[669] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
AAP Statement, pt.2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cindy Goldstein)
Mon Jul 6 09:50:21 1992
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 08:42:15 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Cindy Goldstein <LB04ILF@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
AAP Statement... Part 2
HOUSE ADDED PRIVISO THAT BECAME LAW
During consideration of the 1976 Act by the House of
Representatives (following the Senate action), language was added
to Section 108 (g) in response to concerns raised by the library
community that on occasion librarians request a photocopy of an
article from another library's holdings to satisfy a patron. They
pointed out that usually in these cases they would not choose to
subscribe to the journal because it had no ongoing relevance to
their clientele. These incidental, sporadic and cumbersome-to-fill
requests were described as "interlibrary loans", from the days when
the actual tangible book or journal was loaned to the requesting
library. The House then inserted the following proviso to Section
108 (g):
Provided, That nothing in this clause prevents a library
or archives from participating in interlibrary
arrangements that do not have, as their purpose or
effect, that the library or archives receiving such
copies or phonorecords for distribution does so in such
aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription
to or purchase of such work.
CONTU GUIDELINES ON INTERLIBRARY LOAN
The library and publishing communities met under the auspices
of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted
Works (CONTU) to develop guidelines for construing the
"substitution for subscription/purchase" language of the proviso.
They reached agreement with respect to the most common sorts of
such interlibrary loans: articles from journal issues under 5 years
old. Librarians noted that when they got more than five requests
per year for materials from a given title, they typically entered
a subscription because that number shows sufficient interest to
warrant adding the journal to the library's collection, and because
ILL "borrowing" is costly in its own right.
The CONTU-assisted guidelines appear in the Conference Report
and provide some limits as to what copying may be done under the
proviso. These guidelines were created in the "low tech"
Interlibrary Loan (ILL) environment of the late 1970's: generally
cumbersome, slow, unthreatening photocopying designed to fill
certain ILL requests incidental to the library's overall activity.
The CONTU Report itself indicated that the guidelines would not
apply to institutions specializing in document delivery services:
The point has been made that the present practice on
interlibrary loans and use of photocopies in lieu of
loans may be supplemented or even largely replaced by a
system in which one or more agencies or institutions,
public or private, exist for the specific purpose of
providing a central source for photocopies. Of course,
these guidelines would not apply to such a situation.
THE PROBLEM TODAY
"The problem today is that the advent of post-1976
technologies -- fax machines, computer networks, low-priced
scanners and CD-ROM's -- has facilitated the interlibrary delivery
of photocopies of articles and chapter-length excerpts from books
and generated services focussed on this conduct. Some facilities
have begun to charge service fees for providing the copies while
not paying royalties to publishers because the copying is,
according to them, 'interlibrary loan and permissible under the
CONTU guidelines.' However, as stated above, this copying is far
beyond that permitted under CONTU and therefore, may be done only
with permission of copyright holders."
"Additionally, librarians have vigorously promoted 'resource
sharing' which amounts to nothing less than the Senate's third
example of forbidden coordinated subscription buying to 'save
money' by filling patron needs from source libraries. This copying
and document delivery far exceeds the scope of interlibrary
'lending' contemplated by Congress or CONTU in permitting
interlibrary loan arrangements under the proviso. When the push
for resource sharing and the development of consortia are combined
with the new networks and even the existing inter-university
network (Internet), one sees a formula for the erosion of
publishing revenues in this country, from: (1) lost book and
journal subscription sales, (2) lost royalty income from licensing,
and (3) lost new product opportunities. The revenue base that now
supports publishing relies on multiple opportunities to exploit a
product such as income from sales, subscriptions, and licenses.
The interlibrary copying without permission and other nonauthorized
document delivery denies the copyright owner its rights under the
law."
end of part 2
Cindy Goldstein
Tulane University Medical Center Library
1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112-2699
(504) 587-7317
(504) 587-7417 (FAX)
LB04iLf@music.tcs.tulane.edu.
