Testimony
Canadian Association of Research Libraries
l'Association des bibliothèques de recherche du Canada
Testimony on Bill C32
(an Act to Amend the Copyright Act)
Témoignage sur le projet de loi C-32
(loi pour amender la loi sur les droits d'auteur)
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
2nd Session, 35th Parliament
Presented by Graham R. Hill
October 29, 1996
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Graham Hill, and I am the University Librarian at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. I am also a Past President and Director of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries.
I am honoured and pleased to appear before the Committee on behalf of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, and would like to introduce Mr. Tim Mark, Interim Executive Director of the Association, who is with me this evening.
INTRODUCTION
As indicated in the Association's written submission to the Committee, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries consists of twenty-seven major university libraries, the National Library of Canada and the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. The combined collections of our member libraries form the largest, and in many respects, the most comprehensive library resource for study and research in Canada. In 1995, our university member libraries collectively held ninety-five million equivalent volumes of print holdings, and maintained current subscriptions to three hundred and sixty-four thousand academic journals and serials.(1)Last year, we spent nearly one hundred and twenty million dollars on books, journals, and other information media.
THE PRINCIPLE OF BALANCE IN CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW
Canada's research libraries have long advocated that Canada should be governed by, and benefit from, intelligent and balanced copyright law, which has been crafted following wide consultation and substantial scrutiny by Parliament. This means that on the one hand we respect and support strong copyright protection for creators; but on the other hand, we are committed to equally strong statutory respect for the need to promote the growth and advancement of Canada by the encouragement of learning, research, and the creation of new knowledge through legislated provisions that balance the monopoly and controlling position of the rightsholder with the imperative for our society that it facilitate and encourage the growth and spread of knowledge.
With the passage of Phase I reforms in 1988 to strengthen the rights of Canadian creators and rights-holders, the educational and library communities were repeatedly assured that the second phase of reform would restore the principle of balance to Canadian copyright law by the inclusion of certain exceptions for educational and library uses of copyright. Thus these sections of the Bill fulfil a long-standing commitment made by the government many years ago. They were the outcome of a wide-ranging series of consultations conducted by the government, and will, if passed into law, bring Canadian legislation into line with the copyright laws of comparable common law jurisdictions.
THE NEED FOR THE EDUCATIONAL AND LIBRARY EXCEPTIONS
Collection management
It is generally recognized that Canada is a net importer of information. Research libraries typically spend between 10% and 15% of their acquisitions funds on Canadian publications, and in comparison with our information partners in the United States and Europe, Canada has considerably greater need for the cultural products and research activities of other countries, which have a larger population and resource base. But we do have unique strengths and resources, and it is upon these which we must capitalize, so that we can rightfully maintain our place on the field of international knowledge. The research libraries regard the provisions in section 30.1--which will permit libraries to preserve and maintain their collections without infringing copyright, and yet safeguard the interests of rights-holders through regulating the procedures for such copying activity--to be of great importance for the long-term preservation of Canada's research resources and literary heritage.
Interlibrary loan
Interlibrary loan has long been a recognized as an important vehicle to facilitate research. Not even the largest library can be self-sufficient in its ownership of recorded knowledge. Through the system of lending original and surrogate copies of scholarly works, libraries enhance the support they provide to research. The need for the surrogate copy, which is made with no motive of profit, arises from the form of serial publication. If libraries lent the entire physical volume--which often contains more than fifty separate works--to the distant researcher, this would not only effectively remove all these works from our shelves for a period of weeks, but it would also give rise to damage and deterioration. Timeliness is an important factor in the conduct of research--especially in the scientific and technical disciplines--and most of our libraries strive constantly to minimize delay. Interlibrary loan is not--and never has been--a substitute for local collection development. Rather, it recognizes the global nature of enquiry, and the reality that no library can acquire a copy of all works that may be needed. In a research library, interlibrary loan traffic accounts for about 2% of total circulations from its own collection.(2)
Without the statutory right to engage in non-profit ILL, a non-profit library is required to obtain the permission of the rights holder, or to obtain copyright clearance through increasingly expensive licensing arrangements with a copyright collective. Canadian research libraries--and hence Canadian researchers--are thereby placed at a disadvantage in comparison with their colleagues in comparable jurisdictions, for example, the United States, where legislated exceptions for the purpose of facilitating research permit libraries to make and send a surrogate copy of a journal article for the purposes of research or private study without infringing copyright.
In summary, therefore, of its views on the provisions for interlibrary loan, the Association welcomes the provisions of section 30.2, which will permit the long-standing practice of sharing the more esoteric collection resources of a research library with the patrons of other not-for-profit libraries.
Self-service copiers
The provisions contained in section 30.3 of the Bill, which would release libraries and their parent institutions from liability for the potentially illegal use of photocopy machines on their premises, provided certain conditions are met, are eminently sensible. Canadian research libraries have long demonstrated their respect for copyright, and frequently play an important role in educating members of their communities--who are both creators and users of copyright material--on intellectual property issues. All of the Canadian universities hold current licences with CANCOPY (the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency), and have instructive signs on copyright law and the licence posted above every self-service copying machine. We do not abdicate responsibility for the use of these machines, but rather make continuing efforts to educate our faculty and students on the importance of respect for copyright.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY OTHERS
We understand that the submissions of other bodies to the Committee oppose the legislation of virtually all exceptions for educational, library and archival uses of copyright. The arguments made in opposition to section 30.2, and more particularly in opposition to subsection (5) --commonly referred to as the interlibrary loan exception --require comment from the research library community.
Briefly stated, the publishers of academic journals fear that an ILL exception will have an adverse effect upon their market and revenues. Librarians fear that without an exception in law, the sharing of materials among researchers and institutions will be diminished to the detriment of private study and research. Academic publishers and rights-holder groups generally advance three positions, or reasons, in support of their arguments against a legislated exception such as this one:
firstly, rights-holders believe that they would be economically disadvantaged by such an exception, believing that they are due repeated and continuing compensation for this use of rights which they have generally secured at no cost from the scholar;
secondly, that such an exception would permit libraries to compete with the copyright owner in a primary market; and,
thirdly, that such an exception would encourage libraries to reduce their subscription holdings, and rely increasingly on interlibrary loan to meet their patrons' needs.
The first argument--for continuing compensation for use--has little merit. Academic journal publishers already receive compensation through the relatively high annual prices set for these journals; a differential pricing structure that sets a significantly higher price for institutional subscriptions than for personal ones; and the publishers' policy of factoring subscription cancellations into the base price of the journal. The committee will be interested to know that the statistics of the Association of Research Libraries in Washington, D.C. reports that the average unit cost of an academic journal purchased by a North American research library in 1995 was $287.35, and that the average annual increase in this cost over the last ten years has been 11.4%.(3)
The second reason that is frequently advanced is that libraries might compete in the copyright owner's primary market. Presumably, this implies that some research institutions may use the multi-million dollar investments they have made in their collections to develop a revenue stream in competition with academic publishers. In our view, this fear is groundless, and cannot be supported. Until the mid-1970's, research libraries provided interlibrary lending services at no charge whatsoever. As funding declined, however, a few of the larger libraries attempted to stem the demand for loans by the introduction of a deterrent fee--generally about $5.00 per transaction. This caused volatile shifts in the lending and borrowing patterns among libraries, and soon most libraries imposed this deterrent charge . This deterrent charge is now uniform among university libraries in most provinces, and in Ontario is still $5.00, despite the fact that an Interlibrary Loan Cost Study, conducted in 1993 revealed that the benchmark cost of a completed interlibrary loan transaction--excluding the capital investment in the collections--was $25.32 for the borrowing library, and $14.86 for the lending library, for a total of $40.18.(4) Research libraries continue to engage in interlending for service reasons, and not economic ones.
The third argument captures the fear on the part of publishers that libraries will reduce their serial subscriptions through inter-university subscription management schemes. There is no question that university libraries are reducing their journal subscription commitments, and will continue to do so in the face of the increasingly limited resources available to universities, and the recognition that the usage made of many academic journals is extremely low. In good economic times, libraries were able to purchase a wide array of journals no matter how small the demand for their use; but we are well past that stage. With university budgets being reduced by 15% to 20%, publishers must expect some adverse effect on their revenues. No library is cancelling journals in high demand, and it is inconceivable that they could do so. Without some demand for a journal, either within or outside the university, there would be no point in purchasing it at all. It is our view that neither resource-sharing practices nor subscription cancellations pose a significant threat to the revenue base of academic journal publishers.
In summary, therefore, and in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries appreciates this opportunity to present our views on Bill C-32; we applaud the commitment of the government to move forward with the proposed reforms to redress the imbalance created with the passage of Bill C-60 over eight years ago. We believe this legislation offers a fair and reasonable compromise in this extremely complex area of the national interest, which will serve to strengthen both teaching and research in Canadian universities for the benefit of all our citizens.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
1. Canadian Association of Research Libraries. Statistics. Ottawa (compiled by the University of Ottawa Library Network), March 1996. Table V: Expenditures, Establishment and Collection size for the year 1994-95.
2. ARL Statistics, 1994-95, Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C., p. 39.
The percentage figure is derived from column 36 (Total circulation transactions) and column 38 (Total items loaned - ILL). For example: UBC (3,337,137/45,239) = 1.35%; U. of Guelph (378,430/3,210) = 0.84%; McGill University (915,538/22,158) = 2.42%.
3. ARL Statistics, 1994-95, Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C., p. 11. Note that the figure of $287.35 is converted into Canadian dollars (from Table 2): USD211.29 x 1.36 = CAD287.35
4. ARL/RLG Interlibrary Loan Cost Study. Association of Research Libraries, June, 1993, p.4. Note that the figures in this study are: Borrow: USD18.62; Lend: USD10.93; Total: USD29.55 (converted to CAD @ 1.36)
