Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

England, Law Librarian's Society of Washington, D.C., Law Library Association of Greater New York, Minnesota Chapter of AALL, Ohio Regional Association of Law Libraries, Southeastern Chapter AALL, Southern California Association of Law Libraries, Southwestern Chapter of AALL and Western Pacific Chapter of AALL. The Association is also a publisher of established scholarly legal reference works such as the Law Library Journal, The Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, Current Publication in Legal and Related Fields, the AALL Publications Series and cooperates with the H. W. Wilson Company in the publication of the Index to Legal Periodicals. Its members work in Law School Libraries, Bar Association Libraries, County Law Libraries, and in Private Practitioners' Libraries. A significant number of them are authors and are very much concerned about the effect of the new technology on copyright law and scholarly legal research, especially as presently reflected in S. 1361.

Our purpose in submitting this statement is to stress our concern that materials duly acquired either by purchase or gift by law libraries and requested for scholarly legal research be promptly available in useable form and without burdensome administrative details by library users or other libraries on interlibrary loan.

We are very much aware of the plethora of statements and arguments over the various proposed copyright revision bills submitted to this Committee over the years both by owners and consumers of copyrighted publications. It is not our purpose to repeat them here. Rather, we would like to call to your attention some of the pressing problems, especially in the realm of public policy, your Committee must resolve, in arriving at a viable, revised copyright law.

(1) We recognize that commercial publishers have a valid interest in securing and maintaining a market for their copyrighted works. This interest, however, must be balanced with the interest of society in the support and implementation of scholarly legal research.

(2) We believe the nub of the problem lies in the interpretation and application of the Fair Use Doctrine as set forth in sections 107 and 108 of S. 1361, especially in light of the Report of the Commissioner in the Williams and Wilkins v. The U.S. in the U.S. Court of Claims filed February 16, 1972.

(3) In this context we support and approve the statement of the Copyright Committee, Association of American law schools (including American Association of University Professors and the American Council on Education) on S. 1361 submitted to your Committee on July 31, 1973.

(4) In this context, we also submit that there is an urgent need to give librarians an opportunity to spell out in specific detail, as part of the legislative history of sections 107 and 108, factors of library use of library materials not presently illustrated in section 107 nor in any of the studies of the Register of Copyright hitherto filed with Congressional Committees so that librarians could be properly guided in their conduct in such matters. As presently worded, the fear of copyright infringement, because of the lack of specificity of the guidelines established. is precluding and will preclude librarians from legally using copyrighted publications and even those in the public domain, when in actuality, they could be protected by the applicability of the fair use doctrine. Librarians should be given the opportunity to present to this committee, and have considered by this Committee, within the context of fair use, a catalogue of library replication practices that would be tolerated under the proposed revision. For example, should the felt need for on-demand copies be considered as a fair use practice, when the publication to be replicated is out of print or subject to long delays when requested of a publisher.

(5) We believe that publishers and owners of copyrighted publications are failing to assume the responsibilities incumbent upon them in this replication controversy and placing the burden solely on the librarian, who in actually is merely the middleman between the public and the publisher. We strongly urge that this Committee reconsider the role publishers should play in this context and provide that publishers step forward to assume the prime role of controlling the replication of their own materials in libraries. By this we mean that publishers should go into the business of replicating their own materials in libraries, providing the hardware, and collecting the income directly, rather than depending on the librarian to act as their agent, without compensation. (6) In any event, we submit that librarians should not be required to identify and account for photocopying in their libraries on behalf of their library users. To allow this practice will add considerably to the cost of running libraries at a time of diminishing library budgets and accelerating library costs. It must eventually also affect library service detrimentally and at the expense of scholarly research.

(7) In conclusion, we urge immediate enactment of Title II of S. 1361 (creation of a National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works) without waiting for passage of S. 1361 in its totality, so that possible solutions could be determined with reference to copyright as it will be affected by TV, radio, CATV, computers and similar developments relating to replication.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,
Washington, D.C., August 6, 1973.

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I was gratified indeed with the privilege of offering the views of the American Chemical Society on Senate Bill 1361 and the matter of library photocopying, as well as other exemptions, which might allow photocopying of scholarly journals. I thank you and the committee for the respecftul attention given my remarks.

On May 3, 1973, Dr. Alan C. Nixon, President, American Chemical Society, addressed a letter to you expressing ACS views on the above subject. It is my understanding that this letter may not be a part of the record on which current considerations will be based. As certain parts of that letter present material on ACS programs which I believe pertinent to the current deliberations, I offer for the record four paragraphs which I believe are useful in development of a full understanding of the ACS position:

"The Society conducts research experimentation on the use of computers and allied electronic devices for the handling and dissemination of scientific information. Based on our own experience and observations of the work of others doing research in this area, we see that such developments are leading us toward systems where a single original work will be used to disseminate multiple copies as well as a variety of subcollections of information derived from the original work. In effect, we are in the process of enhancing the distribution of an author's works by replacing the printing plate with the capability of electronic processing. We urge that the proposed bill be aware of the impact of such developments on the role of copyright protection and follow a course which will in no way prove confining in terms of future technological progress.

The American Chemical Society is actively engaged in a continuing program of development and study relative to convenient access by users, including photocontroversy and placing the burden solely on the librarian, who in actuality which are compatible with the best interests of both copyright producers and users. We are vigorously pursuing a long-standing program to provide interested persons with copies of materials copyrighted by the Society, quickly and at the lowest possible cost, and to license others to reproduce such materials. We are doing all this because we clearly understand the need of chemists for quick and ready access to our published chemical information, and we also desire to adapt to their service the advantage of new communications technology.

Despite these efforts, it is an accepted fact that unauthorized photocopying of complete articles and other copyrighted materials is as widely practiced among scientists as in other lines of endeavor. Although we have no figures to indicate precisely the volume of such copying, in terms of subscription losses, it does appear that the amount of photocopying of chemical publications is considerably higher than in other fields of science. In a study of the copying of technical journals from the New York Public Library, five American Chemical Society journals appeared on the list of 22 most copied journals, and ranked 2, 3, 5, 12, and 13, respectively. Bonn, George S., "Science Technology Periodicals," Library Journal, 88 (5), 954-8, March 1, 1963. Later studies have shown similar results. The American Chemical Society will continue to explore these problems in an effort to find solutions on a private level. In addition, we continue willing to participate with others in studies concerning this general problem. We are demonstrating this actively (1) we were a convenor in 1970 of the first Parliament on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, and are continuing our support of ongoing efforts; (2) we initiated and are participating in a multisponsored 1972-73 study of the impact of pending copyright-revision legislation on scientific communications; and (3) in 1972 and 1973, we have been participating with associations of private and nonprofit publishers and library associations in efforts to arrive at suggestions for legislative accommodation in the area of photocopying of scientific and technical periodicals. While these and other efforts are beng made by private and public interests, we urge that this Sub

20-344-73- 36

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.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,
Washington, D.C., August 9, 1973.

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, 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, magnitude 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 institutions, 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,

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

ROBERT W. CAIRNS.

AMERICAN GUILD OF AUTHORS & COMPOSERS,
New York, N.Y., August 1, 1973.

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 pleased to have been given this opportunity to express the views of our Guild.

Very truly yours,

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

ERVIN DRAKE, President.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS,
New York, N.Y., August 7, 1973.

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 America-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 4,2 9.

Journal of Applied Physics, published by the American Institute of Physicscirculation 7.408.

Journal of Chemical Physics, published by the American Institute of Physics-circulation 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.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »