Does the Copyright Office Belong in a Library?; Library Journal, 7/2/15

Kevin L. Smith, Library Journal; Does the Copyright Office Belong in a Library? :

"It has been a busy time for those of us who watch the doings of the Copyright Office. In addition to releasing a massive report on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, about which I have written here, the Copyright Office (CO) is the subject of a piece of legislation introduced as a discussion draft on June 3. The bill, if it were officially introduced and ultimately enacted, would remove the CO from the Library of Congress (LC) and establish it as an independent agency of the federal government, under the Executive Branch. Then, while we were still considering the ramifications of this idea, came the announcement on June 10 of the pending retirement of Dr. James Billington, who has been the Librarian of Congress for the past 29 years.

These events suggest long-term changes for the copyright and library communities, and it is worth taking a moment to consider, especially, the impact of the idea of making the Copyright Office an independent agency.

The first thing that strikes me about the “discussion draft” of the proposed law to establish the Copyright Office as an independent agency—called the Copyright Office for the Digital Economy (CODE) Act—is that it never says why it is needed...

In short, this bill seems like a solution in search of a problem, unless you accept that the problem is that music and movie companies are making less money than they would like. Rather than considering such an ill-advised bill, I hope that we will see, over the next year and a half or so, a new Librarian of Congress who will provide stronger leadership on many issues, but especially on the need to keep copyright policy, and the Copyright Office, firmly grounded in the needs and interests of all of the American public."

A New Kind of Leader: Transition time at the Library of Congress; Library Journal, 7/1/15

John N. Berry III, Library Journal; A New Kind of Leader: Transition time at the Library of Congress:

"The Librarian of Congress needs to be a modern library administrator, capable of curating the great collections, leading the exemplary staff of more than 3,000, and keeping LC’s array of vital services current and on technology’s cutting edge.

LC must be led by a person who understands and not only can deal effectively with the huge cultural, economic, and political differences in America but can deliver information services that enlighten our Congress and the people of the nation. The Librarian of Congress must lead us out of the jungle of conflicting claims, rival demands, and legal interpretations that obscure our implementation of the rules and regulations of intellectual property and copyright.

Simultaneously, the Librarian of Congress must be an intellectual inspiration, with an acumen and articulateness that capture the attention of an argumentative society of free people struggling to govern themselves amid the tempests of a world so complex that true cultural understanding is rare and difficult to achieve.

If that formidable job sounds like the one most librarians work at every day, then that suggests an excellent place for our president to begin the search for candidates: in our nation’s libraries.

It is our duty, through ALA and through all of our most effective connections to government, to help the president find the right librarian to lead our national library. We all know she or he is out there ready and waiting to accept the challenge."

Bad News: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Oracle v. Google API Copyright Decision; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 6/29/15

Michael Barclay and Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Bad News: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Oracle v. Google API Copyright Decision:

"Sadly, today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the Federal Circuit’s dangerous decision in Oracle v. Google. Oracle claims a copyright on the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and that Google infringed that copyright by using certain Java APIs in the Android OS. The Federal Circuit had ruled in Oracle’s favor, reversing a well-reasoned district court opinion holding that the APIs in question were not subject to copyright. Google had asked the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit decision. On behalf of 77 computer scientists, EFF had filed an amicus brief supporting Google’s petition.

The Federal Circuit’s decision has been harshly criticized for its misunderstanding of both computer science and copyright law. APIs are, generally speaking, specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other, and are different than the code that implements a program. Treating APIs as copyrightable would have a profound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore, innovation.

Today’s decision doesn’t mean that Oracle has won the lawsuit. The case will now return to the district court for a trial on Google’s fair use defense."

The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future; Forbes, 6/9/15

Marvin Ammori, Forbes; The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future:

"The DOJ asked the Supreme Court not to review a lower court decision that said API interfaces are copyrightable. But that decision threatens new and existing websites and devices that we all rely on. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will ignore the DOJ’s recommendation and eventually reverses the lower court.

“But what’s an API?” you ask. API stands for “application programming interface” and is essentially a way for software developers to interact with information on other sites or on their own sites. When you go to a restaurant’s website and see an embedded map of the location, the restaurant’s developers didn’t create the map from scratch. They merely used an API—perhaps the Google Maps or Mapbox API—to get a map for the location. An API lets one company build on another’s innovation; we don’t all have to create a global mapping company merely to give directions to our restaurants. An API obviously has two parts: the interface and the code behind it. The interface is essentially a shortcut available to others (imagine “1899 M St. NW location” or some other shortcut that probably every map developer already knows) and the code behind it is all the complicated computer lines that create the visual map.

The case at issue involves whether the interfaces—just the shortcuts, not the code behind it—are copyrightable. It arises out of a lawsuit between Oracle and Google concerning the Java programming language. Computer programmers use a variety of “languages” to create websites and apps—they’re called Ruby on Rails, Python, Erlang, C+, Basic, and so on. Some languages are more popular than others, the same way English is more popular than Icelandic or Dutch."

‘Hand to God’ Play Sued by Abbott and Costello Heirs Over Use of ‘Who’s on First?’; New York Times, 6/4/15

Andrew R. Chow, New York Times; ‘Hand to God’ Play Sued by Abbott and Costello Heirs Over Use of ‘Who’s on First?' :

"The Broadway play “Hand to God” has ridden its foul-mouthed humor, as well as a wry use of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello’s “Who’s on first?” baseball routine, to five Tony nominations.

But the estate of Abbott and Costello is trying to catch the play stealing just days before the Tony ceremony on Sunday. The comedians’ heirs on Thursday sued over the play’s use of the famous routine.

“Filing a lawsuit on the eve of the Tony awards is obviously nothing more than a stunt,” the play’s lead producer, Kevin McCollum, said in an email. “Frankly, we welcome the attention.”

The federal lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, is claiming copyright infringement against the playwright Robert Askins, the producers and the promoters. The estate said cease-and-desist requests were sent after the play opened on Broadway in April, and it is seeking damages and lawyers’ fees."

Review: ‘Notes of a Native Song’ Is Stew’s Homage to James Baldwin; New York Times, 6/4/15

Charles Isherwood, New York Times; Review: ‘Notes of a Native Song’ Is Stew’s Homage to James Baldwin:

"The concept, according to Stew, who wrote the lyrics and text and collaborated with Heidi Rodewald on the music, is to present Baldwin “as a blues singer,” although the music is primarily rock-driven, as was the case with their “Passing Strange,” which opened at the Public Theater and subsequently moved to Broadway. Stew also jokes that he might be accused of “spiritual copyright infringement” in creating that show, because he has long been inspired by Baldwin’s own journey. As with Baldwin, who wrote most of his work during a long exile from America spent mostly in France, Stew’s artistic development took place partly in Europe and was dramatized in “Passing Strange.”

He certainly needn’t worry about actual copyright infringement in “Notes of a Native Song.” For the most part, the details of Baldwin’s life are alluded to haphazardly; don’t expect anything close to a linear biography, or even a nonlinear one."

Medicine’s Hidden Roots in an Ancient Manuscript; New York Times, 6/1/15

Mark Schrope, New York Times; Medicine’s Hidden Roots in an Ancient Manuscript:

"Scholars are just beginning to pore over the text, the oldest known copy of Galen’s “On the Mixtures and Powers of Simple Drugs.” It may well provide new insights into medicine’s roots and into the spread of this new science across the ancient world...

Little is known of the history of the manuscript in Baltimore, formally known as the Syriac Galen Palimpsest, from its recycling in the 11th century until the 1920s, when it was sold to a private collector in Germany. After that, the manuscript fell again from public view until 2002, when it was purchased by a collector in a private sale. He has not been publicly identified.

In 2009, the Galen Palimpsest was lent to the Walters Art Museum for spectral imaging of its leaves by an independent group of specialists, which would reveal the erased Galen undertext. Each page is photographed digitally at extremely high resolution with varying colors and configurations of light, which in various ways illuminate the inks, grooves from writing and parchment itself. Computer algorithms exploit these variations to maximize the visibility of the undertext.

The resulting images went online under a “creative commons” license, meaning that anyone can use the material free for any noncommercial purpose. Once the images were online, William Noel, who was the curator of manuscripts and rare books at the museum, began organizing members of the tiny community of scholars who study Syriac scientific texts to study the new material."