While I do not deny the importance of understanding the past, this list spends relatively little time in understanding the present. For example, a couple of days ago, the progressive Clinton administration announced a revolutionary new copyright decision. Many of us rely, even in discussing slavery and other historical issues, information on the net, some of which is copyrighted. This new decision by the copyright office should severely curtail access to information. In addition, a couple days ago, Reed-Elsevier, the largest purveyor of a scientific -- and other academic literature -- announced that it was taking over Harcourt. I mentioned before how rising prices of journals are restricting the number of subscriptions. Guess which subscriptions will be the first to go? Neuroscience, Physics Letters, or the Review Of Radical Political Economy? Anyway here is irrelevant Wall Street Journal report on the copyright issue. http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB972602565773912484.htm October 27, 2000 Federal Office Backs Companies' Right To Limit Access to Internet Content By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL In a decision that helps lay the groundwork for intellectual-property rules in a digital world, the federal Copyright Office has backed the right of companies to limit access to their content when it is offered on the Internet. The copyright office, part of the Library of Congress, decided to allow only two narrow exemptions to a new federal law that makes it illegal for Web users to hack through the barriers that copyright holders erect around books, films, music and other content released online. The decision will be in effect for three years. The rule became the subject of a fierce lobbying fight because libraries, universities and others argued that media companies could use the new law to restrict their traditional rights, for example, to lend out or archive copyrighted material. At the heart of the debate is an effort to mold traditional copyright law for use in the digital age, where technology makes instantaneous copying and transmission easy. Congress, when it enacted the antihacking provision, left it to the copyright office to create any exemptions that might be needed to maintain a balance between the rights of copyright holders and the people who use copyrighted material. Entertainment companies, including Time Warner Inc. and Sony Corp.'s computer-game unit, had argued that they needed legal protection from hackers and other unauthorized users. They tried to quell the fears of libraries and universities by saying there was no evidence that they would begin trying to collect unreasonable fees for each use of a copyrighted work. Steven Metalitz, an attorney who represented a number of media-industry interests, said he was pleased that the copyright office "seems to have rejected the unjustified proposals put forward by some for a sweeping exemption." The Copyright Office rule, which is released by the Librarian of Congress, is set to be published Friday in the Federal Register. The law against breaking through technological protections, which was part of a major 1998 package of digital copyright legislation, officially goes into effect on Saturday. The two exemptions the copyright office did allow are both minor in scope. The first exemption involves software that blocks children and others from finding obscene or other controversial material on the Web. Buried in the software typically is a list of the Web sites being filtered. Those lists are often encrypted to keep people from seeing them. But the copyright office said it should be legal for users to access such lists, in part so people can criticize and debate them. The other exemption involves giving people the right to bypass malfunctioning security features of software and other copyrighted goods they have purchased. The copyright office's overall decision is upsetting to libraries and universities because it gives copyright holders a whole new level of protection, which they fear could limit their ability to use materials ranging from books and music to films. For example, they are afraid that in the future, their users may have to pay each time they read a digital book. The Association of American Universities asked for an exemption for digital versions of scholarly journals, maps and certain databases, arguing they were valuable mainly for their facts, which can't be copyrighted. Some computer programmers argued that they should be able to break the digital protections on legally purchased digital versatile disks in order to play them on their own computers. John Vaughn, executive vice president of the Association of American Universities, said he was "disappointed" in the ruling and added that universities now face "three years of loss of access to information." Miriam Nisbet, an official of the American Library Association, said the decision will "significantly impede efforts for libraries to continue to provide information in the digital age." In making its decision, the copyright office took a narrow view of its powers and rejected a recommendation from the federal Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration for a far broader exception. In a letter, the administration urged that the Copyright Office ensure that "lawfully acquired" copies of works could be used in ways that didn't infringe traditional copyright laws. The decision is the latest signal that the legal landscape for digital copyright issues is sorting out largely in favor of copyright owners. For instance, a New York federal judge found that MP3.com Inc. infringed copyrights when it made digital versions of compact disks and has said the online music company will have to pay damages that could amount to as much as $250 million. – Ted Boehm contributed to this article. Write to Anna Wilde Mathews at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
