Yet another report on digital preservation
It must be Digital Preservation Week.
Just a few days ago, I wrote about the Library of Congress’ new report on digital preservation (which itself followed the report of the Section 108 Study Group issued last March). Now, the Commission of the European Communities has released a green paper entitled Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, which discusses, among other things, digital preservation, the making available of digitized works, and orphan works.
Hat tip: LibraryJournal.com
New report on copyright and digital preservation
A joint report on the problems of copyright and digital preservation — International Study on the Impact of Copyright Law on Digital Preservation — was released this month by the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (”NDIIP”), the Joint Information Systems Committee, the Open Access to Knowledge (OAK) Law Project, and the SURFfoundation.
The report studies problems of digital preservation by looking at the copyright laws of four countries, including the United States. It finds:
Digital preservation is vital to ensure that works created and distributed in digital form will continue to be available over time to researchers, scholars and other users. Digital works are ephemeral, and unless preservation efforts are begun soon after such works are created, they will be lost to future generations. Although copyright and related laws are not the only obstacle to digital preservation activities, there is no question that those laws present significant challenges.
See also the Section 108 Study Group Report, issued earlier this year, which discusses copyright law and digital preservation.
Why does Google keep so much information?
Yesterday, I wrote about the “privacy paradox” and Google’s refusal to post a conspicuous link to its privacy policy on its homepage. Today, the New York Times reports that the judge overseeing the Viacom/YouTube copyright lawsuit has ordered Google to turn over a database linking YouTube users to every video clip they have watched on the site:
The order raised concerns among users and privacy advocates that the online video viewing habits of hundreds tens of millions of people could be exposed. But Google and Viacom said they were working to hoping to come up with a way to protect the anonymity of YouTube viewers., and
Viacom said that the information would be safeguarded by a protective order restricting access to the data to outside advisors, who will use it solely to press Viacom’s $1 billion copyright suit against Google.
It’s good that some steps are being taken to limit the use of the information. But why is Google collecting and retaining so much information? Maybe there’s business value in keeping it, but there’s also business value in not angering hundreds tens of millions of users. Google’s apparent taste for data retention risks a well-deserved loss of goodwill. (Or considering people’s wayward attitudes towards privacy, perhaps not.) I recognize that some information must be retained for a variety of reasons. But the more unnecessary information you keep, the more likely somebody you didn’t envision — a wayward employee, a hacker, or even worse, an adverse litigant — will find a use for it you didn’t want.
The court’s order can be found here.
ADDENDUM: The Times has revised the text of the quoted portion of the article from when I viewed it earlier. I’ve indicated appropriate changes above.
NOTE (JULY 13): See here for updates.
-
A blog on IP, information, and technology by Professor Ira Nathenson, St. Thomas Univ. School of Law. Nothing on this site is intended as legal advice.
-