« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
committee carefully scrutinize any proposals that it may receive relative to the imposition of further limitations upon the rights and abilities of copyrights proprietors to disseminate information." Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT W. CAIRNS.
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,
Washington, D.O., August 9, 1973. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copy
rights, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As you have expressed a desire to have the views of societies, such as the American Chemical Society, on the proposed general education exemption from copyright, as presented by the ad hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision in the testimony of its representative, Harold E. Wigren, before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights on July 31, 1973, I offer, for the record, some views on behalf of the American Chemical Society. These views are in keeping with and related to the basic principles from which we presented our testimony on July 31, 1973 on the matter of library photocopying.
As I testified, as Executive Director of the American Chemical Society, on library photocopying, I shall not repeat information on the background, magni. tude and standing of the American Chemical Society, except to say that the Society produced more than 41,000 pages of scholarly journals and related publications in 1972 and in its CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS it abstracts and/or indexes documents in excess of 410,000 per year. Te budget for the Society for the year 1973 exceeds $36,000,000 of which more than $29,000,000 is devoted to its publications program.
Most of this program is devoted to the refined and accurate record of new contributions to that body of knowledge which we call science. The record of the past 300 years has taught the scientific world the inestimable value of maintaining such a record in an organized fashion. It is from this record that scientists in the universities, as well as in laboratories elsewhere, draw the facts, data, and hypotheses, prepared by their predecessors and contemporaries, which they organize into the base for their pursuit of further advancement of knowledge. It is from this record that the writers of textbooks that present to the student an up-to-date pattern of our state of knowledge draw the documented information from which they build the tools for teaching the rising generation. It is from this record that the teachers develop their own personal storage of knowledge which serves as the basis for their teaching. It is this record that makes it possible for us to know what is known about the working of the physical world. Without it we would need constantly to relearn what others have learned before us—the antithesis of education.
That record has been built and continues to be built with the usually unpaid contributed efforts of the scientists who realize its vital importance and are willing to give their time and energies to protect it and to build it further. Scientific societies, such as the American Chemical Society, perform primarily for the purpose of collecting, critically evaluating, and organizing this new knowledge, then putting it into print in the scholarly journal. That process of publication is possibly increasingly costly. It has been and should continue to be paid for predominantely by the subscribers to these scholarly journals. The scientific and educational publishing societies, operating as not-for-profit insti. tutions, maintain the subscription prices as levels designed to make it possible for the individual scientists, as well as libraries, to subscribe to these journals so as to make the information readily available. In this method of operation the publishing societies operate very close to the break-even point and from time to time have deficits for a year's operation. Such has occurred within the American Chemical Society in recent years. The proposed limitation or exemption for educational use declares that "non-profit use of a portion of a copyrighted work for non-commercial teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
This statement emphasizes the non-profit and non-commercial as though the matter of profit is the only concern. Such is not the case, as a great many of the scholarly journals are produced and published by not-for-profit organizations, often at a loss. They depend on payment by the user, the subscriber, to help them support the basic costs that make possible the publication of these scholarly works used extensively and fundamentally in the educational institution and its processes. If unrestricted or uncontrolled copying without payment is allowed, the inevitable result will be a continuing loss of paid subscriptions to the point of destruction of the system of producing and publishing scholarly journals. The secondary result will be a loss of organized source material to the educational system. What is now proposed to be copied without charge will no longer be available for copying. In closing, I repeat our basic position:
It is desirable that use be made of modern technology in developing optimum dissemination. This technology includes the use of modern reprography, but as technology inherently includes economics, the means of financial support 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 loophole, or any other exemptions from the copyright control for either profit or non-profit use, will ultimately destroy the viability of scientific and technical publications or other elements of information dissemination systems. Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT W. CAIRNS.
AMERICAN GUILD OF AUTHORS & COMPOSERS,
New York, N.Y., August 1, 1973. Hon. John L. McCLELLAN, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I am the President of the American Guild of Authors and Composers (AGAC).
Together with other members of the music industry, we have sought to have enacted a revision of the existing copyright act which would expand the benefits of copyright protection to our three thousand members. It is for this reason that we wish to record our opposition to Section 112(c) of S. 1361 and to associate ourselves with the remarks of Mr. Albert F. Ciancimino. Representing authors and composers of literally every type of musical work, we find no justification for the proposed amendment. At the very least, it would reduce the already nominal income received by those of our members who write "religious" music (assuming such term is capable of meaningful definition).
In this connection, I should like to bring to the Committee's attention the fact that I am one of the composers of "I Believe”—a most valuable copyrightwhich has been performed in many houses of religious worship and which clearly was not written as a religious work, i.e. one intended to be performed primarily in a house of worship. (Over the years some other published “religious" musical works of mine have included “One God”, “My Friend", "I'm Grateful", "The Gentle Carpenter of Bethlehem”, “Our Lady of Guadalupe”, “Your Prayers are Always Answered”, “You go to Your Church and I'll go to Mine", and others.)
I am sed to have been given this opportunity express the views of our Guild. Very truly yours,
ERVIN DRAKE, President.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS,
New York, N.Y., August 7, 1973. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Committee on
the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Pursuant to the gracious invitation extended by the Subcommittee for interested organizations to submit statements in connection with the Subcommittee's consideration of S. 1361, the Copyright Revision Bill, we are pleased to add our views to those of the American Chemical Society and of others who have testified before your Committee to urge that, in the new legislation, it is made clear that those who hold copyrights on scientific and educational publications can require those who photocopy them to contribute to the cost of publication, lest the flow of scientific information be cut off at its source.
The American Institute of Physics Incorporated is a non-profit charitable and educational organization. The Institute's charter purposes are “the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare."
It has eight Member Societies, which are likewise non-profit charitable and educational organizations interested in the promotion of physics and related sciences :
The American Physical Society, Optical Society of America, Acoustical Society of America, Society of Rheology, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Crystallographic Association, American Astronomical Society, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Persons who belong to its Member Societies also enjoy membership in the Institute of Physics. The individual membership consists of approximately 50,000 persons.
The Institute is engaged primarily in the publication of scientific journals devoted to physics and related sciences and in providing a growing number of secondary information services, principally based on the material in its journals.
Its journals include:
The Physical Review, published on behalf of The American Physical Societycirculation 33,057.
Physical Review Letters, published by The American Physical Society-circulation 10,341.
Reviews of Modern Physics, published on behalf of The American Physical Society-circulation 10,556.
Bulletin of the American Physical Society, published on behalf of The American Physical Society-circulation 29,102,
Physical Review Abstracts, published by The American Physical Societycirculation 27,721.
Journal of the Optical Society of America, published on behalf of The Optical Society of America-circulation 9,310.
Applied Optics, published by The Optical Society of America-circulation 9,278.
Optics and Spectroscopy, published on behalf of The Optical Society of Amer. ica- circulation 1,865.
Soviet Journal of Optical Technology, published on behalf of The Optical Society of America-circulation 615.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, published on behalf of the Acoustical Society of America-circulation 7,728.
Program of the Acoustical Society of America, published on behalf of the Acoustical Society of America-circulation 4,672.
American Journal of Physics, published on behalf of the American Association of Physics Teachers—circulation 13,614.
The Physics Teacher, published on behalf of the American Association of Physics Teachers-circulation 10,082.
The Astronomical Journal, published on behalf of the American Astronomical Society-circulation 2,297.
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, published on behalf of the American Astronomical Society- circulation 1,599.
The Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology, published on behalf of the American Vacuum Society-circulation 3,912.
AAPM Quarterly Bulletin, published on behalf of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine circulation 814.
Applied Physics Letters, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 1,2 9.
Journal of Applied Physics, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 7,408.
Journal of Chemical Physics, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 5,945.
Journal of Mathematical Physics, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 2,919.
The Physics of Fluids, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 3,597.
The Review of Scientific Instruments, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 8,118.
Physics Today, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 61,725.
Soviet Astronomy-AJ, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 635.
Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics, published by the American Institute of Physics—circulation 715.
Soviet Physics-Acoustics, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 789.
Soviet Physics-Crystallography, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 794.
Soviet Physics-Doklady, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 1,000.
Soviet Physics—JETP, published by the American Institute of Physics—circulation 1,480.
JETP Letters, published by the American Institute of Physics circulation 1.198.
Soviet Physics-Semiconductors, published by the American Institute of Physics—circulation 668.
Soviet Physics-Solid State, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 1,195.
Soviet Physics-Technical Physics, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 930.
Soviet Physics-USPEKHI, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 1,088.
In addition, it produces and markets the following secondary services:
(a) Solid State;
(c) Atoms and Waves. Current Physics Titles :
(a) Solid State;
(c) Atoms and Waves. Searchable Physics Information Notices, a computer readable magnetic tape called SPIN.
The individual Institute members are the authors of most of the papers published in its learned journals, having performed the research in the science of physics and related sciences which are therein reported. The journals of the Member Societies and those sponsored directly by the Institute are the primary and archival methods of recording and dispersing this information, supported and assisted by the secondary services above mentioned made necessary and possible by modern technical invention.
The 50,000 individual Institute members are, of course, the principal individual readers of its journals and the principal ultimate users of its secondary services in their pursuit of advances in the science. The Institute of Physics by reason of the nature of its membership, the publishing functions it performs and its dedication to serve the public interest alone, may well have a broader viewpoint on the question of library photocopying of copyrighted material than the persons or organizations whose interests are more limited.
We have had the benefit of reading the July 31, 1973 statement prepared for your Committee by Dr. Robert W. Cairns as Executive Director of the American Chemical Society. We believe that it fairly presents the position of the American Institute of Physics Incorporated in this Important matter. We urge that Dr. Cairns' statement receive your most careful consideration in framing the Copyright Revision Bill. Respectfully yours,
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS INCORPORATED,
STATEMENT TO SUPPLEMENT TESTIMONY ON S. 1361 SUBMITTED BY EDMON LOW ON
BEHALF OF AMERICAN LIBARAY ASSOCIATION
Some testimony presented at the above Hearing urged that some royalty payment for photocopying be instituted and stated that a mechanism is now available to easily permit such an arrangement. The following points are submitted for consideration in this connection:
(1) Such an arrangement completely destroys the fair use concept which is the right to copy in limited amounts for stated purposes without permission.
(2) If payment is required for all photocopying, the scholar or library then must secure license for such from each copyright proprietor which then would require that the Copyright Act provide for mandatory licensing.
(3) Even with mandatory licensing, there is no assurance that works will not be suppressed by establishment of royalty rates which are prohibitive. Therefore, the Copyright Act must establish a fixed royalty rate applicable to all copying.
(4) The mechanism envisioned apparently involves sense marks on copyrighted works which could be recognized and recorded by a Xerox machine, properly equipped, as to copyright proprietor, journal or monograph, and royalty rate and amount. This raises the following questions :
(a) What would be done about the vast amount of material now protected by copyright but without sense marks?
(b) What Xerox machines would be required to be fitted with sensing equipment? Only those in the library? Or all those in a school or college? Or all machines everywhere?
(c) How would royalty rates be charged and who would regulate charges? Such regulations would be necessary since copyright is a monopoly.
(d) Would different rates be permitted for different works?
(e) Would royalties be payable in a lump sum to some agency, or would they have to be segregated by copyright proprietor, journal, article, or monograph?
(f) How often would payment be made? Of the above points, the first is by far the most fundamental, and important.
Abandoning fair use is a sacrifice which the public should not be required to make. The other points indicate that, even if this concession were made, there is no practical way at present for libraries to implement such a concept. This is the chief reason why no compromise has been possible-copyright proprietors want fair use eliminated, libraries are unwilling to give up the concept, and no workable procedure has been proposed in its stead.
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, Ill., August 7, 1973. Hon. John H. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Committee
on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: S. 1361, now before your Committee, in proposing a general revision of the copyright laws imposes in section 108 a special restriction that libraries shall not photocopy any published book unless there is assurance that copies are not available from commercial sources. Such a provision, we believe, would seriously hamper the dissemination of scientific information through reference libraries, and would be particularly unfortunate for members of the scientific community and physicians in their concern for health care delivery.
The AMA joins with national library groups and professional societies in opposition to the restriction proposed in section 108. We urge legislative action which will acknowledge the right of the scientific and scholarly community to gain access to the educational resources of this country, and assure that libraries may disseminate single photocopies of scientific publications.
Our area of concern is the right to reproduce single copies from scientific publications. The overriding need to preserve this right is expressed in a June, 1972, editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), entitled “Photocopying and Communication in the Health Sciences." A copy of the editorial is enclosed. We respectfully submit it for your examination, and request that this letter and the editorial be incorporated in the record of the hearings on S. 1361. Sincerely,
ERNEST B. HOWARD, M.D.
[Journal of the American Medical Association, June 5, 1972]
PHOTOCOPYING AND COMMUNICATION IN THE HEALTH SCIENCES
A long-standing objective of libraries is to make intellectual resources avail.
to the scientific and scholarly communities. In recent years this objective