Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

remains as to whether retrieval of a portion of the work would result in a "publication" of the entire work or only of the portion retrieved. Thus, where a work has not been published previously, and the output is only of portions of the work, years may pass before the entire work may be "published" by the computer system for the purpose of acquiring statutory copyright. If this is the case, then, under the present act, would publication result in protection under the statute of those portions of the work which have been retrieved by the computer system, leaving the remaining unretrieved portions under perpetual common law protection?

The requirement that the work must be published with notice of copyright raises still further problems. Is it necessary that a copyright notice appear on each excerpt of the work retrieved from computer system? The problem of notice is obviously intended as a warning to a potential user that the work is protected by copyright. Absence of notice is generally understood as a dedication of the work to the public. These concepts were easier to enforce and easier to follow where traditional publication resulted in hard bound copies of the entire work. Where, however, the hard copy retrieved may be an excerpt of one book or a page or a chapter, or where the reproduction of such portions may be ephemeral, the question of when and where to put the copyright notice to avoid the forfeiture of copyright becomes even more complex. Must every replication of the work or portion thereof by a computer system bear a copyright notice? The present act raises the additional problem of where to place the copyright notice, since the act (but not the proposed revision) is explicit in the technicality of placement of notice.

In addition to deciding whether a publication of a manuscript has occurred by computer usage, the determination as to what date to put in such notice is equally disconcerting. Under the present Copyright Act statutory copyright commences on the date upon which the work is first published with notice and continues thereafter for a period of 28 years (subject to an additional 28-yearrenewal term). Even though under the proposed revision the term of statutory copyright is for the life of the author plus 50 years, a date of first publication is still required under section 401. Thus, even if one were to conclude that feedout by the information storage and retrieval system of part of the whole previously unpublished manuscript constitutes publication, the decision still remains as to whether the first output of the first excerpt of such a manuscript is the date of first publication of only such excerpt or is it the date of first publication of the entire work. Moreover, one can argue that input of the unpublished manuscript constitutes publication and therefore the appropriate date should be the date of input.

The proposed revision of the Copyright Act would seem to eliminate some of the problems with respect to the acquisition and loss of copyright protection. Section 302 (a) of the proposed revision provides that copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1967, subsists from the creation of the work. This provision would seem to eliminate the problems with respect to when "publication" occurs for the purpose of acquiring statutory copyright. The question as to when common law copyright is lost as a result of "publication" is also eliminated. Section 301 of the proposed revision, in effect, eliminates common law copyright protection for works created after January 1, 1967.

The notice requirement set forth in the proposed revision solves some problems but leaves others unanswered. Section 401 of the proposed act provides that when a work is published, a notice of copyright shall be placed on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. It would seem that notice would not be required at the time of input, indexing, or internal scanning since none of these processes would involve public distribution of copies. However, the question still remains as to when and where a notice must appear on ephemeral or hard copies of the whole or part of a work resulting from the retrieval process of the computer.

Time does not permit a discussion of all the problems nor of any of them in depth. The purpose of this survey of copyright and related problems of unfair competition arising from the operation of information storage and retrieval systems is to focus attention on the problems created by the new technology and the real and immediate need for a major revision of the copyright law.

Mrs. LINDEN. Information storage and retrieval began as a response to the flood of data and reports emerging from the enormously ex

panded research efforts of the past two decades. Currently it is being applied not only to research but to education as well.

Its basic instrument is the computer which stores information on magnetic tape, but information systems are based also on microfilm and punchcards of several kinds.

At Bethesda, Md., stands the National Library of Medicine. It houses a sophisticated computer system and a highly trained staff who read and index all of the articles appearing in current medical journals and books.

The computer collates and prints out the Index Medicus, which is published and distributed on a regular schedule. The information system known as "Medlars" is primarily devoted to indexing.

A related but significantly different information retrieval system was announced in the New York Times on March 4, 1965. In announcing the joining of these three major universities, Harvard, Yale, and Columbia medical school libraries, in a computer and telephone line system, the article continues to state that this system will be equally adaptable to groups of law, business, or general libraries as well. And now I quote:

When telecommunication and photographic reproducing devices are added to the network system, it will be possible to eliminate some duplication of material among libraries. Pages from a book in New York could be flashed to a user in another city and even reproduced for him in take-home form.

Later in the same news item, Thomas P. Fleming, head of the Columbia University Medical Library, states:

With the computer you can enter many, many more subject headings. These go in compact, miniaturized form on magnetic tape and are stored on discs. Just as in a jukebox when a person pushes the button, the arm finds what he wants, so the searching arm goes along with the discs and picks out what the researcher wants.

The difference between "Medlars" and the medical library network is clear. At present, "Medlars" is devoted primarily to the indexing of journal articles. The new network is designed to retrieve and print out information from books.

"Current Research and Development in Scientific Documentation," volume No. 13, dated November 1964, issued by the National Science Foundation updates similar volumes previously published. In close to 500 pages, the current status of 150 information storage and retrieval systems is described. These include the activities not only of Government-sponsored research projects of universities, but of many of our major corporations such as Radio Corp. of America, Philco Corp., Motorola, Sperry Rand, IBM, ITEK, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Burroughs, Magnavox, and Chrysler Corp.

May I call your attention to page 243 of this publication which reports on the Recordak Corp., a subsidiary of the Eastman Kodak Co. The Recordak Lode Star Reader-Printer described in this report is in operation here in Washington.

It makes possible automatic location and reproduction either on a screen or on paper the pages of a book or journal located in a central storage miles away. I have seen this system in operation.

The access time for locating a document out of many thousands and flashing it on the screen is approximately 7 seconds. Print-out-which is the reproduction in hard copy form of as much of these articles or books as you choose-appeared to me to be as rapid.

It should be noted that photoduplication, or print-out, as it is called, is part of the service rendered by information retrieval systems. At previous sessions of this committee you have heard requests for free, unpaid for, photocopying of copyrighted material.

I respectfully urge that you relate these requests to the mechanisms and practices of information storage and retrieval.

How do information retrieval systems use copyrighted materials? The new science of documentation has already produced a highly technical vocabulary, but the meanings of the words are fairly clear. The steps in the process of information handling are as follows:

Input is the method and technique of feeding information into a system; storage is the mechanism by which this information is stored in the system; the retrieval is how the system operates in scanning the information or the literary works stored in it; and output is how the inquirer or user of the information and knowledge gets copies (either it is flashed on the screen or reproduced in hard copy) of what he has sought.

When we consider these steps in terms of copyright law, we discover that some of the techniques of input involve the translation (which is a right of the copyright proprietor) of the content of a copyrighted work on to punchcards, by means of a highly specialized electric typewriter.

The copyrighted work is then transferred from the cards into electrical impulses which are stored on a magnetic tape. Thus the copyrighted work can in whole or in part, in its original form or in a derivative form such as an abstract, digest, or condensation, be stored in a memory core of the computer.

You have heard at least from one computer programer, and I believe have received a statement from the industry at large. The computer program for which copyright protection is urged by its creators is simply the organization of data including copyrighted works and the creation of a set of instructions, so that these copyrighted works or other literary work and data could be available for retrieval.

Although they urge copyright protection for their product, interestingly enough these same people ask that the copyrighted material which they program should be made available to them without fee and without permission.

Actually, gentlemen, what the computer programer is really doing is creating a new kind of anthology, or compilation of copyrighted works that is published in the computer system, rather than in conventionally bound book form.

The storing of the anthology, compilation, or selections in the computer is merely a newer and more sophisticated use of the publishing or copying right which clearly inures to the copyright owner.

There is a question as to whether the scanning of copyrighted works in the "memory core," for the purpose of selecting appropriate sections, is subject to the exclusive rights of the copyright proprietor. This question must receive serious consideration.

We do not wish to take time in that area, but I would like to suggest that this be analogized to a performing right. The scanning within the computer is really the performance within the computer system of the works themselves.

The final system of output or transmitting the copyrighted work may consist of flashing a copy of the selections on a screen or a duplicate of the excerpts or pages may be printed out.

In the area of text or reference books, the response rarely requires more than an excerpt, a paragraph or some other relatively small portion of the whole work. All the user requires is this small portion flashed on the screen or printed out as photocopy in response to pressing a putton on the "jukebox" as Dr. Fleming of Columbia University calls the computer system.

Thus computer output is another phase of information storage and retrieval publishing.

If one supposes that information storage and retrieval systems are not now and are not likely to become commonplace during our lifetime, then we may leave the resolution of the rights of a copyright proprietor in respect of computer usage as a legacy to future generations.

But in doing so, would we not be creating another jukebox exemption, this time one of even greater consequences to the world of private authorship and private commercial publishing?

The hard, inexorable facts are, that information storage and retrieval systems do exist and are increasing numerically as well as in the scope of their uses.

The Wall Street Journal frequently carries stories-obviously, because they are of economic interest to investors and the country at large concerning the computer, the status of the development of computer technology, and the commercial uses of them.

I refer to an article release-dated May 3, 1965, and in my statement which I am today submitting to you I quote several paragraphs, in which the Wall Street Journal describes the economically feasible computer systems developed by IBM, General Telephone, and Minnesota Mining, and so forth.

I would like to read to you one paragraph from that article:

IBM scientists have developed an experienced computer "language," called Coursewriter, to enable teachers with no computer training to easily enter instructional materials into a computer. Then, students at typewriter-type keyboards anywhere from 10 feet to thousands of miles away can receive instruction and reply to it at any time they choose.

Three days later, in its May 6 issue, the Wall Street Journal reported the Westinghouse Electric Corp. statement that it has developed an electronic system that plays television pictures from a phonograph record and, according to the Westinghouse statement:

Pictures on the television screen may be line drawings, charts, printed text, or photographs. Applications include classroom instruction, industrial and Vocational training, sales presentations and remedial teaching.

I have with me, and would like to leave a copy if I may, for those of you who would care to read portions of it, a publication of the National Education Association, entitled "The Role of the Computer in Future Instructional Systems."

I believe it was an April 1963 publication.

The chapter headings which I have listed in my written statement indicate the contents of the educational materials of textbooks that the teachers expect to use via computer systems. We urge that the copy

right law should prospectively apply to these new means of using copyrighted works.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Without objection, the committee will receive this publication you refer to.

Mrs. LINDEN. I don't propose to offer it into the record, unless you choose. I wish simply to leave a copy of it with you.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes, I don't propose to make it a part of the record.

Mrs. LINDEN. The direction of events is clear. The issue reduces it to one question. Do we meet the technological revolution by conscripting copyrighted works?

Now, let us turn to the less esoteric devices which I have included as part of the technological revolution-as affecting the economic core of authorship and publishing I now speak of photocopying devices.

The development of photocopying devices, both in the numbers and kinds of machines and techniques available, as well as in the rapid reduction of costs of photocopying is equally startling and spectacular. I use a Xerox in my office. The cost is 5 cents a page.

Mr. C. Peter McColough, executive vice president of operations for the Xerox Corp., reported to the Los Angeles Society of Financial Analysts on Thursday, June 3, 1965, as follows:

As to the total copying market, its growth also continues at a rapid pace. In 1964, roughly 92 billion copies were produced in this country, resulting in total income for the industry of about $500 million. By 1969, I'd guess that some 25 billion impressions will be made by copiers. And the "information explosion" will still be accelerating.

Obviously, copyrighted materials as well as mere charts and data that are not copyrighted are, can, and will be duplicated by these devices.

I would like to call your attention to the fact that a Mr. William R. Hawken, who is an authority in the field of photoduplication and who for many years was associated with the Eastman Kodak Co., wrote an article in 1954 entitled "New Methods for Photocopying" in which he described 12 different machines. In the March 1963 issue of the magazine Administrative Management W. A. Kleinschrod surveyed 174 machines.

In a letter dated June 16, 1965, addressed to me by Mr. Stanley Salmen, coordinator of university planning of Columbia University of the city of New York, he stated that in their library system which is used almost entirely for research they have bought this year 1,700,000 sheets of Xerox paper as compared with 837,000 the year before and 285,000 the year before that.

Of course, not all of this photocopying was of copyrighted works. However, the increase from 285,000 sheets for the year 1963 to 1,700,000 in 1965 is indeed indicative of its extraordinarily rapid growth in library use and of the uses of photocopying with respect to literary copyrighted works as well.

I particularly call these figures to your attention because of the Fry Associates' report which was cited here. That report was completed in 1962 and was based on experience prior to that date. You will notice that the statistics which I have quoted concerning the development of photocopying and its uses are subsequent to 1962.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »