Copyright Office Intent On Changing The Part Of Copyright That Protects Libraries & Archives, Even Though No One Wants It Changed

from the what's-up-guys? dept

It's no secret that the US Copyright Office has been acting pretty nutty lately. For decades, the office has basically carried the water of the legacy copyright/entertainment industries, but at least they would sometimes try to appear marginally balanced. Now it appears that all caution has been thrown to the wind and the entire office is actively looking to suppress and attack user rights and innovation. In just the past few weeks and months, we've pointed out a series of really bad ideas on reforming the notice-and-takedown safe harbors of the DMCA, a separate plan that would effectively strip tons of websites of their DMCA safe harbors by requiring them to remember to keep re-registering, and a disturbing willingness to totally misrepresent the copyright issues at play with regards to the FCC's set-top box proposal.

So, perhaps, we shouldn't be all that surprised that the Copyright Office appears to be making a move to screw over libraries now, too. Section 108 of the Copyright Act has explicit carve-outs and exemptions for libraries and archivists. These are stronger than fair use, because they are clear exemptions from copyright, rather than fuzzy guidelines that have to be adjudicated in court. Section 108 is super important for libraries and archives (including the Internet Archive). So why does the Copyright Office want to change it? That's a bit of a mystery in terms of public explanations, but it's not hard to take some guesses.

The Copyright Office started exploring this issue a few years back, insisting that Section 108 was "outdated" for the digital age. And while there are many aspects of copyright law that are obsolete for the digital age, the exemptions for libraries and archives were not among them. And everyone let the Copyright Office know that. And... the Copyright Office has basically ignored them all. Back in June, the Copyright Office announced via the Federal Register that it was moving forward with putting together recommendations on changing Section 108, and anyone who had comments could "schedule meetings in Washington, DC to take place during late June through July 2016."

Yes, you read that right. In an effort to -- it claims -- update the law for the digital age, the Copyright Office demanded that anyone who had comments needed to show up at its offices in DC to discuss. Eventually, after there was pushback, the Office agreed to set up some phone meetings as well. And, of course, all of these meetings were secret, because nothing says good government like backroom meetings in secret with folks who happen to be in DC. As the American Library Association wrote about this, it seems like a very sketchy way to go about policymaking.
[T]he very fact that these discussions are confidential takes a lot of nerve. We have never heard of an instance where a government agency seeking public comment does not provide public access to the comments. This is not a national security issue after all. Section 108 is about interlibrary loan, preservation and replacement of library resources, and copies that libraries can make for users, not global surveillance programs.
Either way, basically everyone is asking why the Copyright Office is even doing this, as the library and archivist worlds say that the current law is working fine. Here's the Library Copyright Alliance (which includes the American Library Association and others) pointing out that libraries don't think the law is obsolete or in need of a refresh:
We oppose an effort to overhaul Section 108 for four reasons. First, although Section 108 may reflect a pre-digital environment, it is not obsolete. It provides libraries and archives with important certainty with respect to the activities it covers. Second, as the recent decision in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014), makes clear, fair use supplements Section 108 and thus provides a sufficient mechanism for updating it when necessary. For example, fair use provides a sufficient basis for website archiving. Third, amending Section 108 could have the effect of limiting what libraries do today. Again using website archiving as an example, the Library of Congress’s Section 108 Study Group proposed a complex regulatory scheme for website archiving, an activity already routinely performed by libraries as well as commercial search engines. Indeed, some rights holders see the updating of Section 108 as an opportunity to repeal the fair use safe harbor in Section 108(f)(4) and restrict the availability of fair use to libraries. Fourth, based on the highly contentious and protracted deliberations of the Section 108 Study Group, it is clear that any legislative process concerning Section 108 would be equally contentious and would demand many library resources just to maintain the status quo, let alone improve the situation of libraries. A Section 108 reform process would consume significant Congressional resources as well. Accordingly, we urge the Committee to leave Section 108 as is.
And then how about the Society of American Archivists? They don't like it either.
In contrast to the opinion expressed in the Notice of Inquiry, SAA does not consider Section 108 to be obsolete or in need of serious reform. It is used every day by practicing archivists all across the country. To the extent that the Section contains specific conditions and restrictions, it has perhaps not aged well. Fortunately there are many Sections that express a general goal without imposing unreasonable conditions. Furthermore, the “Fair Use savings” clause, Section 108(f)(4), ensures that actions that are not otherwise authorized in Section 108 may, under appropriate conditions, still be undertaken by archives.

Although there are aspects of Section 108 that could be updated, the benefits of doing so are likely to be small while the cost of getting agreement on the changes is likely to be high. SAA would prefer to see the Copyright Office focus on other areas of greater concern, including reform of statutory damages (a serious impediment for archives that may own published unclaimed copyrighted works) and implementation of an international treaty that would support fuller engagement by American archivists with those international communities whose heritage is often found in U.S. archives.
And, then, there's the digital archivists over at the Internet Archive. They are concerned about possible changes as well:
We are extremely concerned that Congress could take the Copyright Office’s proposal seriously, and believe that libraries are actually calling for these changes. That’s why we flew to Washington, D.C. to deliver the message to the Copyright Office in person: now is not the time for changes to Section 108. Libraries and technology have been evolving quickly. Good things are beginning to happen as a result. Drafting a law now could make something that is working well more complicated, and could calcify processes that would otherwise continue to evolve to make digitization efforts and web archiving work even better for libraries and content owners alike.

In fact, just proposing this new legislation will likely have the effect of hitting the pause button on libraries. It will lead to uncertainty for the libraries that have already begun to modernize by digitizing their analog collections and learning how to collect and preserve born-digital materials. It could lead libraries who have been considering such projects to “wait and see.”
So, just who is the Copyright Office serving in trying to update Section 108?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 9:12am

    Palpitine made them do it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58JrxLL3u2s

    Now which MAFIAA group you want to call Vader depends on the evil of the moment...

    E

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 11:26am

    Not hard to guess

    So, just who is the Copyright Office serving in trying to update Section 108?

    Publishers(not authors mind you, or at least not most of them), collection agencies... pretty much anyone that doesn't think that anything should be allowed to be shared unless it's paid for each time I would guess.

    It's been tossed around a few times, the idea that if libraries weren't already in place they would have been impossible to establish in the current legal landscape, looks like at least one group is doing what they can to 'correct' that 'mistake'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2016 @ 4:33pm

      Re: Not hard to guess

      Congress works fastest when faced with an existing law that is:

      (1) clear
      (2) allows for productive behavior, and
      (3) permits the citizenry to preserve their knowledge of history.

      Gotta stop that. For the children.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 12:21pm

    Jobs galore when you get our of your gobmint commitment!

    Not just killing culture, rewriting history. Hundreds of years of libraries were just a short term mistake.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 12:22pm

      Re: Jobs galore when you get our of your gobmint commitment!

      Out, that should be out, damnit!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2016 @ 1:16pm

      Re: Jobs galore when you get our of your gobmint commitment!

      Hundreds of years of libraries? They have existed for thousands of years, they came in with writing, and until the age of the printing press were the main gateway to knowledge.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 1:22pm

        Re: Re: Jobs galore when you get our of your gobmint commitment!

        True, but the US has not been around thousands of years. Do you expect some bureaucrats to take the history they want to rewrite into actual account? That might screw up their nefarious plans.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nathan F (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 1:30pm

    Hopefully the new Librarian of Congress will shut down this bit of revision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2016 @ 1:46pm

    Regulation...

    Is good folks!

    This is why we created "regulatory" agencies!

    Not that these agencies are constitutional, but still... this is why they were created. Bitching about them instead of the people that gave them power and do nothing to reign them in when they go nuts is pretty damn dishonest!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 2 Aug 2016 @ 5:20am

      Re: Regulation...

      People who think the world would work better without laws and regulations are the dishonest ones. Why don't y'all start your own country and try it. I'll make popcorn.

      Constitutional. @@

      It's also a hoot that when people have a discussion, spread information, and try to push things toward the good, they are merely "bitching", (because reigning in involves, what, firearms?) unless they are some holy enlightened libetarian-esque creature with their meta-bitching, who can save us all with the One True way.

      I'm not particularly optimistic about human cultural behaviors, but offered... nothing. Meanwhile, there was an article about the issue mentioning 3 organizations who are exerting their influences...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I've watched them for SIX going on SEVEN decades, 2 Aug 2016 @ 8:24am

      Re: Regulation...

      So, just who is the Copyright Office serving in trying to update Section 108?

      It doesn't seem that the "New World Order" gives a shit about the U.S. Constitution. Maybe they want to get into the archiving business and take it all underground to their bunker complexes that have cost Americans TRILLIONS of Dollars so they have something to do when the world explodes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2016 @ 1:54pm

    surely the question to ask is 'who is doing this and what have they been paid to do it, as well as who paid them? nothing like this is done for free or, usually, for any industry other than the entertainment and literary industries. that seems like a good place to start looking as recently, if i remember correctly, there have been a few upset about people being able to download digital books etc. greed is a big motivator!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 2:01pm

    the US GOvt, particularly the patent office, is gonna be so red-faced when the Vogons show up.....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 1 Aug 2016 @ 2:59pm

    getting bribed to ignore what they know is right in order to screw over the public tends to do that.

    corruption runs deep in America

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Brian Antoine, 1 Aug 2016 @ 3:43pm

    "So, just who is the Copyright Office serving in trying to update Section 108?"

    Uh, the people paying them under the table? Or because they don't think we can do anything about it, above the table?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 1 Aug 2016 @ 6:57pm

    Looks like...

    It's time for some FOIA requests regarding the Copyright Office. Look for the bribes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2016 @ 7:08pm

    It's worth remembering that virtually every new copyright law (or re-interpretation of existing law) that's come out of Washington since the start of the digital age has been blatantly anti-consumer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2016 @ 11:02pm

      Re:

      It's been going on way longer than that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      BernardoVerda (profile), 3 Aug 2016 @ 5:05pm

      Re:

      > It's worth remembering that virtually every new copyright law (or re-interpretation of existing law)
      > that's come out of Washington since the start of the digital age has been blatantly anti-consumer.

      That criticism is an indication of a major part of the underlying problem, right there:

      "Consumers" is a whole different category -- not to mention a whole different mind-set -- than "society", "the general public", or "citizens".

      Copyright isn't supposed to be sort of commercial legislation, about consumers versus industry. Copyright is supposed to be about the public interest, about balancing an artificial, government-created, private privilege (one specifically enacted to benefit society at large) against the broader interests of the citizens of that society.

      "Consumers" is a term that should be rarely encountered in discussing copyright law, and treated with care (perhaps even suspicion?) when discussing copyright policy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Diana Lowell Peterson, 2 Aug 2016 @ 12:13am

    Dating

    Nice One..I will find this type of artical..
    https://goo.gl/hHd1i9

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2016 @ 7:03am

      Re: Dating

      Not clicking on that link with that post title. But it did make me think: if I were to implement my own forum software I would outlaw all link shorteners. You could paste them in but the backend would follow the link to determine the ultimate destination, and rewrite the poster's link to the actual URL it points to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2016 @ 7:00am

    My guess?

    They want to do the same thing with Archives that they're attempting to do with Journalists: you're not one unless Uncle Sam says you're one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.