Re: [Videolib] Copyright ( My last word)

Troy Davis (
Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:51:33 -0400

Ahh, more conversation. This is really some good stuff. Don't mean to be
monopolizing the library angle.

I'm also going to stop adding (under certain conditions) to my sentences
that address legal preservation copying. I think we all know that
Section 108 has some ground rules.

Section 108 certainly does have some verbiage about "premises," but for
the digital copy. Reproduction and distribution are the main're addressing performance and display (exclusive rights,
exemptions and limitations for which are covered in section 110, and of
course, as always, 107). What section 108 allows for is the replacement
(via reproduction) of a copyrighted work in a library's collection.
Making a replacement via reproduction doesn't suddenly cripple the work,
or exempted it suddenly from permissible uses outlined in sections 107
and 110 of the statute, or make it a non-circulating copy. It's a
replacement (108(c)) of copyrighted work X, not a new X. (now the
digital copy's a different story)

Once again, libraries can reproduce copyrighted works.

I agree that on a common sense level, preservation of rare material
seems to be a major idea in the statute; but what it says is, libraries
can lawfully and with a clear conscience embark on a preservation
strategy for a particular copyrighted work that involves its
replacement, via reproduction, rare or not. Now rarity would certainly
be the most common reason why one couldn't find an an unused replacement
at a fair price.

Add "under certain conditions" to some sentences above


Jessica Rosner wrote:
> Ok I lied and I will say one more thing in response
> Troy :
> section 108 refers several times to the copy being RESTRICTED to the
> PREMISE of the library thus this copy is NOT the same
> as a standard circulating copy that would be used in a class. It does not
> circulate, it does not leave the premise, it can't go on interlibrary loan
> and it is basically a research/ archival copy. If you could in fact just
> duplicate any deteriorating video//film that you could not replace no such
> restrictions would be included and it would be the same as the original copy
> but it isn't
> There are an awful lot on confusing if not contractory things in this
> section but I believe it was intended to protect rare material from
> disappearing , and clearly restricts both the type of material to be copied
> AND the way in which the copy may be accesseed
> Back to lunch
> ( technically not at work Gary)

M. Troy Davis
Media Services Librarian
University of Tennessee Libraries :: The Studio
245 John C. Hodges Library
Knoxville, TN 37996

_______________________________________________ Videolib mailing list