Most teachers and most citizens want to obey the law, but they must know what the law is and understand how it applies to them.

In its present lack of definition about what fair use is, video copying is mischievous and serves no good purpose for any of us. No school districts that I know of have gone into the business as PBS so recently showed us of pirating movies for underground sales or contemplates a massive or extensive permanent library of pirated tapes from commercial broadcasters.

Such a library is relatively costly to maintain, and its distribution for use represents management problems for most school districts already understaffed and pressed to deliver too many services with too few resources. Most districts I know would be content with a fair use definition which allows them to off-air tape a program for retention and use up to 90 days, let us say, for the purpose of discussion; then to be erased.

Since nearly all requests for videotaping are spontaneous, at least from my field, in that they orginate in a 24-hour period prior to the origination, this seems consonant with the spirit of the law.

While doubtless there are exceptions, most systems that sponsor extensive media library programs place a first premium on their 16-millimeter film library. We do.

For instance, it accounts for about $25,000 of a total of $200,000 spent last year on instructional media in the Stamford public schools. By the way, this is out of a total school budget of $39 million, So this gives you an idea of the pecking order which the media program combines in the school.

This is a concern, something we all should share. We have less money to buy what is being produced. Our use of video is specifically target. For instance, the PBS program "Bread and Butterflies," which we off-air tape for use with our career education programs at the middle schools-by the way, our contract with WNET, channel 13 allows us to tape and retain these for 1 year, then erase them, which we will do-recent quasi-news shows such as "This He Claims" present, however, a dilemma.

For instance, to tape Frank Reynolds' fascinating and instructional hour show on the eclipse is illegal, I guess, but can we seriously expect to enforce copyright infringement action on all the teachers who spontaneously and with intent to use fairly taped this show, use it for one 24-hour period as a vital and timely instructional tool, and then erase it? Surely, I do not believe this was the intent of Congress when Public Law 94-553 became law.

Fair use to use must provide some reasonable access to regular television programing. Certainly, no access at all can hardly be considered fair use.

Parenthetically, let me say that I agree with several speakers who have, as the day developed, spoken for the need for networks or consortia. The recently released study by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences on Networking and School Library Programs speaks specifically to this issue of securing licensing agreements through the vendors to large areas.

To go on a building-by-building or district-by-district basis to attempt to establish any of these licensing arrangements will be an impossible situation. Money for schools for all of us in publicly

financed enterprises is monstrously tight and doubtless it will become tighter.

Even if the inclination to pirate with total disregard for laws with present funding for such would not permit it.

I believe that commonsense and realistic values can be applied to the situation and that the schools libraries and public libraries can be guaranteed reasonable access to the same spontaneous and fair use doctrine we apply to the world of print.

I do not believe that the present or future consequences of off-air videotaping are as disastrous as its most vociferous opponents would have us believe, nor are they as innocent as the most devoted proponents of unlimited access would suggest.

This morning, Congressman Kastenmeier commented that "lawsuits are not consistent with the intent of the copyright law."

We are all anxious to be good citizens and to begin the promise of compromise and negotiations that will lift this particular problem which we each share and allow us to move ahead to the more important issues facing us.

Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr. BENDER. Thank you, Phil.

Our next librarian representing college libraries is Judy Sessions. She is currently director of the Learning Resources Center at Mount Vernon College here in Washington. And in her activities in connection with the American Library Association, she serves on their information technology section committee on legislation and regulation. TESTIMONY OF JUDY SESSIONS, DIRECTOR, LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER, MOUNT VERNON COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. SESSIONS. I too would like to thank the chairman, Congressman Railsback, for the opportunity to participate in this conference and present the view of a director of a learning resource center.

To define terminology in my case, the learning resource center incorporates the traditional functions of a library with additional media functions.

We have darkrooms and photography studios. We have a television studio and audiolab, a graphics workshop, AV stations for viewing and listening, a film production lab, and even an electric piano.

A substantial portion of our holdings is in the audiovisual format. These include microfilm, audiotapes, audiocassettes, records, 16-millimeter film, videocassettes, multimedia kits, slides, everything you can think of.

These things we catalog include in our catalog just line print materials and they can be checked out. They set on the shelves with everything else. We are fully integrated into the world of media.

We also rent films and videotapes when they are not available to buy, one, because we just can't afford it or, two, when we feel like the professor is uncertain as to the value of this for the permanency of the collection.

So all these issues we are talking about today really involve me. And in policy decisions, I copyright only for my college, my association, and copyright controversies, not basically as a policymaker, but as someone who daily tries to apply to the law to a given situation.

This is the situation of many of our 35,000 members in the American Library Association.

By definition, the major goal of a college library is to provide students and faculty with access to knowledge which supports education and research.

pro

It has been many years since libraries as knowledge warehouses were limited to storing print materials alone. As technology has duced new formats of information, libraries have quickly obtained necessary hardware and begun acquiring appropriate software collections.

Libraries are in the forefront of technological application to knowledge transfer, dissemination, and use. If we are to serve our institutions well, we must make information accessible, regardless of format. Today of course we are here to limit our discussion to off-air recording. You have already heard the needs of instructors and proprietors, and I don't want to list those again, although I had originally planned to do so.

Librarians are caught in the middle. We are the people that they go to to get the information. We are the people who have to explain to everyone why they can't have the information. So it is kind of a unique situation for all of us.

Let me tell you that libraries around this country are attempting to formulate functional policies which are consistent with the intent of a copyright law. We believe there is very little conscious abuse of the off-air taping. What we have found is confusion and frustration, and I would like to share some of those with you today.

Because of a lack of guidelines, I have been able to locate the college libraries which have totally quit doing any off-air taping. They are sitting there, and they are waiting for the guidelines, and they are waiting because they don't want to be the dreaded test case.

And it is a very valuable function that is being stymied because of a need for more concise guidelines.

Other libraries have developed conservative policies which allow faculty members to request all off-taping of the particular program, the copy to be held for 7 days, to be viewed by the instructor and/or his or her students in the library or classroom.

After this 7-day period, if the professor indicates that the program should be retained as a part of the collection, then the library staff begins what can become an ordeal or which may be just simply a very simple ordering function.

Some of our problems when we try to order the program are we get back the information that it is not available. Then we have to explain to a faculty member who thinks this is very important, valuable information, in the first place, that they cannot legally have it.

Or we find out that it is available. We don't have any problems. We erase our copy that we have made, and it is not until 6 months later that the authorized copy comes in the mail, which is many months past the time that they intended use or at least the intended initial use of a program was.

Frequently we write letters that just never get answered. And then what are we supposed to do? Keeping writing letters to an address you get no answer from? Do you erase it because no one will say, no, you can't, but no one will say, yes, you can.

So we are in that position directly, although let me admit it is not as frequent as it has been. People are beginn ng to answer letters.

One of the other things we found was a documentary, 30 minutes, the price, $1,800. In an era of limiting and sinking budgets, $1,800 for a 30-minute documentary is not access. I mean, we were better off when they said we couldn't have it at all than those outrageous prices.

Additionally, the 7-day limit is not workable. And that is when you try to explain to someone they can only have it for 7 days, they don't understand if their class is 9 days or the class on death isn't meeting until next semseter; there is a good probability they can't get this material at all.

We need to do something with guidelines so that material that is valuable, that has a lot of knowledge to impart, can be there for the student and the instructor when it is needed.

I could easily go on with problems, but a litany of complaints is not very constructive.

I also have a time problem, I think.

My point is that problems are today's reality. A lot of you talked about hopefully we will be able to do this, and maybe we will be able to do that, but think about people like me. What are we doing today? What are we supposed to do? We don't really know.

And I think from a lot of the comments today you wouldn't really have the answer either, except maybe to tell me to ouit everything, which I don't think I would accept at all.

My main point is that knowledge must be made available.

What we are asking for is access with a reasonable price tag and within a reasonable amount of time.

The American Library Association looks forward to participating in meetings which will resolve today's impasse.

Let me say I didn't come forward with any concrete list and say, "This is what we want, want, want." We are going to go into those meetings in a spirit of compromise, and we hope all of you will do

Mr. BENDER. Thank you, Judy.

Well, I guess those of us who thought that librarians were only concerned with photocopying have been enlightened to some extent this afternoon so far.

The final librarian that we will hear from today is Lynne Bradley, who will be representing the interests of public libraries. She is a video librarian in the District of Columbia public library system and is currently chairperson of the American Library Association's video and cable communications section.

TESTIMONY OF LYNNE BRADLEY, CHAIRPERSON, VIDEO AND CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SECTION, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

MS. BRADLEY. Thank you.

I think that I know how NBC felt this morning, coming as the last of kind of a tripartite.

I, too, want to thank the subcommittee and Copyright Office for convening this meeting and giving us the opportunity to participate. Because of the limited time, I can only highlight some of our concerns. But I do want to emphasize that the public librarians would

concur and support the issues, and we have the same, very much of the same, problems that school and college libraries have in this important issue.

As chairman of the video and cable communications section of the American Library Association, I want to make it clear that our members, who number about 1,000 librarians who are specifically concerned with video and cable utilization in all types of libraries, are very anxious to have the issue of the fair use of off-air recording resolved.

We are anxious to see this dialog and the exchange of information continue, and will continue in these negotiations to help define reasonable fair use of off-air recording.

I am also anxious to speak to you as a public librarian. The nature of the current law has for some reason caused public libraries to be excluded from some of the existing off-air recording policies. Notably is the PBS policy. We hope that the development of future guidelines. will include public libraries as educational institutions.

Public libraries not only provide services to individuals whom include students and teachers in formal educational programs, but we are involved in some cases with cooperative public and school library networks and facilities.

For example, we have a combined branch of the District of Columbia public library that is the school library, and the facility is within the school installation.

Further, the variety of informal and independent learning situations that is already done daily through public libraries will further be an important resource as demands for life-long learning increase.

We also want to emphasize that librarians of all types are trying very hard to inspect and follow the copyright requirements. We acknowledge the proprietary rights of copyright owners and the program creators. As a matter of fact, many librarians are now producing their own video programing and very well understand the protectiveness that a creator has for his or her product.

Our jobs are to disseminate information. Our first priorities are to provide materials for our library patrons.

Limited-air use of off-air recordings should acknowledge the rights to information we have in this country. We are not looking for a free ride. Across the country we spend every penny of our crimped budgets on video tapes and other media. Yet, we feel there still remains a reasonable and what should be a legitimate role for off-air recording. I agree with the earlier gentleman who pointed the need for clear guidelines so that we may continue our jobs at maintaining access to this type of information.

There are many points that I think we agree on. We believe that the growth of new technology will continue to multiply. Proprietors and users alike obviously are agreeing that the role of television and other media is and will continue to be an integral part of the educational process.

I would agree also with Mr. Popham of the NAB that the use of local programs in library services is an important area that should also be discussed. We need to develop guidelines that will encourage understanding between local broadcasters, local producers, and local libraries, especially public libraries, on how access to these materials can best be facilitated for information and research purposes.