Re: Interlibrary loan for digital objects

Laura N. Gasaway <unclng[_at_]email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> I have long agreed with your interpretation and so does Bob
> Oakley in his article. There is no reason that a digital copy is not
> a facsimile form -- especially those that look exactly like the page
> itself!

     This discussion has been enormously helpful. I think the way I would want to sum it up is to say that there is little consensus on the issue, since the language of the statute was left intentionally vague and its really not clear what is meant by the legislative history when it talks about copies stored on a computer system. No disrespect intended to lawyers 8-), but wouldn't it help if we had a member of congress from the computer science and library disciplines writing our copyright laws?

     From the librarian's perspective, the bottom line is that we want to serve the public by preserving its knowledge and wisdom, making it accessible to all, regardless of economic status, creed (and I'm a clergyman, too), race, sex, age or other human distinction. We want to uphold both the spirit and the letter of the copyright law, but this has become quite difficult with all the complexities introduced by both technologies (which elevate us from mere storekeepers to publishers) and legislators, eager to please large corporations and author gilds. We are not timid (and, in frustration, are becoming almost militant), but this is really not our thing. We want to serve.

     Practically speaking, we want to know how to get on with our work, respecting the laws, serving the public, and, in this matter, preserving its record for generations to come. Fortunately, when it comes to brittle books, nearly all of it is in the Public Domain (at least until the next session of Congress!), so this discussion is moot for the time being. Were the folks who are now publishing to do us all the favor of using archival paper in all their work, at least for a small press run of each title, the whole issue would die.

     In the mean time, we will need to plan policy and courses of action which preserve and grant access to knowledge. We will need to take legal risks to do so, even though our intent will always be to honor the statute. This is indeed sad.

     What I think I will suggest to my fellow librarians is to do the best they can to simplify these issues so that their patrons, non-professional staff and student works can understand and be at peace with the core of the issues. To me, this simply means:

1. If it is published before 1923, preserve the piece in the best manner that your professional judgement indicates is best for safegarding the content and making it available.
2. If it is published after the date, either wait for the piece to enter the public domain, have a copright search done by the Library of Congress or write the publisher for permission to do so. In my experience, most are quite happy to cooperate, as long as you protect their investment.
3. If they do not cooperate, forget it. If you have time, find the author or her heirs. If you do not, do us all the favor of letting us know which publishers have blocked which items.

Comments?

Bob Smith

   | Rev. Robert E. Smith           | Email: bob_smith[_at_]ctsfw.edu    |
   | Electronic Resources Librarian | Phone: (219) 452-2123         |
   | Concordia Theo. Seminary       | Ft. Wayne, Indiana            | 
   |                     http://www.ctsfw.edu/                      |