« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
So you have to go through the same rigmarole under your own amendment.
Mrs. FELTER. We would in the case of obtaining a book or an entire work. However, section (1) would alleviate our problem with respect to the periodical literature, and this is of great concern to us, because at least two-thirds, more likely three-quarters, of the use of medical literature by physicians and researchers is not in book form but in journal form, for the reason that it must be up to date.
Senator BURDICK. But your amendment goes beyond the one book. It says "entitled to supply a copy or phonorecord of an entire work or of more than a relatively small part of it.” So you have got parts and totals there, and you have to go through the same investigation, make a reasonable investigation.
I want to be helpful, but I can see the same shortcomings in your amendment as there is in the legislation you complain about, or you find short.
Mrs. FELTER. Well, as far as the medical library is concerned, if item 2 were omitted, I think that that would concern us less. It is item (1) that we are particularly concerned about, because that applies, as it says, to one article from a periodical issue. That is a relatively small part, rather than more than a relatively small part, since every issue contains a number of articles.
Senator BURDICK. Well, you see what I am talking about, that you have got some of the same shortcomings in both, and you do not really correct it.
Mrs. FELTER. Well, we feel that subitem (1) would correct the clause. Senator BURDICK. But not 2 ?
Mrs. FELTER. But not—2 is not as significant, because we do not use the book materials as much, and we certainly would not copy an entire work if we could avoid it, because I think Dr. McCarthy pointed out it is a very expensive way to provide the literature.
Senator BURDICK. That leaves us with another problem. A relatively small part of it might be a collection or periodical issues.
Mrs. FELTER. Well, it is a question of what is considered as a relatively small part. People try to define a couple or a few. Probably there are as many definitions as there are people. Senator BURDICK. Thank you. Senator McCLELLAN. Senator Fong.
Senator Fong. Under your amendment, you will require the person who comes for that article to ascertain whether there is any magazine existing on the stands ?
Mrs. FELTER. As the bill is presently written, it would be necessary for us to do that, or perhaps to do it for him.
Senator Fong. Do you want that?
Mrs. FELTER. No; we did not want that, because determining whether there is available an unused copy of the journal in which is printed the article that is requested, might be a very time-consuming chore. And in the health sciences, time is frequently of the essence.
Senator Fong. So you feel that it is an unreasonable burden on you?
Mrs. FELTER. I think it is an unreasonable burden on us. I think it certainly is an unreasonable burden on the user, who is generally a practicing physician.
Senator Fong. And you would like the authority to issue him a Xerox copy without ascertaining whether there are any —
Mrs. FELTER. That is correct. A single copy of the article from the scientific and periodical literature.
Senator Fong. You do not want to have the burden of proof on you to show that there is no copy existing?
Mrs. FELTER. Well, certainly not. You know, no one likes to have the burden of accepting the word of someone without some evidence.
Senator Fong. Thank you.
Dr. Cairns, could you identify yourself and your associates for the record ?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. CAIRNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMER
ICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD L. KENYON, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND COMMUNICATION DIVISION; BEN H. WEIL, CHAIRMAN, ACS COMMITTEE ON COPY. RIGHTS; STEPHEN T. QUIGLEY, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS; AND ARTHUR B. HANSON, GENERAL COUNSEL
Dr. Cairns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of testifying today.
I wish first to introduce my compatriots and colleagues here. Mr. Ben H. Weil, who is chairman of the American Chemical Society Committee on Copyrights. Sitting next to him is Arthur B. Hanson, our ACS general counsel, with whom you and your staff, I believe, are acquainted; Dr. Richard Kenyon, on my right, who is director of our division of public affairs and communication. Sitting next to him is Dr. Stephen T. Quigley, director of the department of public affairs.
I brought these gentlemen along to answer questions, if they are needed, and to display to you our serious concern with this legislation.
I wish to read one paragraph from the written testimony and ask for its complete introduction into your record.
Senator McCLELLAN. Your prepared statement you want to read from it. sir?
Dr. Cairns. I just wish to read one paragraph.
Dr. Cairns. I am testifying here on behalf of the American Chemical Society by authority of its board of directors. This is the largest scientific and educational society in America and I believe in the world110,000 members, approximately:
We have a very large publishing activity which aggregates close to $30 million a year and hence we are very familiar with the economics of journal publication and the dissemination of scientific and technical information, which is a very vital link in the whole process of the development of science and technology in the world.
Now, I shall read from the central paragraph on page 11 of my statement. It is desirable that use be made of modern technology in develoning optimum dissemination." We are certainly strongly in favor of the most modern methods and are developing the most modern methods of dissemination.
“This new technology includes the use of modern reprography, but as technology inherently includes economics the means of financial sup
port of the system must be a part of its design. Therefore, photocopying should not be allowed under any circumstances unless an adequate means of control and payment is simultaneously developed to compensate publishers for their basic editorial and composition costs. Otherwise, 'fair use' or library-photocopying loopholes, or any other exemptions from the copyright control for either profit or nonprofit use, will ultimately destroy the viability of scientific and technical publications or other elements of information dissemination systems."
Now, I emphasize that I am speaking with regard to scientific and technical publications. In the chemical field, for example, there are a total of 400,000 manuscripts per year which are authored and printed ultimately, after due editing, in journals. There are approximately 10,000 journals which impinge on the chemical field. That means that, in the full field of science, there are perhaps five times as many journal articles and publishing societies. It is a very large group, and it is very vital in the dissemination field.
We have under our general guidance and responsibility the Chemical Abstracts service, which publishes 40,000 pages of abstracts and indices each year and issues this to all of the libraries, to all the scientists and engineers. This forms a vital link in dissemination.
We publish, in addition, separate journals that are issued approximately biweekly, which are 20 in number, and which aggregate about 40,000 pages a year, and which go to 330,000 subscribers.
Only 4 percent of the world's literature is published in this form by the ACS. However, we feel that this is of outstanding quality and represents the work of Nobel prize winners and other top scientists and engineers throughout the world. This is a vital link in the progress of science and technology.
Each worker writes reports and submits them to the journals. The editorial boards careiully screen and select them, edit them, and bring them into the line of quality of the journals they represent. The American Chemical Society assures the quality through peer analysis of the material submitted to the journals. All of science and technology rests on this communication link. It is essential to both research and education.
The first copy of each journal, counting all 20, costs the society $4 million a year. That is the first copy only. The overrun, or additional printing costs, amount to about $1 million a year. Somehow, we must recover both types of costs. Obviously, the collection, editing, formating, and composition of the journals has to be paid for by someone.
Today, it is paid for largely by subscribers. Even if libraries are to take over with their Xerox machines the entire publishing, it will be necessarv for someone to compensate the publishers for the collection and editing and comnosition of the material which they copy. Otherwise, there will be nothing to copy.
The cost figures—if they are stated in terms of per page and per copy-are in pennies; somewhere in the realm of 1 cent to 10 cents a page is what it costs to create the editorial content. But, of course, if you have 10,000 pages and 10,000 copies, you come up to 100 million cents, or $1 million. So it is quite obrious that pennies per pare can add up to very substantial amounts of money. And this is why I am talking to you now as I am.
The first cony cost must be collerted if journals are to exist. Journals are essential because of the quality angle and the admission to the world's literature through peer review and analysis and editing. It is essential; otherwise, we would have an unsorted pile of millions of manuscripts a year, and who is going to do anything to them, in terms of intellectual analysis, if the publishing societies do not perform and cannot perform their tasks under the law and protect the results, which are the content of the copies of the journals which they submit?
Next month I am going to Russia. I am going to talk about copyrights. Last May, the Russians decided to join in the Geneva Copyright Convention, as you know. They came to the publishing societies of the United States and Canada and other places, to my knowledge, proposing that they enter into copyright licensing agreements for our publications. They have been admitting that they have copied for many years-multiple copies, not single copies—multiple copies are simply multiple copies of single copies.
They have been publishing and republishing our material in Chemical Abstracts, and now they come to us and ask for licensing considerations. And we are ready to answer them.
The strange thing is that in our own country, we have not been approached by anyone about copyrights, in spite of the tremendous amount of copying that is taking place. Now, it is rather strange if I go to Russia to negotiate something that we cannot even deal with here.
I think we can deal here. I think we can negotiate properly if the law protects our property correctly.
I think, then, in closing, all I would like to say is that we are in favor of this dissemination of information. We spend millions of dollars a year on it. The libraries are some of our best customers. But I think if they are going to copy and join in the supplementary publishing scheme that they should help to pay for the initial costs of collecting journals and the content that they represent.
Thank you for your time.
Senator McCLELLAN. Now, what journals do you have there that you are using as an illustration ?
Dr. Cairns. The Journal of the American Chemical Society which is a broad coverage journal of all of the elements of subdisciplines of chemistry.
I have in addition, Chemistry, which deals with that particular branch.
Senator McCLELLAN. Let's just take one of them for an illustration; the first one.
Dr. Cairns. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is the major journal.
Senator McCLELLAN. How often is that published?
Are the subscriptions adequate to pay for the cost of publication and distribution?
Dr. CAIRNS. At present, there is a close balance on the economics of journal publication. We derive about half of our costs directly from subscribers.
I would guess in the case of the Journal of the American Chemical Society--because it is highly academic and has no advertising, that it would be about two-thirds.
Senator McCLELLAN. What I am trying to get at-how is it financed now?
Have you been able to finance it?
Dr. Cairns. We finance by subscription, by page charges. In some of the technology publications, we have advertising. And we just balance the budget. It is very difficult.
Senator McCLELLAN. Now, talking about balancing the budget, assuming an article that you publish in there it constitutes a page. It occupies one page in your journal. How do you arrive at, and what would you undertake to say would be a fair charge of a copyright fee for the copying of one page that a library might want to copy and give to a patron?
Dr. CAIRNS. A single page would be pennies per page, somewhere
How do you arrive at it? How would a librarian know how much to collect?
Dr. Cairns. I think we should have something approaching a uniform charge or a uniform set of charges for various journals. Each journal in science and technology carries a distinguishing mark, a coden, which is a six-letter term, which characterizes that journal. It would be easy enough to group these journals under their codens at a specific price of a certain number of cents per page. Somewhere between 1 cent and 10 cents, I assume, would probably generate enough money to take care of their share of the composition costs of the material being copied.
Senator MCCLELLAN. All right.
We have another book in the library, a book of poems, that has been copyrighted. Somebody wants to copy that poem.
Ilow would you arrive at what would be a fair compensation or copyright fee for that?
It is five verses, but it is on one page of a small book.
Would you make any differentiation between that poem and a scientific article?
Dr. Cairns. I have to confine my testimony to scientific and technical communication.
Senator McClelin. All right. I will point out, though, to you the problems that we have. We are trying to legislate on every particular kind of journal and every particular kind of publication and information that may be copyrighted.
Dr. Cairns. I do not envy you that problem, but I do not think I want to try to answer for you.
Senator McCLELLAN. We need some help, do you not see?
Dr. Cairns. We will help you on scientific and technological publi. cations, because that is something that we know.
Senator McCLELLAN. Thank you very much.
Senator BURDICK. Just a minute. I want to get your position this morning as clearly as I can. I do it by example.