Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CENTER FOR RESEARCH LIBRARIES TO ESTABLISH U.S. NATIONAL LENDING LIBRARY FOR JOURNALS1

The availability to our users of backup copies of original documents abstracted by BIOSIS is a concern of long standing. The following announcement promises hope for obtaining copies of primary journal articles which at present are difficult to locate. It is reprinted, with permission of the publisher, as it appeared in Information.

"With the help of a five-year, $450,000 grant, from the Carnegie Corporation, the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) has undertaken an expanded acquisi tions program for currently published journals. This program is planned as the first step toward the establishment of a comprehensive national lending library system for journals. With some additional support CRL could add 6000 titles over a five-year period to bring the total number of journal subscriptions to about 13,000 titles. It is not expected that CRL will be the only lending library in such an ultimately comprehensive system; included as integral elements would be the National Library of Medicine and probably several other national institutions. "Simultaneous with the expansion of its own journal holdings, CRL will make available to its member institutions selected journals from the holdings of the National Lending Library for Science and Technology (NLL), Boston Spa, England. This arrangement with NLL will enable CRL immediately to provide its members with access to several thousand more journals than it has funds to subscribe to now. It will, at the same time, serve as an experiment designed to discover whether there is not a large number of journals for which one copy could adequately serve U.S., British, and Canadian users. Titles frequently requested from the list established for borrowing from NLL through CRL will be acquired.

"CRL is a cooperative ‘libraries' library,' whose operating income is provided by annual fees from its member libraries. Founded in 1949 by ten major universities, CRL now has over 100 full and associate members, primarily major universities but including college, public, special, and governmental libraries. Journals to be included in the project will be suggested by member libraries. CRL will acquire both titles to which members are cancelling subscriptions and newly begun titles in which members are interested. Titles in all fields will be included except those in medicine and agriculture. The majority of subscriptions will be for titles published outside the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain. Contact: CRL, 5721 S. Cottage Grove Ave., Chicago, IL 60637."

THE BRITISH LIBRARY LENDING DIVISION

OVERSEAS PHOTOCOPYING SERVICE (OUTSIDE EUROPE)

The British Library Lending Division now takes more than 45,000 periodicals, and has one of the largest collections of recently published literature in the world, covering science, technology, the social sciences and the humanities. To facilitate the use of the library's photocopying service for articles in periodicals, reports and extracts from books, and, in order to give a quick service, it is necessary for orders to be prepaid. This is by means of coupons which can be purchased from us in books of 20. These must be sent attached to request forms which will be supplied free. The value of the coupons is set out in the table shown later in this pamphlet.

For each photocopy required, copies B and C of a request form, specifying what is wanted and where it is to be sent, together with the required number of coupons should be sent to us. A separate request is required for each item.

If the document is available the copy will be dispatched as quickly as possible, probably within 36 hours of the request being received. If too many coupons are sent, the surplus ones will be returned with the order. If we cannot supply the photocopy we will either pass the request on to another large library in the UK which is thought to have the document, or return the form and replacement coupons to the sender.

Copies will be sent outside Europe by air mail.

1 Reprinted from Information, Part I, News-Sources-Profiles, Vol. 5(2): 66-67, 1973. Publisher Science Associates/International, Inc., 23 East 26th Street, New York, N.Y. 10010.

[blocks in formation]

Table 5

REVENUE AND EXPENSE ITEMS FOR ALL TV STATIONS REPORTING, 1974.

(In Thousands of Dollars)

SCHEDULE 1. BROADCAST REVENUES

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

245,024

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1/ Includes $61,744,260 from barter and trade-out transactions.

2/ Schedule 2 line 6 is included in Schedule 2 line 7.

3/ Total payroll is the sum of Schedule 2 lines 2, 6, 7, 17 and 21.

4/ Stations reporting less than $25,000 in total revenues are not required to report items in Schedules 1 and 2 but are required to report in Schedule 3. Therefore, totals in Schedules 1 and 2 are somewhat lower than totals in Schedule 3.

NOTE: Last digits may not add to totals because of rounding.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

4

Total of any amounts included in line 2 above which represent payments (salaries,
commissions, management fees, rents, etc.) for services or materials supplied by the
owners or stockholders, or any close relative of such persons or any affiliated company
under common control (see page 3 of instructions).

(57.04)

52,131

[blocks in formation]

Introduction

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

While we hesitate to come to the Subcommittee at this juncture with a new proposal for cable copyright liability, we believe the time is ripe for broadcasters to make known the present concerns of the industry with respect to copyright as it appears to have taken shape today.

For broadcasters the critical issue is not whether cable should be subject to copyright but rather, what kind of copyright liability will be applicable. A strong case can be made for normal copyright liability for all cable retransmission of broadcast signals, local and distant. Only this type of normal copyright liability would eliminate the unfair competitive advantage which cable now enjoys. Normal liability would not prevent cable growth; it certainly did not prevent television broadcasting from growing from virtually nothing a generation ago to what it is today.

We now have the Senate bill S. 22, in final form, as well as several other suggestions for changes in section 111, including a second proposal from the Teleprompter Corporation that seems to have cable industry support. Since the beginning of the consideration of copyright by the committee early last year, we have also had a number of changes in the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission which affect cable and are pertinent to the copyright issue and to broadcasters. In addition the staff of the House Subcommittee on Communications has filed a study on cable which makes recommendations in the copyright area.

Taking all of these things into consideration, we believe the copyright situation has changed in some degree and that these changes require broadcasters to view the issues from new and different perspective. While our commitment to a settlement of the copyright issue has not waned, we believe that the new circumstances present an opportunity for a compromise proposal that has some distinct advantages over any other suggestions for section 111 yet made. On the following pages we set out our proposal and the rational for it."

We want to emphasize that the proposal is viewed by broadcasters as a package, an integrated series of concepts with each part dependent on the other. We cannot say, nor would we want to imply, that any one part of the proposal could be accepted without the other parts.

We believe our suggestions have a number of advantages over anything that has gone before. Most significantly, it is a simple proposal and easily understood. There are no complicated formulas that, even if equitable, would prove expensive and difficut to administer. Local signals would be granted a compulsory license and small systems would be granted a total exemption for all signals presently carried. There would no longer be arguments over the tribunal or its periodic meetings. The Register of Copyrights would be relieved of a great deal of paperwork and administrative responsibilities. And the question of fees could be settled where it should be settled, not in the Congress, but among the parties themselves.

We urge the Subcommittee to give serious attention to the broadcast compromise proposal.

THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF SECTION 111 UNDER BROADCAST PROPOSAL

1. All Cable systems would be granted a compulsory license without any copyright payment for all local signals, now or in the future.

2. The spirit of the Senate proposal granting small cable systems a reduction in the fees to be paid would be retained and expanded. A compulsory license without any copyright fee would be granted for all present, FCC-authorized signals, distant and local, for cable systems with revenues of $25,000 or less per quarter or $100,000 or less per annum.

3. Normal Copyright liability would be imposed for all distant signals carried by large systems which do not qualify for the small system exclusion, and for any additional distant signals authorized by the FCC in the future.

4. The language giving broadcasters the right to enforce copyright through appropriate infringement remedies would be qualified to conform with the Senate bill. Under S. 22 broadcaster court action would only come where the violations are willful or repeated.

5. The bill would clearly state that no signal carried by a cable system could be changed or altered in any way by the cable operator unless required to do so by the non-duplication rules of the Federal Communications Commission.

A fuller explanation of each part of this package follows.

1. Exemption of local signals from any copyright payment

The ability to determine which broadcast signals carried by cable systems are "local" and which are "distant" is not a simple matter. In large part, past broadcaster opposition to exclusion of local signals from liability stemmed from this definitional problem.

In the spirit of compromise, however, and as part of the total package addressed in this memorandum, the industry is willing to accept the definition of local signals as those required to be retransmitted by FCC regulation which is the same definition used in the first Teleprompter proposal. While this definition may not be entirely correct, we believe the broadcast industry can accept the exclusion of such signals from copyright payment.

While these signals would be exempt from copyright payments, they should still be covered by a compulsory license so that any violations of the rules of carriage would be subject to appropriate infringement remedies.

2. Exemption for smaller cable systems

The Senate bill includes a provision added on the Senate floor which would have the effect of reducing cable liability for smaller cable systems. Under this amendment, those systems with under $40,000 in revenues per quarter would have their actual revenues reduced for purposes of computing their copyright liability, though no system would pay less than $30 per year for their compulsory license. Under this amendment, systems with less than approximately 1,250 subscribers would receive the benefits of reduced copyright payments.

In the spirit of this provision, we propose that all cable systems with less than $25,000 revenue per quarter or less than $100,000 per annum, be granted a compulsory license without fee from all local signals and all distant signals presently authorized by the FCC. We believe this small business exemption is in the public interest and we estimate that this exemption would apply to half of the cable systems in the country.

However, this compulsory license without fee payment should be given only for signals presently authorized by the FCC. Additional signals which might be authorized in the future should be subject to normal copyright liability, in keeping with the basic principle of fair competition between broadcasters and cable systems for copyrighted product. In addition, the compulsory license without fee should be available only to those systems that are unaffiliated with other, larger systems and are not directly or indirectly under common ownership or control with other systems. It should not be possible for a large cable system or a multiple system operator to escape appropriate liability by splitting up its operations into small systems. To allow this would contravene the spirit of this special small business treatment.

3. Normal copyright liability for distant signals

Once it is accepted that all local signals may be carried without copyright payment (and that all small cable systems will be exempt from payment of fees for carriage of presently authorized signals), then we believe it is most equitable to insist on normal copyright liability for all distant signals carried by nonexempt systems. By normal copyright liability we mean that the bill should establish the liability as it does now, but leave the amount of compensation to be determined by the parties involved. This would mean that this portion of the copyright question would be handled in a normal fashion, that is, in the marketplace where these negotiations should be carried out.

Negotiations could take place on a program-by-program basis, or it is entirely possible that some type of negotiating organization would develop along the lines of ASCAP or BMI.

« AnteriorContinuar »