Lapas attēli

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 edi. torial 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,



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. 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 inade 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.


August 10, 1973.
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.



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,


Member of Congress. Enclosure.

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.


sion calling for compulsory arbitration in the event rates cannot be agreed upon. I would like to stress that the copyright holders place a great deal of emphasis upon compulsory arbitration as the only fair and equitable method of assuring rates acceptable to all of those involved.

Further, it should be pointed out that the copyright holders represent the creative elements responsible for producing works of artistic nature and of entertainment value which contribute significantly to cable television programming. The copyright holders are indeed the major program suppliers to this rapidlyexpanding medium.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that as a representative from California, I am deeply concerned with the future of cable television as a source of employment for a presently troubled industry, and as a source of creativity for the entire Nation,



Washington, D.C., August 3, 1973. Hon. John MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Senate Judi

ciary Committee. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am concerned about the possibly adverse effects of section 111 of Senate bill 1361 currently under your committee's review, which sets forth a cable television copyright fee schedule.

It is my understanding that in November, 1971 representatives of copyright holders, broadcasters and cable system operators reached a compromise agreement concerning signal carriage and copyright issues. This agreement was endorsed by the Federal Communications Commission and the Office of Telecommunications Policy. On the fee schedule, the parties agreed to settle their differences by compulsory arbitration in the absence of a mutually acceptable rate schedule.

As you know, both sides have failed to resolve this issue, and have presented conflicting economic studies to document their claims. I believe it would be hazardous for Congress to intervene in this matter at this time and impose an initial fee schedule which may be economically advantageous to only one side. Since the 1971 agreement already provides for legally binding arbitration to settle this dispute, I recommend that this approach be adopted in determining fair and reasonable copyright fees. Sincerely yours,


Member of Congress.


Harrisburg, Pa., August 19, 1973. Hon. Hugh SCOTT, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR Scott: I am informed that the Senate Sub Committee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights conducted hearings on Senate Bill No. 1361 on July 31, and that the hearing record will be closed on August 10.

I respectfully request that the attached statement be made a part of the hearing record, since the subject matter is of grave importance to Pennsylvania libraries, archives and the State Library.

Thanks very much for your often demonstrated interest and support for the programs and resources of American Libraries. Sincerely,


State Librarian. COMMENTS ON SENATE BILL 1361 Libraries of all types in Pennsylvania are meeting individual user needs by vigorous exchange of materials and by providing single-copy extracts of articles and other printed materials needed by researchers and students. Libraries hare relied on the "fair use" concept to protect them against charges of copyright infringement.

While Senate Bill No. 1361 incorporates the "fair use" principle in Section 107 of the Bill, it does not specifically offer the library or archive immunity from prosecution for copyright infringement if it makes even one copy of copyrighted material in response to a request from another library or from an individual.

So that libraries may serve the needs of users to the fullest extent and with a minimum of delay, I urge :

(1) that a library or archive be specifically entitled to make no more than one copy of an article or portion of printed copyrighted material, or of a phonorecord, to assist in teaching, research, or in filling an interlibrary loan request from another library or archive;

(2) that a library or archive be entitled to make a copy of an entire copyrighted work if the library or archive has ascertained that the work can not be readily obtained from trade sources; and

(3) that a library or archive providing a copy of copyrighted material shall attach to the copy a warning that the material copied appears to be copyrighted.

I believe that the above provisions can be incorporated in an amendment to Senate Bill No. 1361 as Section 108(d) as recommended by the American Library Association, and I respectfully urge such amendment as a measure necessary to facilitate research and exchange of materials among libraries.

ERNEST E. DOERSCHUK, Jr., State Librarian of Pennsylvania.


Philadelphia, Pa., August 7, 1973.
Senator Hugh SCOTT,
Senator from Pennsylvania,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR HUGH: I am writing to you on behalf of the Board of Trustees and staff of the Free Library of Philadelphia concerning the current hearings of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Edmon Low testified before the Subcommittee on behalf of the American Library Association asking that the amendment to the copyright revision bill, S. 1361, include a definite statement that making a single copy to aid in teaching and research, and particularly in interlibrary loan, is permissible and not subject to possible suit for this activity in behalf of the public good. We wholeheartedly endorse this position and ask your support of this recommended revision. Without such a provision librarians in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation would be seriously restricted in their ability to offer quality reference service and in the general performance of their duty to patrons.

We would be appreciative if you would include this letter as a part of the committee's hearing record. Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM W. BODINE, Jr., First Vice Prcsident, Board of Trustecs.


New York City, September 14, 1973. Hon. John L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Committee

on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : On July 31 and August 1 of this year, the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights held hearings on various aspects of S. 1361, a bill providing for the general revision of the Copyright Law (Title 17, United States Code). At the conclusion of those hearings you extended an invitation to other interested parties to submit written comments on the proposed legislation. Spanish International Network and Spanish International Communications Corporation, a company operating Spanish-language television broadcasting stations in several major U.S. communities, therefore takes this opportunity to present a statement of its position on an aspect of the proposed bill which is of great concern to Spanish International—the matter of copyright liability for secondary transmissions by cable television systems.

Our position in this regard is set forth in the attached Statement of Spanish International Communications Corporation, which we respectfully request be made a part of the record of the Hearings held earlier this summer. If desired by the Chariman, we would be pleased to testify before the Committee on this matter. Respectfully,





Spanish International Communications Corporation is the Federal Communications Commission licensee of television broadcast stations KMEX-TV, Channel 34, Los Angeles, California, KFTV, Channel 21, Hanford, California, KWEXTV, Channel 41, San Antonio, Texas, WLTV, Channel 23, Miami, Florida, and WXTV, Channel 41, Paterson, New Jersey. All of the Spanish International stations broadcast almost exclusively in the Spanish-language, serving some six to eight million Spanish-Americans (including Mexican-Americans, Puerto-Rican nationals and Cuban-Americans, among others) with quality news, public affairs and entertainment programming.

The continuation of such quality programming on our stations is now seriously theratened by recently adopted provisions of the Federal Communications Commission relative to secondary transmissions by cable television systems in the United States. It is this situation which prompts our submission which, as noted briefly above, deals principally with those provisions of the proposed legislation (S. 1361) which concern the copyright liability of cable television systems. A brief background discussion will serve to put our particular problem in proper perspective.

By letter to Congress dated August 5, 1971, the Federal Communications Commission set forth proposals for the future regulation of cable television systems. One such proposal was to permit the unrestricted importation, by U.S. cable operators, of foreign language television signals (in our particular case, television signals from Mexico). At the same time the Commission proposed to limit the cable carriage of distant English-language signals to what was termed “adequate television service” (see section 111(c)(3) of S. 13661). No such limitations were placed upon the cable carriage of foreign-language broadcast signals.

In a letter dated September 22, 1971, Spanish International requested the Commission to reconsider that part of its August 5 Letter of Intent which sought to permit the wholesale importation of Mexican broadcast signals. The letter took issue with the wisdom of such a policy and demonstrated that unrestricted importation of Mexican signals could well destroy Spanish-language broadcasting in the United States—a result, we urged, which could not possibly serve the public interest in an effective and viable local television service for the Spanish American population.

In our letter of September 22, 1971, we explained how this could occur. For example, we pointed out that Spanish International relies to a very large extent on programming which is carried by many, if not all, of the Mexican border stations, and that many of the hest programs carried on the Mexican network, and distributed to border affiliates, are not made available to Spanish International until as much as a year or more from the date of first transmission in Mexico. In addition, we noted that while Spanish International is required to pay substantial duties, freight and taping charges to import quality Spanish-language programming, Mexican stations, and U.S. cable television systems importing their signals, are in a position to avoid these expenses. We concluded that all of these considerations added to a significant competitive disadvantage for U.S. Spanish-language broadcasters—who were now being asked to compete against Mexican as well as other U.S. stations, for an audience, which has been recognized by the Commission to be "limited in number”.

Although it then appeared that the Commission's proposed cable regulations would tend to restrict importation of Mexican Spanish-language signals into markets where there is a local Spanish-language station, by counting such imported signals against the cable system's "quota”, the current rules do not appear to have been interpreted by the Commission to give domestic stations such protection. In addition, in those markets with no local Spanish-language sta

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »