RE: A thought about H.R. 2281 - Anti circumvention

[Laurel Jamtgaard <laurelj@arl.org>]

Rick Anderson Wrote: 
> But buying a physical book even now doesn't constitute purchase of the
> information, does it?  Isn't the content of the book still owned and
> (theoretically, at least) controlled by the copyright owner?  

The copyright owner <<owns the copyright>> but does not in a metaphysical
sense  <<own the information>>.  Onwership of the copyright entails a
limited set of exclusive rights (right to control copies, right to control
initial distribution, right to control public performance (see Section 106
of the CR Act)).  The right to control how I "use" the information (if it
doesn't involve copies or performance etc.) is not one of the exclusive
rights.  Copyright holders attempt to control <<use>> through contract law
and license agreements but not all copyrighted information is distributed
in that way and those license agreements have limits.

> Laurel wrote:
> > The first-sale doctrine which enables the used book market,
> > sharing of books between friends and family, and donations of books to
> > libraries would be moot.  

Rick wrote:
> Aren't all of the above pretty much moot in the digital environment,
> anyway?  And I think it's protection of digitally encoded information that
> is really at issue with H.R. 2281.  Maybe I'd better check the language
> again...

I don't see a definition of technical protection system that actually
limits the extent of the bill to digital information...

> Laurel wrote:
> > Uee of resources in libraries would be tracked
> > in detail by the publishers enabling a per-use fee structure. 
> 
Rick wrote:
> Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine publishers ever having the 
> resources necessary to monitor every use of all of their resources by
> every patron  in every library.  

Perhaps not right now but it may be true in the near future. Don't you
agree that it would be in the  publishers interest to know which resources
are used most so that the access prices for those resources can be
increased in the next round of license negotiations. So, for example, I
can imagine that libraries might be faced with a higher license fee to use
an annonymous access model.  

Laurel

   Laurel Jamtgaard
   Policy Analyst to:
     Association of Research Libraries 
     Special Libraries Association
       202.296.2296  FAX:202.872.0884   laurelj@arl.org