Archive for the 'Legislation and Government Regulation' Category

Digital Legal Deposit, An IPA Special Report

Posted in Copyright, Legislation and Government Regulation, Publishing on August 21st, 2014

The International Publishers Association has released Digital Legal Deposit, An IPA Special Report.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

A new IPA report reveals how policies and processes are being developed and implemented which allow digital content, whether in the form of e-books, journals, blogs or website content, to be collected and archived. It contains in-depth analysis of schemes in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, France and Italy, as well as details from Japan, China, Brazil, the United States, Australia and Canada.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

Be Sociable, Share!

    Judiciary Committee Hearing on Moral Rights, Termination Rights, Resale Royalty, and Copyright Term

    Posted in Copyright, Legislation and Government Regulation on July 17th, 2014

    The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on moral rights, termination rights, resale royalty, and copyright term.

    Here's an excerpt from "Congress Takes On Copyright Term, Moral Rights, and More":

    How is this going to work? It's hard to say. Probably not very well. The hearing structure allows a handful of witnesses to give very brief explanations of their views, but the question-and-answer format hasn't always been very productive. In the past, we've seen lawmakers in the committee raise pet issues instead of focusing on the topics on the agenda—take for example last month's hearing on the first sale doctrine, which included numerous questions about the unrelated issue of "piracy."

    Moreover, in the absence of real public feedback during these hearings, the committee has sought to represent the public interest by inviting testimony from "both" sides of an imagined dichotomy. Hearings include witnesses from, say, a big company and a small company, a telecom and a publisher, or a copyright licensor and a licensee. This sometimes provides a good impression of balance, but on a panel addressing four separate issues, the odds seem long. It is also often the case that these "sides" don't include anyone who represents the public interest.

    But let's not pass judgment before the hearing even takes place. For those who are watching the hearing, here is a primer on the four issues up for discussion:

    Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Open Access: Markup of Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act Reduces Embargo Period

      Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing on May 26th, 2014

      The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has marked up the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act (FIRST Act), significantly reducing the embargo period for making works open access.

      Here's an excerpt from "FIRST Act Amended to Make Open Access Provision Actually Pretty Good":

      Calling this [Section 303 in the prior version of the bill] a "public access" section is a charitable reading: it extended embargo periods to up to three years, it allowed for simple linking to articles rather than the creation of an archive, and it delayed implementation unnecessarily long. (We've ranted about this bill time and again.)

      But a glimmer of hope appeared at yesterday's markup. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Zoe Lofgren, introduced an amendment that radically changed Section 303. The new amendment [pdf] maps closely onto Sensenbrenner's Public Access to Public Science Act (H.R. 3157). It sets the embargo period at 12 months (like the NIH's current policy), though it allows stakeholders to extend this by 6 months if they can show a "substantial and unique harm." The amendment was also designed to facilitate long-term preservation, broad analysis of works, and closer investigation of broad copyright licenses. The current version is not perfect, but it is much improved—huge kudos to Sensenbrenner and Lofgren for standing up for open access.

      Read more about it at "Revised FIRST Bill Would Give Science Agencies 1 Year to Make Papers Free."

      Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

      Be Sociable, Share!

        HEFCE and Three Other UK Funding Bodies Enact Open Access Mandate

        Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 1st, 2014

        The Higher Education Funding Council for England and three other UK funding bodies (the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for Employment and Learning) have enacted an open access mandate.

        Here's an excerpt:

        5. The core of this policy is as follows: to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF, outputs must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication, and made open-access within a specified time period. This requirement applies to journal articles and conference proceedings only; monographs and other long-form publications, research data and creative and practice-based research outputs are out of scope. Only articles and proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016 will need to fulfil these requirements, but we would strongly urge institutions to implement the policy now. The policy gives a further list of cases where outputs will not need to fulfil the requirements.

        Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "Finch 18 Months On: A Review of Progress"

          Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access on March 13th, 2014

          Michael Jubb has published "Finch 18 Months On: A Review of Progress: Based on a Paper Presented at the UKSG One-Day Conference, 'Open Access Realities', London, November 2013" in Insights: the UKSG Journal.

          Here's an excerpt:

          When the Finch Report was published in June 2012, it represented for me the culmination of nine months of intensive work as secretary to the Finch Group. But I was not allowed to rest on my laurels. The Group recognized that the task of implementation would be complex, involving work from many different stakeholders, and it pointed to the need for an implementation strategy that would involve all of them. Perhaps it should have been firmer in recommending how such a strategy should be developed and implemented. Nevertheless, the Group decided that it should as its final act meet in a year's time to assess progress. I was slightly apprehensive when I was asked to prepare a report for the Group to consider at that meeting. This paper—based on a presentation made at the UKSG conference in November 2013—considers the findings of that report, which was published the following week.

          Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

          Be Sociable, Share!

            Open Access: SPARC Opposes Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act

            Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access on March 12th, 2014

            SPARC has released a statement opposing the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act.

            Here's an excerpt:

            Specifically, Section 303 would:

            • Slow the pace of scientific discovery by restricting public access to articles reporting on federally funded research for up to three years after initial publication. This stands in stark contrast to the policies in use around the world, which call for maximum embargo periods of no more than six to 12 months.
            • Fail to support provisions that allow for shorter embargo periods to publicly funded research results. This provision ignores the potential harm to stakeholders that can accrue through unnecessarily long delays.
            • Fail to ensure that federal agencies have full text copies of their funded research articles to archive and provide to the public for full use, and for long-term archiving. By condoning a link to an article on a publisher's website as an acceptable compliance mechanism, this provision puts the long term accessibility and utility of federally funded research articles at serious risk.
            • Stifle researchers' ability to share their own research and to access the works of others, slowing progress towards scientific discoveries, medical breakthroughs, treatments, and cures.
            • Make it harder for U.S. companies — especially small businesses and start-ups — to access cutting-edge research, thereby slowing their ability to innovate, create new products and services, and generate new jobs.
            • Waste further time and taxpayer dollars by calling for a needless, additional 18-month delay while agencies "develop plans for" policies. This is a duplication of federal agency work that was required by the White House Directive and has, in large part, already been completed.
            • Impose unnecessary costs on federal agency public access programs by conflating access and preservation policies as applied to articles and data. The legislation does not make clear enough what data must be made accessible, nor adequately articulate the location of where such data would reside, or its terms of use.

            Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

            Be Sociable, Share!

              Copyright Office Seeks Comments on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization

              Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, Legislation and Government Regulation, Mass Digitizaton on February 21st, 2014

              The US Copyright Office is seeking comments on orphan works and mass digitization and it will hold public roundtable discussions on these topics.

              Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

              The United States Copyright Office will host public roundtable discussions on potential legislative solutions for orphan works and mass digitization under U.S. copyright law on March 10-11, 2014, in Washington, D.C. Requests to participate should be submitted by February 24, 2014. For a participation request form, go to http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/participation-request-form.html.

              The Office is also seeking public comments on potential legislative solutions for orphan works and mass digitization under U.S. copyright law. A comment form will be posted on the Copyright Office website at http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ no later than March 12, 2014. Comments are due by April 14, 2014, and will be posted on the Copyright Office website.

              Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

              Be Sociable, Share!

                Net Neutrality: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Issues Statement on FCC’s Open Internet Rules

                Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Net Neutrality on February 20th, 2014

                FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has issued a statement on the FCC's open internet rules.

                Here's an excerpt from Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy's analysis:

                In short, the FCC is keeping all of its possible tools in play. From a legal standpoint, the obvious answer would be to follow the roadmap laid out by the D.C. Circuit's opinion and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. That would give the FCC all the authority it needs to preserve net neutrality. But the D.C. Circuit also acknowledged that section 706 gives the FCC broad power to do lots of other things, so long as they will encourage the deployment of broadband. . . .

                Speaking of what you can do with section 706, the D.C. Circuit's opinion makes it pretty clear that, while you might not be able to do something that looks too much like traditional common carrier regulation with it, there's a heck of a lot you can do with it. For instance, Wheeler notes, the FCC would seem to have the power overturn state laws that ban communities from setting up their own broadband networks—laws passed with the lobbying muscle of ISPs that don't want the competition. The outer bounds of section 706 are now open for discussion—and they may provide a scope of regulatory power as broad as Title II might have (in some ways, potentially broader). That's another reason to have proceedings on section—ensuring that its authority is used to encourage deployment and competition, and not stray into more troubling areas like censorship or copyright filtering. This, too, should be a clue to the path ahead—one where Title II isn't a political polarizer, but instead a simple, direct application of the FCC's job to protect an open internet.

                Read more about it at "FCC Thinks It Can Overturn State Laws That Restrict Public Broadband."

                Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 1 of 1112345...10...Last »

                  DigitalKoans

                  DigitalKoans

                  Digital Scholarship

                  Copyright © 2005-2014 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                  Creative Commons License

                  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.