various school systems on a competitive basis. Various publishing houses put out, say, competitive English readers, and the school boards either adopt them or buy them, or they don't. If they like the text, and if they like the price. That area of negotiation and economic enterprise is not in any way the subject matter of our proposal and would not be, should not be part of the proposed law at all. We are not discussing that at all.

What we are saying is that if our book, textbook, is reprinted in the school itself, by a photocopying machine, or by a sophisticated computer, and the school reprints several dozen copies, and buys only one copy from the publisher because that is all they need, we have a very real economic problem, and we can't stay in business.

If a large school wishes the right to photocopy freely from our textbook, we will work out an appropriate licensing fee on an annual basis. If a small school, in the hinterlands that can't afford very much, wants to photocopy, obviously they will photocopy fewer copies, they have fewer students, they buy fewer of our books in the first place. Therefore, their photocopying costs would be proportionately less. The purpose of a sampling study and the purpose of inviting NEA, and the school superintendents and the librarians to join with us in setting up this system is that we must find a workable way of negotiating with each other, and one that is fair to the small school, as well as to the large, urban centers.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Tenzer?

Mr. TENZER. Mrs. Linden, your statement or presentation is both exciting and challenging. You present some very new areas and ideas to the entire subject.

Before I go into the textbook subject itself-I would like to clarify your testimony about the retrieval system. On page 5, you referred to the programing for the computer as being the creation of a new kind of anthology.

Am I correct?

Mrs. LINDEN. Well

Mr. TENZER. Your language on page 5?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes, that is my language.

Mr. TENZER (reading):

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

That is your quote.

Mrs. LINDEN. That is right.

Mr. TENZER. Let me ask you this question: supposing I happen to have an interest in the subject of jet noise, and I did a good deal of research and gathered all of the material and documents and papers and books that have been written on the subject, and I prepared a compilation and index of all of these works, title and reference and date and whatever other material I put into it.

Assuming also there there was a market for it, couldn't I come to one of the publishing companies and have that compilation or that anthology published and copyrighted?

Mrs. LINDEN. That index, yes; but that is not, Mr. Tenzer, if I may urge, is not what I meant and what the industry commonly refers to as an anthology.

Mr. TENZER. Would you please explain the difference between an individual who gathered material, created an anthology, and had it copyrighted, and the computer programer?

Mrs. LINDEN. Well, a computer can, and the "Medlars" system, which I describe here-and I have a reference work on "Medlar," if you would care to have a copy of it-does make indexes. The Index Medicus customarily indexes the journal articles, or the books, and so forth, copyrighted and uncopyrighted. That index is a separate and distinct creation of the "Medlars." That is clearly, I believe, your right to do as an individual, or "Medlars' " right to do as a systemcreate that index.

However, computers, particularly the systems that I have quoted in greater detail that were described in the New York Times articleand I also have the MIT book on computer libraries, which I would like to call to your attention-do more than just that. The system of input, what goes into the computer, is not just an index or bibliography that replaces the conventional library cards.

If the computer did only that, this would in no way be the reprinting of the book, and we would have no cause for complaint.

In fact, it is an advertisement of the book. What the computer system does, and what the programer does, is gather a series of books, say, on jet noises and articles, copyrighted, for purpose of illustration, looks at them, and causes his staff to translate them.

Now, whether it is a punch hole, or you are using Gregg shorthand, or it is the grooves on a record, that really is a translation, if you will, or another version of the contents, the verbiage, of the article, the literary work that is copyrighted. It is not his reprinting of the title only and his description of what it contains. What these systems, the more sophisticated ones, do, is to copy whole works and store them into the system. Others, by electronic devices or punchcard, microcard, microfilm, and so forth, translate it into capsule form, but it is the verbiage, the contents of the article, the creation of the copyright owner, that he uses literally and in whole, in the same way as a conventional publisher takes the manuscript and causes it to be printed. Now what they are reprinting in computer form, if they are just taking selections rather than whole works, is an anthology, one chapter from this work, the appropriate number of paragraphs from the next one, and the anthology is the contents of the copyrighted literary works, the computer program is manipulating and giving instructions. to the computer as to what it should call forth from the memory core, for use by the researcher or student. It is the copyrighted work that is being used, that is being reprinted, if you will, whether it is flashed onto a screen, whether it is put into the computer or taken out in hard copy, that creates the problem for the author and publisher, because it substitutes for his books. It doesn't merely call attention to his books.

Mr. TENZER. What you have described as being existent in the medical field--and I envy you the experience of having seen it work, but I hope to take a look at it myself-we now have the same thing in the legal field, do we not? We now have a system by which you can feed a

question of law into a machine, and get out a whole bibliography of references to cases on the subject?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes; you can do

Mr. TENZER. Are you aware of that?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes, I am; the Sperry Rand system is one of them. Termatrex is another that the Department of the Air Force has shown considerable interest in. Yes.

Now if the system calls for a mere citation, that is one thing, but these systems go further than that. You realize, I am sure, that Sperry Rand will give you a copy of the whole opinion, or the case, or whatever you ask for. You realize that the Recordak Lode Star Reader-Printer to which I adverted in my testimony not only gives you the citations, but you press the appropriate-and I go back to the analogy of the "jukebox"-jukebox button, and on the Recordak screen there is reflected the page or, if you want to press another button, any number of pages of a copyrighted work. Then you look at these pages and you decide this is great stuff, you want to take it home with you, so you press another button, and in a few seconds-seconds-a photocopy of those pages, a reprint of those pages, comes out of the machine, and you take them home.

So that you never even go to the central storage library. You certainly don't buy these books. You take from the machine all that you need. And I am not saying this is a bad thing, because the information explosion is such that this techonology is marvelously appropriate to our age, but because it is so marvelously appropriate to our age, we should not destroy the necessary raw material which feed it, and the raw material in this instance are the literary creations of authors, and the works of publishers.

Mr. TENZER. You are aware, I am sure, that we are searching for information as to how to preserve the rights of both the authors who created the works and the editors who use them, and that is why we are asking these questions.

Mrs. LINDEN. I most appreciate that, Mr. Tenzer.

Mr. TENZER. When you go to the public library, and take out a textbook from which you can get an extract or an excerpt of five pages, by pushing a button, how is that different, in this electronic age, from what we can still do-namely, go to the library, take the same textbook, sit down and personally copy those five pages out of a book? You know we used to travel to Washington by horse. Then we did it by horse and coach, then came the railroads and now by airplane.

Mrs. LINDEN. Mr. Tenzer, you have provided me with part of the

answer.

I would like to use your analogy. My office is at 48th and 5th Avenue in New York City, and I am ambulatory. Therefore, when I want to get to 55th and 5th Avenue, I can walk the distance. However, if I go by bus, I have got to pay. Actually, the purpose of the bus is to transport me from 48th and 5th to 55th and 5th. My legs can fulfill the same purpose, I submit, yet when I use someone else's equipment, rather than my ownself to achieve this need to get to 55th and 5th, I pay for it.

Mr. TENZER. Well, doesn't the library pay for the book occupying a place on the shelf for me to copy from?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes; and doesn't the bus company pay for the bus?

Mr. TENZER. Of course they do.

Mrs. LINDEN. Right.

Mr. TENZER. But the library has already purchased the book from which I make the copy.

Now the retrieval system purchases a book, and they hire an employee who digests it and feeds it into a machine. This is what I am trying to place into our record, the distinction if there is any?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes. Well, the distinction is this, on two levels. First of all, the copyright law itself evolved in response to a technological revolution: the invention of the printing press. The statute of Anne only arose when printing was invented. No one thought of having a copyright law when a monk sat and copied the Bible out in longhand. It was only subsequent that there was a copyright law, and the purpose was to permit the publisher-printers, as they were then, to stay in business, else they wouldn't publish-print.

The copyright and the principle of copyright protection has always, from its very inception, recognized the incentive to the authors and publishers as being on an economic level. A change in technology from the monks writing longhand to the invention of the printing press required economic protection for the services and efforts and creativity of authors and publishers. When someone copies a paragraph longhand in a library, in the most technical literal sense I suppose that is a copyright infringement, but there is a law of commonsense and equity that has permeated our copyright law in the doctrine of fair use. Since the copying of one paragraph by hand in no way affected the economic position of authors and publishers, no one ever raised the issue and no one ever quarreled with it, and that is why there is no case law on that subject, because no one objected.

However, when a technology develops that is a copy, a reprint, which these computers do, or the Xerox accomplishes, and replaces the purchase of the work, then we have the same kind of problem on a more sophisticated level that occurred in the first instance in England, when the statute of Anne was passed. There is nothing inconsistent, I submit, between protecting the author and publisher against unpaid-for use by an elaborate computer, if the author and publisher is protected from unpaid use by an offset printing press of a reprint publishing house. It is the same thing and essential to the concept of copyright law. That is basically the point.

Mr. TENZER. Now may I go to the last part of your presentation, and the question that was asked before?

Does your organization, the organization which you represent, include all of the textbook publishers in the United States?

Mrs. LINDEN. Well, over 90 percent.

Mr. TENZER. Ninety percent.

Mrs. LINDEN. Certainly-almost, I would say, all of the major ones. Not only textbook publishers, but reference book publishers; map, chart, encyclopedia publishers; and so forth.

Mr. TENZER. And that industry represents a $500 million business, the entire industry, or just your membership?

Mrs. LINDEN. No, sir; our membership represents nearly a billion dollars. The $500 million is for textbook sales.

Mr. TENZER. Textbooks.

Mr. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TENZER. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. EDWARDS. Are most of your authors, Mrs. Linden, from the academic community?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Would you say a very large percentage?

Mrs. LINDEN. I most certainly would, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. EDWARDS. Would they not have an interest, then, in submitting testimony that is on the same lines as yours?

Mrs. LINDEN. I say that with real conviction and certainty; yes. Mr. EDWARDS. We haven't had any, have we?

Mrs. LINDEN. You have not, Mr. Edwards, because of the difficult problem of communication. The text and reference book authors do not have an organization. They are not organized, such as the Authors League. These gentlemen have to be contacted individually, by every publishing house, and informed of the status of copyright legislation.

It was only after the ad hoc committee testified that they in principle believed that copyrighted works should not be paid for, when used by education, which includes, as I said earlier, 70 million persons, that we had reason to actively approach all of authorship in this field, and this is a most recent development. And I am sure you will hear from them, gentlemen.

Mr. TENZER. Has Mr. Edwards completed?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TENZER. What percentage, if you have the figures, of this total volume is represented by the books which are sold to the school systems and used by students for classroom work?

Mrs. LINDEN. I would say roughly half.

Mr. TENZER. So that we have no problem about the half which represents the volume of textbooks purchased for distribution to schoolchildren. You are talking about the other half?

Mrs. LINDEN. No, sir; I am afraid I can't agree, for this reason: That is what is purchased today. This necessarily would not be the result, if the school systems could obtain photocopies gratis, and I say that, and again I have an illustration of the specific point.

In the area of test publishing, one of the major testbook publishers in this country complained to a school system because their answer sheets were being reproduced, instead of being purchased from the test publisher.

Mr. TENZER. Well, that is on test publishing, not on textbooks.
Mrs. LINDEN. I refer to psychological tests.

Mr. TENZER. I am sorry. I thought you had completed your an

swer.

Mrs. LINDEN. The school system responded by saying thatmorally and equitably, we feel you are right, but, however, our budget is such that if our interpretation of the law is that we may reproduce those without paying, we have an obligation to do so and would avoid unnecessary expense.

And the answer is that in the area of textbook publishing, the same consequences are really a certainty. If the law allows someone to have something for free, it is hard to justify why they should pay.

Mr. TENZER. You don't believe or foresee the possibility that we are reaching a time when children will not be taking home books to do their homework from, do you?