Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

educative process. It is difficult for us to understand why using machine aids to facilitate human use of copyrighted materials is considered an infringement, whereas similar but unaided use would not be an infringement. In our judgment, if copying with a pen or pencil is legitimate, and certainly it is, then copying, reading, or analyzing with the aid of a machine should be considered legal.

Unquestionably, the bill poses serious problems for educational computer users of copyrighted materials. The bill makes no mention of computers, nor does it provide language applicable to computers and computer uses; yet computers are one of the fastest growing technological advances in American education. Some of my colleagues will speak in detail with regard to this matter during the afternoon session today. The section of the report commenting on this paragraph is equally damaging to education and makes the statutory provisions airtight, to the detriment of education. The ad hoc committee has three recommendations to make in this regard. Our committee has ready specific language for section 110 covering these recommendations. I have included this language in the supplement of this testimony-see page 155.

Surveys have shown that the alleged instructional television exemption in section 110(2) in practice would mean an exemption for less than 1 percent of all instructional television programs due to the added restrictions in the statute on broadcast interconnections and recordings. Mr. Aleinikoff will be presenting that to you this afternoon. He has made an extensive study of educational broadcasting stations that he would like to report to you on.

The sixth need is to have ready access to materials.

Education needs a copyright law which will enable teachers and professors, as well as scholars and students, to have maximum reasonable access to a wide variety of resources for teaching and learning. The ad hoc committee feels that S. 597 would seriously handicap education's uses of copyrighted materials because it substitutes for the present duration period of 28 years plus 28 years a new copyright period measured by the life of the author plus 50 years. The ad hoc Committee urges now, as it did in its previous testimony, the retention of the present renewal provision of the law: a 28-year initial term of copyright plus a 28-year renewal period or even a 48-year renewal period. The present renewal provision enables teacher and students to use the nonrenewed 85 percent of all registered copyrights from the 29th year because the owners in such cases have allowed the work to go into the public domain. Under the new bill it could be 100 years or more before this very same kind of material goes into the public domain and becomes usable by education. This is neither necessary nor advisable for all works. The present renewal provision in the law is simple and readily enables teachers to know when a copyrighted work is in the public domain. We urge its retention.

Senator MCCLELLAN. May I ask you, do you feel that that is seeking to take some advantage of inadvertence on the part of the authors? One may create or write something. Today it apparently has little value. Development soon makes it very valuable. The party is still living. Inadvertently, he fails to get it renewed. Are you saying that you think he should have no protection, that it should go in the public

Senator BURDICK. But the section itself reported by the House in the first three points is satisfactory to you?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes; in the bill itself, but in the report, we do have problems about it as indicated. The answer is "Yes."

Senator FONG. You are not concerned about the No. 4 criterion? Dr. WIGREN. We are concerned about it, but we are more concerned about the House report interpretation, the explanation of it.

Senator FONG. But you are satisfied with the wording in the House bill?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes; the wording we have agreed to in the summit conferences. We have had some misgivings about this, but we finally agreed to it at the summit conferences and we are not backing off from our agreement. Our problem is with the wording of the House report on criterion 4.

Senator FONG. You think the House report is too restrictive; is that correct?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes, sir; that is what we felt, particularly on interpretation of criterion No. 4, Senator.

The fourth need is for protection in the event teachers and librarians innocently infringe the law.

The ad hoc committee commends the Congress for making provisions for the waiver of statutory damages for innocent classroom teacher infringers but urges that the Senate give the same remission of damages for certain infringements for librarians and teachers on television and radio whose work is also a vital and essential part of education. Authors are protected under the bill; teachers who teach on educational television and librarians whose business it is to make the rich depositories of information available to students and teachers are not protected.

Five. The need to meet future instructional requirements by utilizing the new educational technology now being made available to schools.

The ad hoc committee, while applauding the action of Congress to update teaching from 1909 to 1960 in the new bill, feels that the most serious handicap education faces in the new bill is that teaching has been frozen at the 1960 level. Teachings as it will become in the 1970's and 1980's has been ignored. In fact, I might add, teaching as it is in 1967 in many respects has been ignored. The bill makes no provision for the new technology in teaching and learning; in fact, under the present paragraph D of section 110, entitled "Time and Content," the uses of copyrighted materials-without clearance or payment of royaltieson dial access retrieval systems, or in computer-assisted instruction, closed-circuit television, 2,500 megacycle, recently termed "megahertz," or on most audiovisual devices designed for individualized and independent learning, are virtually eliminated.

American education is moving more and more toward individualized learning and independent study activities. The focus is increasingly on learning and less and less on teaching. The concept of teaching as a "stuffing" operation is gradually being dropped in favor of more dynamic inductive approaches to learning, including the examination of raw data material from which the student can make his own generalizations without mediation by the teacher at every step of the

educative process. It is difficult for us to understand why using machine aids to facilitate human use of copyrighted materials is considered an infringement, whereas similar but unaided use would not be an infringement. In our judgment, if copying with a pen or pencil is legitimate, and certainly it is, then copying, reading, or analyzing with the aid of a machine should be considered legal.

Unquestionably, the bill poses serious problems for educational computer users of copyrighted materials. The bill makes no mention of computers, nor does it provide language applicable to computers and computer uses; yet computers are one of the fastest growing technological advances in American education. Some of my colleagues will speak in detail with regard to this matter during the afternoon session today. The section of the report commenting on this paragraph is equally damaging to education and makes the statutory provisions airtight, to the detriment of education. The ad hoc committee has three recommendations to make in this regard. Our committee has ready specific language for section 110 covering these recommendations. I have included this language in the supplement of this testimony-see page 155.

Surveys have shown that the alleged instructional television exemption in section 110(2) in practice would mean an exemption for less than 1 percent of all instructional television programs due to the added restrictions in the statute on broadcast interconnections and recordings. Mr. Aleinikoff will be presenting that to you this afternoon. He has made an extensive study of educational broadcasting stations that he would like to report to you on.

The sixth need is to have ready access to materials.

Education needs a copyright law which will enable teachers and professors, as well as scholars and students, to have maximum reasonable access to a wide variety of resources for teaching and learning. The ad hoc committee feels that S. 597 would seriously handicap education's uses of copyrighted materials because it substitutes for the present duration period of 28 years plus 28 years a new copyright period measured by the life of the author plus 50 years. The ad hoc Committee urges now, as it did in its previous testimony, the retention of the present renewal provision of the law: a 28-year initial term of copyright plus a 28-year renewal period or even a 48-year renewal period. The present renewal provision enables teacher and students to use the nonrenewed 85 percent of all registered copyrights from the 29th year because the owners in such cases have allowed the work to go into the public domain. Under the new bill it could be 100 years or more before this very same kind of material goes into the public domain and becomes usable by education. This is neither necessary nor advisable for all works. The present renewal provision in the law is simple and readily enables teachers to know when a copyrighted work is in the public domain. We urge its retention.

Senator MCCLELLAN. May I ask you, do you feel that that is seeking to take some advantage of inadvertence on the part of the authors? One may create or write something. Today it apparently has little value. Development soon makes it very valuable. The party is still living. Inadvertently, he fails to get it renewed. Are you saying that you think he should have no protection, that it should go in the public

domain and any advantages that flow therefrom should be denied to him, he should be denied any compensation?

Dr. WIGREN. It is my understanding that most of the copyright privileges, renewals, and so on, are made by the publishers themselves and not by the authors.

Senator MCCLELLAN. A publisher may have actual money invested. Dr. WIGREN. True. We feel that the present situation is very satisfactory as far as teaching is concerned. We are looking at this, of course, from the teaching-learning point of view and from the classroom teacher's ability to use materials. We now have the privilege of using 85 percent of these materials that pass into the public domain and we would like to have that continued. I have suggested

Senator MCCLELLAN. You say you now have that privilege. You now have some advantage?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes, we have advantages in this.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is that advantage at the detriment of the man who created it?

Dr. WIGREN. We do not think it is. That is our judgment. Teachers actually create markets for an author's work. We want a law that will, of course, strike a fair balance between the rights of the authors and producers, and teachers are both authors and producers. We are educational authors ourselves.

Senator MCCLELLAN. This is the first impression that I have. A man who creates something by his ingenuity or genius and gets it copyrighted should have the benefit of it during his lifetime, No. 1. Dr. WIGREN. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Now, how far it should go beyond that, should he lose it because he inadvertently fails to file some paper and pay $4 for an extension during his lifetime, or should it not be granted at least for his lifetime initially?

Dr. WIGREN. While I cannot speak for the committee on this, it is difficult for me to believe that 85 percent of the works that are not renewed are just inadvertently not renewed. I would think if they wanted to renew it, they would certainly do so. I think maybe some percentage of the 85 percent could be attributed to their forgetting to do so, but otherwise not.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I do not blame you folks for wanting to take advantage of anything

Dr. WIGREN. We have had a good workable situation, Mr. Chairman, and that is what we are arguing for.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It may be a windfall, I do not know. Here, we are trying to study the law to make it equitable.

Dr. WIGREN. My purpose here is to point out needs that teachers have and we feel it is very simple for a teacher to look at the back of the title page and determine when a given work is in print, and this needs to be underlined and protected.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I have not necessarily resolved the matter. I am just thinking out loud here. It seems to me that if I had the ability, and the industry to try, and succeeded in creating some piece of literature of value and got it copyrighted, I would want it to extend for my lifetime, at least, unless I released it or took some affirmative action to divest myself of the benefits of it.

Dr. WIGREN. Mr. Chairman, we have no desire at all to harm an author or a publisher, but we also feel that we have certain needs that must be clarified and we want you to know what our needs are. We think that the authors and publishers have not really suffered under the present situation and we have been able to use materials in the course of teaching rather readily because of this matter. It has certainly been helpful to have it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I am not trying to be critical at the moment. I am just trying to draw your attention to a little bit of clashing interest here, as I see it.

Senator FONG. Is there any suggestion here that probably a great proportion of the 85 percent of copyrighted material is not worth while?

Dr. WIGREN. We have no way of judging this. I would say again a certain portion of it may not be, but teachers find use for so much of the material, Senator Fong, it seems to me it is only reasonable that all materials be made available for teachers, this would certainly open the door to us in a way in which we would not be able to have access under the new bill as proposed.

Senator FONG. If it was bringing in a lot of monetary returns, you would expect that the man who had a copyright, would go ahead and renew it?

Dr. WIGREN. I would think so.

Senator FONG. You also stated here that there is a question as to when the copyright runs out. You would have a very difficult time finding out when a man is deceased, would you not?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes. How would a teacher in Nebraska, Idaho, or even in Washington, D.C., know when a given author has died, or if he has died? I don't know how you find this out except writing the Library of Congress and determining it. Here again, you have problems. Teachers simply do not have time to do all of these kinds of things in the course of teaching.

We are trying to show you today some of the things teachers need in the course of teaching to enable them to teach as creatively as they know how to teach. We feel we must bring these matters to your concern, because teachers do not use materials for their own private individual gain. They use materials for the benefit of your children and the benefit of the children of all of our citizens. We have a responsibility that we cannot dismiss lightly in seeing to it that children have access to communication of ideas in our society. We have the responsibility to do this. This is what is meant by the term "teaching and learning in our classrooms." We want to reemphasize again so that you can keep this uppermost in your mind that we are stressing the public interest in our statement here. This is our point, because we are in the business of serving the public.

In summary, I have attempted on page 9 to show, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that there were certain areas which represented improvements for education, and I have listed these. These are: (1) The statutory "fair use" provision of the proposed bill and the House report as they apply to classroom teaching, with the exception of criterion No. 4 in the report; and (2) the waiver of statutory damages for classroom teachers who innocently infringe.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »