Comments on this blog scraped into Arcturus
-
Andrew Walker is an Earth Scientist at UCL with whom I have previously collaborated in Cambridge. He has done a great job in unearthing the source of the rubric (see second link) and found that it’s the LAW. Even the wording. As Henry says, it’s still bananas, but it’s not the BL’s fault. For me it should be “More honoured in the breach than in the observance” However the main thrust of these posts is to challenge the need for DRMs and until I see that prescribed by Law, I’ll continue.
-
Andrew Walker says:
The reason that all libraries use essentially the same wording is that these conditions are set out in law. Specifically, part 4 of The Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989 – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891212_en_1.htm and the exact conditions are set out in schedule 2 – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891212_en_3.htm . In this case, we need to hassle our MPs, the BL’s hands are tied.
Thanks, Andrew. So all I need is an MP sympathetic to scholarship to whom I can take that part of the absurdity. I wonder where I can find one?
But of course we shan’t be doing any governing in this country for some time.
-
Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - The Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989 … « petermr’s blog [cam.ac.uk] on Topsy.com
So we are bound by regulations published in 1989. Which means almost the entire revolution in the digital economy since that date, and of course almost all of the Internet as we now know it, has not been accounted for.
Can you help here? I gather, in the last days of the previous UK government, a bill was passing through parliament relating to precisely the digital economy. I suppose it is too much to hope that a clause in that somewhere might address the issues we are raising here? Word of mouth tends to suggest that in fact there may be clauses in this bill that might cause us even greater concern?