U.S. Copyright Office Celebrates 150 Years of Fostering American Creativity and Innovation; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, August 4, 2020

Frank Cullen, U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

U.S. Copyright Office Celebrates 150 Years of Fostering American Creativity and Innovation

"Today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) joins the U.S. Copyright Office in celebrating its 150th-anniversary as an essential leader in fostering American creativity and innovation.

The office was established during the wake of the Civil War when Librarian of Congress Ainsworth Spofford lobbied and convinced Congress to unify the copyright registration system in the Library of Congress."

Drug Company ‘Shenanigans’ to Block Generics Come Under Federal Scrutiny; The New York Times, April 14, 2018

Robert Pear, The New York Times; Drug Company ‘Shenanigans’ to Block Generics Come Under Federal Scrutiny

"At a time when researchers are using sophisticated science to develop new treatments and cures, the fight over physical samples — a few thousand pills — sounds mundane. But it has huge implications for consumers’ access to affordable medicines.

The F.D.A. says it has received more than 150 inquiries from generic drug companies unable to obtain the samples needed to show that a generic product works the same as a brand-name medicine. Some of the disputes over samples involve drugs that are costly to patients and to the Medicare program and that have experienced sharp price increases in recent years.

“Without generic competition, there is no pressure to drive down the costs of these medications,” the food and drug agency said. Under current law, it said, it cannot compel a brand-name drug manufacturer to sell samples to a generic company."

Ruling Spurs Effort to Form Digital Public Library; New York Times, 4/3/11

Miguel Helft, New York Times; Ruling Spurs Effort to Form Digital Public Library:

“I think the biggest obstacle is copyright,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law and information management at the University of California, Berkeley who opposed the settlement and is working on legal issues facing the digital public library.

Backers of the project say they will lobby Congress for legislation that would make it easier to provide access to orphan books. Meanwhile, others are chipping away at the millions of orphans, trying to find rights holders and to determine which books have fallen into the public domain."

Judge delays Google books hearing; BBC News, 9/25/09

Maggie Shiels, BBC News; Judge delays Google books hearing:

""Clearly voices such as ours had an impact on Judge Chin," wrote consumer watchdog advocate John Simpson in an email to BBC News.

"There was no way the proposed settlement could go forward. We believe that the proper place to solve many of the case's thorniest problems, such as that of orphan books, is in Congress because it is important to build digital libraries."

Orphan books - of which there are thought to be five million - are titles where the authors cannot be found.

Judge Chin has called for a "status conference" to be held on 7 October - the original date for the hearing - to determine "how to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8274115.stm

Google Books, Congress, and Orphan Works; Center for Democracy & Technology, 9/17/09

David Sohn, Center for Democracy & Technology; Google Books, Congress, and Orphan Works:

"As a practical matter, it is far from clear when or if Congress would be able to produce a legislative solution to the latter problem. The politics of copyright are notoriously difficult. One response to that reality is to say, fine — if Congress can’t agree on what action to take, that just means there isn’t enough consensus on an appropriate path through the legal thicket, so Google should not be allowed to proceed. But that approach doesn’t much serve copyright law’s underlying purpose of promoting the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Allowing the online equivalent of a comprehensive library could offer tremendous benefits both to the reading public and to the many rightsholders who would welcome the chance for their out-of-print works to be rediscovered (and to generate some new revenue to boot.) The proposed settlement, while not perfect, offers a way to achieve that broadly beneficial goal. And if the settlement were to prompt Congress to roll up its sleeves and develop a forward-thinking policy approach, so much the better.

In short, yes, Congress should have the last word. But in the meantime, the Google Books settlement offers the chance to expand public access and increase exposure for many millions of out-of-print works in ways that generally should benefit readers and authors alike. That’s why CDT supports the settlement, albeit with the significant caveat that reader privacy concerns must be addressed. CDT detailed those privacy considerations in a report earlier this summer and in an amicus brief filed with the court in early September; links to those documents can be found here."

http://blog.cdt.org/2009/09/17/google-books-congress-and-orphan-works/

Amazon Scoffs at Google’s Offer to Share Book Search Sales; Wired, 9/10/09

Ryan Singel, Wired; Amazon Scoffs at Google’s Offer to Share Book Search Sales:

"The Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters went even further than Amazon, accusing the courts of usurping Congress and that the agreement made a “mockery of Article 1 of the Constitution.”

“Key parts of the settlement are fundamentally at odds with the law and impinge on the rights of authors,” Peters said.

In particular, the settlement lets Google do more with scanned books than just use them in search results and to sell them, making the settlement license overly broad.

Such licenses should be given out only by Congress, Peters argued.

But Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) said the deal should be approved, calling it a “rare truce in the copyright wars.”

Moreover, Congress was to blame for the whole mess anyhow, by failing to fix the orphan book issue in recent years.

Lofgren also suggested that Congress simply reduce the number of books still in copyright by repealing the 1998 Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which added extended copyright terms for 20 years, reportedly to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain.

Thanks to the act, no books will go into the public domain in the United States automatically until 2019."

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/amazon-google-book-search-sales/

Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing; TechDirt, 6/19/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing:

"Well, the MPAA put out a report claiming that 44% of "losses" from file sharing came from college campuses. Of course, the number (like so many out of entertainment industry lobbyists) was entirely made up. In fact, it was so ridiculous that even the MPAA came out and publicly admitted the numbers were bogus and apologized! "

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0337155278.shtml

Register of Copyrights Not Asked by Congress To Weigh in on Google Book Search?, Library Journal, 3/20/09

Via Library Journal: Register of Copyrights Not Asked by Congress To Weigh in on Google Book Search?:

"Out of last Friday's all-day Columbia University conference on Google Book Search came this interesting little tidbit: Register of Copyrights Mary Beth Peters had recommended against the Library of Congress participating in Google’s initial Library Partners program, because she wasn’t sure that Google’s indexing of copyrighted books was a fair use.

That in and of itself is not a shocker—a lot of experts are still torn over whether the plan was indeed a fair use. But as Cornell University’s Peter Hirtle noted, the real surprise is that Congress, well, just didn’t seem to care about the program.

“Most disturbing of all was Peters’s admission that not one member of Congress has asked the Copyright Office to comment on the settlement," Hirtle blogged “even though it may fundamentally change how Americans can access and use copyrighted information.”

Certainly, that insight has to make one wonder how much Congress cares about the promotion of progress at the bedrock of copyright law. Last year, Congress failed to pass orphan works legislation but passed a draconian bill stiffening infringement penalties. And while sitting out the potentially momentous discussion over copyright as raised by Google Book Search, Congress is agian considering the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act—controversial legislation that would bar public access to research funded by taxpayers, and would undo the NIH’s access policy, enacted last year.

Notably, Peters was also not asked to testify at a hearing on the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act during a congressional hearing last year—but, curiously, a former register of copyright, Ralph Oman was asked, and did testify. Oman told lawmakers that the public access policies, like the NIH’s, would harm publishers and gut copyright."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6645344.html

Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions on Copyright, Corruption, and Congress, The New York Times Freakonomics Blog, 3/2/09

Via The New York Times Freakonomics Blog: Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions on Copyright, Corruption, and Congress:

"Last week we solicited your questions for Stanford Law School Professor (and open-source hero, and anti-corruption leader) Lawrence Lessig. (Past Q&A’s can be found here.)...

Q: Do you find any proposed “optimum copyright” period plausible? If so, which one, and which arguments did you find persuasive?– Nat Howard

A: There are two different issues with copyright terms: first, how long should they be? Second, should they ever be extended? The answer to the second question is, as Milton Friedman put it, a “no brainer”: “No. Never.” Copyright is about creating incentives. You can’t create incentives backward. Even the United States Congress can’t order George Gershwin to create anything more. His creativity is over — however sad that may be.

The answer to the first question is harder. The term should be as long as it needs to be to create the incentives to create, but not longer. And the obvious point is that at some point, the promise of future benefits adds essentially nothing to present incentives to create. Economists who have estimated the matter have calculated between 14 and 28 years as an optimal copyright term. I’d be happy even to get it down to 50.

Finally, regardless of the length, the one huge mistake we’ve made is to give up any system to require copyright owners to take steps to maintain their copyright. The result is, after a relatively short time, it is practically impossible to identify the owner of a vast majority of copyrighted work. Our framers insisted on formalities as a condition to getting copyright protection. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would require that after an initial term of automatic protection, a copyright owner would be required to take steps to register or maintain clear title to his or her copyrighted works, after, say, 14 years.

(And to the copyright mavens out there, this requirement would apply to domestic works only, so there’s no “Berne problem.”)"

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/lawrence-lessig-answers-your-questions-on-copyright-corruption-and-congress/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse