US Copyright Office report: Legal Issues in Mass Digitization

[Elfwreck]

Just released today. 2mb PDF of report downloadable at the site, or I'll attach a bookmarked, tagged version here. (Which, because this is a release of the US gov't, is in the public domain.)

Background:

The Copyright Office has published a Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document that addresses the issues raised by the intersection between copyright law and the mass digitization of books. The purpose of the Analysis is to facilitate further discussions among the affected parties and the public – discussions that may encompass a number of possible approaches, including voluntary initiatives, legislative options, or both. The Analysis also identifies questions to consider in determining an appropriate policy for the mass digitization of books.

Public discourse on mass digitization is particularly timely. On March 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a proposed settlement in the copyright infringement litigation regarding Google's mass book digitization project. The court found that the settlement would have redefined the relationship between copyright law and new technology, and it would have encroached upon Congress's ability to set copyright policy with respect to orphan works. Since then, a group of authors has filed a lawsuit against five university libraries that participated in Google's mass digitization project. These developments have sparked a public debate on the risks and opportunities that mass book digitization may create for authors, publishers, libraries, technology companies, and the general public. The Office's Analysis will serve as a basis for further policy discussions on this issue.

Excerpt from the overview section of the report:

Whether copyright owners are in a position to offer market solutions for mass digitization projects is an important part of the equation. It is possible that direct licensing, collective licensing, and other emerging business models will be capable of balancing the needs of user groups and the interests of copyright owners. This raises practical questions about how copyright owners should be compensated for the use of their works in mass digitization projects, and legal questions about the applicability of exclusive rights and limitations and exceptions under copyright law. Is the existing copyright framework sufficiently responsive to these concerns? If not, are there important public or private goals that might warrant legislative action in this area? Some stakeholders may suggest that Congress should facilitate mass digitization – and possibly dissemination – of books by creating a public registry that could simplify the process of obtaining prior permission from authors and other rights holders. Others may suggest that with guidance and encouragement from Congress, stakeholders could and should be encouraged to explore solutions within the marketplace, including private agreements or memoranda of understanding.

[Giggleton]

exclusivity/paywalls/not allowing someone to read anything that they want/censorhip

old paradigms, no need for em anymore.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Just released today. 2mb PDF of report downloadable at the site, or I'll attach a bookmarked, tagged version here. (Which, because this is a release of the US gov't, is in the public domain.)


Excerpt from the overview section of the report:

Whether copyright owners are in a position to offer market solutions for mass digitization projects is an important part of the equation. It is possible that direct licensing, collective licensing, and other emerging business models will be capable of balancing the needs of user groups and the interests of copyright owners. This raises practical questions about how copyright owners should be compensated for the use of their works in mass digitization projects, and legal questions about the applicability of exclusive rights and limitations and exceptions under copyright law. Is the existing copyright framework sufficiently responsive to these concerns? If not, are there important public or private goals that might warrant legislative action in this area? Some stakeholders may suggest that Congress should facilitate mass digitization – and possibly dissemination – of books by creating a public registry that could simplify the process of obtaining prior permission from authors and other rights holders. Others may suggest that with guidance and encouragement from Congress, stakeholders could and should be encouraged to explore solutions within the marketplace, including private agreements or memoranda of understanding.

We went through something like this with journalists/authors working for newspapers before there was online reading of the papers.

The older journalists hadn't signed anything giving the newspaper the digital rights to give or sell to online viewers. The newspapers started to make money by charging to search the online archives and read the articles.

The older journalists and authors said we want our money from the sales of our products. The newspapers said no, that you gave up your rights when you drew a paycheck. The courts more or less went along with the journalists.

The journalist said "we want our money." The papers said well we will come to an agreement on what has already been "sold" but how about the future? How much do you want to settle that. The journalists smelling the blood in the water, said "a whole lot." The newspapers said, "not so fast" and they programmed their search engines to ignore any author/journalist that had not signed on to a "acceptable deal."

The record of these journalists/authors disappeared except perhaps in old stacks at libraries or in old microfilm. They settled.

As for any journalist/author/writer currently employed by the papers, they received new wording in their contracts.

Anyway, I see a long tangled argument here.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

exclusivity/paywalls/not allowing someone to read anything that they want/censorhip

old paradigms, no need for em anymore.

I'm not sure I understand? And, how is this censorship?

So, if I write a private love note to my wife -- is it required that I publish it n the public web so that anyone can read it? What about my diary? What about things that I speak? Is there anything I can make private or restrict to certain audiences?

I know these are extremes, but I'm trying to understand the comment. In what cases do you believe the creator should be able to control who has access to their content, and in what circumstances is created content in the public domain?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by emellaich

I'm not sure I understand? And, how is this censorship?

So, if I write a private love note to my wife -- is it required that I publish it n the public web so that anyone can read it? What about my diary? What about things that I speak? Is there anything I can make private or restrict to certain audiences?

The short answer is no, If you wish to speak of extremes we can think of a world where your private letter to your wife is thought of as private by the public and therefore would not be read by the public.

There are many examples I can think of where private correspondence has been used to further our understanding of the human condition.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The short answer is no, If you wish to speak of extremes we can think of a world where your private letter to your wife is thought of as private by the public and therefore would not be read by the public.

There are many examples I can think of where private correspondence has been used to further our understanding of the human condition.

I'm not getting the censorship remark either.

[Giggleton]

Censorship is not allowing me to read or see something yes?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Censorship is not allowing me to read or see something yes?

Not exactly. The usual definition is:
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

Not allowing you to read or see something that you have not paid for is called "business".

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Not exactly. The usual definition is:
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

Not allowing you to read or see something that you have not paid for is called "business".

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Not exactly. The usual definition is:
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

Not allowing you to read or see something that you have not paid for is called "business".

It's the not exactly part that I'm thinking about. Also, who determines who gets to be an official? Is Amazon an official censor? Am I? Are you?

I feel that we should be talking about the moral issues of mass digitization because it is evident that the mass digitization and dissemination of knowledge is fundamentally good.

...

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It's the not exactly part that I'm thinking about. Also, who determines who gets to be an official? Is Amazon an official censor? Am I? Are you?

Of course not.

I think you're thinking of censorship as something very different from what the rest of us are. Censorship is to take something that is available to the public, and to remove parts that the censor feels should not be revealed. A good example would be if the sports journalists who uncovered the various recruiting scandals in the NCAA a few months ago (that's US college football, for the non-Americans out there) had been allowed to publish their stories only if they left out the names of the colleges that were affected. That would be censorship.

But by your definition, not allowing you to read a Kindle book you have not bought or borrowed is censorship. That makes no sense.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I feel that we should be talking about the moral issues of mass digitization because it is evident that the mass digitization and dissemination of knowledge is fundamentally good.

Fundamentally, the only thing evident is that mass digitization and dissemination of knowledge is happening. Whether that's good or bad is quite unclear—and largely irrelevant to this (and most) legal discussion.

[Kevin8or]

The biggest issue in mass digitization, IMHO, is the unconscionable lengths to which copyright's been extended. I hoped that the Google Books litigation would bring the problem into focus.

[U.S. example follows but other countries are similar, AFAIK]

The US Constitution grants Congress the power "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."

With that authority, Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1790, which granted a right of 14 years, and an optional extension of a second 14 years. It was a balance between authors' compensation and public enrichment.

In 1909, Congress doubled it to two 28-year terms. In 1976 Congress extended it to life + 50 years. As it now stands, the copyright term is:

life + 70 years for individuals, and 120 years for corporations.

From a maximum of 28 years to the present 120 years. The duration is all out of proportion to the purpose: to promote the public good.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

The biggest issue in mass digitization, IMHO, is the unconscionable lengths to which copyright's been extended. I hoped that the Google Books litigation would bring the problem into focus.

[U.S. example follows but other countries are similar, AFAIK]

The US Constitution grants Congress the power "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."

With that authority, Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1790, which granted a right of 14 years, and an optional extension of a second 14 years. It was a balance between authors' compensation and public enrichment.

In 1909, Congress doubled it to two 28-year terms. In 1976 Congress extended it to life + 50 years. As it now stands, the copyright term is:

life + 70 years for individuals, and 120 years for corporations.

From a maximum of 28 years to the present 120 years. The duration is all out of proportion to the purpose: to promote the public good.

I agree. I think current copyright actually HINDERS creativity for the public good. What real reason is there for a best seller to get out and write that next novel? He's still riding fat and high off the one he wrote 10 years ago that just sold the movie rights...

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

life + 70 years for individuals, and 120 years for corporations.

From a maximum of 28 years to the present 120 years. The duration is all out of proportion to the purpose: to promote the public good.

I totally agree, the other ones made more sense. As it stands now, the likelyhood of anyone even knowing of these writers books is slim to none in 120 years and all of the people who cared about them will be dead.