Reading all the exchanges on the list I have reached the conclusion that the situation, at least in the USA, is exactly the same as interpreting the tax laws. No one really knows what they really mean, not even the people that wrote the laws. Call the IRS for a tax question, and polling indicates you get the wrong answer 75% of the time. Worse, follow the advise they give you, and they will turn around and penalize you for following their advice. Like the tax laws (no, the IRS has never audited me, thanks !), the copyright laws are such blunt tools as written that to avoid having SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, having an interpretation different than yours and getting sued, everyone effectively takes no action at all. It seems apparent that the laws as written serve extremely narrow interests if any at all. That may play into a couple of antiquated business models, but it is difficult to see how it really serves anyone in the long run. On the face of it, IMHO, it is just another example of lobbying efforts by record companies and their ilk. These are the same folks that to prevent the inevitable changes to their business models that newer technology requires will strangle access and preservation efforts. Short term thinking and greed at work.... SNAFU !!! Again, just looking at the posts here, it seems that nearly everyone has a different take on the copyright situation. Some seem to favor simply following the strictest possible interpretation of the laws, others prefer to stick their necks out in either the loosest interpretation of the laws or actively flouting them in the interests of making for better access. I get the sense at least on this list that profit takes a back seat to the love of the material. Personally, I agree in part with both ends of the spectrum. At the bottom of it all, the laws are basically unworkable as written. I happen to agree with Steven about a libraries' mission, and some of the differences between libraries and archives. But no matter how you look at this. The laws are broken. How can this be changed ? One wonders if the issues are too complex for congress members to take in (or want to), let alone how to deflect the massive lobbying efforts of the 'few'...... Scott