Should Organizations Get To Ignore Copyright For The Sake Of Preservation?
from the glossing-over-a-bigger-problem? dept
Copyright was clearly designed for a different age: when not everyone was a "publisher." And while we've spent years pointing out many of the different problems that has caused, here's another one: how is a library or some other institution charged with "archiving" written works for posterity supposed to deal with copyright laws that can often make such archival activities against the law? Well, the Library of Congress and a bunch of other organizations have a suggestion: let them all ignore copyright law for the sake of archiving. Basically, the report recommends that certain organizations be designated as "preservation institutions," which are then more or less allowed to ignore copyright law and copy-at-will for the sake of preservation. Of course, this is clearly going to lead to many questions, including just who would get designated as such. Many people can probably agree on public libraries and such -- but what about Google? After all, Google is already one of the largest players in "preserving" what's online and also, with its book scanning project, what's in books. Yet it's a private, for-profit company. Should it qualify? I would argue that it makes sense to allow it, given how beneficial the archival activities of Google have already been. Even if it is for profit, the public benefit has been tremendous as well. But then what's to stop any other company from arguing that it to deserves an exemption for preservation purposes? Wouldn't a better solution be to start rethinking copyright law altogether, since what has become clear from this is that copyright doesn't quite fit today's world any more?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: archives, copyright, digital, libraries, preservation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving
Build a better culture first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving
http://tinyurl.com/5a93kr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, since when has "We'll let these people ignore the law" been an acceptable answer when the law causes problems? Surely the better solution is to tackle the law itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are many laws which can be disregarded by some.
I happen to agree that this particular exception is silly, but your argument doesn't really hold water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good idea. Won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Library of Congress should be entirely exempt....
One might argue that the Library of Congress should have a mandate to create and manage an archive of materials which should be proof against most forms of destruction.
As for other collections...collections are made for use. Use requires payment of copyright fees. No excuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Library of Congress should be entirely exempt....
If the LoC has an archive of every publication ever copyrighted in the US... should all Americans have access to that archive? I think we can all agree that within reason, yes, all Americans can, should, and do have access. Now, I happen to live less than 3 miles from the LoC and I get to go there all the time. Most Americans don't have that luxury - but they pay just as much as I do for the Library to operate. That hardly seems fair.
A digital archive a great equalizer though. With a digital archive, someone in the middle of nowhere in Alaska has just as much access as I do now. I think we can all agree that this is fair and good. So, should the LoC make their digital archive available to the public for free (like a normal library)? Again, I think we can all agree that the LoC can and should do this.
Now, if Google can do the same exact thing (better) without costing American tax payers half a BILLION dollars a year. How is that a bad thing? Who loses?
Now, consider the fact that the LoC does not do a good job of digitally archiving and making things available to the public. Even things that are no longer under copyright are not provided by the LoC to the average American with a computer. More than $500 Million per year, and this is not one of their concerns.
Proof? Try to find the text of a not-copyrighted (say... anything by Mark Twain) book on the LoC's website. Now, try to do the same thing on Project Gutenberg's site. A volunteer agency is doing a better job of serving the average American without costing the tax payers a dime. Do you really think it is best to put a task like "complete digital archiving" into the hands of the government when companies can do it better and cheaper? Sounds like you'd be a good fit for the US Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Library of Congress should be entirely exempt....
The entire up to date medical literature should be maintained by government and disseminated free to anyone having published themselves. Engineering may be private enterprise, but science most assuredly is NOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Library of Congress should be entirely exempt....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy-at-Will
Lets say a new movie comes out. The library aquires it like a year after release, as to not unfairly compete with it. Then makes a digital back-up of said movie. They should then have some way of limiting how many copies are checked out at a time. Ma'b in the future, a DRM version can be downloaded per registered local resident, but only 2 copies can be checked out at a time... or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purpose of copyright
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
While this applies only to the US, its purpose is clear: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. It is interesting what copyright is not for:
1. To secure an eternal stream of revenue for an "author" for himself and his heirs.
2. To prop up obsolete business models (I'm looking at you RIAA/MPAA)
3. To enforce business models that stifle competition (Here's looking at you, DCMA)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want special considerations then they should take a look at the all the restricting laws that apply and redo them, not tack on some addendum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purpose of the Library of Congress and Medical copyright
As to medical copyright. One reason there has been so much progress in medicine throughout the world is that Medline existed (the indexing and cataloging service of the National Health Service of the U.S. ). Fifteen years ago, I worked at Sandia National Labs in Livermore, as the technical librarian. Medline searches were cheap and you could see how the ability to access the database contributed to progress in medicine. At that time, engineering databases, even those run by professional organizations, were relatively expensive. I used to think how much more progress we'd be seeing if the engineering databases were as cheap as Medline was. Engineering indexes are much more accessible nowadays.
As to monopolistic or expensive journal collections... There was a time for expensive collections. I remember a journal that cost $15K per year. Only a few academic libraries subscribed. Less than twenty. But an interested person could get a copy of one of it's articles. They could write (or call) the author. They could go to the library. Or they could pay someone to go into the library (through a service) and have the article copied for some small sum. The important thing was to have the ability to find the article and the second most important was to be able to determine whether or not the article would be useful. The inclusion of abstracts in the indexed databases helped. As abstracts in databases became common, the authors learned to ensure that the abstract contained their study conclusions. And they learned to include enough information for a reader to determine whether or not a copy of the article was actually needed.
There isn't any conspiracy in medicine to monopolize the information which is published in journals. Medical progress moves slowly because the subject is incredibly complicated. And, somewhat, because there are governmental restrictions in research which discourage many people from experimenting or working in the field. However, the "public" does need protecting. Even well considered experiments can harm people. Consider the disasters in artificial blood, Vioxx, partially hydrogenated unsaturated fats, HeLa cell based cancer research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it always Google in the news?
On an unrelated note, I fail to understand why Google is hyped so much and features so prominently when any such issue crops up? Given that it has had a huge impact on how we search for information, but there's a fine line between fawning and outright advertisement that many journalists (on or offline) seem to regularly cross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]