While the Books Crumble

Posted by: Stephen Wildstrom on March 31, 2008

Anyone who wonders why copyright law can’t keep up with rapid changes in technology would do well to ponder something called “The Section 108 Study Group Report,” released today. The title of the 212-page tome refers to the part of the Copyright Act that gives libraries permission to make preservation copies of endangered works in their collections.

The problem is huge. Million of books and manuscripts, especially on acid-rich wood pulp paper, are crumbling to dust. Old sound recordings, especially on magnetic media, become unplayable. Endless Congressional extensions to copyright protection have kept most of these works from entering the public domain. And while Section 108 creates copyright exemptions for libraries to preserve these works, they are given very little latitude.

After three years of work, the Section 108 Study Group came up with some very modest recommendations. The right to copy works for preservation should be extended to museums as well as libraries. Libraries would also be given permission to use contractors to do the work of duplication; current law requires them to do the work themselves. And a number of technical recommendations would make the duplication process easier. The minimalism of these recommendations was probably a foregone conclusion given the makeup of the study group, which consists of librarians and archivists, academics, and representatives of publishers and other rights holders, and the fact that the panel rules allowed it to make recommendations only when it has achieved consensus.

Many more books will be gone before anything comes of this. The report is only a recommendation to the Librarian of Congress. The Library of Congress can convert them into legislative proposals, which Congress may or may not ever get around to acting on. We have a copyright system designed in the 19th century with a bit of flavoring from the 20th, governing a reality where the existence of digital media is revolutionizing the very concept of content and protection. Unfortunately, the prospect of the law catching up with this reality anytime in the foreseeable future is very poor.

UPDATE: Typos pointed out by Ron Wagner corrected.l

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

Ron Wagner

April 2, 2008 11:28 PM

This is an article about law and preservation of our written heritage. Lo and behold because it certainly needs to be cherished and studied. In four simple paragraphs the author has proven that he depends far too much on spell checker, doesn't proof read his own work, has problems with his tenses, and does not understand how acid ended in the paper... "problem in huge" ..."a representatives of publishers" ..."only when it have achieved consensus" ..."especially on acid-rich wood pulp paper" ...Oh boy are we duumbed!

Post a comment

 

About

BusinessWeek writers Peter Burrows, Cliff Edwards, Olga Kharif, Aaron Ricadela, Douglas MacMillan, and Spencer Ante dig behind the headlines to analyze what’s really happening throughout the world of technology. One of the first mainstream media tech blogs, Tech Beat covers everything from tech bellwethers like Apple, Google, and Intel and emerging new leaders such as Facebook to new technologies, trends, and controversies.

Categories

 

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!