has become virtually unmanageable and that technology, through data processing equipment, can offer ways to improve the research process, reduce duplication of effort, and indeed undertake research which could not have been attempted without this technology.

That Educom's formation 2 years ago was timely I think is evidenced by the fact that its membership has grown from the original eight to 69 universities, with no effort being made to promote the organization. But now, today, we see many of the potentials which are implicit in Educom's purposes threatened by those parts of Senate bill 597 that seem to view the computer and computer technology as some kind of evil which has to be controlled to the point of stultification rather than an opportunity to be grasped for the improvement of all parts of the educational process.

Educom is financed by foundation grants and by dues from its member organizations. It has no commercial profitmaking ax to grind. It desires only to foster scholarship, learning, research, and, indeed, authorship. It wants to see the rights of authors protected; indeed, the academic world that it represents is largely made up of authors. But above all, it wants to see the public good, as the public good may be represented by the educational process, fully protected as well.

Education operates through a series of task forces composed of men from the world of higher education. These task forces study elements in this process of applying technology to education. One of these task forces was the task force on law. This task force was composed of individual members, not necessarily representatives of institutions belonging to Educom, from Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, New York University, the University of Virginia, and one man from the Eastern Educational Network, which is an educational television network representing a number of colleges and universities in the northeastern part of the United States. Senator BURDICK. But nobody from the University of Minnesota? Mr. MONTGOMERY. I am sorry, sir.

Prof. ARTHUR R. MILLER. Senator, I formerly taught at the University of Minnesota.

Senator BURDICK. I was going to get to the little brown jug in a minute.

Prof. ARTHUR R. MILLER. I have taught at both ends of that jug, Senator.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. This task force has a long agenda ahead of it, but copyright seems to be the most pressing issue of the day. After many months of effort, it has prepared a paper which has been submitted to you as an annex to our statement.

This paper was sent to all of our member institutions. A number of them saw fit to send letters and telegrams of endorsement of the paper. We have reproduced those telegrams and letters in our statement. I do not propose to read them, but I will call your attention to the fact that they are from Temple University, the University of Miami, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Washington, and the Pennsylvania State University.

Since our statement was prepared, I have received two other communications which, with your permission, I would like to read into the record.

This is a telegram addressed to Edison Montgomery dated March 31, 1967:

Cleveland State University wishes to support the Inter-university Communications Council concerning the copyright revision bill, Senate No. 597, on which hearings are now being conducted. In the interest of improving American education, we request that the bill be clarified and amended to state that, one, copyright of computer programs should not extend to the process embodied in the program; two, reasonable exemptions from copyright restrictions shall be permitted to non-profit educational institutions; three, administrative mechanisms be established so that the law may be easily and rapidly adjusted as new educational information processing technologies develop.

HAROLD M. ENARSON, President, Cleveland State University.

The other communication is dated March 30, 1967. This is from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, Colo. I might say that this commission represents institutions of higher education in the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. [Continues reading:]

To Whom It May Concern:

The executive committee of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, at its regular quarterly meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on March 17 to 19, 1967, voted unanimously to endorse the resolution on the copyright revision bill in relation to computers prepared by EDUCOM, the Interuniversity Communications Council. The commissioners agree that Senate Bill 597, in its present form, has a potential for substantial harm to the future development of the use of computers in education, research, and information transfer. Further, the commissioners support the suggestions contained in the EDUCOM resolution. The staff is directed to notify appropriate parties of this action. Respectfully submitted, Robert H. Khoepsch, Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer.

The copyright paper, as I will call it, was reviewed by all of our member ínstitutions. Representatives from these member institutions met in Tallahassee, Fla., on March 15, 1967, and discussed the paper at some length. As a result of their discussion, a resolution was passed by the Interuniversity Communications Council. It is to this resolution that the letter from the Western Interstate Commission makes reference. Although it is in the statement and therefore in the record, with your permission, sir, I would like to read the resolution. It is short. Senator BURDICK. Proceed.

Mr. MONTGOMERY (reading):

With the purpose of securing (a) a proper adjustment of the interests of authors, publishers, and educational users, and (b) a proper contribution of the computer to the educational life of the nation, we recommend that the current version of the Copyright Revision Bill (S. 597, 90th Congress, First Session) be clarified and amended to accomplish the following:

1. Any copyright applicable to a computer program shall not extend to the process embodied in the program, and a user shall be privileged to replicate the program in order to carry out the process.

2. In accordance with traditional American copyright policy, reasonable exemptions from copyright restrictions shall be allowed to nonprofit educational, research, and library institutions in regard to their utilization of copyrighted works in computer operations. The relevant exemptions provided in S. 597 are not adequate and would seriously hamper educational development in this country.

3. In recognition of the fact that computer technology and utilizations are changing at a rapid rate and the effects of copyright regulation in this field are necessarily problematic, S. 597 should provide for appropriate administrative mechanisms by which the law may be rapidly adjusted to meet conditions as they

The resolution noted that the propositions set out are developed in detail in "The Copyright Revision Bill in Relation to Computers," a statement approved by the board of trustees, the task force on legal and related matters, and the full council of the Interuniversity Communications Council.

I think it is clear from the reaction of the members of Educom, and from institutions that are not members of Educom, that a substantial segment of higher education feels that portions of Senate bill 597 are inimical to the progress of higher education. Therefore, Educom respectfully urges that careful consideration be given to the points made in our paper on copyright revision and that Senate No. 597 be changed to give recognition to these points.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator BURDICK. Which one of you gentlemen on the panel will talk about those points?

Mr. MORTON. I think it would help the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, if Dr. James Miller explained the role of the computer in higher education research as he saw it and as it led to the founding of Educom. In other words, Dr. Miller is a medical man, not a lawyer or a copyright man. He responded to a felt need in higher education in the field of medicine to sparkplug Educom. I think that will go further toward showing the subcommittee the grassroots, if you would like, of our feeling than anything else at this time.

Senator BURDICK. I am hoping that you gentlemen will relate that to the objectionable features in the bill.

Mr. MORTON. We will, indeed.

Senator BURDICK. We want to ask a question of Mr. Montgomery before we proceed with Dr. Miller.

What is the structure of Educom? Who controls it? How is the board elected?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Each member institution, regardless of its size, has one vote in the deliberations of the council. The council elects nine of its own members to the board of trustees. A 10th trustee is the chairman of the council. Then the board of trustees itself elects six members, distinguished educators who need not have institutional affiliation. It so happens some of them have. And in addition, the president, who is appointed by the board of trustees, serves on the board. Therefore, we have a situation where there are 10 members elected by the council from among its own group, and six from outside, plus the president. I shall be very glad to tell you who the members of the board are if that would be of interest to you.

Senator BURDICK. You could supply it.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It has been supplied for the record.

Senator BURDICK. What are their terms of office?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. They serve 3-year terms on a staggered basis. Senator FONG. Would you give us an idea of the financial structure of the Educom?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Educom is operating under a grant from the Kellogg Foundation. It received $750,000, payable at the rate of $150,000 per annum, giving it a potential life of 5 years.

In addition, it receives dues from its members amounting to $250 per member, and it has other sources of income, rather small, from

This is a telegram addressed to Edison Montgomery dated March 31, 1967:

Cleveland State University wishes to support the Inter-university Communications Council concerning the copyright revision bill, Senate No. 597, on which hearings are now being conducted. In the interest of improving American education, we request that the bill be clarified and amended to state that, one, copyright of computer programs should not extend to the process embodied in the program; two, reasonable exemptions from copyright restrictions shall be permitted to non-profit educational institutions; three, administrative mechanisms be established so that the law may be easily and rapidly adjusted as new educational information processing technologies develop.

HAROLD M. ENARSON, President, Cleveland State University.

The other communication is dated March 30, 1967. This is from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, Colo. I might say that this commission represents institutions of higher education in the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. [Continues reading:]

To Whom It May Concern:

The executive committee of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, at its regular quarterly meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on March 17 to 19, 1967, voted unanimously to endorse the resolution on the copyright revision bill in relation to computers prepared by EDUCOM, the Interuniversity Communications Council. The commissioners agree that Senate Bill 597, in its present form, has a potential for substantial harm to the future development of the use of computers in education, research, and information transfer. Further, the commissioners support the suggestions contained in the EDUCOM resolution. The staff is directed to notify appropriate parties of this action. Respectfully submitted, Robert H. Khoepsch, Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer.

The copyright paper, as I will call it, was reviewed by all of our member institutions. Representatives from these member institutions met in Tallahassee, Fla., on March 15, 1967, and discussed the paper at some length. As a result of their discussion, a resolution was passed by the Interuniversity Communications Council. It is to this resolution that the letter from the Western Interstate Commission makes reference. Although it is in the statement and therefore in the record, with your permission, sir, I would like to read the resolution. It is short. Senator BURDICK. Proceed.

Mr. MONTGOMERY (reading):

With the purpose of securing (a) a proper adjustment of the interests of authors, publishers, and educational users, and (b) a proper contribution of the computer to the educational life of the nation, we recommend that the current version of the Copyright Revision Bill (S. 597, 90th Congress, First Session) be clarified and amended to accomplish the following:

1. Any copyright applicable to a computer program shall not extend to the process embodied in the program, and a user shall be privileged to replicate the program in order to carry out the process.

2. In accordance with traditional American copyright policy, reasonable exemptions from copyright restrictions shall be allowed to nonprofit educational, research, and library institutions in regard to their utilization of copyrighted works in computer operations. The relevant exemptions provided in S. 597 are not adequate and would seriously hamper educational development in this country.

3. In recognition of the fact that computer technology and utilizations are changing at a rapid rate and the effects of copyright regulation in this field are necessarily problematic, S. 597 should provide for appropriate administrative mechanisms by which the law may be rapidly adjusted to meet conditions as they

The resolution noted that the propositions set out are developed in detail in "The Copyright Revision Bill in Relation to Computers," a statement approved by the board of trustees, the task force on legal and related matters, and the full council of the Interuniversity Communications Council.

I think it is clear from the reaction of the members of Educom, and from institutions that are not members of Educom, that a substantial segment of higher education feels that portions of Senate bill 597 are inimical to the progress of higher education. Therefore, Educom respectfully urges that careful consideration be given to the points made in our paper on copyright revision and that Senate No. 597 be changed to give recognition to these points.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator BURDICK. Which one of you gentlemen on the panel will talk about those points?

Mr. MORTON. I think it would help the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, if Dr. James Miller explained the role of the computer in higher education research as he saw it and as it led to the founding of Educom. In other words, Dr. Miller is a medical man, not a lawyer or a copyright man. He responded to a felt need in higher education in the field of medicine to sparkplug Educom. I think that will go further toward showing the subcommittee the grassroots, if you would like, of our feeling than anything else at this time.

Senator BURDICK. I am hoping that you gentlemen will relate that to the objectionable features in the bill.

Mr. MORTON. We will, indeed.

Senator BURDICK. We want to ask a question of Mr. Montgomery before we proceed with Dr. Miller.

What is the structure of Educom? Who controls it? How is the board elected?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Each member institution, regardless of its size, has one vote in the deliberations of the council. The council elects nine of its own members to the board of trustees. A 10th trustee is the chairman of the council. Then the board of trustees itself elects six members, distinguished educators who need not have institutional affiliation. It so happens some of them have. And in addition, the president, who is appointed by the board of trustees, serves on the board. Therefore, we have a situation where there are 10 members elected by the council from among its own group, and six from outside, plus the president. I shall be very glad to tell you who the members of the board are if that would be of interest to you.

Senator BURDICK. You could supply it.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It has been supplied for the record.

Senator BURDICK. What are their terms of office?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. They serve 3-year terms on a staggered basis. Senator FONG. Would you give us an idea of the financial structure of the Educom?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Educom is operating under a grant from the Kellogg Foundation. It received $750,000, payable at the rate of $150,000 per annum, giving it a potential life of 5 years.

In addition, it receives dues from its members amounting to $250 per member, and it has other sources of income, rather small, from