David Rapp, Library Journal; Library Copyright Alliance Voices Concerns Over Anti-Piracy Legislation:
"The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA)—whose members include the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and the Association of College & Research Libraries—yesterday released a letter [PDF] written to the ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee to voice "serious concerns" about two provisions in H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [PDF], which could greatly increase penalties for copyright infringement."
Showing posts with label Library Copyright Alliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Library Copyright Alliance. Show all posts
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Issue Brief on Streaming of Films for Educational Purposes; ACRL Insider, 2/22/10
Kara Malenfant, ACRL Insider; Issue Brief on Streaming of Films for Educational Purposes:
"Last Friday, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) released an issue brief that reviews the legal status of streaming entire films to students located outside of physical classrooms. The discussion was prompted by recent news of a disagreement between the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a media equipment trade association over the streaming of films to students as part of an online courseware system. Innovations in secure streaming and online courseware systems hold significant promise for institutions serving faculty and students who demand increased access to institutional and library holdings. Many questions have been raised concerning the use of these technologies and copyright law, and the LCA issue brief aims to dispel some of the mystery and uncertainty that surround this issue, and to foster a balanced discussion.
The LCA issue brief explains characteristics that could increase the likelihood that a particular use will be allowed as well as the arguments that could lead a court to find in favor of educational uses. It also explains how these statutory provisions interact, and, most importantly, how the scope of fair use is affected by the other provisions in the Act.
The Copyright Act includes several provisions that allow users to copy, perform, distribute, or display works without permission from a rightsholder. The LCA issue brief surveys three provisions of the Copyright Act—Sections 107, 110(1), and 110(2)—that could arguably support streaming entire films. The strongest argument is grounded in Section 107—the fair use provision. Fair use is a flexible, evolving doctrine that is often helpful to scholarly and educational users and users of new technology. Section 110(1) and (2) specifically address the issue of educational use of films, but they are less flexible. Whether these provisions will allow for a particular use will depend on the details of the use as well as how a court chooses to interpret certain key parts of the Act. View the full issue brief online.
****
The Library Copyright Alliance is a coalition of library associations made up of the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. Read more about LCA."
http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/2010/02/22/issue-brief-on-streaming-of-films-for-educational-purposes/
"Last Friday, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) released an issue brief that reviews the legal status of streaming entire films to students located outside of physical classrooms. The discussion was prompted by recent news of a disagreement between the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a media equipment trade association over the streaming of films to students as part of an online courseware system. Innovations in secure streaming and online courseware systems hold significant promise for institutions serving faculty and students who demand increased access to institutional and library holdings. Many questions have been raised concerning the use of these technologies and copyright law, and the LCA issue brief aims to dispel some of the mystery and uncertainty that surround this issue, and to foster a balanced discussion.
The LCA issue brief explains characteristics that could increase the likelihood that a particular use will be allowed as well as the arguments that could lead a court to find in favor of educational uses. It also explains how these statutory provisions interact, and, most importantly, how the scope of fair use is affected by the other provisions in the Act.
The Copyright Act includes several provisions that allow users to copy, perform, distribute, or display works without permission from a rightsholder. The LCA issue brief surveys three provisions of the Copyright Act—Sections 107, 110(1), and 110(2)—that could arguably support streaming entire films. The strongest argument is grounded in Section 107—the fair use provision. Fair use is a flexible, evolving doctrine that is often helpful to scholarly and educational users and users of new technology. Section 110(1) and (2) specifically address the issue of educational use of films, but they are less flexible. Whether these provisions will allow for a particular use will depend on the details of the use as well as how a court chooses to interpret certain key parts of the Act. View the full issue brief online.
****
The Library Copyright Alliance is a coalition of library associations made up of the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. Read more about LCA."
http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/2010/02/22/issue-brief-on-streaming-of-films-for-educational-purposes/
Friday, August 21, 2009
Life in a Google Book Search World; Inside Higher Ed, 8/12/09
Inside Higher Ed; Life in a Google Book Search World:
While the settlement gives lawyers and scholars fodder for debating the intricacies of often arcane antitrust law provisions, its real-world implications for university research libraries are already apparent, according to Jonathan Band, legal counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, which represents thousands of libraries in three major associations. Speaking at a panel on the Google settlement at the National Press Club here Tuesday, Band said it is obvious that any library that hopes to remain competitive will be forced to purchase an institutional subscription from Google Book Search.
“[The university’s] faculty will insist upon it,” he said. “Its students will insist upon it.”
“There’s a product they have to have, and in essence there’s one supplier,” Band added.
The cost of institutional subscriptions, which will last for a limited period before renewal is necessary, will differ across institutions based in part on enrollment numbers, according to the settlement. Libraries that purchase subscription services will gain access to the full text of Google’s entire library, which now contains more than 7 million books. The search engine’s immodest goal from the outset, however, has been to eventually put the world’s written history at the public’s fingertips.
For all the concerns that Google’s Book Search provokes, there seems little argument that the basic concept -- broad-based access to knowledge -- serves an inherent good. Researchers are unsurprisingly excited by the possibilities presented by a searchable full-text database of obscure, forgotten works. But it is Google’s potential hold on those obscure works that most worries James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at New York Law School.
Grimmelmann is particularly concerned about the Google settlement’s treatment of so-called “orphan” works, a term used to describe books for whom the copyright owner may be unknown or nonexistent. Since copyright endures for 70 years beyond an author’s death, it's possible that an author’s grandchild or other relative may unknowingly hold a copyright, making it practically impossible to track him or her down.
Under the settlement, Google is permitted to presume it has the consent of any as-yet-undiscovered copyright owner -- insulating the company from costly legal challenges that another would-be book digitizer might invoke when scanning orphan works.
In the context of competition, the orphan works are “the thing [Google has] that no competitor could hope to match,” Grimmelmann said.
Grimmelmann’s concerns about orphan works are misguided and overblown, according to David Balto, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “Orphan” status is only bestowed upon books for which publishers see no viable market, and whose “parents” are “indifferent,” he said. Essentially, such works have little value, and therefore hardly give Google an advantage, Balto said.
While Grimmelmann readily praised the potential benefit of Google’s digitization project, he said the project’s social good does not erase his concerns about Google’s unfair advantage.
“We wouldn’t say a monopolist should be excused of particular acts of monopoly because it does other good things,” he said."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/12/google
While the settlement gives lawyers and scholars fodder for debating the intricacies of often arcane antitrust law provisions, its real-world implications for university research libraries are already apparent, according to Jonathan Band, legal counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, which represents thousands of libraries in three major associations. Speaking at a panel on the Google settlement at the National Press Club here Tuesday, Band said it is obvious that any library that hopes to remain competitive will be forced to purchase an institutional subscription from Google Book Search.
“[The university’s] faculty will insist upon it,” he said. “Its students will insist upon it.”
“There’s a product they have to have, and in essence there’s one supplier,” Band added.
The cost of institutional subscriptions, which will last for a limited period before renewal is necessary, will differ across institutions based in part on enrollment numbers, according to the settlement. Libraries that purchase subscription services will gain access to the full text of Google’s entire library, which now contains more than 7 million books. The search engine’s immodest goal from the outset, however, has been to eventually put the world’s written history at the public’s fingertips.
For all the concerns that Google’s Book Search provokes, there seems little argument that the basic concept -- broad-based access to knowledge -- serves an inherent good. Researchers are unsurprisingly excited by the possibilities presented by a searchable full-text database of obscure, forgotten works. But it is Google’s potential hold on those obscure works that most worries James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at New York Law School.
Grimmelmann is particularly concerned about the Google settlement’s treatment of so-called “orphan” works, a term used to describe books for whom the copyright owner may be unknown or nonexistent. Since copyright endures for 70 years beyond an author’s death, it's possible that an author’s grandchild or other relative may unknowingly hold a copyright, making it practically impossible to track him or her down.
Under the settlement, Google is permitted to presume it has the consent of any as-yet-undiscovered copyright owner -- insulating the company from costly legal challenges that another would-be book digitizer might invoke when scanning orphan works.
In the context of competition, the orphan works are “the thing [Google has] that no competitor could hope to match,” Grimmelmann said.
Grimmelmann’s concerns about orphan works are misguided and overblown, according to David Balto, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “Orphan” status is only bestowed upon books for which publishers see no viable market, and whose “parents” are “indifferent,” he said. Essentially, such works have little value, and therefore hardly give Google an advantage, Balto said.
While Grimmelmann readily praised the potential benefit of Google’s digitization project, he said the project’s social good does not erase his concerns about Google’s unfair advantage.
“We wouldn’t say a monopolist should be excused of particular acts of monopoly because it does other good things,” he said."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/12/google
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Library Copyright Alliance
Library Copyright Alliance: Homepage statement:
"The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) consists of five major library associations - the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association. These five associations collectively represent over 80,000 information professionals and thousands of libraries of all kinds throughout the United States. These five associations cooperate in the LCA to address copyright issues that affect libraries and their patrons. For over ten years now, our five library associations have worked together as a coalition.
The purpose of the LCA is to work toward a unified voice and common strategy for the library community in responding to and developing proposals to amend national and international copyright law and policy for the digital environment. The LCA's mission is to foster global access and fair use of information for creativity, research, and education.
Copyright and related intellectual property laws have important and substantial effects on the nature and extent of information services libraries provide to their users. Intellectual property laws are currently undergoing major changes in response to the growth in the use of digital formats for works.
The LCA is principally concerned that these changes do not harm, but rather enhance, the ability of libraries and information professionals to serve the needs of people to access, use, and preserve digital information. Our concern in [sic] heightened because of emerging technology applied to copyrighted works that is intended to prohibit access, use and preservation of digital information."
http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/
"The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) consists of five major library associations - the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association. These five associations collectively represent over 80,000 information professionals and thousands of libraries of all kinds throughout the United States. These five associations cooperate in the LCA to address copyright issues that affect libraries and their patrons. For over ten years now, our five library associations have worked together as a coalition.
The purpose of the LCA is to work toward a unified voice and common strategy for the library community in responding to and developing proposals to amend national and international copyright law and policy for the digital environment. The LCA's mission is to foster global access and fair use of information for creativity, research, and education.
Copyright and related intellectual property laws have important and substantial effects on the nature and extent of information services libraries provide to their users. Intellectual property laws are currently undergoing major changes in response to the growth in the use of digital formats for works.
The LCA is principally concerned that these changes do not harm, but rather enhance, the ability of libraries and information professionals to serve the needs of people to access, use, and preserve digital information. Our concern in [sic] heightened because of emerging technology applied to copyrighted works that is intended to prohibit access, use and preservation of digital information."
http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)