May I simply reiterate the fundamental needs of education which we see and which we hope will be insured in the revision of the copyright law one, the need of teachers to make limited copies of materials for classroom use. Two. The need to have "fair use" extended to include educational broadcasting and educational use of computers. Three. The need for reasonable certainty that a given use of copyrighted material is permissible. Four. The need for protection in the event teachers and librarians innocently infringe the law. Five. The need to meet future instructional requirements by utilizing the new education technology now being made available to schools. Six. The need to have ready access to materials. We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that some of these things have been incorporated into the proposed bill. We ask that the Congress enact a new law with which we can grow-one that fosters and encourages promising approaches to teaching; one that is responsive to the emerging frontiers of the information revolution and the new educational technology; one that is flexible, not rigid; and one that will help us meet the challenges of a clearly emerging new day in education. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we do not begin even to know what the new day in education might look like, but we hope we will be able to meet the challenges of such a new day. We congratulate the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his sponsorship of S. 597 which we feel meets the needs of education far better than S. 1006 introduced in the 89th Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The statement of Dr. Edinger, previously referred to, follows:) STATEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES BY LOIS V. EDINGER Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Lois V. Edinger, past president of the National Education Association of the United States. I have served as a classroom teacher of history in the high schools of Thomasville, North Wilkesboro, and Whiteville, North Carolina. I have served as a studio teacher of U.S. history on the North Carolina In-School Television Project, which is part of the North Carolina Educational Television Network. I am an associate professor of education at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro. Today I appear before you in my capacity as a member of the Board of Trustee of the National Education Association, the largest professional organization in America, consisting of 994.000 members, which represents the broad spectrum of American education. Its membership ranges from kindergarten teachers to college professors. It includes administrators, supervisors, school principals, county and state superintendents of public instruction and their staffs, and other individuals. Approximately 90 per cent of the NEA members are classroom teachers. Why the NEA Is Interested in Copyright Law Revision NEA has two primary interests: the improvement of instruction in the nation's schools and the protection of the rights of teachers and their welfare. Both of these interests are affected by any revision of the copyright law. Improvement of Instruction Education is in the midst of a revolution-both in the content areas and in methodology. There are new curriculum developments in the major disciplines which are based on widespread change in curriculum materials. With the curriculum explosion facing us in every area and at every level in public education, close examination of all types and kinds of materials is a necessity if change is to occur at the practical level of classroom application. At best this is a difficult and complex enough problem. There is little to be gained in working out new curriculum developments, if in the end teachers, who would otherwise strengthen and improve their teaching through uses of new materials, are only to be frustrated because of artificial and inflexible restrictions which in the long run will not really protect the rights of originators or producers, but will be a severe detriment to improving instruction. NEA has a deep interest in the widespread use of many materials of instruction to strengthen and enrich the efforts of classroom teachers in all subject areas. The teacher must be free to teach and must have access to materials to do his job. Rights and Responsibilities of Teachers Teachers are both authors and users of materials. They want a law which will be fair and just to all concerned. We wish to see proper protection of the interests of those persons whose creative abilities produce fine instructional materials so as to stimulate the continued flow of such materials. At the same time, there is an over-riding public interest to be met also-that of flexible availability of materials for instructional purposes. Teachers and students must be able to use copyrighted materials with a minimum of time and effort devoted to making such materials available in their day to day classroom activities and on educational radio and television. Once a reasonable law is obtained the profession will itself be in a position to aid in enforcement of the law. But as long as arbitrary and impractical barriers to materials' usage exist, teachers will be reluctant to use materials, particularly when there is a possibility that such use constitutes an infringement. Today's Teacher The teacher in today's schools is almost unrecognizable from the teacher in the schools which you and I attended. Whereas our teacher used the same textbook for each pupil, today's teacher uses many resources in his teaching. He has a varity of texts and supplementary materials, including trade and reference books, newspapers and magazines, educational motion pictures, filmstrips, overhead transparency projectors, opaque projectors, language laboratories, audio tape recorders, record players, slides, educational radio and television, teaching machines and programmed learning materials, and he uses these in orchestration to do specific jobs. The teacher selects resources to fit particular student needs so that certain tools are used with some students and other tools with other students. Education is no longer the very simple process Mark Hopkins talked about-with the teacher on one end of the log and the learned on the other-but an increasingly complex and intricate one. Even before Sputnik, burgeoning enrollrollments and an explosion in the content areas made it imperative that the teacher enlist the power tools of educational technology to help him to do his job. Never has there been so much to teach to so many in so short a time. Never has there been such an urgent need for more effective quality instruction. Time is at a premium; ideas must be communicated with dispatch. NEA's Position on Copyright Law Revision Because education has a substantial interest in the copyright law, the NEA through its Division of Audiovisual Instructional Service and its National Commission on Professional Rights and Responsibilities, in July 1963, called a national conference of representatives of major educational organizations to discuss both the present copyright law and the proposals which were made for revision of the law; to canvass education's needs in a new copyright law; and to determine what steps, if any, the profession should take to deal with the situation. As a result of this conference, the widely-representative Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision was formed, and the NEA has been a member of this Committee since its formation. At its annual meeting in Miami Beach, Florida, July 1966, the NEA Representative Assembly reaffirmed its previous stand on copyright law revision by adopting unanimously the following resolution: "RESOLUTION 14 "Maximum access to teaching materials is of vital concern to every teacher. The National Education Association recognizes that the present copyright law provides for two parallel sets of rights, the rights of those who create such materials to profit from their efforts through copyright, and the rights of education to use certain copyrighted materials in teaching. A revision of the existing law is now being considered. The National Education Association insists that the public interest requires that the copyright law provide special recognition for education which guarantees a legal right for teachers and educational institutions to make use of copyrighted materials, recognizing a limited right to copy and record such materials for nonprofit educational purposes, including educational broadcasting, as proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee (of educational institutions) on Copyright Law Revision." The NEA feels that the Ad Hoc Committee's proposals are essential; and it strongly urges that the Congress not diminish its own great achievements in educational legislation by enacting a copyright bill which is not in harmony with the best interests of education and which would, in fact, inhibit the uses of materials which recent federal enactments provide. I should like to state for the record that the NEA has philosophical objections to any statutory licensing system, or clearinghouse, proposal. Our objections are these: 1. There has long been a recognition in the copyright act of a vital distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses of copyrighted materials. We believe that this distinction, at least for education, should be continued in the new copyright law. Further, we believe that, as a matter of public policy, education should be authorized to use and to make limited copies of copyrighted materials without clearances or royalties. 2. On the basis of the clearinghouse proposals we have heard thus far, a statutory licensing system would require continuous monitoring of classrooms to know the extent and nature of the use of being made of materials in order to determine the fees to be charged to the schools and the distribution of the income among producers of the materials used. It is quite obvious that classroom monitoring of teacher uses of materials could lead to an unhealthy policing of materials' usage in the schools with acompanying pressure by publishing groups on teachers to use their materials in order that they might obtain a larger portion of the income received by any clearinghouse. 3. The problems of imposing a rigid system of clearances on top of an informal and "fair use" arrangement would, we believe, unduly restrict practices that would be considered legitimate under the "fair use" section of the law. 4. The problems of administering a clearinghouse system would be many, and it is likely that the overhead cost required to administer such a clearinghouse would far exceed the revenues received therefrom. Educators might in all seriousness ask several other pertinent questions: Would the clearinghouse cover all types of materials usage-textbooks, trade books, newspapers, magazines, educational films, maps, charts, flat pictures, recordings, transparencies, musical selections, etc.? Or would several different clearinghouse systems need to be developed for different types of materials-one for newspapers, one for magazines, one for educational films, one for educational television clearances, one for music? If a multiplicity of such clearinghouses were to be initiated, then would it not be necessary to institute a clearinghouse for clearinghouses? The situation becomes enormously complex and intricate, and rather than make arrangements with several clearinghouses the teacher would instead forego using materials at all and avoid being involved in this network of red tape. Therefore, the clearinghouse would have an effect opposite to that desired by the publishers and would inhibit rather than facilitate access to materials. There is some reason to believe also that several clearinghouses within the publishing industry itself would be needed. In discussions our Association has had with the publishers at various meetings, we learned that not all materials of a given publishing house would be released to the clearinghouse. How would the teacher know which materials were a part of the clearinghouse arrangement and which were not? Conclusion The National Education Association applauds the Congress for its great concern for education in the historic legislation which has been enacted to date. It is our sincere hope that the Congress will continue its concern for education as it enacts significant new copyright legislation. There are certain fundamental needs of education which must be insured in the revision of the copyright law: 1. The need of teachers to make limited copies of materials for classroom use. 2. The need to have "fair use" extended to include educational broadcasting and educational use of computers. 3. The need for reasonable certainty that a given use of copyrighted material is permissible. 4. The need for protection in the event teachers and librarians innocently infringe the law. 5. The need to meet future instructional requirements by utilizing the new educational technology now being made available to schools. 6. The need to have ready access to materials. We ask that the Congress enact a new law we can grow with-one that fosters and encourages promising approaches to teaching; one that is responsive to the emerging frontiers of the information revolution and the new educational technology; one that is flexible, not rigid; and one that will help us meet the challenges of a clearly emerging new day in education. We congratulate the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee for his sponsorship of S. 597 which meets the needs of education far better than S. 1006 introduced in the 89th Congress. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much. You know your conclusion is a pretty big order. Dr. EDINGER. I recognize that, Mr. Chairman. Senator MCCLELLAN. It is beautifully phrased and intriguing and has great merit in it. How can we do it? That is what we are trying to find out. Dr. EDINGER. That is exactly right. Senator MCCLELLAN. I mean that. I think sincerely that Congress wants to enact a law that will meet the exigencies of the situation and that will be good in future years as well as for the present. This problem is very complex to me, at least. Senator, did you care to ask any questions? Senator BURDICK. Yes. I would like to reiterate what the chairman has said. You state here on page 2 that they want a law that will be just and fair. So do we. You want a reasonable law; so do we. The thing that bothers me is this. I notice here a copy of the amendment proposed by Mr. Wigren, where he says the performance or display of work by instructors or pupils-this is the part that should be exempt-performance or display of work by instructors or pupils while in the course of teaching, if such performance or display is in the course of teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution. What bothers me is are we going to dry up general use? If I am in the business of making a visual aid, some film of some kind, and that is my business, I have to eat and I am in there for a profit. Now, if every school in a statewide television setup can use my work, why should I make that tape? Who is going to make that tape in the future? What do we do about getting works to copy? This is what bothers me. Who is going to make this visual aid in the future? Dr. EDINGER. I am not sure I quite understand all that you are saying, but I feel you are aware of the fact that we do use materials on closedcircuit television, for example Senator BURDICK. Or any other way that you are talking about. Dr. EDINGER. That this is not compensated for under the copyright law, that the person who has made this will just stop making it, this seems to be your concern? Senator BURDICK. Yes. Dr. EDINGER. Having been a teacher through the years, I suspect that the material being used on closed-circuit television will also be used in other areas for a more commercial use, or it will be bought by the school system in certain areas, to be used in other ways. So that actually, while it may appear on the surface to be destroying creativity, I really believe we are going to be encouraging creative development, because we will be creating markets for this kind of use. Senator BURDICK. If visual aids are made just for education, where else would they be used but in the schools? Dr. EDINGER. Dr. Wigren has been working with this more. Perhaps he has the answer. Dr. WIGREN. I would like to give an illustration of what I mean. At one time I was director of the audiovisual media program for the Houston independent school program for Houston, Tex. We had thought it would be a good idea, to take care of teacher requests, to put certain of our films on television and share them with the schools. We did so and, to our amazement, instead of taking care of the number of requests which we had in the audiovisual center for these materials, which we were not able to fill and could not afford to buy all the copies we needed, instead of meeting this need, we created much more demand for the films. For example, we found we had to buy 10 more prints of the film rather than get along with the few we had, because the teachers found out about the film for the first time. They had never seen it before, and they said, "I did not even know you had this in the library. Where did you get this?" I said, "It has been in the catalog. Haven't you seen it before?” The orders began coming in. We had to stop showing the film on television until we could catch up with the market we created. It will help in both ways, giving visibility. Senator BURDICK. Do you think you can create a public market on channel 67 at 7 o'clock at night to see geometry? Dr. WIGREN. We found on "Sunrise Semester" in New York City, which was on the air at 6:30 in the morning, that when certain books were mentioned on that series, there was a run on the bookstores for those books. The librarians and the bookstore dealers were saying to us, "Please let us know what books you are planning to show on television so we can get enough copies of them." Senator BURDICK. All I can say is I certainly hope you are right, but I feel it is going to dry up general use here that may not incur to your benefit in the end. Mr. ROSENFIELD. May I point out that the provision to which you refer, section 110(1A), deals strictly with instructional television. We are not at this point talking of public television, but only of closedcircuit transmission. Appendix page 1 does not deal with transmission that goes out on channel 26 to the public at large. This proposal deals only with the transmission that is limited within the school system, controlled as part of a course of teaching activities, and is not available to the public at large. You could not pick it up. Senator BURDICK. I understand that, but who is going to prepare this material? Mr. ROSENFIELD. The people from whom we are buying it. As Dr. Wigren has indicated, what we do is use this as a device to increase use |