Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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?

Mrs. LINDEN. Yes.

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.

Mr. TENZER. Well, second or third or fourth grade. Whatever. 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.

Mr. TENZER. Well, when you analyzed this proposal, with your associates, you must have had something in mind, either basing the license fee on the number of textbooks sold to the schools, or on the basis of the number of students in the schools. Will you tell us about it?

Mrs. LINDEN. We have thought of either possibility, and may I suggest that we are actively cooperating, have lent our support, to a totally independent group, and Dr. Meyerhoff is going to address you next in respect of that group, and that is a committee in its origins, I believe, of scientists, of researchers, of librarians, and they were joined by machinery manufacturers and they were joined by book publishers, and they were joined by the Authors League, the American Textbook Publishers Institute, and the American Book Publishers Council, to see if an independent agency could devise a system that would be fair both to the publishers and to the users.

Mr. TENZER. Then at the present time, you or your organization do not have a specific proposal as to how you would intend to charge for such licenses; assuming you have the privilege of doing so?

Mrs. LINDEN. Let me say two things in that regard. We have not yet negotiated with anybody, but I would also like to call your attention to the fact that we have been in the business of dealing with educators since the inception of educational publishing, and we have always negotiated with them. They are our only customers. Mr. TENZER. Right.

Mrs. LINDEN. We are not going to suddenly refuse to negotiate with our only customers on a reasonable level. The kind of private negotiation which we anticipate is consistent with the practice in our industry and in most industries in this country. And may I add furthermore that we all know, even though some of us don't like to say it aloud, and I may be one of those, if any inequities should arise, there are Government agencies who quickly respond to that kind of inequity, and that has been our system.

Mr. TENZER. Well, you are suggesting prospective things, and we, too, would like to be prospective in trying to avoid the possibilities that you suggest right now of supervision. We would like to know in advance, if we possibly can get it, precisely what you have in mind so we would be able to evaluate this properly when we consider the proposal.

Do you also see the possibility, Mrs. Linden, that if a school was required to obtain a license from your organization for the privilege of using the textbooks published by the members of your association they may require 1, 2, or 25 other licenses from the publishers of the other 20 percent of the textbooks publishers?

Mrs. LINDEN. Well, of course that is always a possibility, but when a school wants to buy textbooks from the-how many-110 publisher members of our institute, they have to deal with 110 different publishers. And they deal with hundreds, and I imagine literally thousands of suppliers generally, and this is one of the things that they are accustomed to doing.

Mr. TENZER. And it would also be possible, would it not, to say that if you use the books of this or that company, we will not give you a license to buy our books?

1

Mrs. LINDEN. No, I don't think that any publisher would dare make that kind of statement in view of laws that are presently in effect.

I think the Robinson-Patman Act and the Clayton Act would discourage us very quickly indeed, Mr. Tenzer.

[ocr errors]

1 Mr. TENZER. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have two or three questions, I guess, if you want to finish with this witness now.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes. There is a quorum call on, but I think we can finish with Mrs. Linden.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. One page 5 of your statement, at the bottom of the page, I read the following paragraph:

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,

You raised this as a point that isn't covered by the bill before us. Mrs. LINDEN. That is right.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And something that really you are serious in thinking that this committee should consider?

Mrs. LINDEN. Mr. Hutchinson, yes, I am serious but I also recognize this time limitation in my presentation today, and I also recognize that my subject matter might appear a little esoteric in the first instance, and that the scanning of works within the memory core of the computer is a subject that does not lend itself to immediate response, even to those of us who have had experience, some experience or exposure to computer systems.

If you would like, either now or by submission, for us to prepare an analysis of what is meant by the scanning, I would be glad to do so. I have been very much aware of the time. If, Mr. Chairman, you would like for me to answer, I will do so right now.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, if you care to make such an analysis available, without objection the committee will certainly receive it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It would be helpful, perhaps, in our exploring this problem.

(Subsequently the following were received :)

Mr. HERBERT FUCHS,

THE MACMILLAN CO.,
New York, N.Y., July 6, 1965.

Counsel, Subcommittee No. 3, House Judiciary Committee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. FUCHS: On behalf of ATPI, I should like to thank you and Subcommittee No. 3 for providing an opportunity for Mrs. Linden to testify. The burden of our argument on information retrieval systems is this:

(1) Computer-based information retrieval systems must inevitably incorporate copyrighted materials.

(2) These materials will be read out or printed out in brief excerpts. (3) There will be no means of placing copyright notice on these excerpts, at the time of print-out.

(4) As a consequence, it is not adequate to deal with use of copyrighted materials at the time of output. We therefore urge that either the law or legislative history make clear that one of the basic rights of the copyright owner is input into an information retrieval system.

The enclosed announcement of a month-long seminar at Woods Hole arrived too late to be incorporated in Mrs. Linden's testimony. Professor Overhage, a

distinguished scientist, is in charge of a 10-year project at MIT, referred to in the announcement,

I therefore ask that this letter and the enclosed announcement be placed in the committee record.

Very truly yours,

LEE C. DEIGHTON.

PROJECT INTREX, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Among the many difficulties caused by the growing complexity of our civilization, the crisis faced by our great libraries is one of the most distressing; for these libraries have long been regarded as outstanding manifestations of our cultural progress. But they may become lifeless monuments, unless we can find new methods of managing the enormous mass of books, periodicals, reports, and other records produced by our expanding intellectual activities.

There is good reason to hope that we can find a way out of this crisis by the imaginative use of technical advances in such fields as electronic data processing and photographic document copying. In the library of the future, as we now visualize it at MIT, access to our books, journals, and reports will be provided throughout the academic community by an electrically integrated network of information transfer services, linked to sources and users outside the campus, and coordinated by a central staff. In addition to the present libraries, this network will include terminals in all departments and laboratories, where the user will find equipment for computer-aided bibliographic search and for immediate replication of desired documents. We call such a network an information transfer complex or intrex.

Today, we do not know how to specify the exact nature and scope of these future information transfer services. We believe that their design must be derived from experimentation in the working environment of students, faculty, and research staff. We have established, in the School of Engineering at MIT, a project in which the central feature will be a group of experiments with new forms of library service. This project will be carried out in close concert with the MIT libraries. The specific objective will be the functional design of a set of library services that might become fully operational in the decade beginning in 1970. We expect that the project will yield design information for the modernization of all large libraries and that it will advance the general technology of information transfer.

To formulate the experimental plan for this project, a planning conference is to be held in August 1965 at Woods Hole, Mass. The aim will be to go beyond the walls of MIT and establish a national consensus on the direction and range of the experimental program.

MARCH 25, 1965.

CARL F. J. OVERHAGE.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT ON H.R. 4347 SUBMITTED IN BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS INSTITUTE

Gentlemen, on June 30, 1965, Congressmen Kastenmeier and Hutchinson asked us to submit an analysis of the consequences of computer scanning of copyrighted works.

The following is submitted in response to this request and in an effort to state the views of the of the American Textbook Publishers Institute membership with respect to certain other issues raised during the course of the hearings.

I. Should the right to scan copyrighted works lawfully programed into the "memory core" of a computer system for the purpose of selecting appropriate sections be subject to the exclusive rights of the copyright proprietor?

Since the inception of copyright law, the exclusive rights granted to protect the copyright proprietor have been predicated upon the fact that the primary way of distributing and using literary works has been by storing them on printed pages in book form. The electronic age is forcing a new concept into copyright law. A literary creation of an author need not be stored in visually perceivable and tangible book form in order to receive wide distribution, dissemination, and use. Although H.R. 4347 protects the copyright proprietor from unauthorized input into an information storage and retrieval system it does not take cognizance of the next phase, i.e., computer scanning of the works. This phase of computer 52-380-66-pt. 3——6

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »