« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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.
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. 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 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. 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.
Mr. TENZER. I am sorry. I thought you had completed your answer.
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?
Mrs. LINDEN. I am not suggesting that; no. I don't foresee that.
Mr. TENZER. So that textbooks will always have to be used, because I include the little reading book and history books as textbooks; do you agree?
Mrs. LINDEN. Well, yes; they will always have to be used, but the question is: will new ones go on the market? Will publishers stay in business, private publishers, to produce new ones?
You see, these very little-let me take a first-grade reader. It is not read cover to cover. These children don't take them home and read them cover to cover like "Alice in Wonderland."
Mr. TENZER. They do their lessons from them, do they not?
Mr. TENZER. I sat and read to my children and now to my grandchildren from those books.
Mrs. LINDEN. Not the grade 1 reader that the school assigns.
Mrs. LINDEN. But customarily it is today's lesson, tomorrow's lesson, the day after tomorrow's lesson, and each segment. First, the book is so designed that each segment is utilized separately, and'it is intended to be so used. Now if you can photocopy 30 copies of segment 1, lesson 1, and give each child a copy to take home, you don't really need to buy the 30 textbooks, do you? Tomorrow, you photocopy the next lesson. The day after, the next lesson.
Mr. TENZER. Well, I really don't feel that that is a possible trend in our system of education.
Mrs. LINDEN. Well, I refer you and urge that you read the NEA monograph, and suggest that even though I am not being adamant in insisting that one will totally replace the other, there is an economic point when a publisher stops publishing a work. He needs a certain sized market, a certain number of copies, of a market, a potential market, for him to stay in business.
Mr. TENZER. Hasn't the publishing industry expanded in recent years during this educational explosion?
Mrs. LINDEN. Yes, it has. But photocopying, information and retrieval is in large measure prospective. It is next year's use. I read to you the figures of photocopying of Columbia University Research Library. The impact on book publishing can't yet be felt. The 1,700,000 pages of Xerox as opposed to 283,000 purchased a couple of years ago is too new a phenomenon for one to recognize the consequences to the publishing industry.
Mr. TENZER. We don't have the statistics as to how many of those Xerox sheets were used in your office and in my office and thousands of others for copying noncopyrighted works; do we?
Mrs. LINDEN. Unquestionably; but what I am suggesting is that if the machine is available, and the machine is more efficient, more accessible than the corner bookstore, or the bookstore 10 miles away, the machine will be used. Libraries are using them. The students are using them, and will increasingly use them, and I am not saying that is bad, because we wish this material to be accessible; it ought to be, and this technology is great.
It should have been invented, and I am proud of the incentive and ingenuity of those citizens in our country who have invented it, and who, through our mass market, make it economically feasible. All
I am urging is that this not be permitted as a matter of philosophy and principle to crush private authorship and publishing.
Mr. TENZER. Let me address myself to the last line of inquiry, and that is, how extensively has your statement been circulated or distributed between the various branches of the industry and educational organizations who are interested in the subject?
Mrs. LINDEN. This morning. This came from Todd Photostaters yesterday.
Mr. TENZER. Fine. That answers my question.
Now I would like to ask you, finally, what do you have in mind by way of a license fee, for example, from a school of 500 students, or a school board which has 9 schools with 8,000 students, and what do you have in mind charging for the privilege of copying freely and using the textbooks published by the members of your association ?
Mrs. LINDEN. Well, at this juncture, I can't have specific dollars and cents in mind, but I would like to, if I may, take a moment to suggest, in principle, what the approach in that regard is.
First of all, if you have a concept of blanket licensing then you can copy a paragraph or a page, or more, without permission, because you have got your blanket permission.
My first thought, and that of my colleagues who have spent and given this a fair amount of thought, was that the licensing fee would be initially, I suppose, some minor fraction, very minor fraction indeed, of the textbook purchasing of that specific school system. I don't know whether that would be appropriate or inappropriate, until sampling studies are in fact made.
Furthermore, we recognize that for at least the first 5 years after the installation of this kind of system, the publishers and authors will not receive a cent from this kind of licensing. What we are in fact doing, and hoping to achieve, is a system of stabilizing authorship and book publishing as this technology overrides our zone.
In other words, we are not out to increase our margin of profit on our present textbooks by a new device. We are recognizing that we are, because of a technological revolution, in a peculiar, uncertain position, and that the future and economy of our industry depends upon flexibility and resourcefulness.
You see, the book publisher and the authors are not printers. We don't own printing presses; we don't own paper factories; we don't bind books. With the help of the author, the book publisher in the text field creates literary works, and whether these works are disseminated in bound sheets of paper or through information storage and retrieval systems is immaterial to us, as long as we get our fair share of the financial reward along with the computer manufacturers,
I have to use an analogy, if you will forgive me one more analogy. If a farmer grows a head of lettuce, in the old days that you had reference to, it went to market by horse and buggy. Subsequently, it went to market by refrigerated trucks. The farmer doesn't object to the consumer getting the product in better condition. He prefers it, as a matter of fact, via refrigerated trucks, and he doesn't care if the truckdrivers get paid. He is for it. But he wants to get paid for his head of lettuce. He doesn't want his head of lettuce taken from him for free because technology developed refrigerated trucks to take it to market faster. That is not the farmer's concept of public welfare, nor is it ours.