ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 286 academic institutions has taken place outside the library, yet such archives are an integral part of the social science information system. With the availability of non-bibliographic online database services, the lack of an interface betw een re­ search and data libraries will have a profound effect on social science researchers. Ideally, social scientists would benefit by having a social science information system which incorporated machine readable data files and num erical online data bases with other sources of information. In order for there to be a data library in the research li­ brary, librarians would have to learn new skills of data librarianship. Additionally, the creation of a data center/research library might require the re­ designing of institutional arrangements that allow for a variety of individuals, including librarians, computer scientists, etc., who share a combina­ tion of skills. Consequently, librarians need to think beyond continuing education that focuses on interperson­ al skills, such as developing supervisory tech­ niques, and even library-bound concerns, such as collection management. This means concentrating on the economics, control, analysis and evaluation of information policies within society as a whole and being familiar with the growth of an entirely different social stratification of knowledge work­ ers. While it is much easier to conjecture about the future than to offer specific proposals for today, I would like to suggest some ideas for thought. First, I would like to see greater cooperation be­ tween ALA and other associations, such as SLA and ASIS in developing mutual workshops, con­ ferences and educational opportunities. One pos­ sibility might be the establishm ent of regular summer institutes or Chautauqua-type courses, lasting two or three weeks each, at academic in­ stitutions. Secondly, librarians need the oppor­ tunity to work in other sectors of the information industry, both within their own institutions and outside. The opportunity to work in a computing center, research institute, data archive or with the office of research and development at one’s own institution would prove invaluable. Outside the university, there is myriad of possible work experiences one could find in the information in­ dustries. Finally, if the above suggestions are to be possible, it would require greater funding support for educational and research opportunities than is presently available. In comparison to other mem­ bers of an academic institution, for whom fel­ lowships, development and research grants, etc. are a vital part of their continuing education, funding sources and institutional opportunities for librarians are quite meager. This is generally the case locally, as well as nationally. Correcting this situation will not be easy, but it is crucial that we begin. -Robert Goehlert. Editor’s Note: Robert Goehlert is librarian fo r economics and political science at Indiana Uni­ versity, Rloomington, and is currently chair o f ACRL’s Continuing Education Committee. 1Edwin B. Parker, “Information Services and Economic Growth,” The Information Society 1 (1981):77. 2Nicholas L. Henry, “Knowledge Management: a New Concern For Public Administration,” Pub­ lic A d m in istra tio n R eview 34 (M ay/June 1974): 189. 3Pauline Wilson, “Librarianship and ALA in a P ost-Industrial Society,” Am erican Libraries, March 1978, p. 128. 4See Robert S. Taylor, “Reminiscing About the Future: Professional Education and the Informa­ tion Environm ent,” Library Journal, Sept. 15, 1979, pp. 1871-1875. 5R obert F. Rich. “ E d ito r’s I n tro d u c tio n ,” Knowledge: Creation, D iffusion, Utilization 1 (Sept. 1979), p. 3. Copyright Controversy The Association of American Publishers issued a working docum ent earlier this year entitled D raft College and University Policy Statement Concerning Photocopying by Faculty and S ta ff to be d istrib u te d to u n iv ersity legal counsels throughout the United States. The AAP issued the document in the wake of litigation with “cam­ pus copy mills” that allegedly were producing anthologies beyond the guidelines of fair use. At its annual meeting in San Francisco, the ACRL Board of Directors endorsed a statement by the ACRL Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright which addressed and criticized the AAP docu­ ment. For the benefit of C&RL News readers who may be unfamiliar with the AAP document, por­ tions of it are reprinted below. The Ad Hoc Com­ mittee on Copyright statement follows. AAP Draft Policy Statement It is the policy of [name of institution] that, in the absence of permission from the copyright owner, m ultiple copies of copyrighted books, periodicals, or parts of such works should gener­ ally not be made by or for faculty or staff unless th e copying is p e rm itte d by th e guid elin es attached as Appendix A to this memorandum.* It is possible that, in some cases, the copying of a 287 ACRL’S FAST JOB LISTING Looking for a job? Our Fast Job Listing will send you job postings received at ACRL headquar­ ters four weeks before they appear in C&RL News. The Fast Job Listing Service also contains advertisements which, because of narrow application deadlines, will not appear in C&RL News. The ACRL office prepares a Fast Job Listing circular at the beginning of each month and mails it to subscribers first class. The circular contains all job announcements received during the previous four weeks. The cost of a six-month subscription is $10 for ACRL members and $15 for nonmembers. You may enter your subscription below. small part of a work for educational purposes would be considered a “fair use” under the law, even if falling outside a strict application of the guidelines (in no event would this include the re­ production or use of collections of copied por­ tions). However, in order to avoid uncertainty and unnecessary exposure to liability, we urge faculty and staff to adhere closely to the guide­ lines, and to request permission of the copyright owner before making copies that do not come within all specific terms of the guidelines. This policy is applicable to the reproduction of multi­ ple copies by com mercial copying centers, by [name of institution]’s central copying facilities, and on self-service machines. The reproduction of multiple copies on [name of institution]’s library facilites is also generally subject to these prin­ ciples; but copying solely for library reserve and interlibrary loan will be subject to additional spe­ cific in stru c tio n s and is no t co v e red by this memorandum. Guideline Copying. The guidelines attached as Appendix A* permit certain copying without p er­ * Appendix A in the draft policy consists of the 1976 Classroom Guidelines. mission from th e copyright owner and without payment of fees. These guidelines were agreed to by th e Authors L eague of A merica, Inc., the Association of American Publishers, Inc., and the Ad Hoc Com m ittee of Educational Institutions and Organizations on Copyright Law Revision, and were approved by Congress in the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976. They were also adopted as the sole exception to unautho­ rized multiple photocopying in the [litigation] re­ ferred to earlier. [Name of institution] endorses these guidelines as a workable statement of fair practice that offers practical guidance to faculty m em bers and p ro p e r safeguards to copyright owners. Faculty and staff members are urged to famil­ iarize themselves with the guidelines. Note, for example, that: • Copying is not perm itted “to create or to re­ place or substitute for anthologies, compilations, or collective w orks.” This means, for example, that without permission of the copyright owners of all works involved, faculty and staff members should not make, req u e st, or use copies as a collection of “course readings” or the like. • To be permitted by the guidelines both the copying and the use of the copies must be “spon- 289 W A S H I N G T O N H O T L I N E by Carol Henderson ALA Washington Office The precedent-setting, budget-cutting “reconciliation” bill approved by Congress on July 31 sets new and lower authorization levels (or caps on funding) for federal library programs. The amounts for Higher Education Act library programs are as follows: Higher Education Act II-A College libraries II-B Research, demonstrations II-C Research libraries II-D Nat'l periodical system FY '81 Funding $2,988,000 917,000 6,000,000 -0- Previous '82 Authorization $30,000,000 30,000,000 15,000,000 750,000 New Authorizations FY '82, '83 & '84 $5,000,000 1,200,000 6,000,000 -0- Since current funding does not approach the previous authorization levels, what do these changes really mean? First of all, there is little or no room for growth or for adjusting to inflation over the next three years. Second, the capacity for internal bargaining has been destroyed. For instance, in the past the Education Department might have requested $5 million for library research. The Office of Management and Budget might have cut that down to $3 million, and Congress could then shave it further to $2.5 million, which would have been higher than the level authorized. Such negotiations are no longer possible. Third, there is no possibility of federal funding in the next few years for the national periodical system study authorized by HEA II-D. Actual funding levels for fiscal year 1982 for HEA II-A, B, and C are still to be determined by Congress. The pressure to target II-A college library grants to the smaller, needier institutions is still alive and well. That effort was finally abandoned as desirable but unworkable in last year's extension of the Higher Education Act. However, it reappeared in a strange form in the House version of the budget cuts. Language was included which would have precluded any institution eligible for a II-C research library grant from receiving either a II-A or II-B grant. This language was intended to target II-A and II-B to smaller institutions, but it would have had the unfortunate effect of elimin­ ating many library schools from the training and research programs. In addition, it might have given the Education Department the sticky task of developing a list of eligible II-C recipients. The final provision simply extends current law to say that il-c recipients may not receive either a II-A grant or a II-B special purpose grant (currently unfunded) for joint-use library facilities, consortium efforts, or special needs. In other action, Rep. Bill Ford (D-Mich.), managed to minimize the chances of immediate increases in the library postal rate, and Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) extracted a commitment from Senate leadership to consider his remedy for the Thor Power Tool IRS ruling affecting publishers’ backlists (see C&RL News, December 1980) in the next tax bill. The tax cut measure just passed allows non-itemizers to take a deduction for charitable contri­ butions, and increases the allowable corporate charitable contribution deduction from 5 to 10 per cent of taxable income. Perhaps some of the additional largesse will find its way to academic institutions and their libraries.