Copyright Study Group Seeks Comments

jeh0bu writes "The Section 108 Study Group, a group of copyright experts, has been meeting to discuss Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is focusing on preservation of websites and access to digital copies of library materials. Representatives of Internet Archive, including Brewster Kahle, went to the group's public roundtable sessions in March. Google did not register to attend the roundtable sessions even though the findings of the Section 108 Study Group may impact Google's Library Project. The Section 108 Study Group seeks written comments through April 17, 2006, according to this Federal Register notice."

Section 108

[TechnoGuyRob (926031)]

For those of you who are too lazy to read Section 108 [cornell.edu], basically it says the following:

1. Libraries can reproduce (copy) at most one instance of a copyrighted book if they promise to acknowledge copyright and not make money off it.
2. Copyrighted books/sources can be copied up to 3 times only for archival, preservation and research purposes; digital format archives/copies may not be distributed.
3. Copies of lost/damaged/obsolete material can be made up to 3 times if no actual manufacturer copy can be obtained and the copies are not made available to the public.
4. If a user requests an interlibrary loan or wants a material that cannot be obtained at a reasonable price, they may make a copy of a small section of the material, if the material becomes property of the user (e.g., too much late fees), and the library displays a copyright warning.
5. The library may not reproduce, display, or distribute work that is in its last 20 years of copyright if the work is still commercially circulated, a copy can be obtained at a reasonable price, or the copyright owner makes a special notice.

Keep in mind this only applies to text: "The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual work dealing with news."

Re:Section 108

[deopmix (965178)]

any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.

This appears to be the part applicable to google. It seams rather clear that while google can scan in the books, they cannot make them available to the public.

Doesn't apply to Google

[yar (170650)]

Because Google does not meet the critiria to take advantage of Section 108. Section 108 applies to libraries and archives that are made without direct or indirect commercial advantage and has collections that are open to the public/researchers. Whether Google is or is not a library itself is debatable, and I suspect we'll have definitions after the Section 108 group is through, since right now one of the issues is that libraries and archives are undefinded. It doesn't matter, though, since Google right now

Re:Section 108

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

Libraries can reproduce (copy) at most one instance of a copyrighted book

Yeah, that one-copy thing worked real well for the archivists at the Library of Alexandria.

Re:Section 108

[deblau (68023)]

The library may not reproduce, display, or distribute work that is in its last 20 years of copyright if the work is still commercially circulated, a copy can be obtained at a reasonable price, or the copyright owner makes a special notice.

Just to clarify.

That's sort of the opposite of the point. The point is that there is an exception to copyright explicitly allowing libraries to distribute copyrighted materials in the last 20 years of their statutory period (absent certain exceptions, like the work is

Re:Section 108

[Artifakt (700173)]

3. ... (Copies of) obsolete material can be made up to 3 times if no actual manufacturer copy can be obtained...

This, plus the other refferences to 1 time, 3 times, etc, seem to go to the heart of the problem of copyright's current supression of older works.
The library can meet isolated demand, if it is for 3 copies total or less for a given work. Normally, that same work will not be brought back into print unless there is a demand for at least 500 copies or more, given

Re:Section 108

[optimus2861 (760680)]

I don't understand the reasoning behind item 5, the "no reproduction in last 20 years of copyright" bit. Why take that right away from libraries when the work is over 75 years old? What is it about a work that's 75 years old compared to one that's 55 years old that merits it special "protection" from a library fulfilling its function?

I mean, I know the real answer, that some publishers' lobbyist bought off enough Congresscritters to get that in there at one time or another, but what was the transparent re

Not intended to take away rights.

[yar (170650)]

People are interpreting the parent a bit differently than the law's intent. The parent notes that libraries can't make copies for various reasons if the work is still "commercially circulated, a copy can be obtained at a reasonable price, or the copyright owner makes a special notice" in the last 20 years of the work's protection. If none of those apply, libraries can make copies.

Prior to this rule, libraries couldn't make copies at all, even if those provisions didn't apply. What this rule does is let libr

Re:Not intended to take away rights.

[Thing 1 (178996)]

Prior to this rule, libraries couldn't make copies at all, even if those provisions didn't apply. What this rule does is let libraries make some copies in the last 20 years of copyright protection. Given how long copyright protection it, it's really of small solace, but institutions do take advantage of it when they can.

Well, really no solace: copyright is effectively immortal, even though the Supreme Court said "nyah nyah, no it isn't" when professor Lawrence Lessig presented evidence that it was (

Re:Section 108

[yar (170650)]

The other thing to note is that any libraries or archives that wishes to take advantage of these copying provisions cannot make the copies for direct or indirect commercial advantage, must be open to the public or researchers, and the copies must include a notice of copyright.

Ahh, Please stop, I'm dying!

[ackthpt (218170)]

"The Section 108 Study Group, a group of copyright experts, has been meeting to discuss Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

No, please no more April Fools jokes, Please! Arghgh!!!

Section 108 is the new Area 51

[digitaldc (879047)]

Judging by all the responses posted so far, it seems noone wants to talk about it as if it even existed.

And the UK is still doing something similar

[Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)]

For our boys and girls in the UK, don't forget that the Gowers review [hm-treasury.gov.uk] is still accepting responses to their call for evidence, and covers (inter alia) the same sort of questions.

DRM must go

[bigpat (158134)]

For the legitimate interests of fair use, including archiving in libraries, DRM must be circumvented. DRM must be considered incompatible with copyright protection.

In order for a DRM'd work to receive legal copyright protection it must be required to submit a non-DRM'd copy to the Library of Congress and 2 other public Libraries. Otherwise the whole concept of time limited copyright goes out the window, frankly. Unrestrained DRM is unconstitutional for that reason.

Let's pay attention here

[NorbrookC (674063)]

It's easy to blow this off as "another bunch of lawyers bulls^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing copyright law." Read the questions in the Federal Register!

I've seen enough "copyright=bad" or "copyright!=bad, implementation=bad", etc. posts on Slashdot over the years. Well, this is your chance to actually comment to people who are making the regulations and laws!

Here are some of the issues they're looking at:

Should non-physical or ''virtual'' libraries or archives be included within the ambit of section 108?

Access to Digital Copies Made under Subsections 108(b) and (c). Are there conditions under which electronic access to digital preservation or replacement copies should be permitted under subsections 108 (b) or (c) outside the premises of libraries or archives (e.g., via e-mail or the Internet or lending of a CD or DVD)? If so, what conditions or restrictions should apply?

They talk about archiving web pages, and this is a key question: Should ''no archive'' meta-tags, robot.txt files, or similar technologies that block sites or pages from being crawled be respected?

There are a lot more, and they touch on almost all the issues that have provoked a lot of discussion and outright flame wars around the Internet. I'm still reading through it, but the key point is that we need to pay attention to this. This is at the point where they are considering things which may end up in regulation and law, and silence or ignoring it is going to cause a lot of problems down the line.

My comments

[Hoi Polloi (522990)]

I'd give them my comments but they are copyrighted.

Re:My comments

[grimJester (890090)]

I'd give them my comments but they are copyrighted.

Yeah. People would just copy them on the Internet.

I sent them this essay

[argoff (142580)]

Straight Talk About Copyrights [googlepages.com]

Hope the messg gets thru.

No, Copyright is Good!

[ackthpt (218170)]

Copyright sucks. That is all.

It's the implementation of it that Sucks.

For an author to write a book and a company to print the book and recover costs and provide some income for the writer, that's a good thing. Extending it for eternity is evil.

cthulhu would be so proud

Re:No, Copyright is Good!

[Penguinoflight (517245)]

You misunderstood; The GPL is protected by Copyright, but that doesn't make the GPL unique. The GPL is unique for the rules set down in the GPL. Since code covered by the GPL can be considered software, the GPL is a license. If you dont want to follow the license, you can't use the code. Even without a copyright we could have a GPL, but if someone took it to court people would argue about whose was the code. This is still however a problem for most GPLd works (no registered copyright on many of them), and if there was no copyright protection then coders who avoided the GPL would only be worse off than those who used it.

In essense copyrights are supposed to protect those who bring content to others. Right now, 70% of copyright law does the opposite of that.

Re:No, Copyright is Good!

[ackthpt (218170)]

In essense copyrights are supposed to protect those who bring content to others. Right now, 70% of copyright law does the opposite of that.

Watch it, by being rational and intelligent you're flirting with a Flamebait mod!

Re:No, Copyright is Good!

[Penguinoflight (517245)]

Sometimes you just have to purposefully avoid stating something as strong as it actually is. In this case Copyrights are in effect for about 100 years, and it would be really hard to argue the benefits of copyrights over 10 years. If I had stated 90% as I thought, the moderators probably would have went against me.

It's nice that you see things the same way though.

Re:For the sake of typing speed

[Surt (22457)]

IANACL and IANAPP, but won't this cause the universe to collapse, destroying us all?

And what site generates comments needing acronyms?

[FearTheFrail (666535)]

In the same vein, I think Slashdot editors ought to collect up the usual 10-15 of the top modded comments and send them off as a collective parcel to this group. ...they did ask for comments, after all. =D

Re:Study Group?

[Bacon Bits (926911)]

Would you like a little food with your salt an acid?