Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright and the LOC - was "Incompetence..."

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James L Wolf" <jwol@xxxxxxx>
> Once again, I don't speak in any way for the Library. But having worked here
12 years, I've gained some understanding of the different forces in regards to
copyright. I see no malevolence in any of these forces. Each follows its own
mandate which leads to an inevitable "conflict" within the institution.
>
> First, the Library of Congress is the administrator of copyright. All
copyright submissions are examined and proper status accorded or rejected. This
section of the Library has no issue with copyright law or terms of copyright. It
simply applies the law as it stands.
>
> Second, the Library of Congress is one of the largest, if not the largest,
storehouse of books, manuscripts, recordings, films, etc. etc. in the world.
Most of these items came in through copyright submissions. The purpose of the
divisions which oversee these collections is to preserve the materials and make
them available to Congress, scholars, researchers, and the general public. I
know of not a single "hoarder" in all of Library Services. Rather, a desire to
make more materials available to more people is everywhere the rule. Naturally,
overly long copyright terms and restrictive regulations are inimical to this
mission. Many people who work with collections can and do advocate for easier
copyright conditions (especially in the case of orphaned works). They propose
different interpretations of law, commission studies on the law and its effects,
etc.
>
> Third, there is the Office of General Council, whose primary mission is to
protect the institution of the Library from legal harm. This office must err on
the side of caution. Which means that those who advocate  for easier copyright
interpretations must first convince the OGC that no legal harm could come to the
Library. This is very hard to do. It's easy imagine the uproar if the Library
were seen to take its collections of materials made possible by copyright and
then make certain of those items freely available before it was legal to do so.
>
> That's what I meant by the Library's obligations as the "house of copyright."
To prevent a true conflict of interest from arising, the Library has generally
applied the strictest of measures to itself. I can't say that I'm happy with
this situation, but I feel that I understand it and I can't blame any party or
person. The only hope for change is that in the complications of the law
(especially regarding sound recordings) someone will find ways that we can make
more material available and still be following the law.
>
This indeed makes sense to me (sadly, in some ways)...and I have
found that publicly-funded libraries in general tend to "err on
the conservative side" in relation to any copyrights applicable
to their holdings. In fact, I wonder if this practice comes
from the difficulty they might have, should the question be
forced, in justifying making their holdings freely (and FOR free)
to the portion of the public they serve!

Steven C. Barr