The next comment was directed to Ms. Schrader. The question focused on how publishers could legally include a notice that copies could not be made except with permission when such notices are in violation of section 107 of the Copyright Law. Ms. Schrader stated that notice has not been an element of copyright since March 1, 1989, copyright arising from creation and not from notice. She believed that publishers would not receive the benefit of overly broad or excessive notice.
Mr. Meyer addressed a question concerning how long it will take before permissions for copying are fully automated. Only two years ago fulfilling copying permissions was not a significant issue for publishers. However, since the Kinko's Graphics Corp. case, he stated that there has been a vast increase in the number of permissions requested of publishers. File automated requests are in the planning stages and will eventually prove a great help to this issue.
Ms. Schrader next responded to a question concerning international copyright law and licensing. Specifically, Ms. Schrader stated that the Berne Convention has a general provision for copying as long as it does not interfere with the author's normal expectation for the market of those works. She believed that compulsory licensing has not worked well in developing countries. Instead, it is better to have a good marketing arrangement and understanding of fair use guidelines, rather than resort to compulsory licensing.
Two statements from the floor concerned the creators of copyrighted material. First, when creative works are on a computer network, the creator gives up control so there is reluctance to make materials available on-line. Second, creators have disputes with librarians who facilitate the use of collections to the detriment of copyright holders. All of this has the potential effect of limiting availability of material to libraries and others. Mr. Webster countered from the librarian's point of view, stating that libraries are cautious, encouraging compliance with the law and not experimenting or pushing the abuse of the system. He did state that commercial publishers are hesitant to experiment because they are concerned about commercial returns on their investments and a potential lack of safeguards on the systems. The library community has therefore encouraged not-for-profit publishers to experiment with electronic dissemination. In the present, turbulent period Mr. Webster felt it is better to encourage use and experimentation, rather than to focus on restrictions and limitations.
Mr. Kraft was given a chance to make final comments and did so from the viewpoint of a working scholar. He believed that the model of the printed work is still generally in use today. Although he may revise a work every week, never actually stabilizing it, and perhaps never giving it to a librarian, he would prefer to see notice on material that it is illegal to circulate it without permission. He is paid to teach, is expected to publish, and any monetary benefit he derives from publishing is extra. Most discussion does not take his world the scholar's world into account the way it will have to in the future.