Minnesota Law Review

Can Our Culture Be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving

The enormous controversy generated by the Google Library project demonstrates three important points. First, the potential for digitization to protect works against loss or deterioration is tremendous. Second, digitization creates an opportunity to offer access to preserved works without regard to a user’s physical location—something that both promises a great public benefit and, from the copyright owner’s perspective, seriously threatens the economic well-being of the copyright industries. Third, copyright law as currently designed cannot help either realize the benefits of digital preservation or mediate effectively and reasonably between the public and the copyright owner over the issue of access.

This Article steps behind the Google Library controversy to outline the public gains and current problems arising from a broad right to digitize for preservation purposes. It suggests that we cannot hope to save the fragile embodiments of our cultural life for future generations unless we can come to terms with issues such as whether to require consent for preservation copying or which conditions should govern access to the databases that store preservation copies. The Article suggests a series of obligations that should bind any would-be archivist so that the public interest is served in ways that a purely private actor like Google may ignore. It also attempts to lay out possible compromises that would allow the public to reap the benefits of digital preservation while retaining an incentive structure for the creators that will not undercut production of the very materials we hope to save.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days