Committee Prints

single copies would impair the value of an essential and traditional research technique. So far as I am aware the making of private research copies has never caused actual damage to copyright owners.

The problem exists only because modern copying processes have brought into being a new "potential" means of damaging copyright owners. Research workers are not responsible for this, and I believe the, as I understand it, unchallenged right to make a private copy must be preserved. In any case, no serious consideration should be given to restricting research techniques in the absence of a clear showing that they are in fact causing actual damage to copyright owners.

A chief job of libraries and librarians is to facilitate research. In making modern copying processes available the libraries must be sure that they do not indirectly cause the sources of research material to dry up or the established rights of research workers to be restricted. Neither of these results could occur if the use of modern copying processes by libraries does not cause actual damage to copyright owners. The joint committee has decided to find out whether libraries are causing any such damage or seem likely to do so under present practices.

The libraries are also aware that modern processes might be used by the unscrupulous or unthinking in such a way as to damage authors and publishers. It is my belief-and the belief of the joint committee-that librarians must play a leading role in devising ways to prevent that potential damage from becoming a reality. We recognize not only that damage to authors and publishers is detrimental to libraries, but also that certain suggested methods of preventing that damage would be even more detrimental by impairing the use of the very techniques we wish to facilitate.

Mr. Varmer's study is a valuable addition to our knowledge of the problem. His paper does not indicate that present circumstances warrant either restrictions on research techniques or cumbersome regulatory arrangements-whether voluntary or involuntary. But it does indicate that statutory solutions suggested in the past and attempted elsewhere have not been satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

EDWARD G. FREEHAFER,

Chairman, Joint Libraries Committee on Fair Use in Photocopying.

By William P. Fidler

OCTOBER 30, 1959.

As copies of the various studies on the general revision of the copyright law have been received, I have sought the advice of competent scholars concerning the relationship of the academic profession to the issues raised by these studies. At this time I am presenting some of the points of view expressed by professors who are competent to judge the technicalities of copyrights, and I hope to forward other views at a later date.

It seems to me and my advisers that definite permission to make single copies of library material for scholarly use should be enacted. The spread of photocopying is an important aid to research, and we do not think that the claims of copyright owners should be permitted to stand in the way of its full utilization. Misuse of copies so made could, we should think, be largely prevented if the copier were required to include the copyright notice on it, together with a statement that the copy was made for the research of a particular person only.