Copyright Advisory Network

More important copyright news from District Dispatch:

In December 2008 the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) and the Music Library Association (MLA) submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office at the Library of Congress, asking for an expansion of the previous exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to include the following:

• The exemption should apply to audiovisual works included in any college or university library, not just the library of the media studies department
• The exemption should apply to classroom uses by instructors in all subjects, not just media studies or film professors

LCA and MLA followed up in February 2009, submitting additional evidence supporting the circumvention of access control technologies of audiovisual works included in a library of a college or university. The associations highlighted the absence of alternatives available and included additional examples of film clips used by college and university faculty – from many academic disciplines.

On Friday, May 1 in Palo Alto, CA, the Copyright Office began a series of hearings on the proposed anti-circumention exemptions. Yesterday, the hearings moved to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., where they’ll conclude on Friday, May 8. Jonathan Band, testifying on behalf of the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) offered evidence in support of the expansion of the exemption (for a transcript of the testimony, go here). Band said that DVDs provide the high-quality audio and video necessary to discern subtle forms of communication central to teaching language and criminal justice classes. Band went on to question the alternatives to circumvention offered by content industry representatives, such as videorecording a TV screen or asking permission from film studios in order to use a clip. Finally, Band excoriated rightsholders for opposing the modest expansion of the exemption to include all faculty on campus. He said,

They know that whether the exemption is granted or rejected will have absolutely no impact on the level of infringement…they insult us by treating us as potential infringers who can’t be trusted to use a technology any 12-year-old can download from the Internet.

Many others testified yesterday in support of this exemption, or similar exemptions. Check out the Twitter feeds from OITP, Public Knowledge, and Wendy Seltzer for more updates. Follow #dmca1201 on Twitter for proceedings over the next 2 days. And don’t miss this surreal video of members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) showing the Copyright Office how users should not be allowed to circumvent copy protections on DVDs because there is a viable alternative – videorecording a TV set!

MPAA shows how to videorecord a TV set on Vimeo.

Timothy Vollmer ALA, Copyright news, Events, Fair use, Technology 1201, acrl, ALA, anti-circumvention, arl, copyright, copyright office, DMCA, dmca 1201, hearings, library of congress

Important news from District Dispatch:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 4, 2009

CONTACTS:
Jenni Terry, press officer, ALA Washington Office; (202) 628-8410; jterry@alawash.org
Prudence S. Adler, associate executive director, ARL; (202) 296-2296; prue@arl.org

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) today filed comments with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the judge to consider in his ruling on the proposed Google Book Search Settlement.  The associations asked the judge to exercise vigorous oversight of the interpretation and implementation of the settlement to ensure the broadest possible benefit from the services the settlement enables.

Representing over 139,000 libraries and 350,000 librarians, the associations filed the brief as members of the plaintiff class because they are both authors and publishers of books.  The associations asserted that although the settlement has the potential to provide public access to millions of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the absence of competition for the new services, could compromise fundamental library values including equity of access to information, patron privacy and intellectual freedom.  The court can mitigate these possible negative effects by regulating the conduct of Google and the Book Rights Registry the settlement establishes.

“While this settlement agreement could provide unprecedented access to a digital library of millions of books, we are concerned that the cost of an institutional subscription may skyrocket, as academic journal subscriptions have over the past two decades,” Erika Linke, president of ACRL, said.

Under the settlement, Google, the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild resolved their legal dispute over the scanning of millions of books provided by research libraries.  The library associations are not asking the judge to reject the settlement.  Instead, they are requesting the judge to carefully monitor the parties’ behavior once the settlement takes effect.

Jim Rettig, president of ALA, said the proposed settlement, “offers no assurances that the privacy of what the public accessed will be protected, which is in stark contrast to the long-standing patron privacy rights libraries champion on behalf of the public.”

Although the filing deadline for comments to the judge was recently extended by four months, the associations moved forward with filing by the original deadline to help inform the public as it considers this important and complex matter.

“The filing before the court by the library associations demonstrates that the associations will be vigilant in highlighting the interests of the public in this settlement.  We have asked the court to exercise vigorous oversight to ensure that the powerful groups that control content do not leave individual researchers, libraries, other cultural organizations and the public without an effective voice,” Tom Leonard, president of ARL, said.

The library associations filing can be viewed on the ALA or ARL Web sites.

ALA, ACRL, ARL Google Book Settlement Brief on Scribd

Timothy Vollmer ALA acrl, ALA, arl, gbs, Google, google book settlement, library

Cross-posted on District Dispatch:

Members of library community discussed the implications of the Google Book Search settlement in a meeting hosted on February 9, 2009 in Washington, D.C. by the American Library Association Washington Office, the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College & Research Libraries. Under the settlement, Google and the American Association of Publishers and Authors Guild resolve their legal dispute over the scanning of millions of books provided by research libraries. The settlement still requires approval of the presiding judge.

Although this is a private settlement, the result has very real implications for public policy and the way libraries of all types will operate.  The mission of libraries is to provide the broadest public access to the use of information, and the library community has a long history of advocating for laws and policies that protect the rights of library users. Because of the complexity of the agreement, its potential long-term impact on libraries, thus user interests, and the enormity of the book collection involved, many librarians have raised questions about the settlement’s impact.

Issues raised at the meeting that members believe are of key concern to libraries include:

-Access. What will the settlement mean for protecting the public’s ability to access and use digital resources from the nation’s libraries? Since the Book Rights Registry established as a condition of the settlement will represent the interests of the authors and publishers, who will represent the interests of libraries and the public? What are the financial implications of participation? Could the settlement create a monopoly that threatens the mission of libraries by raising the prices to an unreasonable level that limits public access?

-Privacy. What will reader privacy look like in a Google subscription-based world? Will the years of hard-fought effort to protect library users’ confidentiality be compromised as a for-profit company has new capabilities to monitor and track user reading habits under this settlement?

-Intellectual freedom. Are there academic freedom issues to consider? What are the implications of Google’s ability to remove works at its discretion? Will there be notification of their removal? What are the issues regarding possible access and use restrictions on the Research Corpus?

-Equitable treatment. Since not all libraries are addressed in the settlement, what impact will it have on the diverse landscape of libraries? In light of tight economic times, will this negatively affect libraries with lean budgets? Will it expand the digital divide?

-Terms of use. Under the terms of the agreement, will library users continue to enjoy the same rights to information under copyright and other laws? Will the settlement impact the legal discussions and interpretations of library exceptions that allow for library lending, limited copying and preservation?

Next, the executive boards and other leadership bodies of the library associations will consider a number of options available to them to have their voices heard in this debate. To stay posted on the latest developments of the associations’ next steps, see www.ala.org/washoff; www.arl.org; and www.ala.org/acrl.

Download this document as a PDF

Timothy Vollmer ALA, Events acrl, ALA, arl, Google, googlebooksettlement, settlement