« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
from a collection of works by a single poet, short story writer, composer, photographer, painter, or lithographer, or from an anthology of works by many artists. In either case, an entire creative work would seem to be just as subject as an entire article from a scientific journal to photocopying and mailing to members of the general public. Instead of coming to the library personally to borrow and read the work, the library will give to the "borrower" a permanent personal copy. However, the composer, poet and short story writer are directly economically dependent on royalty income, based on the sale of their works to those who desire permanent personal copies. The photographer, the painter, and the lithographer jealously reserve reproduction rights to their works and expect to be paid when they authorize reproduction by or for those who desire permanent personal copies.
If institutions will provide copies of specific works by creative artists upon request, why should anybody buy the entire magazine or paperback or hardcover book containing that specific work? Necessarily, publishers will sell fewer magazines and books, artists will receive less royalty income, and their works will be widely reproduced and distributed without authorization from them or compensation to them.
Again, for emphasis, we are not saying that the Williams and Wilkins case created such a broad license. However, that decision was the last authoritative word on the subject of photocopying and has, we are fearful, created an atmosphere of photocopying promiscuousness.
In summary, we believe that an overly broad photocopying provision in the copyright law would be inconsistent with the philosophy of the Constitutional provision authorizing Congress to secure for authors copyright protection in order to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." We therefore recommend that adequate controls be placed on widespread photocopying of copyrighted works so that we retain the incentive for the creative artists to produce the art that is so necessary to the cultural environment of our country.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAY WOODRIFF, Department of CHEMISTRY, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Enclosed is a letter I received from the Mosby Publishing Company concerning HR 2223 and S 22, in particular sections 107 and 108, "Fair Use," and "School and Library Photocopying." As an author, professor, analytical chemist and user of duplicated copyright materials, I was very much alarmed at the effort and money that is being spent to get an unworkable copyright law passed. Duplicating machines will only become more numerous and available in the future and trying to prevent copying of material will serve more to create disrespect for law than it will to force people to buy books from publishers. If the publishers cannot produce books cheaper than they can be duplicated on these machines, book producers should improve their efficiency, not force people to buy their books by working to get a new copyright law passed.
In modern times, not to be able to duplicate a paragraph or a figure for class use without going through a hopelessly complicated release or remuneration system would stifle education and research in this country.
In closing, I very strongly urge you to amend or discard sections 107 and 108 of HR 2223 and S 22.
THE C. V. MOSBY CO.,
Dr. RAY ALAN WOODRIFF,
Department of Chemistry,
Montana State College, Bozeman, Mon.
DEAR DR. WOODRIFF: Authors and editors are creative people; the manner in which you use knowledge and information to inform others is truly a creative process. It is our opinion that these creative talents deserve to be protected. The Copyright Law of 1909 has provided this protection, and as a consequence your contributions when published have essentially not been used elsewhere without permission.
The advent of copying machines has made it possible to reproduce virtually everything in print. Because of this, and certain outmoded provisions of the Copyright Law of 1909, the United States House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees are currently studying Copyright Revision Bills H.R. 2223 and S. 22. Action on these identical bills will be taken shortly.
Of particular concern to us, and hopefully to you, are Sections 107 and 108, "Fair Use," and "School and Library Photocopying."
It is our opinion that these sections of the proposed new law, as written, protect your creative efforts and our investment. These sections will restrict the activities of those who feel that anything in print may be copied and distributed as the copier sees fit-without the permission of, or compensation to, author and publisher alike. We are strongly convinced that your creativity and our investment must be protected. The new law will provide this protection and yet allow wide information dissemination.
Well organized efforts are presently attempting to amend Sections 107 and 108. Such amendments will not provide safeguards against photocopying excesses as outlined above. I am writing to ask your assistance in protecting what I believe to be the correct position, one which truly serves everyone's best interests.
Attached is a list of House and Senate Judiciary Committee members. I am asking you to contact these Committee members as well as your own Congress persons. Your message need not be lengthy, but should emphasize these two points:
1. Much time and effort are expended in producing manuscripts for publication. Sections 107 and 108 represent the result of delicate compromises worked out by a number of groups, and if they are not tampered with, they will meet the "fair use" needs of educators and librarians. If broadened to allow uncontrolled and unrestricted use of copyrighted materials, they will discourage authors, writers, and editors.
2. It is essential that we encourage, sustain, and reward the competitive interplay of ideas. If broader exemptions were to be added to Sections 107 and 108, creative initiative would be stifled. The ultimate sufferer would be the intellectual and imaginative life of the community.
In short, we believe Sections 107 and 108 of H.R. 2223 and S. 22 should be adopted without change!
I would appreciate receiving a copy of your letter. If you wish additional information, I will be happy to supply it by return mail.
With thanks and best wishes, I remain
JAMES B. FINN, Ph. D.,
Senior Vice President, Research and Development.
We will now stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 15, 1975.]
COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES,
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Pattison, Railsback, and Wiggins.
Also present: Herbert Fuchs and Bruce A. Lehman, counsels; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order for the purpose of continuing the hearings on H.R. 2223, on copyright law revision.
The Chair wishes to express gratitude to the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, who presided yesterday, while Mr. Wiggins and I were at the Rules Committee in connection with getting a bill out of the committee.
Also, the Chair would like to say that it continues to be amazed at the public interest in this question, as demonstrated by the number attending the hearing. I am sorry that everybody cannot be seated.
This morning, we are interested in the question of educational uses, other than public broadcasting. In this connection, we have divided this morning's time, more or less, between advocates of educational uses-let us call them educators for this simple purpose-and the other half, by authors and publishers of materials used by educators.
I will also suggest that the House is in session; regretfully, we may be interrupted for a brief period of time-10 or 15 minutes we may have to recess for the purpose of making calls to the House for votes or otherwise. We apologize, but this is an unusual circumstance, and we trust that all present will bear with us.
This morning I would like to first greet as witnesses the following: Mr. Sheldon Steinbach, staff counsel, American Council on Education, and chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision; Mr. Leo J. Raskind, professor of law, University of Minnesota; and Dr. Howard B. Hitchens, executive director, Association for Educational Communications and Technology; Robert F. Hogan, executive secretary, National Council of Teachers of English; Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, counsel, Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revisionand who testified, as I recall, extensively in hearings 10 years ago; and Mr. Bernard Freitag, Council Rock High School, New Town, Pa.
( 267 )
He is accompanied by Dr. Harold Wigren, on behalf of the National Education Association-and Dr. Wigren is remembered for his testimony 10 years ago, in more or less the same field.
Gentlemen, you are all welcome.
May I, therefore, ask Mr. Steinbach to proceed first.
TESTIMONY OF SHELDON E. STEINBACH, STAFF COUNSEL, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION; CHAIRMAN, AD HOC COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION
Mr. STEINBACH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Sheldon Elliot Steinbach, staff counsel and assistant director of governmental relations of the American Council on Education. I appear before you today, however, representing the Ad Hoc Committee of Education Organizations on Copyright Law Revision, a consortium covering a wide spectrum of 39 organizations within the educational community with interest in the revision of the copyright law. Most especially, we represent the interests of teachers, professors, school and college administrators, subject matter specialists, educational broadcasters, librarians, and indirectly, students themselves. A list of our members is attached to this statement. In addition, we support the testimony given by the library associations yesterday. These groups are also members of the ad hoc committee.
Our testimony today will be presented by four individuals representing several organizations within the ad hoc committee. Although there is a fundamental ad hoc position, the interests of each constituent group varies, and as such, they will emphasize in their testimony today those matters of greatest concern to them. Furthermore, each group under the ad hoc umbrella has reserved the right to determine its own posture with regard to particular issues.
[List of members follows:]
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION
Agency for Instructional Television.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
American Educational Theatre Association, Inc.
Associated Colleges of the Midwest.
Association for Childhood Education International.
Association for Computing Machinery.
Association for Educational Comunications and Technology.
Association of Research Libraries.
Baltimore County Schools.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
International Reading Association.
Joint Council on Educational Telecommunications, Inc.
Medical Library Association.
Music Educators National Conference.
National Association of Educational Broadcasters.
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
National Catholic Educational Association.
National Catholic Welfare Conference.
National Commission for Libraries and Information Science.
National Contemporary Theatre Conference.
National Council for the Social Studies.
National Council of Teachers of English.
National Education Association of the United States.
National Public Radio.
National School Boards Association.
Public Broadcasting Service.
Speech Communication Association.
American Association of University Professors.
American Home Economics Association.
American Personnel and Guidance Association.
Association of American Law Schools.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Federal Communications Commission.
National Congress of Parents and Teachers.
Mr. STEINBACH. I would like to add that the ad hoc committee will not address itself today to the question of instructional broadcasting because we have been assured that this matter will be considered at a later date, at which time we will be given an opportunity to speak to those issues.
It is my pleasure now to introduce Prof. Leo J. Raskind, professor of law, University of Minnesota, representing the Association of American Law Schools, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Council on Education-the Joint Copyright Committee for those three organizations.
[The prepared statement of Leo J. Raskind follows:]
STATEMENT OF LEO J. RASKIND, Made of BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATON OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, AND THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Leo J. Raskind, professor of law at the University of Minnesota. I am chairman of the Special Committee on Copyright Law of the Association of American Law Schools; I appear here today on behalf of the Association of American Law Schools, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Council on Education. Among these three organizations, we account for some 6,000 law teachers and some 75,000 other university professors. The American Council on Education is an association of national and regional education organizations and nearly 1,400 institutions of higher education.
We strongly urge that the doctrine of fair use be preserved and given formal recognition by Congress, both by express statutory provision and by appropriate language in the final Committee report.
Our position is grounded on the Constitutional directive to Congress contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which provides:
The Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The higher education community is the principal institution in our society charged with the task of transmitting and advancing knowledge. It is our concern with discharging this basic function of teaching and research that moves us to ask for an effective statutory expression of the doctrine of fair use.
In making this proposal, I wish to emphasize that we do not seek to remove protected material from the ambit of the Copyright statute. We are neither adverse nor hostile to the basic premise that legitimate rights in intellectual property merit protection and compensation. Indeed, we accept this premise as