The Library Copyright Alliance has sent a letter to Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers of the House Committee on the Judiciary about the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Here's an excerpt:

There are three pending copyright infringement lawsuits against universities and their libraries relating to their use of digital technology One of these cases, AIME v. UCLA, concerns the streaming of films to students as part of their course assignments. These lawsuits reflect a growing tension between rights holders and libraries, and some rights holders' increasingly belligerent enforcement mentality. Moreover, legislation such as SOPA and the PRO-IP Act passed in the 110th Congress, and the activities of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (a position created by the PRO-IP Act), encourage federal prosecutors to enforce copyrights law more aggressively.

In this environment, the criminal prosecution of a library for copyright infringement is no longer beyond the realm of possibility. For this reason, we strongly oppose the amendments described above, which would increase the exposure of libraries to prosecution. The broadening of the definition of willful infringement could result in a criminal prosecution if an Assistant U.S. Attorney believes that a library's assertion of fair use or one of the Copyright Act's other privileges is unreasonable. This risk is compounded with streaming, which SOPA would subject to felony penalties even if conducted without purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

| New: Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, Version 80 | Digital Scholarship |

The U.S. Office of the Register of Copyrights has released Legal Issues in Mass Digitization: A Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document .

Here's the announcement:

The Copyright Office has published a Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document that addresses the issues raised by the intersection between copyright law and the mass digitization of books. The purpose of the Analysis is to facilitate further discussions among the affected parties and the public discussions that may encompass a number of possible approaches, including voluntary initiatives, legislative options, or both. The Analysis also identifies questions to consider in determining an appropriate policy for the mass digitization of books.

Public discourse on mass digitization is particularly timely. On March 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a proposed settlement in the copyright infringement litigation regarding Google's mass book digitization project. The court found that the settlement would have redefined the relationship between copyright law and new technology, and it would have encroached upon Congress's ability to set copyright policy with respect to orphan works. Since then, a group of authors has filed a lawsuit against five university libraries that participated in Google's mass digitization project. These developments have sparked a public debate on the risks and opportunities that mass book digitization may create for authors, publishers, libraries, technology companies, and the general public. The Office's Analysis will serve as a basis for further policy discussions on this issue.

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

Below are a selection of posts and other documents analyzing the Authors Guild et al. v. HathiTrust et al. case.

• "About Those Orphans" by Brandon Butler
• "HathiTrust and the Litigation Path" by Kenneth Crews
• "Is It All about the Orphans?" by Kevin Smith
• Resource Packet on Orphan Works: Legal and Policy Issues for Research Libraries by Prudence Adler, Jonathan Band, and Brandon Butler
• "Suing HathiTrust" by C. E. Petit

Read more about it at "Authors Guild v. HathiTrust et al. Resources."

| New: Institutional Repository and ETD Bibliography 2011 | Digital Scholarship |

In "Access to the Agreement between Google Books and the British Library," Javier Ruiz of the Open Rights Group analyzes the Google Books contract between Google and the British Library (includes a link to contract).

Here's an excerpt:

The British Library recently announced to much fanfare a deal with Google to make available online a quarter of a million books no longer restricted by copyright, thus in the public domain.

The deal is presented as a win-win situation, where Google pays for the costs of scanning the books, which will be available on both Google and BL's websites. This sounds very philanthropic from Google, however the catch is in the detail:

"Once digitised, these unique items will be available for full text search, download and reading through Google Books, as well as being searchable through the Library's website and stored in perpetuity within the Library's digital archive."

In order to find out what this really means we asked the British Library for a copy of the agreement with Google, which was not uploaded to their transparency website with other similar contracts, as it didn't involve monetary exchange.

| Digital Scholarship |

In "Google Books Settlement, 2008-2011," James Grimmelmann analyzes the impact of recent rulings and case resolutions on the Google Book Settlement. The rulings and resolutions are the In re: Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation ruling, the National Music Publishers' Association's resolution of The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al. v. You Tube, Inc. lawsuit (consolidated into Viacom v. YouTube), and the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al. ruling.

Here's an excerpt:

The road to class-wide settlement—even to a much more modest settlement that covers only scanning and searching—now appears to be barred. What is more, in light of the freelancers' case and the Supreme Court's recent Wal-Mart case, the road to class-wide litigation also looks to be extraordinarily difficult. Google will raise many of the same adequacy of representation arguments in its opposition to class certification. It might still be more feasible for a few copyright owners holding large number of copyrights to litigate on an individual basis—but the major publishers, who best fit that bill, have all more or less made their peace with Google through its Partner Program. The odds of the authors being able to see this one through to the end have just dropped precipitously. Google is holding all the cards now, and they're all full houses.

| New: Google Books Bibliography, Version 7 | Digital Scholarship |

Carl Malamud has put up a website, What Would Luther Burbank Do?, that contains a complaint about the Smithsonian Institution's Terms of Use and Licensing Policy. The complaint concerns a take down notice that Mindy Sommers received from the Smithsonian Institution regarding her Vintage Seed Catalog Digital Collage Sheet Five.

Here's an excerpt:

1.1 The Smithsonian Institution's Terms of Use and Licensing Policy are in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 105 (the "works of government" clause of the Copyright Act) and 20 U.S.C. § 41 (the "increase and diffusion of knowledge among men" clause of the Smithsonian Charter). . . . .

6.1 Injunction. That the Smithsonian Institution be instructed to cease and desist all further "take down" notices until this matter has been thoroughly investigated.

6.2 Investigation. That the Board of Regents investigate and analyze the intellectual property policies of the Smithsonian Institution to determine if such policies are in violation of the Copyright Act or the Smithsonian Charter.

6.3 Restitution. That the Smithsonian Institution work with the community to create high-resolution scans of the Seed Displays source material that is not under copyright by external, non-governmental entities and that such high-resolution scans be released on the Internet with no restrictions on use.

| Digital Scholarship |

Digital Scholarship has released version 7 of the Google Books Bibliography, which presents over 325 selected English-language articles and other works that are useful in understanding Google Books. It primarily focuses on the evolution of Google Books and the legal, library, and social issues associated with it, especially the Google Book Settlement. To better show the development Google Books, it is now organized by year of publication. It primarily includes journal articles, e-prints, magazine articles, and newspaper articles. This version expands coverage of law review articles and legal e-prints. Where possible, links are provided to works that are freely available on the Internet.

The following recent Digital Scholarship publications may also be of interest:

• Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010. Presents over 500 English-language works.
• Institutional Repository Bibliography, Version 4. Presents over 500 English-language works.
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010. Presents over 3,800 English-language works.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

James Grimmelmann reports that Michael Boni told US District Court Judge Denny Chin at the 7/19/11 status conference that the parties involved in the Google Books lawsuit "have been aiming for an opt-in settlement." The next status conference will occur on 9/15/11.

Here's an excerpt from Grimmelmann's "GBS Status Conference: Opt-in Settlement in the Works?" post:

What that might mean is not obvious. It could mean an actual opt-in settlement, one that binds only class members who send in claim forms. It could mean a settlement in which Google commits to an open-ended offer to all class members. It could mean a narrower, scanning-and-searching-only settlement, so that copyright owners can "opt in" to book sales by striking their own individual deals with Google.

Read more about it at "Judge Concerned with Lack of Progress in Revised Google Settlement Talks."

| Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

The European Parliament has released The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): An Assessment.

Here's an excerpt:

The ACTA was motivated by a desire to establish equivalent provisions in international trade agreements containing rules on anti-counterfeiting. This is important at a time when free trade agreements are being negotiated by different parties. For the European Union it is also of importance to protect EU intellectual property rights (IPR) as future EU competitiveness depends on its ability to move into higher value added activities such as those for which IPRs are important. At the same time international agreements on IPRs will only be sustainable when they have the support of all parties. Within the EU the ACTA has also been the source of some concerns regarding the non-transparent way it was negotiated and whether it meets to aims agreed by the European Parliament and Commission that it would be compatible with the existing acquis communautaire and the World Trade Organisation's Trade Related Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs) Agreement.

| Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 | Institutional Repository Bibliography | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

Randal C. Picker has self-archived "After Google Book Search: Rebooting the Digital Library" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The rejection of the Google Book Search settlement means that we are at a point of rebooting how we design our digital library future. There were many criticisms of GBS and the settlement but perhaps chief among those was the risk that approval of the settlement would have locked in a single approach to digital libraries. Google would have received unique access to the so-called orphan works and that would have provided it what may have been a decisive advantage against digital library competitors, both private and public. As we move forward on the orphan works, we need to do so with two principles in mind. First, we need to enable broad competing uses of the orphan works while, to the greatest extent possible, respecting the rights of the orphan works holders. Second, we should not repeat the mistake of the GBS settlement by somehow tilting the table in favor of digital library monopoly, either public or private.

| Digital Scholarship Publications OverviewGoogle Books Bibliography |

The EDUCAUSE Policy Analysis and Advocacy Program has released "How PIPA Would Affect Colleges and Universities." (PIPA is the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act.)

Here's an excerpt:

Whereas COICA didn't bother to define "domain name system server," PIPA says, "[T]he term 'domain name system server' means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name" (emphasis added).

The phrase "or other mechanism" increases the potential scope of the definition, at the risk of unintended consequences. For example, the term defined this way could sweep in operating systems, email clients, web clients, routers, and other technologies that are operated by our campuses, which would adversely affect operations.

| Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 | Institutional Repository Bibliography | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

Five U.S ISPs (AT&T, Cablevision Systems Corp., Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable, and Verizon) have agreed to a copyright alert plan with the A2IM, IFTA, the MPAA (and major members), and the RIAA (and major members).

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The new Copyright Alert System addresses these problems with a series of early alerts—up to six—in electronic form, notifying the subscriber that his or her account may have been misused for online content theft of film, TV shows or music. It will also put in place a system of "mitigation measures" intended to stop online content theft on those accounts that appear persistently to fail to respond to repeated Copyright Alerts. The system will also provide subscribers the opportunity for an independent review to determine whether a consumer's online activity in question is lawful or if their account was identified in error. There are no new laws or regulations established as a part of this voluntary agreement. Termination of a subscriber's account is not part of this agreement. ISPs will not provide their subscribers' names to rights' holders under this agreement.

For an explanation "mitigation measures," see the "FAQ's on The Center for Copyright Information and Copyright Alert System."

| Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |