Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Copyright Study Group Seeks Comments 45

jeh0bu writes "The Section 108 Study Group, a group of copyright experts, has been meeting to discuss Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is focusing on preservation of websites and access to digital copies of library materials. Representatives of Internet Archive, including Brewster Kahle, went to the group's public roundtable sessions in March. Google did not register to attend the roundtable sessions even though the findings of the Section 108 Study Group may impact Google's Library Project. The Section 108 Study Group seeks written comments through April 17, 2006, according to this Federal Register notice."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Study Group Seeks Comments

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Section 108 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by deopmix ( 965178 ) on Monday April 03, 2006 @11:29AM (#15050399)
    any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
    This appears to be the part applicable to google. It seams rather clear that while google can scan in the books, they cannot make them available to the public.
  • DRM must go (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Monday April 03, 2006 @11:59AM (#15050741)
    For the legitimate interests of fair use, including archiving in libraries, DRM must be circumvented. DRM must be considered incompatible with copyright protection.

    In order for a DRM'd work to receive legal copyright protection it must be required to submit a non-DRM'd copy to the Library of Congress and 2 other public Libraries. Otherwise the whole concept of time limited copyright goes out the window, frankly. Unrestrained DRM is unconstitutional for that reason.

  • by yar ( 170650 ) on Monday April 03, 2006 @02:26PM (#15052156)
    Because Google does not meet the critiria to take advantage of Section 108. Section 108 applies to libraries and archives that are made without direct or indirect commercial advantage and has collections that are open to the public/researchers. Whether Google is or is not a library itself is debatable, and I suspect we'll have definitions after the Section 108 group is through, since right now one of the issues is that libraries and archives are undefinded. It doesn't matter, though, since Google right now doesn't act without direct or indirect commercial advantage.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner