Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

There is an overriding need to be met in the revision of the copyright law: the need to maintain openness in our society and to insure reasonable access to information and ideas for all of our citizens. This is of primary concern in our democracy.

The teacher gives visibility to the author's works and creates markets for them. One may ask: What good is an author's work if no one is interested in reading what he has written? In a sense, we promote the works of authors in the classroom. Teachers have the responsibility of stimulating interest on the part of learners. This means using a wide variety of materials and resources for teaching and learning. In the world of information in the 1970's, this imposes on the teacher a new responsibility to make rapid decisions regarding the use of materials—decisions which often turn out to be regarded as infringements or near infringements of the present archaic copyright law.

Teaching is no longer confined to the use of a single textbook. Creative teachers need bits and pieces of all sorts of written, pictorial, and graphic materials geared to the teachable moment when students are best ready to learn. Requiring a teacher to purchase a large book in order to use a small portion would simply mean that the teacher would neither buy the book nor use the materials. Teachers today must work in a world where the very atmosphere is loaded with information which students must learn to shift and evaluate.

What then are education's needs in any new copyright legislation passed by this Congress?

Immediate access to reasonable portions of printed and nonprinted materials for instructional purposes without payment of royalties. This reasonable access should be extended to the use of instructional television, computers, automated systems, and other developments in educational technology.

Certainty that the present law's "not-for-profit” principle be converted into a limited educational exemption for nonprofit uses of copyrighted materials.

Protection for teachers who innocently infringe the law in the performance of their duties as teachers.

Retention of the same copyright duration period as in present law: that is, 28 years plus a 28-year renewal period.

The teacher's needs encompass the new teaching-learning processes that are being stimulated by the enormous amount of new information and the attendant opportunities afforded by the new educational technology.

New teaching techniques--including the use of computers, closed circuit television, videotapes, recordings, and microfilm, among other forms of communications technology-have been developed to keep pace with the demands of the fast changing information explosion faced by our schools. They make possible more learning in less time. Flexible scheduling at the secondary level has been made possible by computers and has opened a wide choice for learners within the school day. Computerized scheduling can free students from rigid teaching patterns and enable them to be liberated for a portion of the day for individualized work, library activities, open laboratory work on a problem or project, or for individual conferences with teachers.

Schools without walls have opened the parameters of the learner to include attending political conventions, court hearings, sports events, and witnessing moon launches. Tools such as cassettes, videotapes, and cameras can be used to capture these events for sharing with other learners. All of this is to say that the world has changed considerably since 1909 and that this change can be seen in the schools as well as in every other sector of our society. The new copyright law must not freeze education at the 1930 level or even at the 1973 level.

It is important to cite a few teaching practices to illustrate the restrictiveness of S. 1361 :

A teacher videotapes a relevant television program off the air for use on the following day with his or her social studies classes in the auditorium or in the classroom.

A teacher reproduces 30 copies of one page out of a copyrighted book.

A teacher puts a chapter from a copyrighted book into a computer in order to make an analysis of the grammatical structure.

A class is having difficulty understanding symbolism in literature, and the class text does not go far enough in its explanation. The teacher therefore makes multiple copies of a poem or a short essayfrom another book—that would help the class understand the concept.

NEA strongly urges this committee and this Congress to adopt a revised copyright law that will explicitly provide limited exemptions for teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, and extend "fair use" provisions to new educational technology such as instructional television, computers, and automated systems.

Finally, therefore, we need a new law that will support, rather than thwart, good teaching practices in the 1970's.

Thank you.
Senator McCLELLAN. Thank you.
[The statement of Alfred Carr in full follows:]

STATEMENT OF ALFRED CARR, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT, NATIONAL EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Alfred Carr, Legislative Consultant in the Office of Government Relations of the National Education Association. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you this morning on behalf of the National Education Association of the United States.

Teachers are both authors and consumers of educational materials, many of which are protected by copyright laws. NEA, representing some 1.4 million teachers and other educators, wants a law which will be equitable to both authors and consumers. We wish to see proper protection of the interests of those persons whose creative abilities produce fine instructional materials. At the same time, we wish to insure that teachers and learners are protected in their creative use of materials in the classroom. There is an over-riding need to be met in the revision of the copyright law: the need to maintain openness in our society and to insure reasonable access to information and ideas for all of our citizens. This is of primary concern in our democracy.

The teacher gives visibility to the author's works and creates markets for them. One can ask: What good is an author's work if no one is interested in reading what he has written? In a sense, we promote the works of authors in the classroom. Teachers have the responsibility of stimulating interest on the part of learners. This means using a wide variety of materials and resources for teaching and learning. In the world of information in the 1970s, this imposes on the teacher a new responsibility to make rapid decisions rega rding the use of materials—decisions which often turn out to be regarded as infringements or near-infringements of the present archaic copyright law.

Teaching is no longer confined to the use of a single textbook. Creative teachers need bits and pieces of all sorts of written, pictorial, and graphic materials geared to "the teachable moment" when students are best ready to learn. Requiring a teacher to purchase a large book in order to use a small portion would simply mean that the teacher would neither buy the book nor use the materials. Teachers today must work in a world where the very atmosphere is loaded with information which students must learn to sift and evaluate.

What then are education's needs in any new copyright legislation passed by this Congress?

Immediate access to reasonable portions of printed and non-printed materials for instructional purposes without payment of royalties. This reasonable access should be extended to the use of instructional television, computers, automated systems, and other developments in educational technology.

Certainly that the present law's “not-for-profit" principle be converted into a limited educational exemption for non-profit uses of copyrighted materials.

Protection for teachers who innocently infringe the law in the performance of their duties as teachers.

Retention of the same copyright duration period as in present law; i.e., 28 years plus a 28-year renewal period.

The teacher's needs encompass the new teaching-learning processes that are being stimulated by the enormous amount of new information and the attendant opportunities afforded by the new educational technology.

New teaching techniques—including the use of computers, closed-circuit television, videotapes, recordings and microfilm, among other forms of communications technology-have been developed to keep pace with the demands of the fast changing information explosion faced by our schools. They make possible more learning in less time. Flexible scheduling at the secondary level has been made possible by computers and has opened a wide choice for learners within the school day. ('omputerized scheduling can free students from rigid teaching patterns and enable them to be liberated for a portion of the day for individualized work, library activities, open laboratory work on a problem or project, or for individual conferences with teachers.

Schools without walls have opened the parameters of the learner to include attending political conventions, court hearings, sports events, and witnessing moon launches. Tools such as cassettes, videotapes, and cameras can be used to capture these events for sharing with other learners. All of this is to say that the world has changed considerably since 1909 and that this change can be seen in the schools as well as in every other sector of our society. The new copyright law must not freeze education at the 1930 level or even at the 1973 level !

It is important to cite a few teaching practices to illustrate the restrictiveness of S. 1361:

A. teacher videotapes a relevant television program off the air for use on the following day with his or her social studies classes in the auditorium or in the classroom.

A teacher reproduces 30 copies of one page out of a copyrighted book.

A teacher puts a chapter from a copyrighted book into a computer in order to make an analysis of the grammatical structure.

A class is having difficulty understanding symbolism in literature, and the class text does not go far enough in its explanation. The teacher therefore makes multiple copies of a poem or a short essay (from another book) that would help the class understand the concept.

All of these practices, according to counsel for some publishers, would constitute infringements under the present law. Likewise, they would be considered infringements under the proposed bill, S. 1361, which is not significantly different from the present law. This again illustrates that the 1909 law is out of joint with present practices in the schools of the '70s.

In our judgment, the proposed copyright law would drastically curtail the use by teachers of various materials for instruction. NEA strongly urges this Committee and this Congress to adopt a revised copyright law that will explicitly provide limited exemptions for teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, and extend "fair use" provisions to new educational technology such as instructional television, computers, and automated systems.

Finally, therefore, we need a new law that will support, rather than thwart. good teaching practices in the 1970s.

Thank you.
Senator MCCLELLAN. Who is next?

Mr. Hogan. My name is Robert F. Hogan, and I am the executive secretary of the National Council of Teachers of English.

I will depart considerably from my written statement, which was submitted, and I would be glad if that would go into the record, too.

One of the remarkable effects of 10 years of discussion and debate over the needed provisions in a new copyright law is that it has cast into an adversary relationship persons who are not only friends but interdependent professional colleagues-teachers, writers, and publishers.

Many writers teach. Some of us who teach write and hope to publish. Most of the editorial staff members of educational publishers began as teachers. Some still teach.

The unnaturalness of this adversary relationship is revealed again and again by the recurrence of the same refrain in our private and off-the-record conversations : "But I didn't mean that."

I cite a practice of a brilliant, creative teacher—a practice which would be prohibited by a restrictive copyright law; and my publisher friend says, “But I didn't mean that.”

He, in turn, cites an instance of district-wide wholesale piracy; and I say, "But I didn't mean that."

In my prepared statement I've tried to make clear by example on page 2 what NCTE does mean and on page 3 what it does not mean. If I may depart from my informal remarks, I would direct your attention to the bottom of page 2 of my prepared statement: The question of the moment is not whether or not Mr. Housman or his estate will forfeit income. Rather, the question is whether or not as a teacher I am free to use Mr. Housman's poem in this way; or whether, encumbered by a restrictive law, I must plod ahead with whatever I had planned for that day-for example, the third part of the rhyme of The Ancient Mariner-before I knew what that day meant for my students.

Briefly, we join the other members of the Ad Hoc Committee in seeking a limited educational exemption within the guidelines set forth by Mr. Wigren. Until the Williams and Wilkins case, we had thought the doctrine of "fair use" could be made to offer sufficient protection for the creative teacher. Mr. Wigren has made clear why we no longer believe that.

I concluded my prepared statement with the following paragraph:

The best teachers at any level are bright, creative individuals who not only know their subject and understand how children learn, but who connect what they teach to the world around their students. They not only serve their own students well, but by their example they inspire less gifted colleagues to teach better than they otherwise might. What the National Council fears most of all in a restrictive copyright law is that penalty and the fear of penalty will stifle creativity and imagination among teachers and reward pedestrian teaching.

To put it another way, we hope for a law that will offer the creative teacher more security than the uncertain feeling that "they won't sue me because, surely, they didn't mean that.”

What we hope is that after the law is finally written and its accompanying report is issued, and the first piece of litigation is instituted and brought to its conclusion, no one-teacher, publisher, author, or legislator—will look at that conclusion and say in a private and offthe-record moment:

“But I didn't mean that."
Thank you.
Senator McCLELLAN. Thank you.
[The statement of Robert F. Hogan in full follows:]

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. HOGAN, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Robert F. Hogan, Executive Secretary of the National Council of Teachers of English. The National Council is the world's largest independent organization for teachers of one subject. Its 115 thousand individual, associate, and institutional members and subscribers are drawn from all levels of education, elementary through graduate school. For them, I express our appreciation for this opportunity to submit written and oral testimony to the subcommittee.

Although a substantial majority of this membership consists of classroom teachers, it also includes authors, editors, and publishers. The Council itself is a publisher of seven periodicals and about fifteen books and monographs each year, all protected by copyright. I stress those two facts, on the chance that someone might construe the remarks that follow as threatening to the interests of authors, publishers, and others who have a genuine stake in reasonable protection through copyright. The Council shares that stake.

What chiefly concerns us is, while ensuring the maintenance of reasonable copyright protection, to recognize fully the needs of more than a million elementary classroom teachers who spend up to half their teaching time and effort on language arts and reading, 175 thousand secondary school teachers of English, and, most of all, the 45 million children they teach.

The Council has supported and participated in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on (opyright Revision for more than a decade. Until last year the Council felt reasonably confident that "fair use," as provided for in House Report No. 83 of the 90th Congress and as amended in the testimony of Mr. Wigren, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, would afford adequate protection for teachers and fair treatment to copyright proprietors. However, the outcome of the Williams & Wilkins case has destroyed that confidence. The recommendations to the U.S. Court of Claims from the Commissioner of that Court could have no other effect. They call into question not only the right of the teacher or a scholar to make by photocopy or machine one copy of a copyrighted work, but even to hand-copy such material. In the light of this restrictive interpretation of "fair use." the National Council joins other members of the Ad Hoc Committee in seeking a limited educational exemption to shore up, in the law, the protection we need.

What kind of privilege is it that we seek? Perhaps some examples would help to make that clear :

(1) In the course of a unit on satire, to make multiple copies of a newspaper column by, say, Art Buchwald or Mike Royko to illustrate contemporary satire;

(2) To select from the students' textbooks a poem they have not been taught and to make multiple copies for use in an examination ;

(3) To make multiple copies of book reviews from a variety of sources New York Review, Ms., Esquire, Time—to show how different reviewers deal with the same book; and

(4) To take into account a sudden issue of widespread interest-for example, the murder of the athletes at the Berlin Olympics—by making for students that following day copies of Housman's poem “To An Athlete Dying

Young."
Let me be just as specific in citing privileges the Council does not seek :

(1) To substitute for commercial anthologies, collections of copyrighted literature manufactured locally ;

(2) To copy consumable materials such as answer sheets for commercially published tests, the tests themselves, or workbooks; and

(3) To store indefinitely and reuse periodically stencils or other "master copies" of materials once duplicated for spontaneous use in a particular

teaching situation. The best teachers at any level are bright creative individuals who not only know their subject and understand how children learn, but who connect what they teach to the world around their students. They not only serve their own students well, but by their example they inspire less gifted colleagues to teach better than they otherwise might. What the National Council fears most of all in a restrictive copyright law is that penalty and the fear of penalty will stifle creativity and imagination among teachers and reward pedestrian teaching,

Senator McCLELLAN. Next?

Mr. SCHOECK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Richard J. Schoeck, director of research activities of the Folger

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »