on that-in our efforts to put flesh on a statutory design which by a series of guidelines would establish what kind of copying is permissible, and what is not permissible.

We stand ready to work out agreements with respect to t guidelines. We stand ready to establish a clearance and pavrest system at our expense-not the libraries'. But so far the libraries Lave not been forthcoming in this regard.

Mr. DANIFISON. Well, you actually have a minute left. [Lang ter. Mr. Lira. My friend was rushing me. I think he'd rather hear from Dr. Cairns. I will yield to him. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Charles H. Lieb follows:]

STATEMENT OF CHARLES HITER, COPYRIGHT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOCIAT OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC.

I am Charles H. Lieb. I am a member of the law firm of Paskus, Gordon and Hyman of New York City. I appear in behalf of the Association of American Publishers Inc. for whom I am copyright counsel Appearing with me re Townsend Hoopes, President of the Association, from whom you will hear later : Alexander C. Hoffman of Doubleday and Company, Ine, who is chairman of the Association's Copyright Committee; and Susan Engelhart, the Association 8 staff director for copyright.

The Association of American Publishers is a trade association of book posle shers in the United States. Its 265 member companies and subs diaries are believed to produce 55 per cent or more of the dollar volume of books published

in the United States Among its members are publishers of scientific and techÞcal 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 request permission to file at a later date our formal statement as part of the record of today's proceedings.

Ihe following in brief is our position :

1 We believe that section 107 of HR. 2223 is a helpful statement of the principles of fair use, and we support section 19×(f) (3) which makes it clear that libraries receive the benefit of that doctrine.

2. Although in some respects harmful to the Interests of copyright proprietors, west port the copying privileges extended to libraries by Section 108,

3. We are oppressed, however, to any further limitations on the rights of authors and other copyright owners, and we are opposed in particular to the elim.zation of mention 10mcg (2) with respect to "systematic copying "

Mach of the copying done by libraries would be permitted under the printax of fair use which would be clarified by Section 107. In addition, much purrs deplication over and above the permissible limits of fair use would be pern **ed under the provisions of section 10%. This freedom to conduct normal Etrary operations was candidly described in a July 1974 report of the American latrary Association copyright subcommittee, a copy of which we offer as an exit 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 erving done by users on coin operated machines on library premises, and the highly important provimon permitting the making of single copies for normal tmierlibrary down work. (Underscoring and bracketed material supplied ] 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 litary agrees to discontinue its subscription to a fournal and depend on atiotler iftrary in the network to supply photocopies of articies from this journal when nevried. Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe such systems or net WPANE SAFETYre a potential threat to their rights and want to prob that such etting by then without some sort of license. We, of course, would like to see as few restrictions as possible placed on dissemination of information through engerative effort "

Agrestuent has not been reached on systematic copying" instead. !! rarians are now urging the elimination of section 10scg) (2) so that they will be free to make copies not only for normal use but for library system and network operations as well

Systematic copying" as the term is used in section 10% should be distinguished from copying done pursuant to "isolated single spontaneous requests such as takes place in normal library procedures Systematie copying occurs when rary Lakes copres of materias avalable to n-ers ei" er directly or through other libraries, under formal or informal arrangements "whose pur jesse or effect” is to have the reproducing library serve as the prime source of such Material Seriate Report 113 #3, 122)

wrate...stir, copying, in other words substitutes the copying for the original thch otherwise would have been purchased from the publisher. Ine library surid appears to be divided on whether or not licensing procedures should be Worked out for systematic copying Some Insist that no distinction should be Brim “ted between unauthorized systematic copying and espying purwant to invested requests, and that payment should be made for neither Others con, evde the difference in princtile best any that the kind of coping flest shombị be paid for is too inprecisely defined in section 10% and til at bo penta a sim provdures have been estat listed by which cientance cán be of ained and pray We think it unrevenasry to belabor the point that unauthorized systematie the kind of coq sing fat is dotie at a research center or at a central ter at @ juust for use in a Lorary vetwork is ter fieret i rygul Aint of $ ratio al reperunt publication Certainly this kind of e- pying molet te paid for if an the National Comum sei în on Libraries ind. It formation. No enem fogta it trie ernestule Vinisuty and continuing creativity of authorst ip and pubain sing to be protected chynopsis of second draft proposal, June jut, 4 a

namely, the section with respect to systematic copying. And we ar opposed to modification of what we learned this morning is b challenged, namely the preceding subsection, which inhibits mu".; copying.

Much of the copying that Professor Low spoke about this mort his poor boy in Arkansas who wants to copy a page, is perm." under the principles of fair use. In addition, much duplication and above these permissible limits would be permitted under 18, ° the American Library Association's Subcommittee on Copyrig t which Professor Low, I believe, was chairman, was more candid 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 prov: under section 108 permitting photocopying of archival mater copying for preservation; freedom of liability for copying doe users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the hiz important provision permitting the making of single copies for nor: interlibrary loan work."

"On the other hand," the report continues, "we have not been a as yet to reach agreement on systematic copying' a term used to scribe copying in a system or net work where one library agrees tod continue its subscription to a journal and depend on another librars the network to make photocopies of articles from this journal w:needed."

"Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe that tems or net works constitute a potential threat to their rights ar I w to prohibit such copying without license. We, of course, would 1... see as few restrictions as possible."

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

We stand ready to work out agreements with respect to te guidelines. We stand ready to establish a clearance and payment system at our expense-not the libraries'. But so far the librar es have not been forthcoming in this regard.

Mr. DANIFISON. Well, you actually have a minute left. [Laughter. Mr. LIB. My friend was rushing me. I think he'd rather hear fr Dr. Cairns. I will yield to him. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Charles H. Lieb follows:]

STATEMENT OF CHARLES HITER, COPYRIGHT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, Inc.

I am Charles H. Lieb. I am a member of the law firm of Paskus, Gord en ved Hyman of New York City. I appear in behalf of the Association of Amer, an Publishers Inc. for whom I am copyright counsel Appearing with me are Townsend Hoopes, President of the Association, from whom you will hear later: Alexander C Hoffman of Doubleday and Company, Ine, who is chairman of the Association's Copyright Committee; and Susan Engelhart, the Associato. 1 staff director for copyright.

The Association of American Publishers is a trade association of book it Heers in the United States. Its 265 member companies and subsidiaries are believed to produce 55 per cent or more of the dollar volume of books published

in the United States. Among its members are publishers of scientific and tech* al journals; some of its members are religious or educational not for-profit erganizations. 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 request permission to fie at a later date our formal statement as part of the preend of today's proceedings.

1. 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 libraries receive the benefit of that doctrine.

- A though in some respects harmful to the interests of copyright proprietors, We any port the copying privileges extended to libraries by Section 10%,

↑ We are opposed however to any further limitations on the rights of authors and other copyright owners, and we are opposed in particular to the elim.nation of section 16(g((2) with respect to "systematic copying “

Much of the copying done by libraries would be permitted under the prin..ff I use which would be clarified by Section 107. In addition, much For duplication over and above the permissible limits of fair use would be ferm fted under the provisions of section 10%, This freedom to conduct normal Frary operations was cat-l dfly described in a July 1974 report of the American 1. ary Annonation copyright subcommittee, a copy of which we offer as an it It reads in part:

We now have provisions [under See 108] permitting photocopying of arival material, copying of material for preservation freedom of liability for eping done by users on coin operated machines on library premises, and the highly important provimon permitting the making of single copies for normal imberlibrary loan work [Underscoring and bracketed material supplied 1 On the ofer hand, we have not been able as yet to reach agreement on "systematic a term used to describe copying in a system or network where one litrary agrees to discontinue its subscription to a journal and depend on another Brary in the network to supply photocopies of articles from this journal when nevstedt. Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe such systems or netWorks ctatifite a potential threat to their rights and want to prot ibit stels equing by then 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 Urari ins are now urging the elimination of section 108(g) (2) so that they will be free to manke copies not only for normal use but for litrary system and network operations as well

Nraten-atie copying" as the term is used in section 10% should be distinguished from spying done pursuant to isolated single spontaneous requests woch na takes place in normai library procedures. Systematic copying occurs when ahrary makes copies of umterials available to users, either directis op trough offer libraries, under formal or informal arrangements. "whose purjeme, it effect” is to have the reproducing library serve as the prime source of such Material (Senate Report 13 M3, 122)

Kratematic, copying in other words substitutes the copying for the original which otherwise would have been purchased from the publisher. The library word appears to be divided on whether or not licensing procedures should be forked out for systematie copying Some insist that no distinction should be Brimffed Tetween unauthorized system atie copying and expving, prenant to le date] [eg, pesta and lat payment should be made for neither Others com cede the difference in principle, but say that the kind of copying that shonki he paid for in ton it:precisely defined in mestion 10% and tiit na pra ti a de fr sextures have beet, ex'allished as which ciearance can be affaired and pay La*'a made

the ita it unnecessary to belabor the point that unauthorized systematic the kind of copying that is done at a research echter or at a central in the fore? fi་%,laı L

་

al reg runt ; utiication Certainly, this kind of copying most se pak for Af as the Nationa¡ Commission on latraries and I form, ition Notenre turk in Tre erv@uule viabiuty and continuing ervativity of authorship ar 1 pulus ing to be protected (2912opmin of meertad draft proponas, June 1874)

are