[Libs-Or] Fwd: [alacoun] Copyright Law and Policy

[Diedre Conkling]

FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Emily Sheketoff" <esheketoff at alawash.org>
Date: Aug 16, 2016 4:02 PM
Subject: [alacoun] Copyright Law and Policy
To: "ALA Council (alacoun at lists.ala.org)" <alacoun at lists.ala.org>
Cc:

Carrie Russell of the Washington Office prepared this report on recent
actions on copyright and Section 108.

The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) is the primary coalition of U.S.
library associations working on copyright law and policy in Washington,
DC.  ALA is a member as is ACRL and ARL.  On July 26th, the LCA met with US
Copyright Office staff to discuss Section 108 – “the library exception.”
The Copyright Office has made the re-write of Section 108 their top
priority of the current copyright law being conducted by the US House
Judiciary Committee on the Internet, Intellectual Property, and the
Courts.  LCA opposes (and has opposed for several years) re-visiting
Section 108 for four reasons:

*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.*

Despite our opposition, the Copyright Office plans to introduce Section 108
legislation to the House Judiciary Committee before the end of the year for
their consideration.  Because of stiff opposition and lack of consensus
among the stakeholders, it is unlikely that the Judiciary Committee will
take up Section 108, but we remain prepared to lobby against it if
necessary.

For more information about this issue see the following blog posts:

>From the Washington Office District Dispatch http://www.districtdispatch.
org/2016/07/top-secret-hush-hush/

>From ARL http://policynotes.arl.org/?p=1408

>From the Society of American Archivists http://www2.archivists.org/
saa-statement-on-draft-revision-of-section-108#.V7NzsaKrKao

>From the University of Virginia http://news.library.virginia.
edu/2016/08/16/virginia-university-libraries-tell-
congress-needless-copyright-revision-could-threaten-our-mission/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20160816/5b56e80e/attachment.html>