FIG4. FUNCTION OF COPYRIGHT RIGHTS TO COPY PAYMENTS This method of solving the copyright duplicating problem has many virtues. The chief are: (1) it maintains the copyright principle and sustains that part of the creativity cycle which depends upon copyright; (2) it offers an economic switching device a means for copiers to pay a modest fee for the privilege of copying, and enables them to copy by means of the new techniques, i.e., easily, cheaply, rapidly and lawfully in unlimited amounts; (3) its existence would make unnecessary the appeal to disputed legal principles such as "fair use" in photocopying, and the even more doubtful equating of fair use with the making of single copies; (4) it is readily extendable to other media than graphic; (5) it is based on voluntary adherence to contract, rather than on legal recourse. On the other hand, since the operation will be under the Copyright Statute, the CHC in no way reduces legal recourse in such cases as are necessary. There is little to be said against this solution. Possibly the worst is that it depends upon the voluntary cooperation of publishers and copiers. A voluntary system, say the "hard-headed", will never work. "There will be too many exceptions." One answer to that is that, in the first place, the present Copyright Statute is also primarily designed for voluntary contract between user and copyright owner. The thing which has broken down is not the voluntary nature of the contract, but the capability to make the contract rapidly, so as to permit the user to copy on short notice with his modern means of doing so. The legal recourse against infringement should not obscure the fact that each individual contract between user and copyright owner was and is voluntarily entered upon. What the new CHC would do is to make it feasible to pay a large number of very small royalty payments-rapidly and easily. Again it is said that the CHC will be too expensive to operate and so cannot be self-sustaining. There may indeed be a fairly high cost for setting up the system. But once in existence there is evidence that it will pay for itself, perhaps easily. As to initial costs of setting the system up, there are many enlightened persons and corporations who may make it their business to see that such an institution is not only set up but does not fail for want of pump priming, once they are satisfied of its objectives. In any case it may seem cheap in the long run if the alternative is a decline in the creativity-productivity cycle. Like democracy, it may be inefficient and uneconomical, but still the best solution. In closing I would like to add that the CICP is not committed to this solution, although it is associated with their name. In fact the CICP welcomes suggestions, including other ways to solve the main problem-to bring together the producer of copyrighted works, and the consumer. So I conclude as I began: we must all hang together or assuredly, we shall all hang separately. We must renounce our parochial views on copyright if we are to preserve its Constitutional function as a means of promoting the Sciences and the Arts, i.e., creativity. REFERENCES (1) First Annual Report of the Committee to Investigate Copyright Problems Affecting Communication in Science and Education. Report of May 1960, reprinted with Addenda in 1961, and reprinted in the Bulletin of the Copryight Society of the U.S.A., Vol. 10, No. 1, October 1962. See also Appendix C in reference 2, below. (2)_Reprography and Copyright Law. L. H. Hattery and G. P. Bush, editors. Am. Inst. of Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1964. See I (1), IV (14), V (16) and Appendix C. (3) Working Paper on the Feasibility of a Copyright Clearing House. L. B. Heilprin, June 26, 1963. For copies address CICP Secretary G. J. Sophar, Jonker Business Machines, Gaithersburg, Maryland. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATION The following recommendations are based on opinions as to future conditions, as contrasted with present conditions, i.e., on estimates of the probable evolution of copying and dissemination of copyrighted works within the next quarter century. The CICP recommends that 1. The payment of moderate fees or royalties be recognized by the Congress as a budget cost in research, development, education and other productive uses of copyrighted materials; this cost being recognized in order to maintain a free enterprise system in which the copyright principle has become essential to the advance of science and the arts. 2. In revising the Copyright Statute the Congress introduce no measure which would prolong or aggravate the present short-term technical and economic advantage (as described in the preceding Statement) of the consumer of copyrighted works over the producer; nor which might hinder the normal economic readjustment of this advantage that might be brought about, for example, by establishment of a more effective and rapid means for the consumer to obtain permission to make any number of copies of copyrighted works, and to make prompt payment for same. 3. As an alternative to legislation within the Copyright Statute to correct the economic advantage of the copyright consumer over the producer, the Congress consider chartering a non-profit utility or semi-private corporation, a copyright clearing house, to be operated jointly by representatives of both consumers and producers of copyrighted works, for the purpose of enabling rapid, inexpensive and convenient economic exchange of moderate fees or royalties for rights to copy or to make other uses of copyrighted materials. d-bred silt ye mstaye Senator BURDICK. The committee will be in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. d for oh ndond aan doidw gaide of torso dyrt (Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene on Thursday, March 16, 1967, at 10 a.m.) on blode Jorganiqlanga COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1967 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan (presiding), Burdick, and Fong. Also present: Thomas C. Brennan, chief counsel; Edd N. Williams, Jr., assistant counsel; Stephen G. Haaser, chief clerk, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights; and George S. Green, professional staff member, full committee. Senator MCCLELLAN. The committee will come to order. The Chair notes a number of witnesses are already at the witness table prepared to testify and we will hear you. For the record, the Chair wishes to announce that we may need to interrupt your testimony to hear a Senator or two who may appear. If we interrupt your testimony to hear them, we will have their testimony inserted at another place in the record so there will be continuity of your presentation. But Senators are very busy and sometimes they have three or four committees meeting at once. It is impossible for us to spread ourselves around in order to meet all our responsibilities with government as big as it is today. Should we interrupt your presentation, you will note that it is because we are trying to accommodate Senators who are this day really burdened with responsibilities. Is each of you to testify? STATEMENTS OF HAROLD E. WIGREN, CHAIRMAN, AD HOC COMMITTEE (OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS) ON COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION; DR. LOIS V. EDINGER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (SPEAKING FOR THE NEA); MISS TAIMI LAHTI, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS (NEA); DR. OSCAR CARGILL, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION; JOHN MAXWELL, CHAIRMAN, SECONDARY SECTION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 79-397-67-pt. 1-10 TEACHERS OF ENGLISH; DR. CHARLES L. GARY, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MUSIC EDUCATORS NATIONAL CONFERENCE; HARMON BURNS, LEGAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION; FATHER CLARENCE W. FRIEDMAN, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION; AND HARRY W. ROSENFIELD, ATTORNEY AT LAW Dr. WIGREN. As a panel group, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to introduce them if you wish me to. Senator MCCLELLAN. You will act then as chairman of the panel in the presentation. Please identify those who are present with you for the record, and then you may proceed. Dr. WIGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Harold Wigren, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee of Educational Institutions and Organizations on Copyright Law Revision. I am also the educational television consultant for the National Education Association and the associate director of NEA's Division of Educational Technology. With me on the panel this morning, beginning on my left, is first of all, Dr. John Maxwell, who is chairman of the Secondary Section of the National Council of Teachers of English. Next is Miss Taimi Lahti, who is assistant executive secretary of the Department of Classroom Teachers of the National Education Association. Dr. Lois Edinger, associate professor of education at the University of North Carolina, a member of the National Education Association's board of trustees and a former president of the NEA. On my right, Mr. Harry Rosenfield, who is the chairman of the legal subcommittee for the ad hoc committee. And Father Friedman, director of the College and University Department of the National Catholic Educational Association; Mr. Harmon Burns, legal counsel for the National Catholic Educational Association. Dr. Oscar Cargill, professor emeritus of the New York University, representing on our ad hoc committee the Modern Language Association; and next to him, Dr. Charles Gary, who is the associate executive secretary of the Music Educators National Conference. Senator MCCLELLAN. There are nine of you, I believe? Mr. Chairman, all of us are representatives of organizations who are constituent members of our ad hoc committee, which consists of 34 associations broadly based in the field of education and representative of elementary and secondary schools, higher education, public and parochial schools. When I appeared before you last time, I mentioned to you at the time that this was truly an ecumenical council, because we do represent the broad-based interests of American education. We have been studying the copyright law situation now in a very diligent manner for 3 years and have certain recommendations to make to you here. We have asked to testify again because the bill on which you are now holding hearings is, of course, not the same bill on which we testified previously. Further, the report on the former House bill has been re |