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

Much of the copying that Professor Low spoke about this mort": his poor boy in Arkansas who wants to copy a page, is permi"». under the principles of fair use. In addition, much duplication over 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 in 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 provisos under section 108 permitting photocopying of archival mater copying for preservation; freedom of liability for copying done users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the hig 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 network where one library agrees to dis continue its subscription to a journal and depend on another library the network to make photocopies of articles from this journal w needed."

"Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe that gul sis tems or networks constitute a potential threat to their rights and w.. to prohibit such copying without license, We, of course, would Lài to 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 you this morning, walked away three times from us-and Mr. Hoopes 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 time guidelines. We stand ready to establish a clearance and payment 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. [Laughter. Mr. LIB. My friend was rushing me. I think he'd rather hear from Dr. Cairns. I will yield to him. Thank yon.

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

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. LIER, COPYRIGHT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOUZA ŠTON OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, Inc.

I am Charles H. Lieb. I am a member of the law firm of Paskus, Gord in ard Hyman of New York City 1 appear in behalf of the Association of American Publishers Inc. for whom I am copyright course! 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 Association • staff director for copyright.

The Association of American Publishers is a trade association of book 1 Histers in the United States. Its 265 member companies and subsidiaries belleved to produce 85 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 organizations. We are grateful for the opportunity to testify at the hearing bsday 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 word of today's proceedings

T⚫ 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 Bat libraries receive the benent of that doctrine.

2. A though in some respects harmful to the interests of copyright proprietors, West; port the copying privileges extended to libraries by Section 108,

↑ We are opposed however, to any further limitations on the rights of auth_rs and wher copyright owners, and we are opposed in particular to the elimination of section 10mg)(2) with respect to “systematic copring “

Much of the copying done by libraries would be permitted under the prinffore wilh would be clarified by Section 107. In addition, much lian duplication over and above the permissible limits of fair use would be termotted under the provisions of section 10%. This freedom to conduct normal Frary operations was cand.dly described in a July 1974 report of the American 1. ary Association copyright subcommittee, a copy of which we offer as an exit It rends in part :

Ne now have provisions [under See 108] permitting photocopying of archival material, copying of material for preservation, freedom of liability for eting done by users on coin operated machines on library premises, and the brehu important provimon permitting the making of single copies for normal muzefibrary loan work (Underscoring and bracketed material supplied ] On the cd er hand, we have not been able as yet to reach agreement on "systematic (q.ng 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 Beveleef. Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe such systems or net Works constitute a potential threat to their rights and want to probibit such wering 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

enqerative effort.“

Agreement has not been reached on systematie copying: instead. I rart ins are nom arging the elimination of section 10%(g) (2) so that they will be free to make coptes not only for normal use but for library system and network operations as well

Svaten atie copying” as the term is used in section 10% should be distinguished fra ropy ng done pursuant to ":solated single spontaneous requests wich as takes place in normal library procedures. Systematic copying occurs when a - trary takes copies of umteria's avalable to users either directly or Wrongh offer libraries, under formal or informal arrangements "whose pur bese effect is to have the reproducing library serve as the prime source of such Material : Renate Report 13 M3, 1222)

Muuten stle, copying in other words wihtitutes the copying for the origin=1 Which otherwise would have been purchased from the publisher. The library *-rid appears to be divided on whether or not licensing procedures should be hirked out for systematic copying Home Insist that no distinction should be ktm (ted between unauthorized systematic copying and expsing pursuant to in caled prejurata, and that payment should be made for nei her Others con rede the difference in principle, but say that the kind of copying that should he paid for is too imprecisely defined in section 10% and tist na pra to a sim pr«edures have been established try Which cearance can be obtained and pray

de inrk it untecessary to belabor the point that unauthorized avstematie the kind of copying fat is done at a research center or at a central in five fusch hamjui nint of

ra a al reprint publication. Certainly, this kind of e plug moist te paid for it as the National Commission on Lbraries and Informimin Molence rats if he sentatie viability and contin ang creativity of authorship atud puitua dig to be protected, Osynopsis of second dreft propman, June 1ới 4

ate

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

Much of the copying that Professor Low spoke about this mort his poor boy in Arkansas who wants to copy a page, is permite. under the principles of fair use. In addition, much duplication and above these permissible limits would be permitted under 10. A the American Library Association's Subcommittee on Copyright, which Professor Low, I believe, was chairman, was more candid s committee report which was submitted last July to the Librar Association than, I think, he was with you this morning.

He said in that report--and I'm quoting-"We now have provis under section 108 permitting photocopying of archival mater copying for preservation; freedom of liability for copying done users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the hig important provision permitting the making of single copies for non 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 g scribe copying in a system or network where one library agrees to de continue its subscription to a journal and depend on another library the network to make photocopies of articles from this journal w needed."

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

Agreement has not been reached on systematic copying. It has n been reached, because the libraries, as Professor Low intimated to you this morning, walked away three times from us-and Mr. Hoops 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 fe guidelines. We stand ready to establish a clearance and payment system at our expense-not the libraries. But so far the libraries ave not been forthcoming in this regard.

Mr. DANIELSON. Well, you actually have a minute left. [Lang) ter Mr. LIB. 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 H LIER, 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 in 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 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 Association S staff director for copyright,

The Association of American Publishers is a trade association of book pube Hshers in the United States. Its 265 member companies and subs.diar.es believed to produce 85 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 organizations. We are grateful for the opportunity to testify at the hearing f-way 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 rend of today's proceedings

1. fellowing, in brief, is our position :

1 We believe that section 107 of H.R. 2223 is a helpful statement of the prin diles of fair use, and we support section 10% (f) (3) which makes it clear that libraries receive the benefit of that doctrine.

2. A though in some respects harmful to the interests of copyright proprietors, We wn, 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.z.ation et setion lumeg) (2) with respect to "systematic copying '

Mich of the copying done by libraries would be permitted under the prinof for use which would be clarified by Section 107. In addition, much Jary duplication over and above the permissible limits of fair use would be ferm "ed under the provisions of section 10%. This freedom to conduct normal Prary operations was entid.dly described in a July 1974 report of the American I. ary Association copyright subcommittee, a copy of which we offer as an ex it It reads in parti

We now have provisions [under See 108] permitting photocopying of stival material, copying of material for preservation, freedom of habuity for epying done by users on coin operated machines on library premises, and the biekiu important provimon permitting the making of single copies for normal entertbrary loan work [Underscoring and bracketed material supplied ] On the et er 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 luzars 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 Drevleri Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe such systems or net Works extitif, ite a potential threat to their rights and want to profilbit such meying 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 con-gerative effort **

Agreement has not been reached on systematic copying" instead. I rariins tre wifing the elimination of section 10%(g) (2) so that they will be free to make copies not only for normal use but for library system and network operations as well

Nysten, atie copying" as the term is used in section 10% should be distinguisheď from copying done pursuant to isolated single spontaneous requests wich as takes place in normal library procedures. Systematic copying occurs when a - Prary makes copies of mutertax available to users either directly or Breagh other libraries, under formal or informal arrangements “whose pur jame it effect 'is to have the reproducing library serve as the primne source of such material (Senate Report 13 883, 122)

Kraterafle, copying in other words wihwtitutes the copying for the originat ** «) otherwise would have been purchased from the publisher The hbrary -end appears to be divided on whether or not licensing procedures should be korked out for systematic copving Some Insist that no distinction should be kém fed Zetween unau'horized systematic eopying and expying pursuant to inuated requests, and that payment should be made for hei ber Others com eve the difference in princiile bist say that the kind of copying that should he full for is too imprecisely defined in section 10% and flat på prati v je prawdures have been established in which cienzance can be abmined and pray

we think it unlevess171 to belabor the point that unauthorized systematje

the kind of copying Pint is done at a research center or at a central ** [opt for use in a dreary ochwork is the fractal dejta ment of joao al reprint publication Certainly, this kind of e pving most be paid for if ân the National Cotam ssion on L„braries and Information Sc ́ence nuts it evole valaity and continuing ervativity of authorship #tud pabun ang "are to be protected (synopsis of second draft propomas, June 1574)

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

Much of the copying that Professor Low spoke about this mor his poor boy in Arkansas who wants to copy a page, is permute, under the principles of fair use. In addition, much duplication ne and above these permissible limits would be permitted under 10, A the American Library Association's Subcommittee on Copyrig t which Professor Low, I believe, was chairman, was more candid in 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 provis under section 108 permitting photocopying of archival mater copying for preservation; freedom of liability for copying dore users on coin-operated machines on library premises, and the h important provision permitting the making of single copies for non. interlibrary loan work."

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

"Copyright proprietors, rightly or wrongly, believe that s! ** tems or net works constitute a potential threat to their rights ar 1 w to prohibit such copying without license. We, of course, would li's to 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 you this morning, walked away three times from us- and Mr. Hoopes 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 time guidelines. We stand ready to establish a clearance and paymed system at our expense-not the libraries. But so far the libraries 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 from Dr. Cairns, I will yield to him. Thank you.

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

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H Ler, 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 in 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 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 Associat.o 8 staff director for copyright.

The Association of American Publishers is a trade association of book 1OM Hshers in the United States. Its 265 member companies and subsidiaries believed to produce 85 per cent or more of the dollar volume of books published