ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 171 Copyright Law—1976 Submitted by Flora D. Regnier Associate Librarian Head of Technical Services Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute The Eastern New York Chapter of ACRL held its second conference on May 8 on “Copy­ right Law— 1976” at Russell Sage College in Troy, I New York. President Pitkin of Russell Sage welcomed the audience of sixty, who had gathered to hear Representative Edw ard Patti­ son of New York’s twenty-ninth district and Dr. Richard S. Halsey of the School of Library and Information Science of the State University of New York at Albany. Mr. Pattison, a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administra­ tion of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said that the committee, in trying to rewrite the copyright law, has run into several major problems, not the least of which is the fact that the law has not been rewritten since 1909. Technology not only has changed drasti­ cally since then but is still changing so rapidly that trying to deal with it is like “trying to mea­ sure a moving snake.” Another major problem is the fact th at there is no part of the copyright law that does not affect more than one special interest group, be it broadcasters, librarians, performing rights societies, publishers, etc. According to Mr. Pattison, the purpose of the public law of copyright is not to benefit creators b ut to benefit the public, i.e., to get the most information to the public in the cheap­ est and best way possible while damaging as few interests as possible. One result of copy­ right is the protection of the rights of the cre­ ator. Traditionally, Mr. Pattison said, the U.S. has taken a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach to law, relying on the development of common law case by case rather than operat­ ing from an “ideological religion” (e.g., Ham­ murabi’s code). The role of legislators is to de­ fine public policy and to explain it as well as possible, recognizing the limits of language, particularly of words like “systematic.” In the case of copyright, common law will undoubted­ ly develop case by case following the enact­ ment of the new law as it did following the 1909 law. Dr. Halsey, author of Classical Music Re­ cordings for Home and Library (to be pub­ lished this spring), began with a brief historical synopsis of copyright law in the U.S. Legally, the fundamental source for copyright protection in the U.S. is article 1, section 8 of the Consti­ tution: “The Congress shall have the power … to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their re­ spective Writings and Discoveries.” In 1790, Congress passed the first copyright law. It dis­ tinguished between print, reprint, vending, publishing, and copying, thus providing a greater degree of distinction than does the 1909 law. Turning next to the new copyright law, Dr. Halsey mentioned some arguments presented by librarians in relation to “fair use.” Among these arguments are that the rights of the au­ thor have to be balanced with those of the user to assure access to information; th at the essen­ tial change between 1909 and 1976 was in quantity and speed, not in quality; that librari­ ans are agents of researchers rather than prin­ cipals; that it would be too impractical and ex­ pensive to monitor photocopying; that 84 per­ cent of the material photocopied is from jour­ nals and only 3 percent is from monographs. Countering these arguments as an author, Dr. Halsey said that the exclusive rights of the author have been weakened rather than strengthened by the proposed law; that quanti­ ty actually does make a difference; that librari­ ans are really double agents, subsidizing the photocopy industry while assisting researchers; that a monitoring system might work since the bill provides for a five-year review; that a small study he had performed showed that 36 per­ cent of photocopying is actually of whole chap­ ters or other significant sections of monographs. There are two dangers implicit in ignoring the author’s position, according to Dr. Halsey. Undergraduate Librarians Discussion Group Meeting The ACRL Undergraduate Librarians Discussion Group will meet on Wednes­ day, July 21, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. The discussion topic will be “Collection De­ velopment and Undergraduate Librar­ ies.” Speakers will be Richard Gardner, editor of Choice; Keith Cottam, under­ graduate librarian at the University of Tennessee; Elizabeth Ellis, undergradu­ ate librarian at Pennsylvania State Uni­ versity; and Ronald Rucker, undergrad­ uate librarian at Cornell University. For further information, contact Joanne Boelke, Undergraduate Services Librari­ an, Northwestern University Library, Evanston, IL 60201. 172 First is the threat of amalgamation of indus­ trial complexes forming vertically integrated monopolies, which would combine the commu­ nications and publishing industries. Second is the possibility of a gradual increase of govern­ m ent subsidy of publications and outlets, which might lead to a Solzhenitsyn situation where one can write b u t not publish. Dr. Christopher Reaske, dean of the Junior College of Albany, skillfully moderated a dis­ cussion which would undoubtedly have been considerably hotter had not the proposed copy­ right bill been revised recently to specifically allow some “interlibrary arrangements.’’ In response to a query about his mail from constituents, Mr. Pattison said he has gotten very heavy correspondence on the issue of copyright, including some “illiterate” letters from librarians, some of which indicated that the sender had not read the copyright bill, others being thoughtless copies of form letters. He urged the audience not to use the argument of money when writing to legislators on the copyright issue. Although the financial health of libraries is indeed important, it is not ger­ m ane to copyright. Another argument he sug­ gested librarians not make is th at authors of technical journal articles don’t care about copy­ right, b ut publish because their jobs demand O p e r a tin g B u d g e t Cuts? Less staff for equal work? Save tim e and trouble, get the most for your money with service designed to meet your needs. Reduce staff time in claim work and direct or­ dering — let us do the work. Any book in print (U.S. and Canada) can be supplied w ith custom invoic­ ing and prompt, accurate reporting of back ordered titles. Give us a trial order and see what our "Con­ cerned Service" can do for you! it. Congress already knows this, b ut must pro­ tect the assignee of copyright, not just th e cre­ ator. Librarians should recognize, Mr. Pattison said, th at they are not on either the creative or the user side of copyright b u t are right in the middle, between the public and the author, and m ust think of the long-range implications of their position. The interlibrary loan section is now “as satis­ factory as it is going to be,” although Congress realizes th a t it will be hard to apply. Mr. Patti­ son said there has never been a problem with “interlibrary loan”; the problems have been with “interlibrary arrangements.” Photocopying a single copy is not “systematic.” Standing ready to photocopy is not “systematic.” This b e­ havior does not affect the amount of subscrip­ tions. However, according to Mr. Pattison, “To say, ‘I ’ll buy x journal. Then if you need it, we’ll have it.’ This is systematic.” The alterna­ tive probably will be to go through a “technical journal information system.” There is no doubt that section 108 will have an effect. New tech­ nologies will grow up because of it. Distributors will spring up (there is one already in Chica­ go) who will deal with copyright holders and be licensed with publishers to provide technical journal articles to libraries. The Commission on New Technologies, created by Congress several years ago, will formulate guidelines for th e im­ plementation of section 108. W ith the help of publishers, authors, and librarians, it will work out sufficient examples to make it possible to apply 108 to particular cases by analogy. Mr. Pattison could not predict whether the bill would pass this year, since there may be some ideological differences among members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, al­ though there were none in th e subcommittee. In response to a question concerning a cor­ poration library, Mr. Pattison said that, in de­ termining “fair use,” a higher standard would be applied to libraries th at are not open to the public b u t are maintained by a corporation for its own research and development needs. These libraries will b e expected to purchase enough subscriptions to cover their needs to a greater extent than will libraries which service “anyone who walks in.” W hereas the 1909 law started with a not-for-profit distinction, the 1976 law starts w ithout a not-for-profit distinc­ tion and adds it where appropriate throughout the bill. T hat copyright is a fundam ental though com­ plex issue was made abundantly clear by the speakers. Basically, copyright law deals with exceptions to the fundam ental right of proper­ ty. As a group, Dr. Halsey pointed out, Ameri­ cans tend to be more concerned with equality than with fundam ental liberty and justice, oc­ casionally confusing free of charge with free.