Category Archives: Books

Weekend Reading: Lewandowski & Bossie’s Let Trump be Trump campaign memoir

From the blurb of Corey R. Lewandowski and David N. Bossie’s Let Trump Be Trump: The Inside Story of His Rise to the Presidency (Center Street Dec. 5, 2017):

Corey R. Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager who contributed to Trump’s historic bid for the White House, teams up with David N. Bossie, the consummate political pro who helped steer the last critical months of the Trump Campaign, to offer the first insiders’ account of the most historic campaign in modern political history. Starting from the months leading up to Trump’s announcement all the way through staff shakeups within the White House, LET TRUMP BE TRUMP offers eyewitness accounts of the real stories behind some of the most sensational headlines.

At turns surprising, raw with emotion, and hilarious, LET TRUMP BE TRUMP is a book destined to be beloved by Trump supporters and cited by even Trump critics as the first and most definitive insider account of the 2016 campaign.

— Joe

Weekend reading: You Can’t Spell America Without Me: The Really Tremendous Inside Story of My Fantastic First Year as President Donald J. Trump (A So-Called Parody)

“Until Donald Trump publishes the ultimate account of his entire four or eight or one-and-a-half years in the White House, the definitive chronicle will be You Can’t Spell America Without Me: The Really Tremendous Inside Story of My Fantastic First Year As President (A So-Called Parody),” according to the blurb for Alec Baldwin and Kurt Andersen’s book. — Joe

Weekend reading: The Green Amendment

From the blurb for Maya van Rossum’s The Green Amendment: Securing Our Right to A Healthy Environment (Disruption Books, Nov. 14, 2017):

For decades, activists have relied on federal and state legislation to fight for a cleaner environment. And for decades, they’ve been fighting a losing battle. The sad truth is, our laws are designed to accommodate pollution rather than prevent it. It’s no wonder people feel powerless when it comes to preserving the quality of their water, air, public parks, and special natural spaces.

But there is a solution, argues veteran environmentalist Maya K. van Rossum: bypass the laws and turn to the ultimate authority—our state and federal constitutions.

In 2013, van Rossum and her team won a watershed legal victory that not only protected Pennsylvania communities from ruthless frackers but affirmed the constitutional right of people in the state to a clean and healthy environment. Following this victory, van Rossum inaugurated the Green Amendment movement, dedicated to empowering every American community to mobilize for constitutional change.

Now, with The Green Amendment, van Rossum lays out an inspiring new agenda for environmental advocacy, one that will finally empower people, level the playing field, and provide real hope for communities everywhere. Readers will discover:

• how legislative environmentalism has failed communities across America,
• the transformational difference environmental constitutionalism can make,
• the economic imperative of environmental constitutionalism, and
• how to take action in their communities.

— Joe

 

Weekend reading: Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win

From the blurb for Luke Harding’s Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win (Vintage, Nov. 16, 2017):

December 2016. Luke Harding, the Guardian reporter and former Moscow bureau chief, quietly meets former MI6 officer Christopher Steele in a London pup to discuss President-elect Donald Trump’s Russia connections. A month later, Steele’s now-famous dossier sparks what may be the biggest scandal of the modern era. The names of the Americans involved are well-known—Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page—but here Harding also shines a light on powerful Russian figures like Aras Agalarov, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Sergey Kislyak, whose motivations and instructions may have been coming from the highest echelons of the Kremlin.

Drawing on new material and his expert understanding of Moscow and its players, Harding takes the reader through every bizarre and disquieting detail of the “Trump-Russia” story—an event so huge it involves international espionage, off-shore banks, sketchy real estate deals, the Miss Universe pageant, mobsters, money laundering, poisoned dissidents, computer hacking, and the most shocking election in American history.

— Joe

Weekend reading: Brazile’s Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House

From the blurb for Donna Brazile’s Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House (Hachette Books, Nov. 7, 2017):

In the fallout of the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee–and as chaos threatened to consume the party’s convention–Democrats turned to a familiar figure to right the ship: Donna Brazile. Known to millions from her frequent TV appearances, she was no stranger to high stakes and dirty opponents, and the longtime Democratic strategist had a reputation in Washington as a one-stop shop for fixing sticky problems.

What Brazile found at the DNC was unlike anything she had experienced before–and much worse than is commonly known. The party was beset by infighting, scandal, and hubris, while reeling from a brazen and wholly unprecedented attempt by a foreign power to influence the presidential election. Plus, its candidate, Hillary Clinton, faced an opponent who broke every rule in the political playbook.

Packed with never-before-reported revelations about what went down in 2016, Hacks is equal parts campaign thriller, memoir, and roadmap for the future. With Democrats now in the wilderness after this historic defeat, Hacks argues that staying silent about what went wrong helps no one. Only by laying bare the missteps, miscalculations, and crimes of 2016, Brazile contends, will Americans be able to salvage their democracy.

Interesting. — Joe

Just released, Sunstein’s Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide

From the blurb for Harvard Law prof Cass Sunstein’s Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide (Harvard UP, Oct. 30, 2017):

Cass R. Sunstein provides a succinct citizen’s guide to an essential tool of self-government. He illuminates the constitutional design behind impeachment and emphasizes the people’s role in holding presidents accountable. Despite intense interest in the subject, impeachment is widely misunderstood. Sunstein identifies and corrects a number of misconceptions. For example, he shows that the Constitution, not the House of Representatives, establishes grounds for impeachment, and that the president can be impeached for abuses of power that do not violate the law. Even neglect of duty counts among the “high crimes and misdemeanors” delineated in the republic’s foundational document. Sunstein describes how impeachment helps make sense of our constitutional order, particularly the framers’ controversial decision to install an empowered executive in a nation deeply fearful of kings.

With an eye toward the past and the future, Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide considers a host of actual and imaginable arguments for a president’s removal, explaining why some cases are easy and others hard, why some arguments for impeachment have been judicious and others not. In direct and approachable terms, it dispels the fog surrounding impeachment so that Americans of all political convictions may use their ultimate civic authority wisely.

— Joe

Weekend Reading: “Little Katy’s” campaign memoir, Unbelievable

From the blurb for NBC reporter Katy Tur’s Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History (Dey Street Books, Sept. 12, 2017):

Called “disgraceful,” “third-rate,” and “not nice” by Donald Trump, NBC News correspondent Katy Tur reported on—and took flak from—the most captivating and volatile presidential candidate in American history.

Katy Tur lived out of a suitcase for a year and a half, following Trump around the country, powered by packets of peanut butter and kept clean with dry shampoo. She visited forty states with the candidate, made more than 3,800 live television reports, and tried to endure a gazillion loops of Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer”—a Trump rally playlist staple.

From day 1 to day 500, Tur documented Trump’s inconsistencies, fact-checked his falsities, and called him out on his lies. In return, Trump repeatedly singled Tur out. He tried to charm her, intimidate her, and shame her. At one point, he got a crowd so riled up against Tur, Secret Service agents had to walk her to her car.

None of it worked. Facts are stubborn. So was Tur. She was part of the first women-led politics team in the history of network news. The Boys on the Bus became the Girls on the Plane. But the circus remained. Through all the long nights, wild scoops, naked chauvinism, dodgy staffers, and fevered debates, no one had a better view than Tur.

Unbelievable is her darkly comic, fascinatingly bizarre, and often scary story of how America sent a former reality show host to the White House. It’s also the story of what it was like for Tur to be there as it happened, inside a no-rules world where reporters were spat on, demeaned, and discredited. Tur was a foreign correspondent who came home to her most foreign story of all. Unbelievable is a must-read for anyone who still wakes up and wonders, Is this real life?

— Joe

Sixth Circuit holds against University of Cincinnati in Title IX case

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of John Doe v. University of Cincinnati (16-4693) today.  The case concerns whether a preliminary injunction against a penalty of suspension imposed in a Title IX case should be upheld.  The Court agreed with Doe that his due process rights were violated as he had no way to cross examine the accuser in his case.  The Court notes that educational institutions are not in the judicial business, meaning that their hearings do not have to model trials and their rules of procedure.  Nonetheless, they have to provide a level of due process to the accused.  The fact that the University failed “to provide any form of confrontation of the accuser made the proceeding against John Doe fundamentally unfair.”

The process the University subscribes to in its administrative hearings for Title IX violations allows for accuser and accused to submit written questions which the administrative committee would review and ask each of the parties.  This did not happen in this hearing because the accuser, Jane Roe, did not attend the hearing.  University rules did not, in fact, require any of the parties to attend.  The panel made its decision on the basis of the written statements each party submitted, the Title IX Officer’s report, and statements Doe made in his defense at the hearing.  They decided to impose a two year suspension that was later reduced to one year on administrative appeal.

Doe took his case to the District Court which found in his favor.  The University could only decide based on the submissions from each party, basically one’s word against another.  The Court stated that cross examination was “essential” to due process in these circumstances.  The District Court also noted that the University’s code allowed for notarized statements from the accuser.  Roe’s statements were not notarized and the Court said that this significant departure from the institution’s own procedures could also amount to a violation of due process.

The University appealed to the Sixth Circuit which agreed with the District Court and upheld the preliminary injunction against suspension.  The Court largely agreed with the District Court’s reasoning.  The Court of Appeals set out the required process:

While the exact outlines of process may vary, universities must “at least” provide notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against the student, and an opportunity to present his side of the story before an unbiased decision maker. Id. (citing Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Sch., 655 F.3d 556, 565–66 (6th Cir. 2011)).

Both parties agreed that Doe’s property interest (not being suspended) is significant.  The Court said that the right to cross examine in one form or another is required by due process in the most serious of cases and the accusation of sexual misconduct is one of these cases.

Given the parties’ competing claims, and the lack of corroborative evidence to support or refute Roe’s allegations, the present case left the ARC panel with “a choice between believing an accuser and an accused.” Flaim, 418 F.3d at 641. Yet, the panel resolved this “problem of credibility” without assessing Roe’s credibility. Id. (citation omitted). In fact, it decided plaintiff’s fate without seeing or hearing from Roe at all. That is disturbing and, in this case, a denial of due process.

The Court held that the cross examination need not take the form of direct confrontation.  The question and answer format identified in the University Rules would work as would other variations such as appearances via Skype.  At the very least, the accuser will have to participate somewhat more actively in the hearing.

I wrote a book review recently of Laura Kipnis’ book, Unwanted Advances:  Sexual Paranoia Come to Campus, which is about this very issue.  Professor Kipnis highlighted some of the more egregious violations of due process in the book’s stories.  It’s well worth reading in light of this decision.

Mark

Weekend reading: The End of White Christian America

After a long life spanning nearly two hundred and forty years, White Christian America — a prominent cultural force in the nation’s history — has died. … Although examiners have not been able to pinpoint the exact time of death, the best evidence suggests that WCA finally succumbed in the latter half of the first decade of the twenty-first century. The cause of death was determined to be a combination of environmental and internal factors — complications stemming from major demographic changes in the country, along with religious disaffiliation as many of its younger began to doubt WCA’s continued relevance in a shifting cultural environment. … WCA is survived by two principal branches of descendants: a mainline Protestant family residing primarily in the Northeast and upper Midwest and an evangelical Protestant family living mostly in the South. — Robert P. Jones, The End of White Christian America, 1-3 (2016).

“Quite possibly the most illuminating text for this election year is how Sam Tanenhaus for The New York Times Book Review characterized Robert P. Jones’ The End of White Christian America (Simon & Schuster, 2016). From the blurb:

Drawing on more than four decades of polling data, The End of White Christian America explains and analyzes the waning vitality of WCA. Robert P. Jones argues that the visceral nature of today’s most heated issues—the vociferous arguments around same-sex marriage and religious and sexual liberty, the rise of the Tea Party following the election of our first black president, and stark disagreements between black and white Americans over the fairness of the criminal justice system—can only be understood against the backdrop of white Christians’ anxieties as America’s racial and religious topography shifts around them.

Beyond 2016, the descendants of WCA will lack the political power they once had to set the terms of the nation’s debate over values and morals and to determine election outcomes. Looking ahead, Jones forecasts the ways that they might adjust to find their place in the new America—and the consequences for us all if they don’t.

Highly recommended. — Joe

Is BOOC (Book as Open Online Content) the path toward the academic book of the future?

From the introduction to this very interesting development:

BOOC is not the answer to the question, ‘What will the academic book of the future be?’ – and it doesn’t claim to be. It is, however, the tangible result of a great deal of consultation, discussion, innovation, and perseverance. It represents some of the issues – contentious, complicated, deep-rooted, emerging, and provocative – that confront everyone who engages with academic publication. It will, hopefully, help deliver some practice-based answers to these issues, and in doing so, move the debates on. In Geoffrey Crossick’s report on Monographs and Open Access (HEFCE, 2015), he talks about the more ambitious ways open access allows authors and reviewers to interact. He talks about an ‘open-ended “living” document’, which is where BOOC takes its inspiration from. BOOC is a community ‘book’: a space where different approaches, different sorts of research, and different perspectives can be presented, read, and analysed together.

H/T to Gary Price’s Infodocket post. — Joe

Pubishers win antitrust appeal against small vendor

Here’s a little postscript to the Apple e-book antitrust case.  A failed e-book retailer BooksOnBoard (BOB) sued the publishers in 2014 for antitrust violations, essentially blaming conduct by the five Apple defendant publishers for its failure.  BOB purchased e-book inventory from a third-party wholesaler and sold books at a discount via its web site.

BOB claimed that the agency model pricing scheme destroyed its ability to compete in the e-book market, among other injuries.  The publishers presented evidence contradicting BOB’s claims.  The move to agency model pricing actually increased revenues for BOB.  The District Court opinion also mentioned factors such as the inability to link product to dedicated e-readers such as the Kindle or Nook and questionable management practices.

The District Court opinion from 2016 is available here.   The Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion which largely adopted the District Court’s reasoning is here.

—Mark

On the clarity of SCOTUS opinions

US Supreme Court Opinions and their Audiences (Cambridge UP, 2017) by Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking and Patrick C. Wohlfarth is the first study specifically to investigate the extent to which US Supreme Court justices alter the clarity of their opinions based on expected reactions from their audiences. The authors examine this dynamic by creating a unique measure of opinion clarity and then testing whether the Court writes clearer opinions when it faces ideologically hostile and ideologically scattered lower federal courts; when it decides cases involving poorly performing federal agencies; when it decides cases involving states with less professionalized legislatures and governors; and when it rules against public opinion. The data shows the Court writes clearer opinions in every one of these contexts, and demonstrates that actors are more likely to comply with clearer Court opinions. For more, the work was reviewed in the April issue of Law and Politics Book Review here. — Joe

ALA’s top ten most challenged books in 2016 includes series written by Bill Cosby

Out of 323 challenges recorded by ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, the “Top Ten Most Challenged Books in 2016” are:

  1. This One Summer written by Mariko Tamaki and illustrated by Jillian Tamaki. Reasons: challenged because it includes LGBT characters, drug use and profanity, and it was considered sexually explicit with mature themes.
  2. Drama written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier. Reasons: challenged because it includes LGBT characters, was deemed sexually explicit, and was considered to have an offensive political viewpoint.
  3. George written by Alex Gino. Reasons: challenged because it includes a transgender child, and the “sexuality was not appropriate at elementary levels.”
  4. I Am Jazz written by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings, and illustrated by Shelagh McNicholas. Reasons: challenged because it portrays a transgender child and because of language, sex education, and offensive viewpoints.
  5. Two Boys Kissing written by David Levithan. Reasons: challenged because its cover has an image of two boys kissing, and it was considered to include sexually explicit LGBT content.
  6. Looking for Alaska written by John Green. Reasons: challenged for a sexually explicit scene that may lead a student to “sexual experimentation.”
  7. Big Hard Sex Criminals written by Matt Fraction and illustrated by Chip Zdarsky. Reason: challenged because it was considered sexually explicit.
  8. Make Something Up: Stories You Can’t Unread written by Chuck Palahniuk. Reasons: challenged for profanity, sexual explicitness, and being “disgusting and all around offensive.”
  9. Little Bill (series) written by Bill Cosby and and illustrated by Varnette P. Honeywood. Reason: challenged because of criminal sexual allegations against the author.
  10. Eleanor & Park written by Rainbow Rowell. Reason: challenged for offensive language.

Source: ALA. — Joe

“Free The Law:” Ravel and Harvard Law Team Up To Do Just That

There is so much to catch up on.  The recent news is that Ravel Law is teaming up with Harvard to scan significant portions of the primary law collection with the ultimate goal of placing the bulk online for use by the public.  The story in the New York Times mentions the fact that the librarians are cutting the books apart so the pages could go through high speed scanners.  The implication here is that there is no turning back for the project. Here is another story from the Harvard Law School News.

The interesting part for me aside from having as much primary law on the web is that this is the first major scanning project announced since the Google Book decision from October 16th.  Most primary law is in the public domain so there shouldn’t be any question about the legality of scanning.  Nonetheless, that decision should comfort the project managers.  I wonder if the decision will be giving impetus to any other large scale digitizing projects.

Mark

It’s Only A Friday Fun If You Like The Result: Google Wins Again at Second Circuit Over The Book Scanning Project

The Second Circuit handed Google another victory in its battle with the Authors Guild, et al., by upholding the District Court’s determination that its book scanning project is fair use.  Here is the Court’s own summary of the decision from the end of the opinion:

In sum, we conclude that: (1) Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use. (2) Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement. Nor, on this record, is Google a contributory infringer.

The Court relied on its decision in the HathiTrust case for declaring that Google’s scans were transformative.  The Court here noted that the libraries did not offer snippet view in local search in comparison to Google.  That wasn’t a problem, however, as Google’s snippets were no substitute for a copy of the book.  At best a research could determine whether the book would be useful in a research project.  That would not be a lost sale necessarily if the researcher rejected using the book in a personal project.

I’m still digesting the opinion and may have more to say about this later.  I’ll refer readers to c copy of the opinion on Google Drive as supplied by the Chronicle of Higher Education.  I’ll also point to a copy linked in a statement of disappointment in the ruling by the Authors Guild.  Note, however, that the Guild links ultimately to copy placed on Google Drive as well (oh the irony).  I would also draw your attention to the fact that the link from the Chronicle allows the reader to download the document.  The version from the Guild does not offer that option.  I’m guessing the Guild is hard-wired in that regard.

Mark

OCLC Prints The Last Catalog Card

It’s the end of an era certainly.  OCLC has produced its last printed catalog card.  We may take online catalogs for granted these days, but someone, somewhere has been using printed cards.  An article in the Columbus Dispatch noted that the last set of printed cards went to Concordia College in Bronxville, NY.  The peak total for cards within a year was 135 million in 1984.  That’s the year personal computers by Apple and IBM started hitting the mainstream.  At the end, some 1.9 billion cards had been produced.  There is a forest somewhere that is sighing a breath of relief.  What to do with the table and drawers that formerly held the carefully organized cards?  We use ours to hold snacks for the library staff.

Mark

Harvard’s MOOC on the Book

Via Press Release:

This fall, our colleagues at HarvardX, a University-wide initiative supporting faculty innovation in teaching, are helping with those connections by bringing to life some of the library’s holdings in the open online course The Book: Histories Across Time and Space.   Harvard librarians have been essential partners in the development of this course, and we hope it will increase awareness about the value of libraries as well as enthuse people about learning more about books and their impact on learning and society.

The Book, developed by HarvardX and available via edX, is an interactive learning experience made up of nine modules that examine the world of books, scrolls, and manuscripts. The course highlights aspects of these materials – from their physical structure and history to the print and handwriting found within their pages – across time and across cultures.

The Book brings learners inside the collections of Harvard’s libraries, providing access to some of the world’s most extraordinary works through the use of digital tools (including a rich image viewer) and perspectives from leading thinkers. A group of distinguished faculty members leads the course, including Jeffrey F. Hamburger (History of Art & Architecture, Faculty of Arts and Sciences), Robert Darnton (History, Faculty of Arts & Sciences and University Librarian emeritus), and Thomas Forrest Kelly(Music, Faculty of Arts and Sciences).

Anyone with an internet connection can take this self-paced course. Sign up for free today, and please share this opportunity with others.

Mark

Study Examines The Shrinking Print Collection in Law Libraries

I get press releases. Oh do I get press releases from publicists on some of the wackiest topics out there.  I’m not going to go into that because there is one that actually relates to something in which I’m interested.  I’ve written about the shrinking print collection before, especially when it relates to primary materials.  I have advocated cancelling reporter subscriptions because there is so many alternative sources for it in subscription and free databases.  Mind you, it should be a thoughtful cancellation considering how well the online alternatives can be a solid substitute.  The same applies to secondary sources where the treatise is available through an electronic subscription via Lexis, Westlaw, or another electronic library package.  I believe we at DePaul are not unique in considering the issues.

Well, back to the press release part.  The Primary Research Group has issued a commercial study on the shrinking print collections.  It’s called Law Library Plans for the Print Materials Collection, ISBN 978-157440-353-4.  Here’s a sample set of stats from the publication:

  • The cumulative 2-year drop in spending on print resources from 2014-2016 by the law firms in the sample is expected to be 22.6%.
  • For small law firm libraries the number of subscriptions to print journals went from 66.67 to 51.67 and then to an anticipated 45 over the three year period, a cumulative 2-year drop of 32%.
  • Primary works accounted for a mean of 35.53% of spending on print legal materials with a median of 30% and a range of 5% to 90%. For law school libraries, print primary materials accounted for 54% of the total print materials budget, a much higher percentage than for law firm libraries 28%, or government law libraries, 32.86%.

The last one is interesting.  We in the academic business try to prepare students for the tools that they can expect to use in practice.  If law firms are buying less print, and I’m assuming a firm in this situation is using an online database, why are academic libraries still buying at a much higher percentage?  But, hey, that’s just me wondering that.

Here is more information about the report:

The study is currently available as a PDF and will be available in book format on September 9, 2015 and can be ordered now. The price for either version is $135.00; site licenses are also available. To view the table of contents, an excerpt, questionnaire and list of participants, view our website at http://www.PrimaryResearch.com or visit the product page for this report at http://www.primaryresearch.com/view_product.php?report_id=561.

The question I’m thinking about now is how to utilize the space that will become available.  I’ll write my thoughts about that later.

Mark

Survey of Primary Materials and Formats

I posted about three weeks ago about the discussion going on at my library concerning the maintenance of the National Reporter System as well as other bibliographic items.  This was in connection with ABA Standards for law school library collection allowing for “reliable access” to primary law through electronic resources.  This got me wondering.  I know that current and ongoing material would be on Lexis and Westlaw and other resources.  The immediate question is how far back does everything go?  I would assume through representations that the databases cover all case law from the beginning.

I wound up checking each information statement for case law in WestlawNext and compared it to everything that is a citable item in Table 1 of the Bluebook.  Westlaw does, in fact, represent that it carries case law for every item listed as a citable reporter in the Bluebook.  I’m in the process of checking Lexis at the moment.  While I can take issue with the way Lexis organizes its case law files, the survey so far indicates that it goes all the way back as well.  Lexis does have some interesting additions in that it seems there are databases for circuit court reports for a select number of states.  I’m still working on that survey.

I’m considering an expansion of the survey to other databases such as Hein Online as well as free resources such as Google’s case law and books and other reliable databases for comparative purposes.  Hein’s historical databases for case law and statutes continue to expand, especially for state published items.   I’m also interested in the formats (text only, PDF, etc.) and the range of coverage for each file type.  This information would likely be useful for cite checkers and reference librarians.  I have the initial WestlawNext chart for coverage by reporter and date.  Feel free to contact me for a copy.  I’ll post my progress as I get through this.  I may ultimately turn this into an article that compares type of material to availability, format, and whether it’s reliably free or in a subscription database.  We’ll see if I have the stamina as this goes forward.

Mark

Copyright Office Issues New Report on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Projects

The U.S. Copyright Office has issued a new report, Orphan Works And Mass Digitization, which identifies legislative proposals and other considerations to create mechanisms that allow for legal use of orphan works and mass digitization.  The report builds on earlier examinations of the issues released in 2006 and 2011.

From the Executive Summary:

While the fundamental aspects of orphan works and mass digitization have remained unchanged since the Office’s prior reviews, a number of important domestic and international developments have affected the legal landscape. In the United States, it is difficult to separate the issue of mass digitization from two lawsuits arising out of the Google Books project, in which authors and book publishers have asserted violations of their exclusive rights and Google and libraries have asserted fair use.4 Recent decisions in these cases have magnified the public debate surrounding the costs and benefits arising from digitization projects more generally, and how best to license, except, or otherwise regulate them under the law.

Meanwhile, a growing number of countries have adopted legislative responses to both orphan works and mass digitization, ranging from calibrated exceptions to government licenses to extended collective licensing. And, private entities have developed innovative new copyright information registries and other resources to more efficiently bring rightsholders together with those seeking to use their works.

These combined developments – all of which will have substantial ramifications for U.S. copyright stakeholders – strongly suggest that it is time to revisit potential solutions in the United States. The goal in doing so is not to interfere with jurisprudence, but rather to ensure that the rules are clear and that all parties are on equal footing. Indeed, with so many equities at stake, the complexity and breadth of the issues make them well suited for legislative action.5 While the Office has addressed these issues together in this Report, we recommend separate solutions.

The Copyright Office was opposed to the Google Book Settlement which was ultimately rejected by the trial court.  The current report (PDF) is available here.  Perhaps Congress will get around to actually making reforms in the copyright laws to account for orphan works and digitization projects.

Mark