Re: More on Google Suspends Scanning Copyrighted Works -- For Now

[Cheryl Davis <Cheryl_Davis@ncsu.edu>]

Karl Bridges wrote:

> Could one not argue that, at this point, books constitute an "obsolete
> format" as defined in the Act?
I don't think so.  Section 108(c) of the Copyright Act contains this
definition: "For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered
obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work
stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably
available in the commercial marketplace." 17 U.S.C. Section 108

> I also, just as a personal comment not based on any particular legal
> knowledge, doubt whether this restriction of non-profits to doing their
> own work and not being allowed to contract with a commerical vendor
> would hold up in court.
Of course libraries and nonprofits contract with others for many things --
renovations, subscriptions, employees -- but the language Peggy referred
to /has/ held up in court, in a fair use analysis.  It was quoted in
/Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services/ -- the Court
introduced that language by saying "And 'the courts have . . .  properly
rejected attempts by for-profit users to stand in the shoes of their
customers making nonprofit or noncommercial uses.' Patry, /Fair Use in
Copyright Law/, at 420 n.34." 99 F.3d 1381, at 1389 (1996)

I think Peggy's point was to explain the limits of section 108 library
copying for the sole purpose of correcting a previous assertion.  What
Google has said is that they are operating under Section 107 fair use, not
108.

Cheryl

--
Cheryl L. Davis, JD, MSLS
TRLN Doctoral Fellow
North Carolina State University Libraries
Raleigh, NC  27695-7111
919.513.7701
919.513.3553 (fax)
cheryl_davis@ncsu.edu