ALAWON v4n17 (Part 1, of)
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/alawon/alawon-v4n17

****Begin File******************Begin File*******************Begin File****
***************************************************************************
                                                             ISSN 1069-7799
                                  ALAWON
                      ALA Washington Office Newsline
                     An electronic publication of the
              American Library Association Washington Office
 
                            Volume 4, Number 17
                               March 2, 1995
 
   In this issue: (153 lines)
     ALA SUMMARIZES DISAGREEMENTS WITH "GREEN PAPER" ON COPYRIGHT
     NEH CHAIRMAN TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
     NEH GRANT APPLICATION DOCUMENT NOW AVAILABLE
 
***************************************************************************
 
       ALA SUMMARIZES DISAGREEMENTS WITH "GREEN PAPER" ON COPYRIGHT
 
ALA and several other library and education groups have expressed concern
about press and other reports that the recommendations in the final version
of the "Green Paper" by the Administration's Working Group on Intellectual
Property Rights will not be significantly different from the preliminary
version released in July 1994.
 
A February 14 letter from the groups to Sally Katzen, Administrator of the
Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, and to Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks,
summarized significant points of disagreement with the analysis in the
Green Paper, not only by library and education organizations, but by
distinguished copyright experts and private sector entities.  Lehman chairs
the working group, one of several under an information policy committee
headed by Katzen.
 
An attachment to the letter summarized comments submitted by a variety of
parties on three key issues--fair use, electronic transmission rights, and
the first sale doctrine.  The letter indicates the working group failed to
analyze the implications of its proposed recommendations on fair use, and
did not acknowledge the importance of fair use to research, education, and
the creation of new knowledge.  The letter mentions that other commenters
expressing concerns related to fair use included the Administration's NII
Advisory Council, the U.S. Copyright Office, McGraw-Hill, Inc., and the
Alliance to Promote Software Innovation.
 
Concerning an electronic transmission right, library groups argued that the
Green Paper went too far in extending the exclusive rights of copyright
holders and paid only superficial attention to the needs of users of
electronic information.  A variety of other commenters took issue with one
or more recommendations in the Green Paper on this issue.  The U.S.
Copyright Office questioned whether all transient copies would infringe the
reproduction right; Jessica Litman, Professor of Law at Wayne State
University, said the recommendations would change the reproduction right
into an unprecedented exclusive reading right.  Other commenters mentioned
in the letter include the Home Recording Rights Coalition; IBM; Pamela
Samuelson, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh; the NII
Advisory Council; ASCAP; BMI; Bell Atlantic; PBS; and joint comments by
America Online, Inc., CompuServe, Inc., Delphi Internet Services Corp., GE
Information Services Inc., LEXIS, Prodigy Services Co., and Ziff
Communications Co.
 
The library groups opposed the Green Paper's proposed abolition of the
first sale doctrine for electronic information because it would effectively
give copyright owners monopoly control of the secondary market.  The letter
mentioned other commenters who had problems with the Working Group's
position, including Bell Atlantic, the Association of American
Universities, the Information Industry Association, Time Warner, the U.S.
Copyright Office, NPR, and the joint Online Service Providers.
 
The letter requested a meeting with Katzen and Lehman, urged the Working
Group to give full consideration to all the arguments that have been
presented, and to reflect these arguments in revised recommendations in the
final report.  Groups signing the letter included the American Association
of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of
Academic Health Sciences Library Directors, the Association of American
Universities, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the
Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the
Special Libraries Association.
 
In order to provide full text of the letter and related attachments ALAWON
will be issued in two parts today.  This report on the "Green Paper" in
Part 1 will be followed by a Part 2 for those readers who are interested in
the complete version of the letter and attachments.
 
***************************************************************************
 
             NEH CHAIRMAN TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
 
Sheldon Hackney, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities,
testified today, March 2, before the Education, Arts and Humanities
Subcommittee of the Labor and Human Resources Committee in support of the
reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Humanities.  In his
statement, and in the discussion following, several points were made on
subjects in which libraries also share an interest, especially relating to
NEH literacy programs.  Senator Jeffords (R-VT) emphasized the importance
of these efforts in meeting the literacy goals set in Goals 2000.
 
Hackney stated that one of his greatest concerns for NEH is the need to
make more humanities materials and programs available through the
information infrastructure.  He sees this as helping to fulfill the
agency's function of providing access to the humanities to the largest
possible audience.
 
ACTION NEEDED:  Please contact your U.S. Senators and emphasize your
support for the reauthorization of NEH.  While reaching all senators and
representatives on this issue is important, right now those most critical
to contact are members of the Education, Arts and Humanities Subcommittee
of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.  An important resolution
adopted by the ALA Council at its Mid-Winter meeting urged Congress to
reauthorize and continue to fund the National Endowment for the Humanities.
That resolution has now been forwarded to Congress.
 
***************************************************************************
 
               NEH GRANT APPLICATION DOCUMENT NOW AVAILABLE
 
The Overview of Endowment Programs 1995 from the National Endowment for the
Humanities is now available.  This document provides information about
grants available through the NEH and application information.  For a copy
contact NEH Overview, Rm. 402, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
20506.  When you mention that you are a reader of the ALA Washington Office
Newsletter or ALAWON your copy of Overview will be free.
 
NEH also has announced a new Bulletin Board System accessible be modem at
202/606-8688.  For more information e-mail NEHOPA@GWUVM.GWU.EDU (Bitnet.)
 
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
 
ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is an irregular publication of the American Library
Association Washington Office, 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC
20002-5675.  Internet: alawash@alawash.org; Phone: 202-547-4440; Fax:
202-547-7363.  Contributing to this issue:  Carol C. Henderson and
Claudette W. Tennant; Editor: Lynne E. Bradley (leb@alawash.org).
 
ALAWON is available free of charge and is available only in electronic
form.  To subscribe, send the message "subscribe ala-wo [your name]" to
listserv@uicvm (Bitnet) or listserv@uicvm.uic.edu (Internet).  Back issues
and other documents are available from the list server.  To find out what's
available, send the message "send ala-wo filelist" to the listserv.  The
ALA-WO filelist contains the list of files with the exact filename and
filetype.  To get a particular file, issue the command "send filename
filetype" to the listserv.  Do not include the quotes in your commands.
 
All materials in the newsletter subject to copyright by the American
Library Association may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial
purposes with appropriate credits.  For other reprinting or redistribution,
address requests to the ALA Washington Office (alawash@alawash.org).
 
***************************************************************************
***End of file******************End of file******************End of file***

 
BACKGROUND:
The Green Paper was issued on July 7, 1994 as _Intellectual Property and
the National Information Infrastructure: A Preliminart Draft of the Report
of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights_.  (For information
about the report, contact NII, USPTO, Box 4, WAshington, DC 20231-0001, or
call 703-305-9300.)  More than 1000 pages of comments were filed on the
draft report.  ALA and other library groups testified at public hearings,
filed comments, submitted reply comments, and have participated in fair use
conferences facilitated by the PTO.
 
The full text of the letter from the library groups follows:
 
 
                               February 14, 1995
Ms. Sally Katzen
Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Old Executive Office Building
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20503
 
Mr. Bruce A. Lehman
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Patent and Trademark Office
Crystal Park
Arlington, VA 22202
 
Dear Administrator Katzen and Commissioner Lehman:
 
     We are writing to express our continuing concern about press and
other reports that the recommendations in the final version of the
"Green Paper" by the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights will
not be significantly different from the preliminary version released in
July 1994.  A December 27 Wall Street Journal article stated: "Mr.
Lehman said the final report in March or later will be similar to the
draft, which drew more comments than expected." The same article said
that Mr.  Lehman viewed various critiques of the Green Paper as
"misunderstandings." More recently, at a January 4 meeting of the
Working Group's deliberations on fair use, Terri Southwick, a member of
the Working Group confirmed the Journal's account by saying the Working
Group did not envision any need for significant changes to the final
report.
 
     These statements are troubling to our organizations, which have
a long history of involvement in the development of equitable national
copyright policies.  From the outset, the American Library Association,
the Association of Research Libraries, the American Association of Law
Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the
Medical Library Association, the Association of Academic Health Sciences
Library Directors, the Special Libraries Association, and the
Association of American Universities have commended the efforts of the
Working Group to address the complex intellectual property challenges
posed by new digital technologies.  Yet we and others believe that the
initial version of the Green Paper missed the mark on a number of key
points and requires revision.
 
     Allow us to take this opportunity to summarize what we believe
to be significant points of disagreement that various parties have
expressed to the analysis in the initial version of the Green Paper.
The memorandum that follows summarizes the concerns of a number of
library and education groups and also refers to statements submitted in
this proceeding by distinguished copyright experts and private sector
entities.
 
     We would very much appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to
clarify whether or not these statements by members of the Working Group
continue to reflect the Working Group's deliberations and to address our
continuing concerns with the proposed recommendations.  It is our hope
that the final version of the Green Paper will take these serious
concerns by a diverse array of public and private sector enterprises
into consideration thus leading to needed changes in the proposed draft
recommendations.
 
Sincerely,
 
Robert L. Oakely
Washington Affairs Representative, AALL
 
Arthur Curley,
President, ALA
 
Karen Brewer
President, AAHSLD
 
John C. Vaughn
Executive Officer and Director of Education Policy, AAU
 
Susan K. Martin
President, ACRL
 
Duane E. Webster,
Executive Director, ARL
 
Carla Funk
Executive Director, MLA
 
David R. Bender
Executive Dirctor, SLA
 
 
Attachment
 
THREE KEY CONCERNS OF LIBRARIES AND OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR
     ORGANIZATIONS IN RELATION TO THE "GREEN PAPER"
 
 
General
 
     This memorandum summarizes three key concerns of library,
educational, and corporate organizations, as well as those of selected
distinguished experts, regarding the preliminary draft of the report
--Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure--
(the "Green Paper"), prepared by the Working Group on Intellectual
Property Rights, under the direction of Bruce Lehman, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.  The
statements outlined here were taken from prepared comments submitted to
the Working Group.
 
     This memo focuses on fair use, electronic transmission rights,
and the first sale doctrine.  In each of these areas, the concerns of
the library groups--the American Library Association, the Association of
Research Libraries, the American Association of Law Libraries, the
Association of College and Research Libraries, the Medical Library
Association, the Association of Academic Health Sciences Library
Directors, and the Special Libraries Association; collectively referred
to as The Libraries and the Association of American Universities (AAU)
-- are presented first.  These positions are followed by the comments of
other parties, including the Clinton Administration's NII Advisory
Council.  The comments from other parties either match the concerns of
the Libraries and AAU or raise similar concerns with the recommendations
presented in the Green Paper.
 
 
I.  Fair Use
 
     The Libraries and AAU noted that by postponing its consideration
of fair use, as well as of copyright exceptions for libraries and
classroom instruction, the Working Group prevented complete analysis and
public dialogue on legislative changes needed to achieve universal,
equitable access to the new types of information that will be available
over the NII.  Nor does the draft report analyze the implications of the
proposed recommendations on fair use nor indeed, the importance of fair
use to research, education, and the creation of new knowledge.  This
failure to evaluate the impact of the new recommendations and the
importance of fair use is a severe shortcoming of the draft report.
 
     The Working Group through the Green Paper is setting policy
without the determination by Congress that the balance between copyright
holders and users of copyrighted material should be adjusted.  Many of
the interested groups, including some proprietors, believe that fair use
is working satisfactorily and that there is no need to revise the law.
If there is need for a change in fair use, the Working Group should
provide a better opportunity for discussion among all the interested
parties.
 
     The Libraries and AAU have long argued the centrality of fair
use in copyright policy making.  In its recent Statement of Principles
on Intellectual Property, the Association of Research Libraries stated:
"Fair use and other relevant provisions are the essential means by which
teachers teach, students learn, and researchers advance
knowledge...These provisions apply to all formats and are essential to
modern library and information services."
 
     After the Green Paper was released, subcommittees were formed to
discuss and consider the development of new fair use guidelines in a
variety of settings.  Library organizations and many others have
contributed a great deal of valuable research and commentary to the work
of these subcommittees.  We understand that the final version of the
Green Paper will include some of the subcommittees deliberations.  But
we believe that the final report will need to go far beyond those
discussions and provide a thorough and complete analysis of the impact
of the proposed recommendations on fair use and the importance of
retaining a balanced system of access to information.
 
     This position was also taken by the NII Advisory Council, which
in its December 1994 Response to the Green Paper, stated its "concern
that the application of fair use in the NII environment be adequately
explored in the Working Group's final report." The U.S.  Copyright
Office expressed concern that the Working Group seemed to think that
fair use in the electronic environment is reserved for the "have nots."
It recommended that more effort be made to see that the interests of
"authors, publishers, scholars, librarians, information technology
service providers, and public and government policy makers" are all
represented.
 
     We share the concern of the U.  S.  Copyright Office.  Not only
does the Green Paper fail to acknowledge the balance established by the
law between users and holders, but it attempts to set new policy by
suggesting that fair use is reserved for the "have nots." We believe
that such a scheme is unworkable.  Who will qualify as a "have not"
whose use of copyrighted materials is permissible: school children; the
unemployed; or, those whose income places them below the poverty line?
 
     The significance of fair use was also emphasized by some of the
private-sector comments.  McGraw-Hill, Inc., noting that its journalists
"make extensive fair use of copyrighted materials in their daily news
gathering efforts," stated that fair use will be important to the
development of the NII.  The Alliance to Promote Software Innovation
stated: "It is our view that the NII does not alter the public policy
considerations which led to the creation of these [fair use] rules.  We
encourage you to expand the scope of your analysis to cover a broader
range of fair use considerations."
 
 
II.  Transmission Right
 
*    Calls for Greater Balance of the Competing Interests
 
     The Libraries and AAU argued that the initial Green Paper went
too far in extending the exclusive rights of copyright holders and paid
only superficial attention to the needs of users of electronic
information.  As Laura Gasaway, Professor of Law and Director of the Law
Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in her
comments: "Whatever changes are made must take into account not only the
copyright owner's rights and interests but those of the general public,
educational users, scholars and researchers."
 
*    Historic Impact of Proposed Statutory Changes
 
     Jessica Litman, Professor of Law at Wayne State University, and
other legal experts have argued that the positions taken in the initial
Green Paper would change the reproduction right into something more
encompassing than has ever existed.  "U.S.  copyright law," Litman
wrote, "has always given copyright owners some form of exclusive
reproduction right.  It has never before now given them an exclusive
reading right, and it is hard to make a plausible argument that Congress
would have enacted a law giving copyright owners control of reading."
 
*    Transmissions as Copies
 
     The Green Paper states that it is technologically impossible to
distribute a work over the NII without making a copy.  However, the U.S.
Copyright Office states that "in the future it may be possible to
distribute live performances and other transmissions without making a
copy...  The Working Group should consider whether all transient copies
would infringe the reproduction right and whether they should be covered
by an expanded distribution right."
 
     The Home Recording Rights Coalition (whose members include
retailers and manufacturers of audio and video recording products as
well as consumers) argued that "the proposal for a new [transmission]
right seems superfluous in light of courts' acceptance of such a right
under current law.  Such a provision could be interpreted so as to
reclassify acts of distribution as reproductions, effectively rescinding
existing consumer rights under the fair use and first sale doctrines."
 
     IBM noted that the Green Paper's inclination to designate a
given transmission as either a copy or a performance may be too
inflexible, while Pamela Samuelson, Professor of Law at the University
of Pittsburgh, stated: "Adoption of the digital transmission right
would, in effect, repeal the public performance and display rights of
copyright and replace them with exclusive rights to control all
performances and displays of copyrighted works distributed in digital
form...[T]he Report does not make a persuasive argument on behalf of
this vast expansion of the rights of copyright owners."
 
*    Primary Purpose Test
 
     The NII Advisory Council criticized the Green Paper's attempt to
designate a transmission either as a distribution of a copy or a
performance and rejected the paper's "primary purpose or effect" test
for distinguishing between transmission of reproductions and
performance.  ASCAP disputed the practicality of the primary purpose
test, arguing that the Green Paper's statement that only one of these
rights should be recognized is seriously flawed.  BMI also criticized
the proposed test, arguing that it would not serve creators' ability to
subdivide and license the right to their works profitably, nor benefit
the public.  The U.S.  Copyright Office commented that this test would
be difficult to administer since it would require determining the intent
of the sender and, in addition, would lead to much litigation.
 
*    Unintended Effects of Proposed Changes, including
definitional change
 
     The U.S.  Copyright Office, for example, stated: "Modifying the
concepts of publication and transmission is not minor; the proposed
amendment would have broad ramifications throughout the copyright
law--e.g., applicability of the digital audio technology system, fair
use and library reproduction under Sec.  108." The Public Broadcasting
Service said that since the proposed amendment to the definition of
"publication" would apply to some but not all transmissions, this would
"lead to confusion, uncertainty, and litigation."
 
*    Coverage of Online Services
 
     Comments submitted jointly by America Online, Inc.  CompuServe,
Inc., Delphi Internet Services Corp., GE Information Services Inc.,
LEXIS, Prodigy Services Co., and Ziff Communications Co.  criticized the
Green Paper for failing to address the issue of whether online service
providers are responsible for copyright violations by users of their
services.  A partial list of their recommendations included: the Working
Group must reach a proper balance among the rights and interests of
creators, consumers, and service providers; it should recommend no
legislative change that would result in stifling the growth of online
services; it should examine whether and when service providers should be
held liable for copyright infringement; and the liability standard under
the U.S.  Copyright Act should be amended to be consistent with the
existing standards for contributory liability.
 
     Bell Atlantic also criticized the failure of the Green Paper to
address criteria for network liability.  Specifically, it argued that
concepts of vicarious and contributory infringement should be subject to
a requirement of willful or knowing conduct.
 
 
III.  First Sale
 
*    Objection to Proposed Change
 
     The Libraries and AAU strongly opposed the abolition of the
first sale doctrine for electronic information.  As the American Library
Association stated: "Elimination of the first sale doctrine would
effectively give copyright owners control of the secondary market, and
thus empower them with far too great a monopoly.  The effect would be to
reduce competition and advance inequities in access--with results
antithetical to the intent of copyright and the working group's stated
intentions."
 
     Others also had problems with the Working Group's position.
Bell Atlantic maintained that elimination of the first sale doctrine for
electronic transmission would be bad for business: "Eliminating the
first sale doctrine in cases of transmissions would mean that any
further disposition of the products listed in the above examples would
constitute an infringement.  The disposition of such products purchased
in a store, however, would continue to be a permitted right under the
first sale doctrine.  This nonsensical outcome indicates that the test
should not focus on whether the owner retains the original work but
whether the work received via transmission was intended for subsequent
use (a purchase) or licensed for a limited use only.  The recommendation
to eliminate the first sale doctrine runs counter to the notion of
letting the market govern itself."
 
     The Association of American Universities said it is easy to
imagine circumstances in which the person who possesses a copy passes it
on to another and does not retain a copy; in such cases, the right of
first sale should apply.  The Information Industry Association urged the
Working Group to consider how the term "dispose" in the Copyright Act
could be interpreted to cover cases in which the first owner of a
digital works relinquishes physical control over, or access to his or
her copy.  Time Warner stated that it may not be necessary to amend the
law in this area: "Either by relying on the reproduction right or with
the clarification of the distribution right to include copies sent by
transmission, current law for first sale would appear adaptable to the
electronic environment."
 
*    Inconsistent Consequences
 
     The U.S. Copyright Office said that under the proposed
modification, "transfer of the material object would be permitted, while
transfer over the infrastructure would be prohibited.  From a practical
point of view, whether a disc is mailed or a copy is sent over the
information infrastructure should not make any difference in the way the
transfer is treated under copyright law." National Public Radio advised
that, "by broadening the term 'transmit' and using that term to describe
a new type of distribution right, the Working Group's proposal could
generate confusion in an already complex area of the law and potentially
create new liability for existing broadcast uses of copyrighted works."
 
     The Online Service Providers said: "The Working Group should not
propose new rights for copyright owners without considering whether such
rights would have an adverse effect on providers' operations and would
delay or economically burden users' access to technology." The
technologies underlying online transmission networks include wireless
distribution channels, cable television, personal computers, satellite
channels and other emerging interactive systems.
 
 
Conclusion
 
     This memo has attempted to summarize the views on several key
issues of many parties both public and private that believe that the
initial Green Paper, while notable for trying to tackle difficult and
complex issues, did not present a complete and balanced presentation of
the issues regarding copyright and electronic networks.  Library
community, industry representatives, and copyright experts were among
those calling for significant modifications to the Green paper draft
recommendations.
 
     The Working Group on Intellectual Property is engaged in an
historic task of recommending changes to the nation's copyright laws to
reflect the dramatic changes in technology we are experiencing.  These
changes are complicated, and they affect intellectual property in varied
and unexpected ways.  Therefore, we urge the Working Group to give full
consideration to all the arguments that have been presented and to
reflect these arguments in revised recommendations included in the final
report.
 
__________________________________________
 
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES - AALL is a nonprofit
educational organization with over 5,000 members dedicated to serving
the legal information needs of legislators and other public officials,
law professors and students, attorneys, and members of the general
public.
 
THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION is a non-profit educational
organization of 55,000 librarians, library educators, information
specialists, library trustees, and friends of libraries representing
public, school, academic, state, and specialized libraries dedicated to
the improvement of library and information services.  A new five-year
initiative, ALA Goal 2000, aims to have ALA and librarianship be as
closely associated with the public's right to a free and open
information society -- intellectual participation -- as it is with the
idea of intellectual freedom.
 
THE ASSOCIATION OF ACADEMIC HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY DIRECTORS is
composed of the directors of 142 accredited U.S.  and Canadian medical
schools belonging to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
AAHSLD's goals are to promote excellence in academic health sciences
libraries and to ensure that the next generation of health practitioners
is trained in information-seeking skills that enhance the quality of
health care.
 
THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES was founded in 1900 by a group
of fourteen universities offering the Ph.D.  degree.  The AAU currently
consists of fifty-six American universities and two Canadian
universities.  Approximately half are public institutions and half are
private.  The Association serves its members in two major ways.  First,
it assists them in developing national policy positions on issues that
relate to academic research and graduate and professional education.
Second, it provides them with a forum for discussing a broad range of
other institutional issues, such as undergraduate education.
 
THE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES is a division of the
American Library Association with more than 10,000 organizational and
personal members.  The mission of ACRL is to foster the profession of
academic and research librarianship and to enhance the ability of
academic and research libraries to serve effectively the library and
information needs of current and potential library users
 
THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES is a not-for-profit organization
representing 119 research libraries in the United States and Canada.
Its mission is to identify and influence forces affecting the future of
research libraries in the process of scholarly communication.  ARL
programs and services promote equitable access to and effective use of
recorded knowledge in support of teaching, research, scholarship, and
community service.
 
THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION is a professional organization of more
than 5,000 individuals and institutions in the health sciences
information field.  MLA members serve society by developing new programs
for health sciences information professionals and health information
delivery systems, fostering educational and research programs for health
sciences information professionals, and encouraging and enhanced public
awareness of health care issues.  Through its programs and publications,
MLA encourages professional development in research, education, and
patient care.
 
THE SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION is an international professional
association serving more than 14,000 members of the information
profession, including special librarians, information managers, broker,
and consultants.  The Association has 56 regional/state chapters in the
U.S., Canada, Europe, and the Arabian Gulf States and 28 divisions
representing subject interests or specializations.  Special
libraries/information centers can be found in organizations with
specialized or focused information needs, such as corporations, law
firms, news organizations, government agencies, associations, colleges,
museums, and hospitals.
 
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
 
ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is an irregular publication of the American Library
 Association
Washington Office, 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC 20002-5675.
 Internet:
alawash@alawash.org; Phone: 202-547-4440; Fax: 202-547-7363.  Contributing to
 this issue:
Carol C. Henderson; Editor: Lynne E. Bradley (leb@alawash.org).
 
ALAWON is available free of charge and is available only in electronic form.  To
subscribe, send the message "subscribe ala-wo [your name]" to listserv@uicvm
 (Bitnet) or
listserv@uicvm.uic.edu (Internet).  Back issues and other documents are
 available from the
list server.  To find out what's available, send the message "send ala-wo
 filelist" to the
listserv.  The ALA-WO filelist contains the list of files with the exact
 filename and
filetype.  To get a particular file, issue the command "send filename filetype"
 to the
listserv.  Do not include the quotes in your commands.
 
All materials in the newsletter subject to copyright by the American Library
 Association
may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial purposes with appropriate
 credits.
For other reprinting or redistribution, address requests to the ALA Washington
 Office
(alawash@alawash.org).
 
***************************************************************************
***End of file******************End of file******************End of file***

