>From: tenney[_at_]netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
>Subject: Re: consortium to discuss electronic storage
>Well, it seems that everyone on the list wants to help out. So, let's get
>started...
>>The copyright law that is supposed to regulate the interaction of
>>these interests is not adaptable to electronic technologies as it is
>>currently written.
>How does one come to that conclusion? The copyright law is well suited to
>be adapted to electronic technologies -- the problem is that the direct
>adaptation is clearly not how electronic users want to do with electronic
>publications.
This is hard to do in a short message but here goes. I recently wrote a 40 page article on the problems an electronic library would face. I pretty much came to the conclusion that while the provisions of the copyright law relating to reproduction are sufficient to allow ordinary use of materials in a print environment, the provisions related to permissible public performances are far less developed. In short, in an electronic environment, it is almost impossible to perceive anything without engaging in a public performance. Furthermore, the limitations in sections 107 through 121 are not sufficient to permit the ordinary use of electronic materials. The result is that you need a lot of permissions just to use electronic materials. And as Congress found was the case with jukeboxes and cable TV, tracking down all the copyright holders for all the material in a large electronic library to ask permission is impractical. For these reasons, Congress adopted compulsory licenses for juke boxes and cable TV. However, when the U.S. joined the Berne convention it became highly unlikely that any additional compulsory licenses would be enacted.
Mary Brandt Jensen CNICOPY[_at_]CHARLIE.USD.EDU Professor of Law (605) 677 6363 University of South Dakota (605) 677 6357 faxSchool of Law
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:10 GMT