Could we demand that they make the documents available to us, too, so we can digitize them ourselves? I mean in theory we SHOULD be able to do that.

You can bet that someone associated with the DOD is profiting from this. I wonder how many resorts/dinners/kickbacks it took for them to get this through? The Internet Archive would have been perfect for this.

Compare to other Institutions:

The Library of Congress and the National Archives have pretty sensible policies on use of the materials, but some state libraries and some college libraries are way behind the times.

Some libraries still think they own copyrights because they own the physical copy of an unpublished work. That aspect of common law copyright ended in 1978.

Some don’t know that “perpetual” common law copyright of unpublished works ended in 2003. For example, from this recently updated Library of Virginia permissions form: “The Library of Virginia does not grant rights in perpetuity.”

Some libraries don’t understand that placing a work in a library and making it accessible to the public constitutes Distribution.

Some libraries don’t understand that collecting the name of the user, and the purpose of the use, of a public domain work, already distributed in a public library, does not preserve the work as being “Unpublished.”

Some libraries don’t understand that there is no “Right of First Publication” in unpublished works which are already in the public domain.

Some libraries don’t understand that their granting of permissions, for orphan works or copyrighted works, can constitute secondary copyright infringement liability, in spite of their disclaimer that the library patron assumes full responsibility.
(Anne Pearse-Hocker v. Smithsonian Institute: Count 26:
The author’s permission was not obtained for third party use)

Some libraries think that a click-through “Hold Harmless” agreement attached to permissions will clear them of negligence involving secondary liability, even when clicked through by a minor.

Some libraries don’t understand that the state archives in their custody are “public records,” and they are restricted by Freedom of Information laws when asking for personal information and intended use of the materials.

One library thinks that archives are “reference” materials, like a dictionary or city map, therefore they are exempt from regulations.

None of the libraries comply with state privacy laws when asking patrons on permissions forms for the name of their publisher, the expected print run, etc.

None of the libraries give “notice” of what laws allow them to collect personal information, by requiring patrons to give their names, etc. when asking for copies of materials.

None of the libraries disclose a process for appealing a decision when permission to publish is denied.

None of the libraries publish a non-discrimination policy when demanding permission to publish.

None of the libraries understand that the power to grant permission is also the power to deny permission, which is the same as the power to censor using Prior Restraint.

Agreeing to illegal permissions policies is against public policy, is censorship, is against the state constitution on giving up constitutional rights as a condition of public services, constitutes an unenforceable restrictive covenant,and does not bind third parties, as copies made by the library become the property of the patron, and can be sold on eBay to the highest bidder.

.