Earlier this month the U.S. Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) inviting interested parties to discuss potential revisions to the library and archives exceptions in 17 USC 108. On Friday, CCUMC President Pat Poet forwarded this call for comments on to the CCUMC LISTSERV:
The Copyright Office's has placed a call for comments on revisions to 17 USC 108 on the following specific areas:
The attributes that an institution should possess in order to be eligible for the section 108 exceptions, and how to prescribe and/or regulate them.
Limiting section 108 to reproduction and distribution activities, or extending it to permit public performance and display as well. Copies for Preservation, Security, Deposit in Another Institution, and Replacement
Restricting the number of preservation and security copies of a given work, either with a specific numerical limit, as with the current three-copy rule, or with a conceptual limit, such as the amount reasonably necessary for each permitted purpose.
The level of public access that a receiving institution can provide with respect to copies of both publicly disseminated and non-publicly disseminated works deposited with it for research purposes.
Conditioning the unambiguous allowance of direct digital distribution of copies of portions of a work or entire works to requesting users, and whether any such conditions should be statutory or arrived at through a rulemaking process.
Conditioning the distribution and making available of publicly available internet content captured and reproduced by an eligible institution.
How privileging some of the section 108 exceptions over conflicting contractual terms would affect business relationships between rights-holders and libraries, archives, and museums.
What activities (e.g., digitization, preservation, interlibrary loan) to allow to be outsourced to third-party contractors, and the conditioning of this outsourcing.
Whether the conditions to any of the section 108 exceptions would be better as regulations that are the product of notice-and-comment rulemaking or as statutory text.
Whether and how the use of technical protection measures by eligible institutions should apply to section 108 activities.
Any pertinent issues not referenced above that the Copyright Office should consider in relation to revising section 108.
Pat would like to invite CCUMC's membership to send detailed comments specific to these subjects directly to her (firstname.lastname@example.org) byJuly 1st and she will vet and compile them and share them with the Copyright Office as a representative of CCUMC.
York College of Pennsylvania email@example.com