Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

+ shows building level materials sales-traditionally, those materials t is modest enough to permit acquisition by, and storage within,

[ocr errors]

buildings continued to widen their lead over the highercommanding an impressive 74.8% share of the total edu+ Building level materials sales increased 13.7%, while modest 3.3% in 1972. 16mm films continued to lead all llar expenditures, however, with total sales of $54

uilding level materials in volume increase, rising dia kits experienced the greatest rate of growth, aillion. Pre-recorded tapes were up 21.5% and 88mm 1 17.3%.

audio cassette on educational media development and dramatic. Whereas in 1969 cassette volume was considered warrant a separate category in the EMPC Annual Survey and › accounted for 86.1% of all pre-recorded tape sales last year. nough less pronounced-development, the cassette version of strip continued to gain ground on the record version, accounting total sound filmstrip sales in 1972, up from 33% % the preceding

66, the first year the Educational Media Producers Council conducted cry-wide survey, audio-visual materials sales to education have increased making strong inroads into the traditionally textbook-oriented education et. Sales of the textbook-which remains the dominant instructional Jum-have increased by 22.7% during the same period.

Copies of the 20-page EMPC Annual Survey and Analysis are available for $37.50 from Educational Media Producers Council, 3150 Spring Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

Mr. STEPHEN G. HAASER,

THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE,

Boston, Mass., August 6, 1973.

Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Tradesmarks, and Copyrights, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HAASER: I am Dr. Franz J. Ingelfinger, Editor, New England Journal of Medicine, 10 Shattuck Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. In the past I have been Chairman of the Editorial Board of the publication Gastroenterology, a two-term member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, and for 14 years an editor of the Year Book of Medicine. I was for 14 years a member of various advisory boards to the NIH, I have also been a National Consultant to the Air Force, and a Consultant to the Veterans Administration and the Army. I currently serve as a Consultant to the FDA and the National Library of Medicine.

I appreciate this opportunity to present my views of the copyright bill, S. 1361, and request that this statement be made part of the official record. Of the many criticisms made of the American health care system, one of the most serious and also one of the most accurate is its lack of efficient and appropriate communication at all levels. The practicing doctor is overwhelmed with "facts," but their mass is disorganized and unselective; thus the practicing physician is not effectively exposed to the best information available at academic centers. The trainee in medicine the student and the house officer-is similarly discouraged by the abundance of information that is available somewhere, but which he cannot obtain because it is widely scattered and often inaccessible. Even research scientists face similar difficulties.

This otherwise dismal communication picture is alleviated in part by a number of indexing, abstracting, and duplicating services, and outstanding among these are the services of the National Library of Medicine which make it possible for physicians, scientists and students to discover titles and information pertinent to their needs. But the title, or even an abstract, is not enough; the entire article must be made available to the doctor if he is to use the new medicine correctly, or to the student if he is to understand a new process adequately. He needs a copy of the original publication.

The distribution of copies of original articles by the National Library of Medicine and by other medical libraries is thus a communiction system that must be sustained and nurtured rather than impeded. To place further financial constraints on the ready distribution of copies of medical articles is to interfere, ulti

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., August 9, 1973.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: During the testimony of the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision at the copyright hearings on July 31, you made the following statement: "I think it is valid and important to ascertain what the impact of this educational exemption for educational purposes is" [the limited educational exemption which the Ad Hoc Committee is proposing]. And you added a question, "What impact, if any, will this have on the ability of present sources to continue to make such materials available? If it is serious, it ought to be weighed; if it is trivial, it ought to be ignored."

In response to your question, you will recall that I read the opening paragraph of a news release issued by the Educational Media Producers Council on May 16, 1973, entitled "DEMAND FOR EDUCATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS RISES 10.8% in 1973."

In order that the members of your Subcommittee might have access to the entire news release, I am attaching a copy hereto and respectfully request that you give permission to add it to the record of the hearings.

I believe this news release shows clearly the fact that the educational media producers are not suffering because of uses of their materials by the educational community. I think it important to stress here that the Ad Hoc Committee is not urging Congress to give teachers, librarians, educational broadcasters, etc., a broad exemption which far exceeds statutory "fair use." We are simply asking that Congress make legal the limited reproduction prac tices which teachers are now undertaking as part of their day-to-day teaching responsibilities. These practices have been delineated in our testimony. We are not asking for more privileges for copying but rather for protection for the rights we now exercise in fact. As you know from our testimony, we seek a limited educational exemption, or, in lieu of this, a broadly interpreted "fair use" clause with outright rejection of the Williams & Wilkins decision and with authorization for limited, multiple copying of short, whole works such as poems, articles, stories, and essays for classroom purposes and with "fair use" extended to include instructional technology as well as print materials. Publishers will fare no worse than they now fare under the existing law. As you will see from the attached news release, publishers are faring pretty well, and we would say the source of materials is by no means drying up.

Again, we should point out that we give visibility to the authors' works and, as a result, create markets for them. One could even make the point that publishers and authors should pay teachers for promoting their works in the classroom!

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you and the members of your Subcommittee.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD E. WIGREN,
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee (of Educational Organizations and Insti-
tutions) on Copyright Law Revision.
Attachment.

EDUCATIONAL MEDIA PRODUCERS COUNCIL,
Fairfax, Va., May 16, 1973.

DEMAND FOR EDUCATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS RISES 10.8% IN 1973 Fairfax, Va.-Greater use of audio-visual materials continued to characterize the classroom in 1972, according to a report to be released May 31 by the Educational Media Producers Council. The EMPC Annual Survey and Analysis of Educational Media Producers' Sales shows total sales of non-textbook instructional materials rose to $214.7 in 1972, an increase of 10.8% over 1971.

The survey, conducted by an independent market research firm under the auspices of the Educational Media Producers Council, presents a comprehensive picture of total industry software volume and a wide range of statistical data and analysis of the education market. It includes information gathered from more than 217 audio-visual producers. Represented in the survey are small filmstrip houses as well as the largest educational publishers, stated EMPC Executive Director Daphne Philos.

The report shows building level materials sales-traditionally, those materials whose unit cost is modest enough to permit acquisition by, and storage within, individual school buildings-continued to widen their lead over the higherpriced 16mm films, commanding an impressive 74.8% share of the total educational media market. Building level materials sales increased 13.7%, while 16mm film sales rose a modest 3.3% in 1972. 16mm films continued to lead all audio-visual materials in dollar expenditures, however, with total sales of $54 million.

Sound filmstrips led all building level materials in volume increase, rising $6.2 million, but multi-media kits experienced the greatest rate of growth, spurting 23.1% to $27.2 million. Pre-recorded tapes were up 21.5% and 88mm silent film loops increased 17.3%.

The impact of the audio cassette on educational media development and sales continues to be dramatic. Whereas in 1969 cassette volume was considered too insignificant to warrant a separate category in the EMPC Annual Survey and Analysis, cassettes accounted for 86.1% of all pre-recorded tape sales last year. In a parallel-though less pronounced-development, the cassette version of the sound filmstrip continued to gain ground on the record version, accounting for 41.9% of total sound filmstrip sales in 1972, up from 33% % the preceding year.

Since 1966, the first year the Educational Media Producers Council conducted its industry-wide survey, audio-visual materials sales to education have increased 81.9%, making strong inroads into the traditionally textbook-oriented education market. Sales of the textbook-which remains the dominant instructional medium-have increased by 22.7% during the same period.

Copies of the 20-page EMPC Annual Survey and Analysis are available for $37.50 from Educational Media Producers Council, 3150 Spring Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

Mr. STEPHEN G. HAASER,

THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE,

Boston, Mass., August 6, 1973.

Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Tradesmarks, and Copyrights, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HAASER: I am Dr. Franz J. Ingelfinger, Editor, New England Journal of Medicine, 10 Shattuck Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. In the past I have been Chairman of the Editorial Board of the publication Gastroenterology, a two-term member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, and for 14 years an editor of the Year Book of Medicine. I was for 14 years a member of various advisory boards to the NIH. I have also been a National Consultant to the Air Force, and a Consultant to the Veterans Administration and the Army. I currently serve as a Consultant to the FDA and the National Library of Medicine.

I appreciate this opportunity to present my views of the copyright bill, S. 1361, and request that this statement be made part of the official record. Of the many criticisms made of the American health care system, one of the most serious and also one of the most accurate is its lack of efficient and appropriate communication at all levels. The practicing doctor is overwhelmed with "facts," but their mass is disorganized and unselective; thus the practicing physician is not effectively exposed to the best information available at academic centers. The trainee in medicine-the student and the house officer-is similarly discouraged by the abundance of information that is available somewhere, but which he cannot obtain because it is widely scattered and often inaccessible. Even research scientists face similar difficulties.

This otherwise dismal communication picture is alleviated in part by a number of indexing, abstracting, and duplicating services, and outstanding among these are the services of the National Library of Medicine which make it possible for physicians, scientists and students to discover titles and information pertinent to their needs. But the title, or even an abstract, is not enough; the entire article must be made available to the doctor if he is to use the new medicine correctly, or to the student if he is to understand a new process adequately. He needs a copy of the original publication.

The distribution of copies of original articles by the National Library of Medicine and by other medical libraries is thus a communiction system that must be sustained and nurtured rather than impeded. To place further financial constraints on the ready distribution of copies of medical articles is to interfere, ulti

mately, with the quality of medical practice in this country. Thus I should like to oppose in the strongest terms the provisions of section 108, (d), (1) in S. 1361. The difficulties that this portion of the bill would impose might convert many a potential user to a nonuser, and many a medical library from a unit that now survives to one that would fail because of increased financial burdens. I cannot believe that such consequences reflect the desires of the medical profession, of Congress, or of the American people. These desires, moreover, should take precedence over the needs of commercial endeavors that wish to protest their investment by more stringent copyright laws.

It is my understanding that the American Library Assoication has submitted to you a substitute for section 108, a section that would entitle a library or archives to supply, "without further investigation," "a copy of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue." This wording would eliminate the serious problems that I anticipate if the present version of the section is allowed to stand.

May I also have the privilege of submitting to the Committee copies of an editorial I have previously written on the same subject, an editorial that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, volume 287, page 357, in the issue of August 17, 1972.

Once again, may I thank you for the privilege of being permitted to submit my views on this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures.

FRANZ J. INGELFINGER, M.D.

CRUCIAL LIBRARY SERVICES DEPEND ON PHOTOCOPYING

The welter of complaints about the mass, slowness and unmanageability of medical communication obscures its numerous assets. One of these is photocopying, the process that makes it possible for you and me to obtain a copy of any article in a medical library's holdings. Moreover, by a remarkable hierarchial system spreading outward from the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to its 11 regional affiliates, and thence to community hospitals, a photocopy of practically any article ever recorded in the medical literature is available for our use. In 1971 the NLM and its regional branches sent out nearly half a million photocopied items of this type.1 An approximately equal number of photocopies of medical material was probably made and given to consumers of medical literature by libraries operating independently of the NLM network. The making and distribution of such photocopies, moreover, were often supported by the federal government or by local funding mechanisms; in some instances the customer had to pay a nominal fee. Thus, photocopying is at the heart of a remarkably effective, economically reasonable, and extensively used method of spreading the medical news. If it exists in print, the description of an elaborate extraction procedure is available to any laboratory worker, and the authoritative evaluation of a new diagnostic approach can lie on any practitioner's desk.

No one, surely, would wish to interfere with this system of making the entire library resources of the United States available to the totality of potential patrons, particularly in view of the numerous complaints that the science and practice of medicine suffer for lack of interconnecting spans. Unfortunately, some do wish to interfere. Beginning in January, 1973, articles appearing in (or that have appeared in) the 38 scientific journals published by Williams and Wilkins will not be so readily available for photocopying. On the basis of a report made by a commissioner of the United States Court of Claims, Williams and Wilkins will impose a charge of 5 cents a page on all multiple copies of a single article, and on all copies (even single ones) made for inter-library dissemination. (If this charge were to be applied to all publications, a yearly fee of about half a million dollars would be collected from NLM.) Libraries will be licensed to make single copies of articles from Williams and Wilkins publications to fulfill requests from individual patrons, but the tribute exacted from libraries for this license is an increase in the library's subscription prices for Williams and Wilkins journals amounting to an average of $3.65 per volume.

Photocopying may impose an economic squeeze on small-circulation journals, but efforts to protect the welfare of such journals should not be permitted to jeopardize what is one of the redeeming features of our struggling system of

1 Cummings MM, Corning, ME: The Medical Library Assistance Act: an analysis of the NLM extramural programs, 1965-1970. Bull Med Libr Assoc 59:375–391, 1971.

medical communication. Educational and scientific groups representing many facets of American medicine have deplored the action taken by Williams and Wilkins. JAMA published a fine editorial pointing at the impediments to communication and the cost escalation that may ensue. The New England Journal of Medicine joins in this protest against a move that threatens a communication mechanism evolving in response to today's and tomorrow's needs. The Journal reaffirms its policy with respect to photocopying: libraries and other nonprofit institutions may photocopy Journal articles at will.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

F. J. INGELFINGER, M.D.

THE NEW REPUBLIC,
August 10, 1978.

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

DEAR SENATOR: While the New Republic did not appear before your committee to consider the effects of photocopy, we would like to take this opportunity to endorse the testimony of the American Business Press, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of University Press.

Without copyright protection, magazines like The New Republic could perish very easily. We understand libraries desire the unrestricted right to photocopy one copy at a time. Each time this happens, our limited market is further restricted.

We are perfectly willing to give reasonable consent, but it is the sanctity of the copyright that has made possible the free flow of information in the U.S. We are therefore hopeful that Sec. 108 will be limited to archival reproduction and the Library amendment will be defeated.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT J. MYERS, Chairman.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 31, 1973.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of heavy congressional activities, it is not possible for me to address your committee, but I would be pleased if you could place the enclosed material in the committee record.

As you can see from the text, this matter is of great concern to me because of its effect on a great many individuals in my congressional district. Sincerely,

Enclosure.

THOMAS M. REES,
Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman: My name is Thomas M. Rees. I'm a member of Congress from the 26th District of California. My district encompasses Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and much of the San Fernando Valley. Many of my constituents are employed in the film industry and are deeply concerned about Section 111 of S. 1361, the copyright fee schedule. It's our feeling that the schedule is inadequate and inflexible. We hope that the subcommittee will re-draft the section to encompass the 1971 consensus agreement.

The Consensus Agreement to which I am referring was formulated in November of 1971 and at that time received broad support throughout the industry. To refresh the committee's memory, the Committee of Copyright Owners, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the National Cable Television Association, representing copyright holders, broadcasters, and cable system operators respectively, came up with an agreement, on the heels of intensive discussions, at the behest of the FCC and the OTP and with the sanction of this committee and its chairman.

Regrettably, one of the major objectives of these meetings, the formulation of a realistic fee schedule, was not achieved due to the complicated nature of the problem. The agreement acknowledges this difficulty and contains a provi

2 Editorial, Photocopying and communication in the health sciences. JAMA 220:13571358, 1972.

20-344-73-42

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »