Mr. ROSENFIELD. Right now we only buy one copy for the school system. The school that has 100 schools will buy 50 copies.

Senator BURDICK. I am just raising a cautious point. If Mrs. Barnette will not be making these any more, who will be making them? Mr. ROSENFIELD. But the fact is that Houston did buy 10 more copies than would otherwise have been purchased if it had not been shown on that device.

What we are trying to point out is that the factual picture is the contrary of what was shown to you, that we are in fact developing greater purchasing power-in fact-whatever may seem to be the horrendous possibilities to the contrary. The fact that we are using closed circuit is merely another way of doing 110(1)-the classroom face-to-face approach, Senator Burdick.

We are not denying that there may be individual schools which act improperly. All we are saying is that, if we get a law which makes sense from the educational point of view, we will police that to see that it does not happen. We are not asking to make copies under section 110(1A); we are asking simply for the right to display what we purchased for the purpose of display.

Senator BURDICK. That is right, and you could purchase one film and display it in 100 schools?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. We can now.

Senator BURDICK. Yes: I know.
Dr. WIGREN. One by one.

Senator BURDICK. We are dealing with the whole subject. My point is what are the educators going to do, what are we going to do in this country when we don't have people like Mrs. Barnette or anybody else who devises these things and sells them?

Dr. WIGREN. On that basis, Senator, you could argue that we have to buy one print for every classroom. We simply do not have that kind of money.

Senator BURDICK. I am not saying that at all. I am trying to get a balance here.

Dr. WIGREN. We are, too. If you say we have to have one to 20 schools, that would not be fair, either.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Let's come back a bit, Senator, and I think the point you are making is what we are talking about, and it is the real issue the committee has to face. At which point do you cut off the technology of the modern developments of science? Let's suppose that you have a classroom of 20 children. Section 110(1) permits class use. Now, suppose you put that classroom and another classroom of children in a larger classroom of 40 children. It is still a classroom. Do we say, "No, you cannot use it"? Section 110 (1) would permit it to be used if it is a classroom activity.

What we are trying to do is suggest that the classroom enterprise that we envisage in the classrooms of America today, tomorrow, in 1970, and so forth, should not be prevented from using the most effective technological device that is known to educational science. And, in our experience, the contrary of what has been indicated to you happens; the use of such effective device increases, rather than decreases, sales.

Senator BURDICK. Experience will show that is correct?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Well, we have had the experience. Senator BURDICK. Mrs. Barnette said she will not stay in business. Mr. ROSENFIELD. She is talking of the fear of the future. We are talking of the fact of the past.

Dr. EDINGER. May I simply add a point here, because I think I might throw a bit of clarification on this.

When I began work in in-school television, there were classroom teachers who said, we fear that television is going to replace the classroom teacher. This is a very real fear. We have discovered that inschool television does not replace the classroom teacher. It enhances the position of the classroom teacher to a great extent.

I do not know the lady in question. I would predict that Mrs. Barnette is undergoing the same sort of built-in fear that our classroom teachers had when in-school television came into being. She is afraid this is going to happen. I would predict that this will not indeed happen, that at the moment, as has been pointed out, we do not buy film strips and materials for every single teacher in a building or in a school district. We buy at best three copies or four copies, or maybe five copies in a wealthy district. Then we send them out on a loan basis around to the various schools and you have to wait for them to come. What is going to happen is that we are still going to buy a certain number of copies, of prints, so that we may display them. Instead of sending them all into the classroom, we will display some on closed-circuit television. Some will still go into the classroom and these films are still going to wear out and we are still going to buy some more, because films just have a way of wearing out.

I really think that while I appreciate the fears, having lived through it with our classroom teachers, these fears are really not grounded. Senator BURDICK. You made a prediction, Dr. Edinger. Supposing that these sources of originality do dry up, how do you produce these original works? Is the school district going to do it?

Dr. EDINGER. At the moment, many school districts are already producing their own. This is a way of developing that creativity that you talked about a moment ago. It is not going to dry up. So long as there is a need, we are going to create. It may be that people in the school district will create, that some people outside the school district will create, but teachers are going to demand that good materials be created. I do not believe there is going to be a dearth.

Senator FONG. Those creations will not be copyrighted?

Dr. EDINGER. Some may, some may not.

Dr. WIGREN. We would have the same use.

Senator BURDICK. I think we all agree that in our school systems, we want the best quality that we can get.

Dr. WIGREN. Right.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Dr. Wigren, would you present your next witness?

Dr. WIGREN. Miss Lahti.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you have a prepared statement?

Miss LAHTI. Yes, I do; and if I may, I'll present my statement and just to make a comment or two, because much of what I have to say has been said before.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Your statement will be printed in the record.

Miss LAHTI. I, too, represent the classroom teacher, but feel I am familiar with their problems, since I served as a rural and city teacher prior to coming to NEA, and work directly with classroom teachers throughout the Nation. I am well aware that whatever decision is made on this copyright bill is going to affect every child and every teacher. I think the fear every teacher has is that the measure as now printed will not preserve the right of teachers to teach in the future as they teach today.

I would like to emphasize two of the rights we hope will be in the bill for teachers. One of these is a statutory definition of fair use. I think teachers need to have the security of knowing what they can do, what they cannot do. If the wording of the House report on subsection 4 of section 107 is retained, then, Senator, we would like the section deleted because it negates the freedom of teachers to teach as they can do now.

Senator MCCLELLAN. If I may interrupt, I am wondering if there is any way that we can construct a statute or language defining fair use that will be applicable to all situations so you could know in advance whether the use you intend to make will come within fair use or whether it would not. How is it possible for us to do that?

Miss LAHTI. We realize that it will be difficult to do, but we do support such an effort. If the ad hoc committee's original position is the intent of the bill, then we can live with it, but we are concerned with the interpreation that the House has put on it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Again, it is your view the committee places a different interpretation in its report than the language in the bill. Am I correct?

Miss LAHTI. We do not see the positions as compatible.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I indicate that as all of our witnesses have testified, we are completely willing to accept and live with the language of 107 itself.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is the bill.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Our problem is that the legislative history incorporated in pages 64 and 65 of the House committee report, as they particularly define the fourth criterion, does not conform to what we understood the history of the agreement was.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is exactly what I am trying to point out. The language in the bill obviously is susceptible of different interpretation. Am I correct?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. The House itself placed one interpretation on it in its report, and you would interpret it another way.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. The answer is "Yes."

Senator MCCLELLAN. Now, how can we rewrite that language, or can it be rewritten so it will not be susceptible of the two different interpretations now being placed on it, that by you and that by the committee?

Dr. WIGREN. We think the Copyright Register's Office has done a very good job with the report in specifying classroom teacher reproductions of materials. We like what they have done. The only thing we do not like is the report as it is written on the section, on criterion 4. We have no objection to the rest of it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. If their interpretation is correct of this language, then you do not like the consequences of it?

Dr. WIGREN. We do not like criterion 4 as it is in the report with the interpretation as given because we think it restores uncertainty. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is what I mean. If it is going to have that effect, you don't like it?

Dr. WIGREN. That is true.

Senator MCCLELLAN. But as you interpreted it, you think it is all right if your interpretation would be adopted?

Dr. WIGREN. Correct.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Mr. Chairman, because we mean to live by our agreement, we are not now proposing a change in the language of section 107 and we are opposed to changes in the statutory language. But if there can be two sentences eliminated in your report that are now in the House report on this score, we think that all of us would be able to live with this as a legislative history.

Now, whether or not wiser men than this ad hoc committee can be even more explicit, we have not given that opportunity to ourselves to develop, because thus far, we mean to keep our agreement.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Of course, we have not written a report yet. We can write a report that would accept your interpretation of it. I say we could. I do not know what the committee would do. Then we would have a conflict in the two reports when it goes to conference, of course. That could be ironed out.

As the language is now, maybe it cannot be improved upon. We may not know how to improve on it. But obviously, it permits of different interpretation. The House committee itself has placed one interpretation on it, an interpretation that does not conform to your construction of it.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. I regret to say that is true.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is the problem. We try to write sound and equitable legislation, but this again points up the difficulty we have in this field.

I think every member of this committee, every Member of Congress as far as I know, would like to find equity in these conflicting interests or find equity for the national interest and for everybody concerned. It is not going to be easy to do. It is not going to be easy at all.

I would like to see schoolchildren and the educational system have every benefit, every access to everything that is worthy of instruction and teaching our children. At the same time, there are fundamental rights we have always respected in our system of government and in our system of enterprise that must be protected. How to do it by rigid statute, by law, explicit statute, I might say-is not easy. It is a problem we are going to study.

I personally, and I know every member of the committee is very happy to have all of you come and enter into discussion with us about it. Ultimately, we are going to try to write some kind of bill.

Go ahead. I am sorry I interrupted.

Miss LAHTI. I wanted to emphasize a second point which was also mentioned, the need teachers feel for retaining the present duration rights because of the utter confusion the current proposal would cre

ate in most school systems in not knowing whether the author was dead and the copyright expired. I think this would create havoc in the schools for a number of reasons.

In the first place, the role of teachers is changing in schools today. The fact that the law limits the use of copyrights to face to face teaching situations increasingly raises the question-does this apply where innovative procedures are used-the statute needs to be broadened. Since the present proposal does not apply to staff members other than teachers administrative personnel, I believe, also would feel threatened. They have to be assured that the use of copyrighted materials in any curriculum developed by other than the teacher in the classroom would be protected. It is important that teachers be free to use these materials. We believe we can live much more freely with the present duration rights.

Senator MCCLELLAN. How do you find out now that the copyright has expired?

Miss LAHTI. By looking at the title page to see the date of the copyright.

Senator MCCLELLAN. How do you know whether it has been renewed?

Miss LAHTI. We just go by that and hope that this is what does it. Senator MCCLELLAN. How are you going to find out? Suppose a copyright was granted more than 28 years ago. How do you know whether it has been renewed? How are you going to find that out? You are going to have to find out on the other. You will have to take some action to find out whether the time had expired, 50 years after the party had died.

Miss LAHTI. Where would you write? How would you know? Senator MCCLELLAN. I am asking you how you find out now? Miss LAHTI. We would check with our librarian, who I assume would through the proper channels check to see if there is a new edition.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Apparently, you have not had any problem with them?

Miss LAHTI. We have not, but we will with this one. It is the future one we are concerned with. We can live with the one we have.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In either case, you have to have some way of finding out, in some instances, at least. If material was copyrighted, it shows on the face of it, copyrighted 10 years ago, 15, 20 years ago, you know it is still in force. But if it is more than 28 years ago, how do you know? What do you do to find out?

Miss LAHTI. As I said, we would check with the librarian if it is a new edition. If it is not, we assume it is in the public domain and use it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. All right.

Had you concluded?

Miss LAHTI. Yes.

Mr. GARY. The music educators have had some experience with this, because they work with copyrighted materials in making rearrangements and so on. I think they are probably a little bit more familiar than the average classroom teacher. They would know if it appeared with just the original copyright date and they bought an edition after