This law contains a most disturbing provision. I am most surprised that apparently it has not been even discussed in the legislative hearings. I am referring to the fact that the new bill calls for the copyright to expire fifty years after the death of the author. This means that a publisher, in order to determine whether a certain publication is in public domain, would have to find out exactly when the author died, and this determination would have to be made some fifty years after the death. This is going to be an extremely difficult, and at times impossible, task for the publishing industry. As a result, many, and probably most works as they go into public domain, will still be unavailable for general publication, simply because of the difficulty of determining without extremely expensive investigation, just when the author died. The significance of this dilemna will become apparent when one considers the fundamental rationale of copyright protection. One of the dominant philosophies of according an author a monopoly in his writings is the concept of a bargain between the author and the State. In return for a period of limited monopoly, the author is induced to create and publish his works. The key word in this proposition is "limited," which is taken directly from the Constitution, and, in fact, constitutes a limitation on the power of Congress to extend copyright protection. After the period of "limited" protection has expired, the public is suposed to have free benefit of the author's work, this being the other side of the contract between the author and the state. Thus, if the date of tremination of the copyright monopoly is made unreasonably difficult to determine, the commencement of public domain of the author's work will be continued indefinitly beyond the proper period, to the detriment of the public at large. I would urge you to impress upon your colleagues this impossibly awkward provision of the law, and ask that it be replaced with some sort of definite termination date. I would appreciate it if you would place copies of this letter in the hands of the appropriate sub-committee which is conducting these hearings, and to that end, extra copies of this letter are enclosed. Yours respectfully, WARREN T. Jessup. U.S. SENATE, Hon. JOHN J. MCCLELLAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Idaho State Broadcasters Association has advised me of their strong opposition to a "performer's rights" amendment to S. 597. I have received considerable correspondence from individual broadcasting stations in Idaho expressing the same view. The consensus of these letters from Idaho broadcasters is that a "performer's rights" amendment would create intolerable new financial burdens which might, if fact, even force some stations to close up shop. I respectfully request that the letter on its issue written to me by the Idaho State Broadcasters Association be included in the record of hearings on S. 597. Sincerely yours, LEN B. JORDAN, U.S. Senator. IDAHO STATE BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION, Senator LEN JORDAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JORDAN: It has been brought to the attention of Idaho Broadcasters that Senate Bill 597 will soon come under consideration. Broadcasters throughout the Gem State are extremely concerned about the proposed "William's Amendment" that would extend performers' rights to record manufacturers and performers which they never had before under the copyright law. Let it be known that a record manufacturer and the record performer already owe a major part of their monetary success to the constant exposure of their records over the airways. In essence, we are now an "unpaid advertiser" for the artist and the manufacturer. Add to this, the economic stress of a mammoth bookkeeping system required for logging each artist play, plus the doubling of 79-397-67-pt. 4- -11 the present copyright fees and you've created an economic hardship, especially on smaller market stations such as those situated in Idaho. Our State Association made up of 38 Radio and 7 TV Stations would like to be put on record as opposing the "Williams Amendment" to the copyright bill. S.B. 597. Senator Jordan, we ask your serious consideration on this most important matter. Best regards, ROBERT W. SAXVIK, President. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. THOMAS C. BRENNAN, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BRENNAN: As you perhaps know, during the course of the debate on H.R. 2512, Congressman MacGregor and I raised the question of the discrimination inherent in Sec. 115 (a) (1) wherein the sentence, "A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his primary purpose in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use" appears to be strongly prejudiced as it relates to the manufacturers of background music equipment. Upon first noticing this language I talked with Committee Chairman Celler during which time I asked if he would oppose an amendment striking the aforementioned language. He said he would not oppose such an amendment if the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Poff, would accept it. I then talked to Mr. Poff who said he could not accept the amendment because of the possible technicalities involved. He felt that to eliminate the language herein referred to could necessitate other changes throughout the bill as a matter of accommodation and that this amendment could not be drawn in sufficient time to guarantee clarity. He therefore suggested that whatever corrections were necessary, they should be pursued in the other body. Mr. Kastenmeier likewise indicated on the Floor of the House during the debate that this matter might be considered by the other body and changes made to eliminate what appears to be preferential treatment of one segment of the industry over another. Mr. Kastenmeier observed to me that he was not aware of the background music industry's deep interest in the matter which thereby contributed to the language in question. Without in any way attempting to interfere in the legislative process of the U.S. Senate, I did feel that this background information would be worthy of your consideration. If there is need for further clarification, please feel free to call upon me at your convenience. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH E. KARTH. MCGRAW-HILL, INC., Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, New York, N.Y., May 10, 1967. Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN : Because of my extensive involvement over the past decade with scientific and technical information, including the application of computer and other modern technologies, I would like to submit the attached statement for your consideration during your Subcommittee deliberations on the copyright bill, S-597. As detailed in the statement, my experience has ranged from industrial research and development to serving on Dr. Hornig's staff, in which capacity I was intimately and recently involved with Executive Branch activities in scientific information and computer technologies. The essence of the statement is as follows: Over the next decade we will be moving toward better information services in all areas of concern, but especially in education, science, and technology, by the vigorous application of modern information processing technology and by creating a more effective social structure for providing these services. The existence of thousands of independent information services, the varying methods for their financial support, the high cost of the new information processing devices, the need for greater compatibility and standardization, and the need for more appropriate organizational structures emphasize the extremely complex nature of this undertaking. While we are experimenting with new information technologies it is vital that the existing information services be kept healthy and effective. The copyright mechanism has been proven to be an essential mechanism for serving the general welfare when using existing technologies. I recommend the establishment of a Commission to examine the impact of the new information processing and communications technologies on our information services, with instructions to recommend appropriate legislation, if any, after, say, a two-year period. The specific charter for this Commission might best be developed by Congressional hearings separate from the current consideration of S-597. Yours sincerely, Enclosure. WILLIAM T. KNOX. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM T. KNOX, VICE PRESIDENT, MCGRAW-HILL, INC. Because of my extensive involvement over the past decade with scientific and technical information, including the application of computer and other modern technologies, I take pleasure in submitting this statement in connection with the Senate hearings on the copyright bill S-597. Since November 1, 1966 I have been with McGraw-Hill, Inc., a leading publisher, as Vice President, Information Systems, in Corporate Planning. During the two years immediately preceding-from October 1964 until November 1966– I was technical assistant to Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology. In that capacity I was responsible for recommending actions which Federal departments and agencies should take in order to develop more effective and efficient information systems in science and technology. I was also Chairman, Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI), Federal Council for Science and Technology. In these capacities, I worked with non-governmental groups, such as library groups, publishers, industrial organizations, educators, and professional societies, to urge their participation in developing improved information systems. I have also advised several Federal departments and agencies on improving their internal information systems employing modern computer and communications technology. Before my governmental experience I initiated and directed for four years the operations of the Technical Information Division of Esso Research and Engineering Co. I became in those years very familiar with the complex, sophisticated and frequently ineffective and frustrating-set of devices or mechanisms used to get information to the person who wants it. Prior to this experience I was for almost 20 years active in research and development in petroleum technology with Esso Research. I was also a member of the Board of Education in Cranford, N.J., from 1961 until 1965. You may believe, then, that I am well aware of, and have thought much about, the differing viewpoints held by various groups about the pending copyright legislation, as it relates to education, computer information technology, libraries, Federal information systems, and publishers. The particular issues I will discuss briefly are: The nature of the slowly-evolving national network of information systems; The uses of computers, microimages, and other new information technologies in the new information systems; The appropriate roles of different sectors of our U.S. society in this network; and The mechanisms needed to ensure the orderly and effective exploitation and application of the new information technologies for the long-term benefit of all members of our society. First-with respect to what we call an information system, and the proposed national network of information systems. There already exist in the U.S. a wide variety of information services which endeavor to satisfy people's needs for information. In science and technology, these services include such diverse activities as educational radio and TV, learned journals, business, trade, and professional periodicals, books, abstracting and indexing services, libraries, news-gathering services, films, and many others. These services are provided by many different kinds of organizations-government agencies, professional soci eties, universites, commercial firms, and non-profit organizations. Generally, these services are limited in subject matter, limited in user audience, and frequently have developed without much attention to the suitability of alreadyexisting services. The major distinction between what we have today-this bewildering array of overlapping, duplicative, and often inefficient and ineffective, information services-and what has been called an "information system" is that in the information system the various elements will have a defined, systematic, and efficient relation to each other. For example, instead of one article in a learned journal being abstracted 10 or 20 times by different people, as now happens, the abstracting would only be done once, or at most, two or three times. The abstract would, however, be available to all who wished to distribute it. Likewise, if one area of the country or one area of technology seems to be deficient in information services, the necessary services would be identified and provided. This is basically what I have meant by an "information system." The national network of information systems in science and technology, such as has been suggested by COSATI, is essentially a conceptual grouping of many separate information systems. It is not an organization. The aim of such a network would be to make it possible for information to move quickly and easily and inexpensively from one information system to another-so that a metallurgical engineer, for example, could easily find what he wanted to know about bacteria or ceramics or economics. Some of the major problems in creating such a national network, assuming one is desired, are: The existence of thousands of information services, each under a different management; The varying methods for financial support of information services—as examples, the exclusively Federal government support of the NASA system, the reliance of commercial publishers on the competitive market, and the dues and contributions of members of professional societies supporting learned journals; The relatively primitive state of individual user awareness of the possibilities for better information services, with a resultant low level of user pressures on the existing services; The creation of appropriate organizational structures at the top-executive, policy-making and planning level and the several levels of operational responsibilities; and The need for compatibility and standardization among the different systems in such matters as language, techniques, and formats. These problems are easily seen to be extremely complex, and not to be solved quickly. There is not even agreemnt on the desirability or feasibility of a national network of information systems in science and technology. Much work is required to reach a consensus on goals and objectives; more work will be required to develop the appropriate organizational structures and financing mechanisms; and even more work will be required for years to come to develop, operate, and modify the various information systems as components of the national network. I have not mentioned computers, or lasers, or satellites, although one frequently gets the impression that these and similar devices are the primary reasons why we should be interested in better information systems, and that they will be the primary components of an information system. There are, indeed. truly remarkable advances being made in all branches of information processing and handling and communications. Without these advances we would be unable to dream and to plan for information systems on the larger scale and of such improved performance as we are doing. These technological developments offer us, for the first time, reasonable assurance that systems can be developed to handle, effectively and efficiently, both the vastly-increased amount of information and to satisfy our increased desires to exploit all this information. I am a strong advocate of these new technologies, and I have pushed for their adoption in many quarters. But they should be viewed as devices to accomplish ends, not as ends in themselves. Furthermore, they should be viewed as unproven, uncertain devices until we have more experience with their actual use to satisfy people's informational needs and desires at acceptable costs. We need large-scale experimentation with a number of new information technologies in a variety of situations. A word of caution is required here; the needed experimentation should not take place in a laboratory, it should take place in a real life situation, often in the market place. And in so doing, the new information technologies will be deliberately encouraged as compared with existing information technologies and services. It is important during this introductory or trial period that the existing structure of information services be kept healthy and effective. The complex set of laws, regulations, and other mechanisms for guiding and controlling the allocation of resources to various types and specific information services should be maintained until we see more clearly how and to what degree the new technologies will require their modification. It is especially important to maintain the incentives which have encouraged many of our ablest scientists and engineers to create new textbooks, new curricula, and other educational devices. This has traditionally been done through the commercial publishers, although there is also governmental support for research in these areas. It is for these reasons that I support the proposed legislation pertaining to the use of copyrighted material in computers. Copyright has proven to be an essential mechanism for serving the general welfare when using existing technologies. Until we have developed alternative and equally good mechanisms for encouraging creativity when employing computer-based files, typed printouts, and microimagery, it is my considered judgment that the copyright mechanism should be retained. Furthermore, it should be retained in such strength that it inhibits the natural human tendency to side-step any prohibition when it appears safe to do so. Specifically, copyright should be maintained at the point of input to the computer, since it is so easy to make copies from a 1100 lines per minute printer. The development of alternative mechanisms for encouraging and rewarding creative effort in producing informational materials for education, business, professional, and other uses when employing new information and communications technologies would, I believe, be speeded by the establishment of a study commission. The commission's scope, duties, and authorities should be established by the Congress, since the problems cannot be settled on a technical, economic, or other single basis. Rather, all the aspects of the problem should be carefully explored, the results of current experimentation studied, and the manifold consequences of alternative mechanisms examined. Turning once more to the structural and organizational features of information systems and a national network of systems, we should think about the appropriate roles and functions of the Federal government, state and local governments, commercial enterprises, trade and professional associations, universities, and other non-profit organizations. Any one information system, say, in space technology or oceanography, can be conceived as a series of steps taken or functions performed on a small part of the total universe of knowledge. The new information must be made public and then collected; people must be made aware that the information exists; the information must be presented to many different potential users in different formats and media; it must be screened, analyzed, and examined in relation to what we already know; and finally, it must be stored for easy retrieval over a period of years. Heretofore, it has been almost impossible to achieve a systematic approach to these functions. Some organizations performed one function; others, many functions. The quality of each function varied widely from one subject area to another. Users also have paid varying amounts, with little relation to the varying quality of the information service, but related more to the funding mechanism adopted by the sponsoring organization. The proposers of a series of information systems related together in a network envisioned a much more evenly performed set of functions. They also foresaw that the different sectors of our society would perform these functions, each according to what it could do best. For example, the proper role of the Federal government must be that of ensuring that the national needs are met, but preferably through private sector operations. The Federal government needs to have available to it sufficient information to determine the national needs, mechanisms to make this determination, and techniques (such as legislation, taxation, and subsidy) which will promote the desired information system development in accordance with the national needs. Already the Federal government subsidizes, wholly or in part, the publication of most original research results. |