From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:46:58 +0000

It would be surprising if there had not been a lot of thinking about this by
the British Library since the legal deposit system in the UK was extended to
e-content in 2003. I was on the committee which proposed to the extension
and was one of the lobbyists attempting to convince members of parliament
and we certainly in committee did discuss these issues. In almost a decade
since the act was passed it looks as if at least part of the implementation
is at last in progress so some discussion is likely to have occurred. Is
there anyone on this list who is aware of any such discussion or even
decisions?

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:56:37 -0500

Are there guidelines emerging on what should NOT be preserved?
Sandy's reference in this thread concerning self-published books gives me
pause.  Where do you draw the line?  Todd Carpenter of NISO posted on the
Scholarly Kitchen a few months ago about the impracticality of preserving
certain huge, dynamic databases--that would seem to be one area to be carved
out.  Preserving self-published consumer titles seems to me to be a
questionable allocation of resources, but I'm sure many people would
disagree with me.  And Gold OA scholarly articles placed with services of
uncertain merit?  Of course, at some point you have to ask, Who is to judge?
But I think someone has to.

Joe Esposito


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:03:18 -0600
>
> I daresay that every major trade publishing house registers all of its
> books. It would be silly for them not to do so.
>
> Deposit is mandatory, in any case, while registration is voluntary.
> This is what the Copyright Office says:
>
> > What is the difference between mandatory deposit and copyright
registration?
> > Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of
copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright
Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the
best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Section 408 of the
copyright law, for a fee, provides the option to formally register the work
with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration process provides a legal
record of copyright ownership as well as additional legal benefits in cases
of infringement. Optional registration fulfills mandatory deposit
requirements.
> >
>
> What is happening now, though, with the tremendous growth of
> self-publishing, which often includes no print copy at all, is that
> indeed no registration is taking place, no deposit copies are sent to
> the LC, and no preservation process for such books is being carried
> out by anyone, not even the LC.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> At 8:21 PM -0500 12/18/12, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:39:03 +0000
> >
> > Copyright registration (and deposit) is not required in order to
> > secure copyright. Therefore many works are never deposited.
> >
> > Furthermore, LC has never treated copyright deposit copies as
> > "preservation" copies to be kept as a "dark archive."So some
> > copyright deposit copies have, over time, been lost or damaged.
> >
> > Winston Tabb