Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

capacity and ingenuity of the computer. As now written, the Revision Bill would clearly discourage such applications.

Perhaps it is not unfair to construe a further qualification of the transmission 1 exception as setting the overall tone of the education exceptions found in the present Bill. To be excepted, the radius of a transmission must be confined to a total distance of 100 miles. This limitation seems to say something like the following: In the past, transmissions utilized for instruction have been originated fairly close to the point of reception. This past use, where permited by the traditional exceptions in favor of non-profit educational purposes, has not been injurious to copyright holders. The best way to prevent abuses in the future, as a result of uses about which we now know very little, is to discourage them from being significantly different from what has already been proven to be acceptable.

And so, it would seem, goes much of the reasoning which has produced the educational exceptions now written into the Revision Bill.

A final word should be added here concerning one aspect of the Revision Bill which may exacerbate what has already been said about the serious weaknesses in the educational exceptions. According to House Report No. 83, conversion of a copyrighted work into machine-readable form and "input" of the copy in a machine would constitute an infringement, without regard to the subsequent use made of the copy in the machine or even without regard to whether there is any subsequent use at all. This would mean, very simply, that exceptions in favor of certain educational uses would rarely be available if a machine requiring machine-readable copy were involved. In short, if this view of the statute is accepted, the educational exceptions will be essenially illusionary in so far as modern computer technology is concerned.

I want to disavow, in advance, any possible claim that I am asking for a "free ride" for education. The excellent statement filed with this subcommittee by the Interuniversity Communications Council (EDUCOM) is particularly particularly pertinent in this respect. This statement points out that the various educational institutions expend very substantial sums of money on books and related materials and that the favored treatment of the educational enterprise by copyright law is peculiarly appropriate because of the obvious and indispensable contribution which education makes to the production of creative work. It would not be too much to say, I believe, that promoting the "Progress of Science and Useful Arts" through copyright legislation demands that very favorable treatment be afforded the educational enterprise.

I assume that the schools, universities, libraries, and other comparable institutions will continue to pay substantial but fair rates for benefits received by reason of the new technology. But the cost must be reasonable, and I do not believe that the Revision Bill in its present form is likely to make it so.

At the present time there has been much more talk about the effect of advancing technological knowledge than there has been actual application of that knowledge. Using that knowledge may never take place if we have legislation which is likely to make such use prohibitively expensive, or-what would have much the same result-legislation likely to make it seem as if the cost will be prohibitive. There are, no doubt, particular difficulties in drafting legislation to deal with the uncertainties of a future technological capacity-compounded as it is by the uncertainty of the actual use and actual cost of that technology. But it seems far wiser to encourage potentially beneficial changes to develop than to prevent the likelihood of their ever taking place. It is important to remember that educators are authors too, and I think it is generally accepted that authors and publishers have not yet suffered from the on-rush of technological progress. On the contrary, support of the protection built into the Revision Bill to deal with the effect of technological change has been based on the contention that this protection is necessary to eliminate dangers which are predicted for the future.

I submit that it is much more reasonable to legislate against those evils if and when they actually arise. In the meantime, the law should provide liberal xemptions for non-profit educational uses-including research and library as well as instructional purposes. It is, of course, necessary to reeaxmine the effect of such exemptions from time to time and to modify them, as appropriate, to serve he interrelated needs of authors, publishers, schools, universities, libraries, the ndustries directly dependent upon technological apparatus, and the public at arge. To promote such reexamination on an expedient basis, it would be very esirable to incorporate into the copyright law an administrative body, study

79-397-67-pt. 4-21

commission, and/or other "updating" device suggested in the statement of the Interuniversity Communications Council.

It is of paramount importance, however, that the copyright law not adopt those features of the present Revision Bill which would discourage the fullest possible application of technological knowledge to educational purposes.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

March 21, 1967.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter from Dr. D. P. Culp who is President of Alabama College at Montevallo, Alabama. He is also a member of the Program Board of the Alabama Educational Television Commission.

I hope that it may be possible for you to include Dr. Culp's letter in the record of the hearings currently underway on S. 597. Please let me know if this is pos sible.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: As a member of the Program Board of the Alabama Educational Television Commission, I share views and concerns expressed by our General Manager, Mr. Raymond D. Hurlbert, over proposals in the new copyright law now under consideration.

It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has announced that it will hold public hearings on S. 597, the bill for the general revision of the copyright law, on March 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21, commencing at 10:00 a.m., in Room 3302, New Senate Office Building.

Our concern is that modifications or new provisions in the copyright law do not unnecessarily restrict educational television broadcasting in the State of Alabama. You know, of course, that the State of Alabama operates a statewide ETV network to transmit programs of educational interest to many thousands of school children and citizens. We fear that provisions of the proposed bill, particularly Section 110 (2) (B) of the proposed Title 17-Copyright Bill, (also known as House Bill 4347), Section 112 (B), and Section 114 (A) contain exces sive demands and/or limitations on effective broadcasting by noncommercial, publicly operated television stations seeking to serve the general educational interests of the state.

We will appreciate whatever you may be able to do to see that any new copyright law which may be passed is such that educational television broadcasting will not be impaired. It is not necessary to take time from your busy schedule to reply to this letter. I simply wish your consideration of proposed restrictions in ETV broadcasting.

[blocks in formation]

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter from Mr. Ben K. McKinnon, President, Alabama Broadcasters Association, at University. Alabama.

I hope that it may be possible for you to include Mr. McKinnon's letter in the record of the hearings currently underway on S. 597. With kindest regards, I am,

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

JOHN SPARKMAN.

ALABAMA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION,
University, Ala., April 27, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Alabama broadcasters strongly oppose the Williams amendment which would include so-called "performers' rights" in S. 597.

We support the stand taken by the National Association of Broadcasters in opposition to this amendment. While generally favoring the purposes of the bill (S. 597), we are unalterably opposed to an amendment by Senator Harrison Williams which would require broadcasters to pay a fee to record companies and performers each time a record is played.

If adopted, the amendment would more than double the payments radio broadcasters now make for recorded music. This burden would be intolerable for the vast majority of radio stations whose profit margins are small and, for some, non-existent.

The Constitution grants Congress power to secure copyrights for "authors and inventors" and it would breach all copyright concepts to expand this to include record manufacturers and performers.

Performers now obtain two fees-one for pressing a record, the second based on sales and their popularity and fees are enhanced by the wide exposure their records get on radio.

It is further urged that any exemptions from copyright liability for CATV should be limited to systems that do not engage in importation of signals of distant stations or in extensive origination.

We are depending upon you to support our interest in this most critical issue. Sincerely,

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

BEN K. MCKINNON, President.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,
March 23, 1967.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter from Dr. L. Frazer Banks who is Studio Director of the Birmingham Area Educational Television Network.

I hope that it may be possible for you to include Dr. Banks' letter in the record of the hearings currently underway on S. 597. Please let me know if this is possible.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: There is before the Senate a bill for the revision of he Copyright Law, S. 597, with which we in the Educational Television part of chools are greatly concerned. In fact, we believe it would curtail substantially the eaching which we are doing. It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary as announced that it will hold public hearings on this bill on March 15, 16, 17 nd 20 and 21 beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 3302 in the New Senate Office Buildng.

We are particularly apprehensive over the fact that some of the changes which ave been proposed will for all practical purposes seriously handicap our work

by placing this branch of our schools on the same basis as commercial television. Teachers in the classroom now have the right to use certain copyright materiai in their teaching but rightly prohibited from selling such copies. ETV is strictly non-commercial. We operate on a shoestring trying to enrich and improve our schools in our offerings to the pupils in them. ETV needs this same right for using such material in our educational telecasts for the same reason that teachers need them. With the limitations which seem to be included in this proposed bila it would be necessary for us to have legal opinion on practically everything that we do, everything that we show or say on the air. For this our own strictly educational television studios and our own official Alabama Educational Television Commission which operates the Network would not have the money with which to make these examinations nor could we pay for use of any such material. In general, it is my opinion that our quotations from such material would in most cases be of help to the owner of the copyright in calling attention to this material as would be true in use within the classroom.

You have received, I am sure, a letter from Raymond D. Hurlbert, General Manager for our Alabama Educational Television Commission, an official state agency. He has given the information more in detail.

Recently, I was in a conference which included people from all over the country working in educational television. From the expressions of those people as we talked outside of the conference problem I found that they have the same feeling about this bill which I do.

We who are in this phase of our educational work will appreciate greatly any help you can give us. You know much better than I the way in which it can b given. I shall appreciate knowing something of the progress of the help of the committee as it proceeds with its work.

[blocks in formation]

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing some letters and a telegram from some of my constituents which you may wish to insert in the record of your subcommittee's hearings on S. 597. I understand the hearings are now underway.

Please have someone to advise me whether insertion of these communications to me in the record will be possible. I would appreciate it. With kindest personal regards, I am,

Sincerely,

Enclosures.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,
Washington, D.C.:

JOHN SPARKMAN.

MOBILE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Mobile, Ala., March 22, 1967.

Urge you to amend section 110(2) (B) of the proposed copyright law (H.R. 4347) to allow any network of cooperating and interconnecting stations trans mitting from within the confines of any State boundary to be specifically exempt from section 110(2) (B), and urge you to protect noncommercial educational television in the reproduction and transmission of materials for educational purposes.

Dr. C. H. BURNS, Supt.

LIONS CLUB INTERNATIONAL, Moulton, Alabama, March 17, 1967.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: It is our understanding that a committee will soon hold hearings on Senate bill #597 pertaining to the copyright law. Our concern is with that part which pertains to music. At the present time and according to

proposed revisions, composers of copyrighted music are permitted to collect a fee if their music is used by performers. We request that an amendment be attached to the bill exempting fairs from this fee.

The Moulton Lions Club, a non-profit corporation, owns and operates for educational purposes and the purpose of raising funds for Lions Club projects the Lawrence County Fair. We feel that the fee requirement places an unfair burden on our fair which would have entertainment only for purposes of creating additional revenues to provide for premiums and educational exhibits. We therefore feel that non-profit activities of this nature should be exempt from this requirement of the copyright law.

Your support in this matter would me greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

LEONARD J. BURCH,
Fair Chairman

TROY SHRINE CLUB,

PIKE COUNTY FAIR, Troy, Ala., March 16, 1967.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: In regard to a recent announcement that a committee has been selected and in the near future will hold hearings pertaining to the copyright law in Senate Bill #597. Our main concern in this matter is with the section pertaining to music. According to the present proposed revisions, all composers of copyright music are allowed to collect a fee for any copyright used by performers. We are asking that an amendment be attached to the bill exempting fairs from this fee.

The Troy Shrine Club, strictly a non-profit organization, owns and operates the Pike County Fair. The money received as profit from the fair is either given to charity or it is put into a fund for some crippled child or other person with sickness and are in need of financial aid. No member of the Shrine Club at anytime receives money for his services. We feel that for these reasons this fee places a burden on the fair as there are a number of expenses that go along with the promotion of a Fair of this kind, such as premiums and the cost of preparing our educational exhibits. We therefore feel that a Non-profit organization of this nature should be exempt from this requirement of the present copyright law. Your support in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

R. W. KELLY, Secretary-Treasurer.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 19, 1967.

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At its last meeting on April 13, 1967, the Government Advisory Committee on International Book Programs passed a resolution that asked the Secretary of State to convey to the United States Senate that Committee's strong support for enactment of S. 597, the pending copyright law revision bill. The Advisory Committee believes that enactment of S. 597 would be in the national interest because it would contribute to the strengthening of cultural ties between the United States and other nations.

Mr. W. Bradford Wiley, President of the book publishing firm of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., presently serves as Chairman of the Advisory Committee. By letter of April 20, 1967 to Secretary Rusk, Mr. Wiley informed the Secretary of the Advisory Committee's resolution. He also expressed the Committee's views that adherence by the United States to the Bern Copyright Convention would be in the national interest and that enactment of S. 597 would remove the major obstacles to such adherence.

Enclosed are copies of Mr. Wiley's letter, which also quotes the full text of the Advisory Committee's resolution. These copies are forwarded so that the Committee on the Judiciary may give to the views of the Advisory Committee such consideration as it deems appropriate.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »