Page talk:Copyright Law Revision (Senate Report No. 94-473).djvu/7

Errors in source page
The first line of section 108(h), which appears as the fifth line down from the top of the page, is misprinted in the original document that has been scanned here. The correct text of the fifth line should read:

(h) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section do not apply

Instead, it appears that the printers of the document erroneously copied the first line of section 109(b) in place of the correct line from section 108(h). The first line of section 109(b), which appears again in its correct location as the 16th line on the page, reads:

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a particular

Rather than preserve the error reflected in the original scan, I have inserted the corrected text taken from the later-published House Report on the same legislation. For the text I have used in place of the erroneous lines printed in the scanned document, see Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 206.djvu and Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 208.djvu. Tarmstro99 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Im 100% sure I understand the problem, but I am thinking that we should accurately transcribe this page, with printer errors, and then transclude a different page; e.g. Page:Copyright Law Revision (Senate Report No. 94-473).djvu/7-corrected. for want of a better pagename. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a footnote pointing out the error in the original. I would limit the note to saying something along the lines of "an apparent printer's error has section 109(b) printed here, instead of section 108(h)." I would prefer to leave it to the reader to go look at 108(h) if he's interested; possibly we can hyperlink in the note. I do not suggest adding in what we believe was the correct text, for a couple reasons. First, our goal here should be to represent the original document that was available to members of Congress at the time it was produced. Second, the text that should have been here is the text that was then in 108(h) as it appeared in the then-current S.22 Senate bill at the time the report was drafted. I'm pretty sure that was the same as what was documented in H.R. Rep 94-1476, but let's not go all Original Research on that. This project is to provide copies of the original sources. Let's provide that original source; just note the error in the original, and move on. TJRC 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ll proceed essentially as TJRC suggested: I’ve included the (erroneous) text that appears in the original page scan, but added an optional footnote that will display the corrected text. The footnote will appear only in the Annotated version of the page.  (This also matches the approach we took with the parallel House Report: compare Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476) and Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476)/Annotated.) Tarmstro99 (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)