« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
If I may, I should like to go into a little more detail on the essentiality of copyright protection. I feel insofar as possible that this material, or as much of this material as possible, should be protected by copyright, and for three reasons. First, to protect the interests of the private sector, and the foreign contributors, to protect their rights in this data. I would guess, and this is a guess, from what I have heard that perhaps as much as 70 to 75 percent of the input into this system will come from the private sector or from foreign sources. It would seem to me very unfortunate, if having this input evaluated by the Bureau in this system would result in placing it in the public domain and therefore depriving the private interests and the foreign interests of protection of the input of the data.
It might indeed in some cases prevent data from being put into the system. Second, I think this copyright protection is absolutely necessary to allow for the commercial publication that has been talked about in these hearings. In the publication, particularly, of the printed handbook volumes of this, I would say that more than 50 percent of the sale of these volumes would be abroad. The foreign export market for this kind of material is absolutely essential to make publications like this commercially viable. The present bill would not give you protection from ensuing foreign sales competition on the same material. In other words, a commercial publisher who contracted to publish this could sell it only in the United States. Then he would have a most difficult problem of controlling what we call sell-around from people who print the material outside of the United States and ship it into the United States for sale. So I think international copyright is an absolute essential if you are going to have commercial publication and everyone says we want to have commercial publication, and we should have commercial publication.
Thirdly, I think the copyright is necessary for the protection of the use of the material in computer systems. It would be most unfair, I think, to allow any situation, as the present bill would allow, which would permit the operators of a large computer system to use it, but would not allow the smaller user who wanted to print it or photocopy it or something like that not to use it. The only way that I see to get protection would be to copyright the material and to follow, in the language of the bill, the recommendation of the Copyright Office that the input of this material into a computer system is indeed making a copy, and therefore the material is protected against such input without permission from the copyright owner.
I think revision of the bill before you is necessary to accomplish all three of these ends and to allow the Bureau of Standards or a prime contractor to subcontract the private production of these materials under copyrighted form. I suggest, of course, that the revisions and changes here should be drafted in consultation with the Copyright Office, not only to be sure that they are in conformity with the demands of the present law but that they might not be shot out from under in the revision of the copyright law, which is now, as you know, before the House. If I may, sir, I would like to suggest that Mr. Wiley talk about the economics of this and some of the things that were talked about in terms of how it might be done commercially in pricing et cetera.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Wiley, will you proceed?
Mr. WILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you and the members of your committee might ask questions of Mr. Benjamin before I move into a different area which perhaps would lead them away from their questions.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I usually disagree with Mr. Wiley and I am going to now. I think he should give his testimony.
Mr. DADDARIO. I am not necessarily going to disagree but I do think if you proceed, the subcommittee will get an impression of your joint opinion. Then we can ask questions.
Mr. WILEY. Thank you, sir. This will be even briefer than I intended because Dr. Seitz talked about some things in his testimony that I had intended to include in my statement.
He referred specifically to the historic example of the International Critical Tables published so successfully as an important contribution. He noted, perhaps, not as fully as I intended to, that funds were found in the National Research Council on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences, which undertook to negotiate a contract. Those volumes are still in demand, despite their apparent historic age. It is important to note that private funds underwrote the editorial compilation, private funds were used for the production and distribution, and that royalties have come back over the years to the National Academy.
For many years the scientific and technical book publishers have been very much concerned over what we look upon as unfair Government competition. This is a concern that we have pursued with some degrees of success but not to our satisfaction. It arises now in a much more complex and complete way because, as you gentlemen know, a very large part of the scientific and technical research being undertaken in this country is being funded with Federal funds. The percentage is astronomical. We believe that scientific and technical information which results from those efforts, insofar as this becomes publishable material, should be printed, published, and distributed in the private sector. This we believe is necessary in order to prevent what might become a Government monopoly of scientific and technical information. It is also important, from our point of view, that such information, if publishable in book form, be in the private sector in order to maximize distribution. The Superintendent of Documents, the publishing arm of the Government Printing Office, is in no position to do this, either in the domestic market or, more importantly, in the worldwide market.
The private sector procedure would then lead to some recovery of costs. This question has been raised by a member of the committee, how much of the recovery could come out in the form of royalties paid by a private publisher. It is difficult to estimate, but I think it is important to note that it would only be a small part of what might be identified as the cost of developing the information. Publishing in the private sector, as I said, will result from our point of view in saving the Government production, printing and distribution costs which otherwise would have to be funded with Federal moneys.
In referring to the Standard Reference Data Program, I do not disagree with Dr. Seitz, except I want to clarify one matter and that is that we as commercial publishers are under no illusion that all of this
information will eventually and can eventually be published in book form. Selected parts of it will certainly have use in book form. So that this comes back to the question of marketing, the market analysis which a publisher would of necessity have to make before he would seek a license in order to use that material. I think it would be unrealistic to expect our Bureau of Standards to engage in a marketing analysis effort. This would take them too far from their important mission. When it comes to the pricing of these publications, it is interesting to note that the American Chemical Society's most important publication, commonly called Chemical Abstracts, used to be available at a very modest price. The current subscription is $1,250 a year. There is a good reason for this, because there is not a very large market for that particular publication in the sense that if you reduced the price, you could increase your market very rapidly.
The purchasers of that information are industrial organizations, institutions of all kinds, specialized purchasers scattered throughout the world. They very much appreciate the value of the information and are quite prepared to pay a price that no individual purchaser for obvious reasons would even think about paying. I think this may well be the case with some of the data when it appears in book form. Speaking personally in connection with our firm, we might seek out certain information which could be obtained under a royalty (copyright) license in print-out form from one of these monster computers that are all around us today. But we would also know that perhaps as few as 2,000 people might buy that information and those 2,000 purchasers could be scattered throughout the globe. At $5 you still would not sell more than a few individual readers copies of this material. But at a price of $100 which might be the required price, all of those who really need it would be perfectly willing and more than happy to pay.
As Mr. Benjamin mentioned, U.S. scientific information in book form, an area with which he and I are familiar, is very much in demand throughout the world. In the case of many books that we publish under our various imprints the first 2 years sale can be 60 to 70 percent export. Our friends abroad are hungrier, it would appear, than some of our domestic friends. I, too, feel that if a sponsor is needed—I know Dr. Seitz is not too happy with this prospect-use of the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering should be made.
To turn to a more general area of scientific and technical communication, and this is to me an incomprehensible problem, much work is being done. You are familiar with the work done by the COSATI committee. I am not certain that you gentlemen may be aware of the fact that the National Academy has, with funds provided by the National Science Foundation, recently established a new Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. I have here a copy of the statement which was made to the public at the time of the establishment of the committee. It deals with many of the problems that we are talking about today, but it also is important to note that the interactions and interrelations of the Federal Government and the private sector are a major concern of this committee. This is a committee which is going to devote a great deal of time over a period of 3 years on a comprehensive study of the problem. I point to this as
merely an example of the complexity of scientific data and information and its proper distribution. I think that is about all I shall say.
(The release follows:)
[News release from National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council]
Two ACADEMIES ESTABLISH COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
WASHINGTON.—The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering have jointly established a Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication, at the request of the National Science Foundation, it was announced today.
The committee will provide a focus for participation by scientists and engineers through their societies in the consideration of plans for a national network of information systems in science and technology, as proposed by the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI) of the Federal Council for Science and Technology.
In its study of the present status and future requirements of the national scientific and engineering communities with respect to the flow and transfer of scientific and technical information, the committee expects to work closely with COSATI, the Office of Science Information Service of the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President, and with the professional groups that perform information services.
Chairman of the committee of 14 leaders in academic and industrial research and technology is Dr. Robert W. Cairns, Director of Research of the Hercules Powder Company, Wilmington, Delaware.
Dr. Cairns, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Development) and Past Chairman of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the National Research Council, is presently a Director of the American Chemical Society.
The Committee of Scientific and Technical Communication will give special attention to information activities and policies of groups and organizations in the private sector, both at home and abroad, and to the interactions and interrelations of the Federal Government and the private sector, especially Federal actions or operations that affect substantial portions of the private sector. Of particular concern will be:
1. Methods for promoting more effective relationships between information systems and the principal producers and users of scientific and technical information.
2. Techniques and systems for improving information transfer.
3. New means of providing greater selectivity and consolidation in information transfer. The committee will make recommendations both to private organizations and to Federal agencies on courses of action required to maintain effective communication within and among fields of science and technology, even as the professional literature in these fields rapidly expands.
The total volume of scientific and technical information, and the demands on existing information systems, have grown at an explosive rate during the postwar period as a consequence of the overall expansion of the nation's research and development activity—to an estimated level of $23 billion during the current year. and Deputy Chief of Naval Research in 1961. Dr. Weyl, 51, was born in Switzerland. He received his B.A. degree in 1935 from Swarthmore College, and his M.A. and Ph. D. from Princeton University, in 1937 and 1939, respectively.
DR. WEYL TO HEAD STAFF
In announcing the formation of the Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication, Dr. Frederick Seitz, President of the National Academy of Sciences, also announced the appointment of Dr. F. Joachim Weyl to the executive staff of the Academy as a Special Assistant to the President, effective April 1.
Dr. Weyl, who has resigned his position as Chief Scientist of the Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, will serve in one of his first assignments as Executive Secretary of the committee.
With the Office of Naval Research since 1947, Dr. Weyl has been head of its mathematics branch, scientific liaison officer in London, director of the mathematical sciences division, and research director, before becoming Chief Scientist
Members of the Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication are: Robert W. Cairns, Chairman; George E. Holbrook, Vice President, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.; J. C. R. Licklider, Consultant to the Director of Research, International Business Machines Corporation; Clarence H. Linder, Vice President and Group Executive (Retired), General Electric Company; H. W. Magoun, Dean, Graduate Division, and Professor of Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles ; Nathan M. Newmark, Head, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois; W. H. Pickering, Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory ; Byron Riegel, Director of Chemical Research, G. D. Searle and Company; William C. Steere, Director, The New York Botanical Garden; John W. Tukey, Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University; Merle A. Tuve, Director, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Paul Weiss, University Professor, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas; W. B. Wiley, President, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; and Van Zandt Williams, Director, American Institute of Physics.
The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering are private organizations which cooperate under a single Congressional Act of Incorporation to advise the Federal Government, upon request, in any field of science or technology.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Waggonner.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I had to go to the telephone during Dr. Seitz' statement. Perhaps this is even a better time to raise the question since we have gone into the percentage of these publications that might be sold overseas as related to the volume that might be utilized here at home. Dr. Seitz made the statement that the United States must continue to be active in the area of international cooperation and must bear its share of the cost for the International Committee and its supporting staff. You are in the publishing business. What in your opinion would be the U.S. fair share of cost in this?
Mr. Wiley. That is an area where I am not competent to comment. I think as far as the printed published results in the private sector you can rest assured we charge our export customers just as much as we charge our domestic customers. We do not feel that we can make any distinction. When it comes to the question you raise, sir, I do not feel competent to comment.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I would comment in this way, that when it comes to the published result of our scientific and technical data—particu
the R. & D. effort of the country-I think the foreign customer, indeed the foreign institutions, most of the money for the import into foreign countries of this kind of material comes from Government funds ought to pay at least the cost of reproducing and disseminating this material.
When I say "reproducing,” I mean the printing, binding, selling costs, et cetera. This would vary from one kind of information to another. In this area the cost of compilation and evaluation would run proportionately higher than would the cost of printing, binding, and distributing. I would say that certainly on this kind of thing the United States should recover 50 to 60 percent of any expense of preparing the material from foreign customers.
Mr. WAGGONNER. That just coincides with the figure of possible sales overseas, too, that you expressed.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Yes, it does.