Google and the University of Michigan have signed an expanded digitization agreement that incorporates the terms of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Specifically, the agreement:

Expands the scope of Google and University of Michigan's partnership:
The University of Michigan continues its tradition of leadership in library digitization by being the first library to expand its partnership with Google under the terms of Google's settlement agreement with a broad class of authors and publishers. The principles underlying the new agreement are to ensure access to our collection, to provide a solid foundation for future research and study, and to provide the greatest public good for patrons of libraries around the US.

Broadens public access to University of Michigan's collections:
Once the settlement is approved by the court, readers and students throughout the US will enjoy the benefits of University of Michigan's collections, including free previews, the ability to buy access to University of Michigan's books online, and institutional subscriptions.

Supports shared services with other libraries:
The agreement empowers University of Michigan to broaden public access to its collection by using digital files of books that Google scans to strengthen and support initiatives like HathiTrust.

Provides greater digital access to University of Michigan's collections for students and faculty:
University of Michigan will get a digital copy of every book held in their collection, whether it's scanned from Michigan or at another library.

Broadens access to public domain books from University of Michigan's collection:
The University of Michigan will be able to share digital copies of public domain works Google has digitized from its collection with fellow academic institutions, libraries, and other organizations for non-commercial purposes. These provisions enable Michigan to share its digital library collection with students, scholars, and other library users around the world.

Subsidizes University of Michigan's Institutional Subscription:
If approved by the court, Google's agreement with authors and publishers allows it to make millions of digitized books available to colleges and universities via a subscription. Under our new agreement, Google will subsidize the cost of Michigan's subscription based on the number of books scanned from Michigan. In practice, this means that Google will subsidize the entire cost of Michigan's institutional subscription–so that Michigan's students and staff will be able to access and read almost every book Google has digitized from 29 libraries around the world, for free.

Expands access for students, faculty, and patrons with disabilities:
Google will make public domain works digitized from Michigan's print library collection accessible to users with print disabilities in the same ways as in-copyright books covered under the settlement agreement.

Safeguards the public's access to knowledge:
Michigan's agreement includes collective terms Google has committed to that can be enjoyed by any of Google's other partner libraries. Michigan is the first university to sign on to these terms, which give libraries new ways to help safeguard the public's access to these books.

Establishes a mechanism to review prices:
Our agreement gives Michigan and other participating libraries the power to review the pricing of Institutional Subscriptions to make sure that they are priced for "broad penetration," as required by the settlement agreement. That means that the reviewer will evaluate whether subscriptions are affordable enough to allow universities, libraries, and other institutions across the country to take advantage of them.

If they determine that prices are too high, University of Michigan and other participating libraries who sign these collective terms can challenge the prices through arbitration, and Google will be required to work with the Registry to adjust the pricing accordingly.

Ensures access to millions of books for generations to come:
Google has committed to make the books it has scanned publicly available for free search, consumer purchase, institutional subscriptions, and other services established by the settlement agreement. Our agreement ensures that libraries and their patrons can continue to use digital copies of the millions of books Google has scanned well into the future, even if Google goes away.

Also see the press release.

Patricia Akester's Technological Accommodation of Conflicts between Freedom of Expression and DRM: The First Empirical Assessment is available in the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law repository.

Here's an excerpt from the abstract:

When technological measures were under consideration in the mid 1990s two stark scenarios presented themselves: on the one hand, an ideal world where copyright owners could use DRM to make their works available under a host of different conditions in a way that responded to the diversity of consumer demand; on the other, a more bleak environment where all users of copyright material (and much non-copyright material) would be forced to obtain permission and pay to access material that previously would have been available to all. . . . Patricia Akester examines how these issues are working out in practice. Based on a series of interviews with key organisations and individuals, involved in the use of copyright material and the development and deployment of DRM, she provides a sober assessment of the current state of affairs.

The Center for Social Media at American University has released Remix Culture: Fair Use is Your Friend.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Last summer the release of the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video nearly crashed our servers with people downloading the document. Based on this demand, we created Remix Culture: Fair Use Is Your Friend is a collaboration with the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property—a program of AU's Washington College of Law—along with Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. The video was funded by Google.

See also the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video.

Presentations from the Digital Library Federation Spring Forum 2009 are now available.

Here's a quick selection:

• HathiTrust: Building the Organization, Building Services
• Repository Interoperability and Preservation: The Hub and Spoke Framework
• TIPR: Toward Interoperable Preservation Repositories
• Whose Stuff Is It, Anyway? A Study of Copyright Statements on DLF-Member Digital Library Collections

EPrints Services is sponsoring a Ph.D. scholarship in Digital Rights and Digital Scholarship at the EPSRC Web Science Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Southampton.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Web has had a huge impact on society and on the scientific and scholarly communications process. As more attention is paid to new e-research and e-learning methodologies it is time to stand back and investigate how rights and responsibilities are understood when "copying", "publishing" and "syndicating" are fundamental activities of the interconnected digital world.

Applicants with a technical background (a good Bachelors degree in Computer Science, Information Science, Information Technology or similar) are invited for this 4-year research programme, which begins in October 2009 with a 1-year taught MSc in Web Science and is followed by a three year PhD supervised jointly by the School of Law and the School of Electronics and Computer Science. The full four-year scholarships (including stipend) is available to UK residents.

Ed Felten has proposed "three strikes" copyright law for print.

Here's an excerpt from "A Modest Proposal: Three-Strikes for Print":

My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print.

As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year.

Read more about it at "3 Strikes for Print: A Modest Proposal From Ed Felten."

ARL has released Jonathan Band's testimony on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act film clip compilation exemption.

Here's an excerpt:

Finally, putting aside the question of quality and alternatives, we have to ask ourselves why the rightsholders are opposing the modest expansion we seek. Why are they so reflexively confrontational? They know that the uses we seek will not harm their market in any way. They know that whether the exemption is granted or rejected will have absolutely no impact on the level of infringement. They should welcome our use of their content in our classrooms. They should make our legal use as easy as possible. We shouldn’t even have to apply for the exemption. They should proactively declare that they won’t bring DMCA actions against high ed institutions for assembling film compilations. Instead, 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. The Librarian of Congress should disregard the frivolous arguments raised by the rightsholders and allow circumvention for film clip compilations for high ed class classes in all disciplines.

Read more about it at "Big Content's 'Theater of the Absurd' at DMCA Hearings."

The French National Assembly has passed the Création et Internet bill, a "three-strikes" copyright bill intended to curb illegal file sharing on the Internet by disconnecting offenders from the network on their third offense. The bill conflicts with a recently passed European Parliament law that prohibits EU member counties from disconnecting Internet users without judicial oversight.

Read more about it at "France Ignores EU and Passes Antipiracy Law" and "France Set for Showdown with EU after Passing 3 Strikes Law."

The Cornell University Library has eliminated use restrictions on reproductions of public domain works, including over 70,000 e-books.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

In a dramatic change of practice, Cornell University Library has announced it will no longer require its users to seek permission to publish public domain items duplicated from its collections. Instead, users may now use reproductions of public domain works made for them by the Library or available via Web sites, without seeking any further permission.

The Library, as the producer of digital reproductions made from its collections, has in the past licensed the use of those reproductions. Individuals and corporations that failed to secure permission to repurpose these reproductions violated their agreement with the Library. "The threat of legal action, however," noted Anne R. Kenney, Carl A. Kroch University Librarian, "does little to stop bad actors while at the same time limits the good uses that can be made of digital surrogates. We decided it was more important to encourage the use of the public domain materials in our holdings than to impose roadblocks."

The immediate impetus for the new policy is Cornell’s donation of more than 70,000 digitized public domain books to the Internet Archive (details at www.archive.org/details/cornell).

"Imposing legally binding restrictions on these digital files would have been very difficult and in a way contrary to our broad support of open access principles," said Oya Y. Rieger, Associate University Librarian for Information Technologies. "It seemed better just to acknowledge their public domain status and make them freely usable for any purpose. And since it doesn't make sense to have different rules for material that is reproduced at the request of patrons, we have removed permission obligations from public domain works."

Institutional restrictions on the use of public domain work, sometimes labeled "copyfraud," have been the subject of much scholarly criticism. The Cornell initiative goes further than many other recent attempts to open access to public domain material by removing restrictions on both commercial and non-commercial use. Users of the public domain works are still expected to determine on their own that works are in the public domain where they live. They also must respect non-copyright rights, such as the rights of privacy, publicity, and trademark. The Library will continue to charge service fees associated with the reproduction of analog material or the provision of versions of files different than what is freely available on the Web. All library Web sites will be updated to reflect this new policy during 2009.

The new Cornell policy can be found at cdl.library.cornell.edu/guidelines.html.

The British Library has released "Copyright for Education and Research: Golden Opportunity or Digital Black Hole?"

Here's an excerpt:

The Golden Opportunity is:

• a vibrant research environment which fully utilises technological developments for education and research which in turn supports the UK’s knowledge economy.

The Digital Black Hole is:

• digital lockdown where access is restricted and education, research and the knowledge economy are stifled.

Also available is a MP3 audio file of the May 5th debate "Golden Opportunity or Digital Black Hole?" with Dame Lynne Brindley, David Lammy MP, Torin Douglas, Dr. Annette Davison, Simon Tanner and Rod Bristow. See the debate press release for details.

The Library of Congress has released MP3 files of the May 6th and 7th Digital Millennium Copyright Act exemption hearings in Washington DC.

There are no MP3 files for the May 1st Palo Alto hearing, but it has been covered in "The DMCA Hearings Bring Out Outrageous Arguments against Fair Use and Consumer Rights."

The European Parliament has approved an amendment to its Telecoms Package that requires a judicial ruling before alleged Internet copyright violators can be disconnected from the network.

Here's the amendment:

No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.

Read more about it at "Euro-MPs Stick to Their Guns on Three-Strikes Court Permission," "European Parliament Smacks Down France on Three Strikes Law," and "European Parliament Votes in Favour of Internet Freedom."