Publication makes works available to the public. For almost three hundred years that concept was so obvious that it was not worth mentioning. A publisher created and distributed copies to the public.

Each publication was precious. As such it was read and re-read by all who could gain physical access to it. Libraries were endowed in conjunction wth copyright law in order to give public access to such publications. This was not accidental.

The right of any individual not just to read but to read whatever he or she wants to read is basic to a democratic society. This right is based on an assumption that the educated possess judgment and understanding and can be trusted with the determination of their own actions. In effect, the reader is freed from the bonds of chance. The reader is not limited by birth, geographic location, or time, since reading allows meeting people, debating philosophies, and experiencing events far beyond the narrow confines of an individual's own existence. 
National Council of Teachers of English

Once located, every copy was presumed readable by anyone with the skills to perceive its meaning. Indeed the idea of a publication as a work accessible by all is so fundamental, there is not even a term for an alternative. Not surprising because until the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 there was no concept requiring such a term. But now we must consider the following.

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.  

We'll have to borrow an existing term for these works.

• If a "Publication" is a work made publicly accessible.
• Then a "Limitation" is a work made to intentionally limit its access.

• If a "Publisher" makes works available to the public.
• Then a "Limiter" makes works for a select few. 

So as citizens we need to ask ourselves the following. If copyright was created as a benevolent "act for the encouragement of learning" which facilitated public access to important works, then:

• Does the public have any vested interest in granting exclusive rights to prevent publicly accessible copies?
• Are limiters deserving of the same monopoly as publishers? 
• Must we build our future libraries of limitations?
• Is knowledge to be a monitored and metered service provided only to an elite?
• Do we as a people need to encourage others to keep knowledge from ourselves?

With a little examination it should become clear.

• The right to access publications—a good thing.
• The right to create limitations—not so much.

OFF Corps goal is to assure that the existing public right to access tangible copies, guaranteed by copyright law, continues existing into a world of intangible digital copies.