« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Mr. Daxi sox. To whom? Jr. L118 To the societies who are publishing journals, and is Pl.la med into the budget of the general publication.
Jir. DANIELSON. What does the author of these articles derive in the War of monetary or other valuable considerations!
Mr.l.11a. llegits fame and prestige.
Vr. Desirtsus. Oh, I have written a few, and I received exactly th, w amount. (Laughter.)
Mr. karp. Speaking for the authors, let me make this point, First of all, I should point out Jr. Del'assey who sits behind me represents the "lation, no, page charges are not available from Govern2** grants to comercial publishers, for profit.
Jr. DANILON. By speriet" you are talking about a 50 alled nonpost organization.
Mr. Karr. The point I would make is this. First of all, the amendP","** 1. Pemptions proposed by the library Asociations apply teral rele copsing, a tremendous amount of which is done of literary Bel artistic material, short stories, eskain, the works; thone author 1.for money. Is Dr. (airns has pointed out, there is a very forte monetary motive for authors to write.
Jir. DAXDIM.. One last question. In the type of copying that ive an taniig about, terhnical journals and the like, as opposed to the mer Linden will tell us about tomorrow, which cover the whole full it of intellectual products, who arr the users in the son of . de Peps the molethang mandulous like "The Starlet Letter" or are they trasi terbank all ! Who use them, in the sense of what category o wn those pics!
lor (AIMS 4. Id. Ini hear what you said.
Mr DANNINI. rr me talking about fiction leir, or are we tain. Pa nit strictly technical types of information
Int. Constitution it there, *To promote the program of die alla pwful art***: non, nire talkir almont *one With theft 1. 1. or are we talkilig only about Tor (A1B , What we are talking about are the giler.al trillion of
rithi Mr Lindenbrokenbout the neful arte 1. TANITIMIN. W 1:15p quorum onll on. 19,11k Toyrer m y ! Pluster Pro You know, buy luil.t.4oler for 11: "" Tou put ena tlu sormilomalee no slit of une. I alipoir une jour beplan 1 . I stry' ** couldn't you more time ( N.'1.
1111, tufionIONEN) 1 an, at foileh, aid firt'e rr ors), watasematuntos front!ım 1.1.1 Bolm. Pre ! Fraryal Librarinl.
on. ti l 1.1 1 1 an. Nang in lifeplitanti laptopV ili la 11 Doc. Mona R ura!, I. brrr. .. Wani.(.....19
STATEMENT OF AMERICAN BUSINESS PRESS, INC. The American Business Press, which is composed of some 400 specialized business publications published from coast to coast, is extremely concerned about the growing practice of unrestricted photocopying which has been evidenced in recent years, and only compounded by the Williams and Wilkins decision
l'nless a way can be found to protect the ability of periodical publishers to spend the money to gather, edit and produce technical and scientific information, and then distribute it throughout the nation, the fiow of that information can be seriously curtailed.
Some American Business Press member publications, like Oil and Gas Journal, are sent to paid subscribers. Others, like Iron Age, are sent via the controlled circulation route to readers who specifically request the receipt of that publica. tion. In the first instance, both the reader and the advertiser supply the funds, through the publisher, to permit the gathering and editing of technical and scientific articles, which are then copyrighted. In the second instance, the publication's primary income comes from advertisers. In both cases, necessary information is distributed to people employed in every phase of the technical and economic activity.
If the information and the articles gathered by editors are photocopied with. out the consent of the copyright owner, we will have situations arising like the one dramatized in the attached Exhibit A. We have deleted the name of the company which sent the memorandum out, but we present for the consideration of the Committe what is happening.
The only effect of curtailed subscriptions or curtailed circulation which this practice will cause is a severe restriction upon the securing and circulation of important editorial information because scientific and technical publications will not have the wherewithall to gather and edit the information to be photocopied. If this happens, the important news and scientific and technical information gathering function performed by the specialized business press will be seriously impaired, and there will be considerably less information to photo copy for those who do not respect copyrights.
We think the attached example tells the story better than we can. Hopefully the Committe and the Commission established in the last Congress will come up with solutions to this most serious problem. The American Business Press stands ready to be of whatever assistance it can in this effort. Attachment: Exhibit A.
EXHIBIT A To: All Home office executives.
APRIL 10, 1975. Re: Market Research Library Periodical Service.
A service provided by the Market Research Library primarily for Market Research personnel is being expanded and offered to all home office executives.
The Library presently receives the 79 publications on the attached list. Check off the ones that interest you and return them. You will receive the monthly tables of contents of your choices.
From these tables of contents, choose the articles you want, circle the titles and return them to the Library. Xerox copies of the articles will be sent to you.
Please use this service to help supplement your current reading and to elimi. nate or cut back on your present subscription costs.
H.R. MARKET RESEARCH LIBRARY PERIODICAL LIST
(Table of contents service) 1. Aspo Planning Advisory Service (Monthly). 2. Aspo Planning Magazine (Monthly). 3. Aspo TAB Bulletin (Semi-Monthly). 4. Advertising Age (Weekly). 5. American Book Publishing Record (Monthly). 6. The American Statistician (6-Year). 7. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement (Quarterly). 8. Atlantic Monthly (Monthly). 9. Banking (Monthly). 10. Bank Marketing (Monthly).
11. Barrons (Weekly). 12. Boardroom Reports (Semi-Monthly). 13. Bureau of Census Catalog (Quarterly). 14. Business Conditions Digest (Monthly). 15. Buxiness Periodical Index (Monthly). 16. Business Statistics (sheet of paper) (Weekly). 17. Business Week (Weekly). 18. CSA-Coops and Voluntaries (Monthly). 19. CSA-General Merchandising-Variety Executive Edition (Monthly). 20. CSA-Supermarket Stores Edition (Monthly). 21. Changing Times (Monthly). 22. Conference Board Record (Monthly). 23. ('ousuiner News (Bi-Weekly). 21. (onsumer Reports (Monthly). 25. Direct Marketing (Monthly). 26. Discount Merchandiser (Monthly). 27. Discount Store News (Bi-Monthly). 28. Drug Topics (2x Month).
9. Duu's Review (Monthly). 30. Editor & Publisher (Weekly). 31. Funk & Scott Index (Weekly). 32. Financial Trend (Weekly). 83. Food Advocate (Monthly). 34. Forbes (2xMonth). 35. Fortune (Monthly). 30 Fund Raising Management (Monthly). 37. Gasoline News (Monthly). 38. Harvard Business Review (Bi-Monthly). 39. Home and Auto (Monthly). 40. Housewares (Monthly). 41. Incentive Marketing (Monthly). 42. Industrial Marketing (Monthly). 43. Journal of Contemporary Business (Quarterly). 44. Journal of Marketing (Quarterly). 40. Journal of Marketing Research (Quarterly). 46. Journal of the American Statistical Association (Quarterly). 47. Journal of Retailing (Quarterly). 48. Kiplinger Washington Letter (Weekly). 49. Library Journal (2x Month). 50. Majors Composite Market Survey (Weekly). 51. Marketing Information Guide (Monthly). 52. Marketing News (2x Month). 53. Marketing Review (10xYear). 64. Mass Retailing Merchandiser (Monthly). 55. Merchandising Week (Weekly). 56. Modern Grocer (Weekly). 57. Money (Monthly). 58. Monthly Labor Review (Monthly). 59. National Geographic (Monthly). 60. National Mall Monitor (Monthly). 61. National Observer (Weekly). 62. NPN (Monthly). 63. Nation's Business (Monthly). 64. Newsweek (Weekly). 65. New York Magazine (Weekly). 66. Progressive Grocer (Monthly). 67. Psychology Today (Monthly). GR. Restaurant Business (Monthly). 69. Salesman (Monthly). 70. Sales Manager (2x Month). 71. Shopping Center World (Monthly). 72. Smithsonian (Monthly). 73. Stores (Monthly). 74. Supermarketing (Monthly). 75. Supermarket News (Weekly).
76. Survey of Current Business (Monthly).
STATEMENT OF JULIUS J. MARKE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF LAW LIBRARIES Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am Julius J. Marke, Law Librarian and Professor of Law, New York University. I am Chairman of the Copyright Committee of the American Association of Law Libraries, and am appearing on its behalf.
The American Association of Law Libraries (A.A.L.L.) was established in 1906 and presently has a membership of approximately 2,000 law librarians servicing University Law School libraries, Bar Association libraries, County Law Libraries, Court libraries, State Law Libraries, and Practitioners Libraries throughout the nation. Its Headquarters is located at 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
The A.A.L.L. is established for educational and scientific purposes and is conducted as a non-profit corporation to promote librarianship, to develop and increase the usefulness of law libraries, to cultivate the science of law libra. rianship and to foster a spirit of cooperation among the members of the profession. It has twelve regional chapters, known as Association of Law Libraries of Upstate New York, Chicago Association of Law Libraries, Greater Philadelphian Law Library Association, Law Librarians of New England, Law Librarians' Society of Washington, D.C., Law Library Association of Greater New York, Minnesota Chapter of A.A.L.L., Ohio Regional Association of Law Librarians, Southeastern Chapter of AALL, Southern California Association of Law Libraries, Southwestern Chapter of AALL and Western Pacific Chapter of AALL. Foreign Law Librarians, residing in the following countries, are also inembers of the American Association of Law Libraries: Canada, Australia, Belgium, Colombia, England, Ethiopia, West Germany, Finland, France, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, W.I., Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Turkey.
The American Association of Law Libraries is also a publisher of scholarly and technical publications. It publishes The Law Library Journal, The Indco to Foreign Legal Publications, the A.A.L.L. Publications Series, Current Pub. lications in Legal and Related Fields and the A.A.L.L. Ncwsletter. In addition the Inder to Legal Publications is published by the H. W. Wilson Co. with the cooperation of the A.A, L.L.
Although the A.A.L.L. has reservations about other parts of H.R. 2223. I shall address my comments to those sections of the bill affecting library photocopying.
The A.A.L.L. joins other national library associations in recommending leg. islative safeguards and exemptions for those library uses of copyrighted works necessary to guarantee the public access to library resources for educational, scientific and scholarly purposes.
The major concern of the A.A.L.L. is that sections 108(g) (1) and 108(g) (2) negate the grant to libraries in section 108 to make single photocopies of copyrighted materials,
1. LEGISLATIVE SAFEGUARDS AND EXEMPTIONS Section 108(g) (1) limits the right of reproduction and distribution under section 108 only to "the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy of library materials on "separate occasions". It does not extend, however, to cases where the library, or its employee is "aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduc. tion or distribution of multiple copies ... whether made on one occasion or over a period of time and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group."
Section 108 (g) (2) denies to libraries the "systematic reproduction or distribution of single or multiple copies" of material described in section 108(d).
The AALL is concerned that library systems are evolving in many forms and as a result not even librarians have enough information on library networks all over the country to arrive at an acceptable understanding of the situation. Thirfore, it is impracticable at this point of time to define “systematic" with reference to these “systems". Actually, librarians are only attempting to use available resources adequately and maximize their collections rather than pewnomize at the expense of the publishers by promoting photocopying of their library materials. An example of one of these "systems" is multi-county libraries organized to support a single library system. In this context, librarians are
cerned about foreclosing interests by definition. Legislative restrictions with riference to "systems" when read into the copyright revision law, could create problems in the future as technological developments in this area are so uncertain and unforseeable at present. They also are in direct conflict with the express Congressional intent as a matter of public policy to encourage the Creation and promotion of such "systems" as set forth in the Higher Education et referred to under I(d) supra.
The AALL also insists that "systematic" library photocopying restrictions under section 108 (g) (1) and 108(g) (2) must be relaxed to reflect a recognition of a library's right to make single photocopies of materials in its collection and the applicability of the "fair use" doctrine. Librarians are concerned that "srutematic" can be used to whipsaw them. Sections 108(g) (1) and (g) (2) de. jart from "single" and "multiple". If "systematic" swallows up "single" and the applicability of the Fair Use doctrine then librarians protest. "Systematic" can only refer to "multiple" copying.
The AALL also protests that the concept of library single photocopying as *fair use" is now limited under section 108 (g) (1) to "isolated" and "unrelated" single photocopying.
Then again, what is meant by words and phrases in Section 108(g) such as period of time"? One day, one week, one month, one year? What is meant by the library or its staff "know or has reason to know", of "multiple copying"? At what point and under what circumstances is the library administration put on constructive notice of multiple photocopying? What kind of records must be kept by the library of these activities, or type of consultation required of staff members involved to prevent such “related or concerted" reproduction? What is meant by “distribution" in the section? “What is a branch library? Is the Law Library on a university campus a branch library of the University Library Suntem?
Librarians cannot depend on the courts applying "rule of reason" construction to these nebulous words and phrases in section 108 (g). Librarians have serions reservations about this approach and must insist on specific guidelines to prevent "prior restraint".
* systematic" library photocopying as set forth in section 108(g) (2) allows for a construction depending on "availability" as the key factor in determining when a "system" exists for this purpose. Therefore, any system which provides the comfort of availability of a publication to a library, which therefore does not have to provide for it in its budget, would be "systematic". As a result, a listing of library holdings of serials, such as to be found in the Union List of Serials (which has been on the open market for more than 40 years), even though not prepared for commercial advantage, or for the purpose of interlibrary Juan, still provides this availability, and therefore becomes a "system". Hence, any identifiable source of books in print plus knowledge of it by librarians to identify materials they lack for interlibrary loans would amount to a “system". This pervasive effect is considered intolerable by librarians as it could have serious adverse consequences for research and the dissemination and flow of information, especially as services by libraries. Then again, it must be recog. nind that merely because a library "system" exists, it does not necessarily follow that all photocopying within the system is “systematic".
The A.A.L.L. also protests that as there is no objection to interlibrary borrow. int of specific hard copy materials under these so-called "systems", why should librarians not be able to make a single photocopy of these materials when randomly requested on interlibrary loan as a substitute for hard copy, especially as permitted in sect. 108(d) of the Copyright Revision Bill.
In a sense these criticisms of section 108 of the revision bill were reflected and irnplied in the Register of Copyrights' testimony on S. 3976 before this