In the print world, it has been accepted practice to preserve old
documents on microfilm or microfiche.
In the record world, it has been accepted practice to duplicate
deteriorating records on tape and now on cd or dat.
In the examples cited above, the accepted facsimile copies made for
preservation purposes under 108c are "ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAT" yet
that is the accepted practice and is not questioned. Why then would you
think that copying a U-Matic tape onto a VHS tape would not be allowed.
Remember, Copyright is not the question, the section I quoted stated that
the item being copied was "a copy or phonorecord of a published work...".
>Sorry Stan, but I beg to differ. The question is copying material ON A
>TOTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAT. Legally I think you would be on shaky ground. The
>basic question is are the works in question still under copywrite and it
>most cases the answer is yes. Now it requires a ridiculous amount of work
>to figure out who really owns each specific work from a defunct
>distributor, but that does not mean the work in question in not under
>copywrite. Just because a work is not easily or cheaply available in your
>desired format should not justify making a copy of it. Now all of that
>said, I sincerely doubt that you would ever get caught and it is VERY
>Frustrating not to be able to use such materials. In short my answer would
>be it aint legal but you might do it anyway
>Kino International Corporation
>333 W. 39th St. Suite 503
>New York, NY 10018
424 East Foster Avenue 814-861-1537
State College, PA 16801 mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Education Technology Consultants Homepage:
http://members.aol.com/etc100/index.html (resume avail.)