November 7, 1995 Chairman, Judiciary Committee U.S. Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: As concerned members of the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies (a caucus of the Conference on College Composition and Communication), we are writing to communicate our views about S. 1284, The NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995, as outlined in the Working Group Report on Intellectual Property Rights (the "White Paper"). While we agree that some type of intellectual property legislation for digital information is desirable, the proposed legislation is hostile to the interests of writing teachers and students. In fact, in its current form the legislation would do serious harm to our efforts to teach students how to write. We respectfully request that your Committee hold comprehensive hearings on S. 1284 with the aim of thoroughly scrutinizing the full range of implications of the bill and of making appropriate amendments to ensure that the bill supports a fair and just copyright policy we can all live with. The group of teachers we represent is a large one. The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) is a subgroup of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). CCCC represents approximately 10,000 teachers and administrators of college-level writing. Our membership is large, but our pedagogical influence is even more vast. Since nearly every college and university student in the United States takes one or more college composition courses, CCCC members are responsible in some way for teaching something on the order of one million students each year. The Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies exists to inform CCCC members about developments in intellectual property policy which impact our instructional practices, and also to inform public policy makers of how such developments impact our teaching efforts. The electronic network has become an important means of teaching writing in the U.S., and writing teachers view the network as having the potential to promote a higher level of professional and public literacy on the part of citizens. The Internet and World Wide Web are an incredibly rich source of information for students and teachers--and not just a passive resource, but a live, interactive one. Students browse electronic resources to conduct research, but they are also joining electronic conferences and discussing issues with students and faculty at other institutions and even with professionals in government, business, and industry. Students are actually publishing their work on the network. The network has thus allowed teachers to open the doors of their writing classrooms, encouraging students to enter the public arena as writers and to become more involved in public and professional issues and breaking down the traditional barriers that have sometimes isolated academe from government, business, and industry. By not taking into account these valuable uses of electronic media as tools for teaching (and doing) writing, S. 1284 threatens the gains that writing teachers have made. We have three specific objections: 1. S. 1284 is more than simply a "minor" adjustment of Title 17 U.S.C. to apply to digital information. S. 1284 represents a general tightening of copyright restrictions. It enforces an even more restrictive standard on digital materials than currently applies to print materials, which will result in an increased level of intrusion into people's use of digital information. If passed in its current form, the legislation would effectively destroy the gains teachers have made in designing and using the Internet and World Wide Web (for instance) as educational resources. The legislation is an attempt to restrict to the point of near elimination any sense of educational Fair Use as it might apply to computer-generated materials. It also fails to take into account the unique communicative uses of these new media by writers, authors, and electronic publishers. 2. Despite the claims in the Introduction of the White Paper that the Working Group sought broad public input into the White Paper and the legislation it proposes, input from the CCCC and NCTE was not solicited nor obtained. Writing teachers' views were never considered. There is no accommodation of the special circumstances of writing teachers or of educators generally. The philosophy undergirding the legislation serves the commercial interests of larger publishers, recording companies, and major motion picture producers at the expense of educational interests as well as the general public interest of the right of access to information. 3. If enacted, S. 1284 would have troubling implications for writing instruction. We cite three examples: (a) The legislation would discourage the common research practice of "browsing" World Wide Web, since such browsing would, under S. 1284, constitute reproducing a copy. Thus, although students would continue to be allowed to browse print resources in a library, they could not safely browse materials on the Internet without risking copyright violation. (b) The legislation would make universities, as service providers, liable for students' copyright infringements. Rather than face the level of liability this entails, universities will severely limit teachers' uses of Internet resources. The legislation would thus discourage the growth of new electronic educational innovations and encourage increased invasion of privacy by service providers (who, to protect themselves, will be required to increase monitoring of students and library patrons). (c) This legislation would limit the kinds of writing that will occur on computer networks. It will have a chilling effect on interactive hypertext designs and will discourage the interactive uses of the Internet that are currently being developed. If service providers are liable for infringing activity (even if they were not aware of it and didn't intend it), interactive, contributory forms of network activity will be viewed as too risky. The World Wide Web will become a passive commercial show (like television), instead of an interactive educational resource--and the potential of the Web as an active writing instrument will be lost. For these and other reasons, the NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995 as currently framed does not serve the public interest. We fail to see how the public interest will be served if students are not allowed to browse digital materials, or if universities are required to do more snooping and to allot additional resources to support network use, or if this legislation has the effect of transforming the Internet into another version of the Home Shopping Channel and of discouraging students' writing. In its current form, S. 1284 would certainly have a detrimental effect on the efforts of writing teachers--and as administrative representatives of the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies, we strongly request that your Committee support comprehensive hearings and review of this legislation, seeking broad public debate and soliciting the views of educators, before acting on it. We would welcome the opportunity to present our views before your Committee during its important deliberations on S. 1284. Respectfully, Andrea A. Lunsford, Ph.D. Co-Chair, 1995 Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies Member, MLA Executive Council Distinguished Professor of English, The Ohio State University alunsfor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu James E. Porter, Ph.D. Co-Chair, 1996 Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies Associate Professor of English and Director of Business Writing, Purdue University jporter@sage.cc.purdue.edu Laura Gurak, Ph.D. Co-Chair, 1996 Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies Assistant Professor of Rhetoric, University of Minnesota gurakL@epx.cis.umn.edu Lisa M. Toner, M.A. Co-Assistant Chair, 1996 Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies Ph.D. Candidate, Rhetoric and Composition, Purdue University tonerL@mace.cc.purdue.edu Susan West, M.A. Ph.D. Candidate, English, The Ohio State University stwest@nova.wright.edu