DoD Public Domain Archive To Be Privatized, Locked Up For 10 Years

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "Looks like the copyright cartel have raided the public domain yet again — the US DoD has signed an exclusive contract with T3 Media to digitize their media archive in exchange for T3 having complete licensing control for 10 years. Considering that all output from the US government is, by law, ineligible for copyright, this deal seems borderline illegal at best. To make matters worse, it appears that there is no provision to make the digitized content freely accessible after the 10 years are up — which means we risk having all that content disappear into T3."

Comments

Legality vs Enforceability

[Silentknyght]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[wonkey_monkey]

If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?

Dunno. Coastguard?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.

This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

According to my high school social studies teacher, the voters, of course!

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[TEG24601]

If the Federal Government gets out of hand, the states are supposed to react and put them in check. That is what is meant by "Checks and Balances". The states are to check the power of the Federal Government and object to over reaching laws and those that are unconstitutional or illegal by various means, including invalidating those actions or laws within the state, suing the federal government in court, or calling a Convention of States, which is currently underway.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.

  This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

Thank you for the history lesson. Now let me give you one of my own. Checks and Balances was replaced with Greed and Corruption a long time ago, which really means you can throw all this bullshit about laws and constitution out the window.

It'll be downright comical to see how our history books paint over the financial meltdown of 2008 as a "minor setback" when many children growing up in impacted households will remember damn well what it was like. Question is will the Sheeple give a shit any more then than they do now? You don't even need wool for the eyes these days, and the parents question still stands, as no part of the government seems enforceable or accountable. If you can find one, let me know.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[girlintraining]

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government.

Wrong. Thomas Jefferson, please excuse me waking you from your long nap, but I need an opinion. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thank you Mr. Jefferson. You can now go lay down again. "Brrraaaaiiinnnss...." Yeah, I know. I miss 'em too, sir.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who's able to hold them accountable?"

As a European, I'd like to answer: the people.
Dear Americans, stop voting Republicans or Democrats.
Thanks, the rest of the world.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[wickedsteve]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[haruchai]

That's what terrorists are for :-)

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[M. Baranczak]

But who guards the Coastguard?

The Reserve Coast Guard.

Either that, or they guard the reserve coast. I can't remember.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

Strangely enough, I was about to cite the opening paragraph. Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.

If the answer is a), then I am wrong, and should be modded into negative oblivion. If the answer is b), then my original answer was correct.

What should be done about it is another question entirely. But the only reason to "dissolve the political bands" is when b) is more correct than a).

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[fahrbot-bot]

Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?
E Pluribus Unum.
That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."

Perhaps not, but given the way the 1%'ers, corporations and the Government behave today, I'll defer to this quote by Veronica in "Better Off Ted" (Season 1, Episode 4: "Racial Sensitivity"):

"Money before people," that's the company motto. Engraved on the lobby floor. It just looks more heroic in Latin.

[ So, what would that be in Latin? ]

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.

How about c) you're using a false dichotomy after already having your pants dropped over the use of circular logic. Don't double down on stupid -- there's more than two ways to approach the problem. Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?

E Pluribus Unum.

That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."

If it is a false dichotomy, it isn't mine. You're the one who brought up Jefferson's quote, not me. I consider it to be a sliding scale, my belief being that the current balance tips towards people fearing the government. While I'd like it to tip the other way, I don't believe that accurately describes the current conditions in the USA. As a result, the only thing with power over the government is itself. Whatever restraints it exercises (or doesn't) over its own power is self imposed. My logic wasn't circular, it was an if-then statement. I didn't even bring up the else:{ ... } as it wasn't pertinent to the discussion (in my belief).

As someone posted below, one false dichotomy is Republicans vs Democrats, because both are two sides of the same coin, coin (or dollars) being the only thing important to both parties.

I would note that "Out of Many, One" could describe just about every government in the world, from the USA back in the 1790's to the USSR of the 30's up to the present day. And that all governments derive their power from the consent (either implicit or explicit) of the people. It just so happens that the vast majority of the voters of the USA have granted their consent, one way or another.

Again, what should be done is an exercise best left to the reader.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[The Mighty Buzzard]

This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. At least I'm fairly sure that violently overthrowing the government was one of the reasons it was put in, given that they'd just finished doing exactly that with privately owned firearms.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[cascadingstylesheet]

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances. This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

The executive branch is running amok with illegality?

Huh ... I wonder if someone is in charge of the executive branch. Some, er, elected official or something. Someone we might hold accountable.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[erroneus]

It's supposed to be the courts. But when the courts rule one way and then law enforcement ignores it, we're just lost. It's depressing. Law enforcement will, for example, trample various right and punish locally even executing prisoners (calling it an accident) when they know the judiciary will rule against them. It's sick. It's disgusting. We don't have rule of law. We have rule of governments.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[BlueStrat]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The answer to your question is the same answer that's included in the Constitution, the same answer that's always been the ultimate answer to all out-of-control governments.

You. The citizens.

You and others that would be willing to put your lives on the line when all other options have been shown to be worthless/ineffective, to pick up a sniper rifle, build an IED, make Molotov cocktails, organize and plan, and target the criminal leaders and take them out..

There are still a few peaceful options left to try yet, like the recent push for a convention of States to amend the Constitution to rein in the Federal government.

http://conventionofstates.com/

However, if the government steps in to stop such reforms, there will be no alternatives left.

Strat

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[RobertLTux]

Argentum in conspectu populi,

but yeah somebody needs to create a corporation that has as its Mission "To Increase the Public Good Where others have Failed"

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[pixelpusher220]

It makes logical sense that we 'all' have standing, since these documents were in the public domain and are now not.

Whether that makes legal sense, I don't know.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[pixelpusher220]

Checks and balances was replaced with apathy on the part of the electorate; the greed and corruption blossomed from there.

We can still take it back, but given the state of the elector.....oooo Kardashians!

I won't say I'm too hopeful.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[blackbeak]

Sadly, it took a European to tell us that "We the People of the United States" are the ones to hold our government accountable. Duh, hello! It's "We the People" that granted the United States any powers it may have. Any powers we did not specifically grant the government are powers it does not legitimately possess. And I am certain our European friend is also correct in that the rest of the world would be quite grateful were we to reign in our "monster".

As a side note, perhaps now would be a good time to listen carefully to Steppenwolf's "Monster"(youtube link) -- especially those of you who are unfamiliar with the song.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[AK Marc]

Checks and balances was replaced by parties. When your checks and balances are against another party, not another branch, the system won't work out as intended. The branch loyalty is smaller than party loyalty, so it's all a failure.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[LifesABeach]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the part where Americans paid for something and now we don't own it? I'm hoping the Declaration of Independence isn't on the list.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[AJWM]

But there is no other party to vote for? It's only a meaningful vote if it is for the party who wins!

Please, do us all a favor and never go near a voting booth again. That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read. By your logic, we should only have one party if votes are to be meaningful, and clearly that is the opposite of the truth.

You've been utterly brainwashed by the two big parties, who fear votes for third parties more than they fear votes for the other major party. We could use a little more fear of the electorate in the big parties. If you must enter a polling booth, please vote third party. Any third party. Sometimes it actually does some good. (Even if third party doesn't win, it can shake up the Republicrats and Demicans enough that they change their policies.)

(And if you were kidding, please include a tag next time.)

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sigh. If only there were some historical document written, perhaps by the author I quoted that explained other remedies available to citizens"

Thank you for your comment (which should be modded up).

But I would like to offer a suggestion that may be helpful:

It seems to me from experience that the majority of people on Slashdot won't bother to click on the link, much less read the whole thing.

In order to forestall arguments over points that should already (in any reasonable debate) have been settled, I've found it be usually worth my while to quote a specific passage, as well as provide the link, in order to save those intellectually lazy people from actually having to click on something or search for what I meant.

I don't always do it, but when I forget or I just don't want to bother, I've often ended up spending even more time arguing the same point over and over.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[517714]

John Basil Barnhill, ca 1914. Not Thomas Jefferson.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Martin Blank]

Your complaints aren't remotely new, but they're also not remotely realistic.

The Constitution gives Congress certain powers such to coin money, but no one expected them to personally work in the mints. They draft the laws that provide for the duties to be carried out by other parts of government. Technically, they have the power to raise and spend money, but they don't have a constitutional requirement.

The Executive Branch is provided the responsibility to enforce the laws, but for practical matters require that it must sometimes decline to enforce the law due to other, more pressing concerns such as the cost of prosecution or where the effect of enforcing the law could have a larger detriment. This might include not enforcing some aspect of the health care law to allow for practical realities to be ironed out.

The Supreme Court has always had internal politics. In one extreme example, Justice James Clark Reynolds despised Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo simply because the they were Jews and would not sit next to or speak with them nor sign opinions written by them. But one does not ever know for certain how they will rule going in. One of the most stunning to me was in Gonzalez v. Raich over California's legalization of medical marijuana. The case was decided 6-3, but the dissent included one by Justice O'Connor which was joined by the Chief Justice Rehnquist and a separate dissent by Justice Thomas, the latter two of the most conservative justices who broke with their conservative colleagues who grouped with their more liberal colleagues to rule in favor of the federal government.

Finally, on the topic of corporations and politics, the argument is that corporations are groups of people. To block spending by them, every other group would have to be blocked from political spending. Maybe this would be good--it would certainly quell the protest from the right over unions spending money--but as we've seen with 501(c)(4) groups, getting that regulation right is incredibly difficult. But it may also have a detrimental effect on anonymous contribution to political dialogue, as forcing everyone behind the political speech to be named could be seen as oppressive.

Many people want a very simple, straightforward implementation of the ideals in the Constitution. But reality is messy, and political reality even worse. No one gets everything they want, at least not for long, before something swings against them.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[fafalone]

By your logic, we should only have one party if votes are to be meaningful, and clearly that is the opposite of the truth.

We do only have one party that can win at the national level. It has two sects which differ slightly on some aspects of some issues.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Martin Blank]

That's your (very incorrect) perception of corporations. Your image of a corporation is Exxon, American Airlines, and Target. But it's counter to the reality that millions of other businesses in the US alone are corporations, and the majority of them are not only not involved in politics, but they're quite small. They're made up of one or more people, and without very strong reason that would reverberate through every other group, they get the same rights and responsibilities as any other group of people including free speech (including political speech), the right to petition the government, and the right to due process.

Your complaint about the origin of corporations is not only factually incorrect (businesses have incorporated for more than 1500 years with varying or even no protection for the founders), but ignores that it prevents small business owners from being personally crushed by the failure of a business, sometimes by factors out of their control. The family sandwich shop, the small machine shop, the furniture maker... Many of these are corporations. Almost everyone that isn't doing business under their own name is incorporated in some fashion. Without that protection, many people would never try to start a business.

Teabaggers strike again....

[Anonymous Coward]

Our only hope is Obama will stop this.

Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Sarten-X]

From reading TFAs, it seems T3 is getting an "exclusive license to charge for access", which isn't really a legal concept AFAIK. It looks like T3 is taking public-domain DoD images and videos, digitizing and cataloging them, then charging for access to the digital form. They're exclusively selling that access to the digital catalog, but the images and videos themselves are still public domain. I'm not sure whether digitizing counts as creating a new work for copyright purposes.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Trepidity]

The government themselves do this kind of thing sometimes: charge for the actual delivery of the digital documents, which are public domain. That's not illegal, just not really sustainable. Since they're public domain, anyone who buys them could, if they choose, redistribute them. One instance of that that I recall was that in 1999, Bruce Perens bought the TIGER geographic data set from the US Census on CD, for I think $500 or $1000 or something, and then released it online freely. The Census Bureau wised up and you can now download new versions of the TIGER data set directly from the Census at the previous link instead of having to play that game.

Another example is the court document database, PACER, which has public-domain documents but charges per-page for access. That's led to RECAP, a project to slowly siphon documents out of it and republish them.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an attorney, I love RECAP; but not as much as my clients do. Whenever I have a case where I pass the charges for access on to them, many are genuinely confused as to why they should be charged for the documents. I should point out, that a lot of RECAP access is being added for free because the first time (and only the first time) you see a document as the attorney on the case, you get to access it for free.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[LMariachi]

Licensing the material from T3 would almost certainly involve agreeing not to redistribute. You wouldn’t be violating copyright (since there isn’t any,) but you’d be in breach of contract.

Google Books would be better.

[FeriteCore]

Google obviously has the technical capability and facilities to handle the job.

Did they have the opportunity to bid the job? Did they submit a bid?

Did the bid evaluation process consider public benefit?

I think we would have been better off had they gotten the job.

FOIA

[Dachannien]

These records would seem to be responsive to a proper FOIA request, and if the government already has already-paid-for access to the records, they would be required to pony up those records at the cost of duplication (which would arguably get around the third-party fees this company would charge).

Why they didn't just give all this stuff to Google is beyond me. I'm sure they'd love to have a project like this, and they'd probably make it publicly available for the price of ads.

Re:FOIA

[NoKaOi]

Why they didn't just give all this stuff to Google is beyond me. I'm sure they'd love to have a project like this, and they'd probably make it publicly available for the price of ads.

Can you really not imagine why they might do this? How much money is T3 making off of this, and who are they brib^H^H^H^H contributing campaign funds to?

Re:FOIA

[girlintraining]

Can you really not imagine why they might do this? How much money is T3 making off of this, and who are they brib^H^H^H^H contributing campaign funds to?

There's a simpler explanation than bribery: What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. A lot of the government's actions can be explained by simple senility -- these people aren't just out of touch with society, in many cases they're in a phase of life marked by significant decline in cognitive reasoning, and studies have been done suggesting that the elderly are far more trusting than they should be due to biochemical changes in the brain. Put another way: They're easily suckered.

This is an exceedingly obvious thing to have to point out, but it seems to be forgotten all the time by people who, were they to just divorce themselves from their own political views for a minute and contemplate the problem objectively, they'd realize that there is an organic element to the problem which far better explains the current circumstances than the radical ideas of conspiracies, bribery, and back room deals. I'm sure those happen, but they are far into the minority...

Re:FOIA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science.

Congress didn't make this deal.

Re:FOIA

[Princeofcups]

There's a simpler explanation than bribery: What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. A lot of the government's actions can be explained by simple senility -- these people aren't just out of touch with society, in many cases they're in a phase of life marked by significant decline in cognitive reasoning, and studies have been done suggesting that the elderly are far more trusting than they should be due to biochemical changes in the brain.

I have always hated the term ageism, but damn it man, you are truly a bigot. What older folks have is experience and learning that the young simply do not. People are not born wise, it is something that comes with long years of trial and error, good time and bad, wrong decisions and lucky ones. I could just as easily say that the folks over 50 are the only ones I would trust to make political decisions because they remember when college education was a right not a privilege, when the US had goals and aspirations that did not involve the military, racism was forcibly lessened in the deep south, etc. etc. When things were truly different, and how bad things are right now. So stop crying like a baby, and try to learn from your elders. One day some people may look up to you. As to politicians, they were scum bags when young and just as scummy when old, so they can go fuck themselves.

illegal

[dmbasso]

Considering that all output from the US government is, by law, ineligible for copyright, this deal is illegal.

FTFY.

Re:illegal

[dmbasso]

[...] copyright because they don't have it. That doesn't prevent them from making an exclusive-licensing deal [...]

See that beautiful house with the huge garden? It is not mine! But I'm going to rent it anyway, for your exclusive use.

Non-digitized

[mwvdlee]

I'm assuming the non-digitized archive is still public domain, and third party digitization of this public domain information isn't covered by this contract?

Re:Non-digitized

[bjwest]

I'm assuming the non-digitized archive is still public domain, and third party digitization of this public domain information isn't covered by this contract?

Until the sprinkler systems malfunction, or there's a real fire and the original documents are destroyed.

Keep it up

[oldhack]

Keep exposing these slimy backdoor deals. For every one exposed, there's gotta be hundreds more.

Public Has a Right to Know!

[BoRegardless]

If our legislators allow this sort of bastardization of our system, it is time to vote them all out and get in people who represent us, period.

Freedom of knowledge of what our government is doing in all sorts of departments is the only way we get advance warning when they are going off the rails into tyranny and dictatorial powers.

Model Releases?

[MichaelJ]

If these images are then provided for money, does that have implications for requiring model releases for any photos with recognizable individuals in them?

Re:Derivative works

[blueg3]

T3 isn't claiming copyright.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[dmbasso]

You're really naive if you think you stand a change in a fight with the military that consumes most money in the world (almost 700 billion dollars annually, compare that the second place, China, around 200 billion).

And even if you could, violence is not the best way. This is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Take money out of politics: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Indiana Jones Warehouse

[HighOrbit]

Sarten-X discribes exactly what is going on. In fact, the Contracting Officer probably decided it was in the public interest to digitize and get the data public as opposed to it sitting in the bottom of a box in the proverbial Indiana Jones warehouse lost to the public forever. DoD has some boilerplate contract clauses for this, mainly 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items. Alternate I, which states:

(l) Publication for sale.

(1) This paragraph only applies to technical data in which the Government has obtained unlimited rights or a license to make an unrestricted release of technical data.

(2) The Government shall not publish a deliverable technical data item or items identified in this contract as being subject to paragraph (l) of this clause or authorize others to publish such data on its behalf if, prior to publication for sale by the Government and within twenty-four (24) months following the date specified in this contract for delivery of such data or the removal of any national security or export control restrictions, whichever is later, the Contractor publishes that item or items for sale and promptly notifies the Contracting Officer of such publication(s). Any such publication shall include a notice identifying the number of this contract and the Government's rights in the published data.

(3) This limitation on the Government's right to publish for sale shall continue as long as the data are reasonably available to the public for purchase.

The point here is that sometimes the Government wants data to become available to the public (as opposed to sitting in a box in the basement) and uses commercial contractors to do it. An example would be something like this: Say somebody discovered several hundred boxes in the basement at Ft. Dix NJ of first-person interviews of soldiers during WWI and the Spanish flu. Now say university historians of WWI want access to these interviews. The historians can fly to NJ, get a hotel room, a rental car, and spend several thousand dollars and weeks digging through, cataloging, and copying the documents or alternately, the DOD can hire a contractor to digitize everything and any historian anywhere in the world can buy it for a few hundred bucks.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[Nkwe]

Maybe it's time to start discussions of the 2nd American Revolution. Our government from the office of the President, to congress to the Supreme Court are completely out of control.

And after your revolt, what system of government would you replace the current one with? Be specific. What would prevent your proposed system from morphing into or having similar problems that our current government has? If you don't know how to change the overall system but just want to "throw the bums out", what is your plan to prevent the new "bums" from being just like the old ones?

I hear lots of folks ranting on how bad government is, but I don't hear many coherent or comprehensive suggestions about what to do about it. I do, by the way, agree with you that the second amendment is about creating a fail safe to protect the people from the government and I support having that fail safe in place. I do not however, believe that we are anywhere near needing to trigger that fail safe and even if we were, I would want a concrete plan as what to do after your revolution so that we do not end up in the same place again.

DOD SOO

[Registered Coward v2]

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

Rev#3

DIMOC Digitization and Storage

The Defense Media Activity (DMA) is the headquarters responsible for several operations within the Department of Defense that creates, broadcasts, manages archives, and stores media. The Defense Imagery Management Operations Center (DIMOC) is the operational arm of the Defense Visual Information Directorate (DVI), a component of DMA. The mission of DVI is to operate as the DoDs central visual information (VI) management and proponency office. The DIMOC integrates and synchronizes DoD imagery capabilities and centrally manages and archives current and historical visual information media in support of the Department and the National Archives and Records Administration. DIMOC serves as the official DoD VI Records Center for the storage and preservation of original and irreplaceable motion picture, video, still, audio, and mixed VI records depicting the DoDs heritage and current activities.

In FY 2012, DIMOC was presented with a model used by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that provides digitization of select records (e.g. documents, photographs, etc.) at no-cost to the Government. This no-cost model permitted a contractor to digitize the selected records and receive a return on their investment during a period of exclusivity in exchange for providing the National Archives digitized copies. This period of exclusive rights allowed the contractor to generate revenue via sales of the digitized records. After this period of time, the digital copies would become public domain via the National Archives. This process assists NARA in accomplishing their mission to increase the public accessibility of Federal Records far quicker than their capability to digitize there and resources would allow.

With DIMOCs similar mission to the National Archives to collect, preserve and increase accessibility, DIMOC is attempting to adopt a variant of the NARA no-cost model. DIMOC used this model to solicit requests for proposals, and even held an industry day to gauge the feasibility to complete this mass digitization and storage for free for the Government. The industry day consensus was for the Government to share some of the up-front costs as a sign of good faith and viability for the contracts success. A clear message, that this project was not going to be feasible for industry without Government funding, was sent when only three RFPs were submitted post- industry day. Subsequently DIMOC is proposing a cost-share variant to the NARA no-cost model.

II. OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this contract is to provide for the digitization, storage and retrieval of still imagery, motion and audio recordings for the Defense Imagery Management Operations Center. DIMOC recognizes there is value to this content being made readily available accessible, and as such, we are soliciting industry proposals for providing the Government digitization, storage and retrieval in exchange for the opportunity to monetize immediate access to Department of Defense visual information material (during an exclusive period for up to 10 years).

The Government intends to solicit a one-year base period with four full option years of performance. The total five-year period will permit a contractor time to digitize DIMOCs vast holdings and help realize a return on investment. The option years will allow for assessment each year on the success of the contract as determined by the contractor and the Government.

The Government realizes the cost burden of digitizing and storing this content is on the vendor despite the contract award off-setting some of the costs. Accordingly the Government is allowing a period of exclusivity for 10 years for marketing and commercial sales of Government content digitized during the previous 5-year cost share term of the contract. Note that the additional five- year period of exclusivity is beyond the cost-share based contract. However, it is expected that the period of exclusivity for years 6 - 10 will be performed at no cost

As usual, summary is inflammatory

[Pigeon451]

Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.

Check this out:
300,000 physical videos (300,000 hours!)
37,000 films (11,000 hours)
40,000 audio clips (1.5 million minutes)
700,000 still images
1.2 million digital images.

Seems reasonable to me. HALF the library is not even accessible on the internet as they are physical only. This is a good way to preserve what has been accumulated, and a lot of it is very old.

A much better summary is here:
http://gcn.com/articles/2013/12/12/dod-library.aspx

Re:As usual, summary is inflammatory

[Travelsonic]

Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.

*facepalms*

NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[dmbasso]

Except, duh, it was your vaunted military

Not mine, I'm not American.

which was fought to a sandstill and is running out with its tail between its legs, having failed abjectly.

Failed? That's a matter of perspective. Dick Cheney and Halliburton would certainly disagree with you. Oh wait, did you think the war was about weapons of mass destruction, and bringing democracy to the region? Yeah, sure... :)

Re:sustainable if legal

[Trepidity]

PACER charges far more than the cost of operating the service; their goal (as instructed by Congress) seems to be to fund the entire court system's electronic infrastructure out of PACER fees, not only PACER itself. As a result, the service itself generates more than $100m annual surplus.

Re:Derivative works

[murpup]

Correction: there can be no copyright on work created by government employees. Work created by contractors on behalf of the government CAN be copyrighted, if the contracting officer allows it. Also, the government can hold copyright when said copyright has been transferred to it.

See the FAR Subpart 27.4 as well as 52.227-14.

Also, there are exceptions to the rule. NIST and Dept of Commerce maintains a government-asserted copyright to much of its property data, for example the IAPWS steam tables. The reason it is allowed to do this is because there is a law passed by Congress that creates an exception to the normal Code of Federal Regulations that allows NIST to do this. Don't have that handy to reference but I have seen it.