The British North America Legislative Database includes characteristics of all the legislation passed by the pre-Confederation assemblies of eastern British North America: Nova Scotia (1758-1867); Cape Breton (1785-1820); Prince Edward Island (1768-1867); New Brunswick (1786-1867); Lower Canada (1792-1838); Upper Canada (1792-1840), the United Canadas (1841-1867); and Newfoundland (1832-1867).
Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes argues that Facebook should indeed be broken up in his NYT opinion piece, It’s Time to Break Up Facebook, May 9, 2019. One snip:
“Facebook has earned the prize of domination. It is worth half a trillion dollars and commands, by my estimate, more than 80 percent of the world’s social networking revenue. It is a powerful monopoly, eclipsing all of its rivals and erasing competition from the social networking category.”
Bob Ambrogi and Jean O’Grady report that Wolters Kluwer’s Cheetah legal research platform will be back online today but some content updates may be delayed and certain advanced features such at “smart charts” and redlining will not be restored immediately. Wolters Kluwer has created a guide outlining the restoration of Cheetah features and content here. This guide will be continuously updated.
On Dewey B Strategic, Jean O’Grady reports that Wolters Kluwer Legal and Regulatory has experienced a serious service interruption since yesterday afternoon arising from malware. They have taken their platforms including Cheetah and RBSource offline. To make matters worse – the malware impacted their ability to communicate with customers. See WK’s statement here.
For LexisNexis, the pressure in on to recapture solo and two-attorney firms. Competition is getting stiff. For example, over the last 9 months alone, Casetext reports that over 3,000 law firms have switched from LexisNexis and Westlaw to Casetext. LN’s response to the competition is to lower its pricing and make pricing more transparent in the small law market defined as solo and two attorney firms.
Go here to view LN’s offer of three plans: (1) a $55/month “state primary” plan; (2) a $115/month “state enhanced with full federal” plan and (3) a $138/month “national primary enhanced”. Due note all three plans require a three-year contract. In additions to the pricing quoted above, there appears to be a $25/month “administrative fee.”
This in not LN’s only campaign targeting “low cost” providers like Fastcase and Casemaker. Remember the 2017 “Low cost can cost you” marketing campaign? So far, I haven’t seen an LN press release about this latest attempt.
H/T Casetext’s post, LexisNexis’ New Pricing for Small Law Firms: How to Save Thousands Apr. 25, 2019.
In CRIV’s semiannual call with BBNA on December 21,2019, the Company reiterated its corporate objective of becoming a digital-only platform stating “Bloomberg Law is unequivocally committed to becoming a digital-only platform, in the near future. There is not a concrete date set for the complete move to digital-only, but it is not remote and the complete move should be expected within the next few years.” Towards this end, Tax Management Portfolios are still being made available in print but only as a short-term accommodation:
“Bloomberg Law’s production and selling of Tax Management Portfolios (TMP) in print TMP is an accommodation exception for Bloomberg Law or Bloomberg Tax online subscribers who also want to continue getting print TMPs. Access to print TMPs were offered as a convenience. Bloomberg Law is committed to continual updates to the TMPs, something only possible in the digital format but understands many subscribers need time migrating users to the digital platform.”
H/T to Bob Ambrogi for calling attention to Trialdex, a comprehensive resource for finding and comparing federal and state jury instructions. Bob observes “the site provides a searchable collection all official or quasi-official federal civil and criminal instructions and annotations, as well as an index of 20,000 legal terms, statutes, CFRs and Supreme Court cases referenced in jury instructions. The index includes every reference in a federal instruction or annotation to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, a U.S. Code statute, a C.F.R. provision, and a federal rule.” Do note that Trialdex does not index state instructions, but provides links to all state instructions that are posted online and uses a Google search integration to enable full-text search of all state instructions.
From the abstract for Matthew Sag, The New Legal Landscape for Text Mining and Machine Learning, Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, Vol 66 (2019):
Individually and collectively, copyrighted works have the potential to generate information that goes far beyond what their individual authors expressed or intended. Various methods of computational and statistical analysis of text — usually referred to as text data mining (“TDM”) or just text mining — can unlock that information. However, because almost every use of TDM involves making copies of the text to be mined, the legality of that copying has become a fraught issue in copyright law in United States and around the world. One of the most fundamental questions for copyright law in the Internet age is whether the protection of the author’s original expression should stand as an obstacle to the generation of insights about that expression. How this question is answered will have a profound influence on the future of research across the sciences and the humanities, and for the development of the next generation of information technology: machine learning and artificial intelligence.
This Article consolidates a theory of copyright law should that I have advanced in a series of articles and amicus briefs over the past decade. It explains why applying copyright’s fundamental principles in the context of new technologies necessarily implies that copying expressive works for non-expressive purposes should not be counted as infringement and must be recognized as fair use. The Article shows how that theory was adopted and applied in the recent high-profile test cases, Authors Guild v. HathiTrust and Authors Guild v. Google, and takes stock of the legal context for TDM research in the United States in the aftermath of those decisions.
The Article makes important contributions to copyright theory, but is also integrates that theory with a practical assessment various interrelated legal issues that text mining researchers and their supporting institutions must confront if they are to realize the full potential of these technologies. These issues range from the enforceability of website terms of service, the effect of laws prohibiting computer hacking and the circumvention of technological protection measures (i.e., encryption and other digital locks), and cross-border copyright issues.
From the abstract for Rebecca Giblin, et al., Available – But not Accessible? Investigating Publisher e-lending Licensing Practices, Forthcoming, Information Research (expected June 2019):
Introduction: We report our mixed-methods investigation of publishers’ licensing practices, which affect the books public libraries can offer for e-lending.
Method: We created unique datasets recording pricing, availability and licence terms for sampled titles offered by e-book aggregators to public libraries across Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and United Kingdom. A third dataset records dates of availability for recent bestsellers. We conducted follow-up interviews with representatives of 5 e-book aggregators.
Analysis: We quantitatively analysed availability, licence terms and price across all aggregators in Australia, snapshotting the competitive playing field in a single jurisdiction. We also compared availability and terms for the same titles from one aggregator across five jurisdictions, and measured how long it took for a sample of recent bestsellers to become available for e-lending. We used data from the aggregator interviews to explain the quantitative findings.
Results: Contrary to aggregator expectations, we found considerable intra-jurisdictional price and licence differences. We also found numerous differences across jurisdictions.
Conclusions: While availability was better than anticipated, licensing practices make it infeasible for libraries to purchase certain kinds of e-book (particularly older titles). Confidentiality requirements make it difficult for libraries to shop (and aggregators to compete) on price and terms.
Harvard’s Library Innovation Lab has launched CAP search, a new interface to search data made available as part of the Caselaw Access Project API. The CAP search’s interface facilitates searching and viewing all official US court cases published in books from 1658 to 2018. The collection includes over six million cases scanned from the Harvard Law Library shelves. Details here.
Margaret Hagan, Jameson Dempsey & Jorge Gabriel Jiménez propose to build a “Legal Data Commons” to harness available data from legal aid organizations, courts, legal technology companies, and others to enable research and development that promotes access to justice. “We believe that a legal data commons -— built with privacy and accountability ‘by design’ — could solve the data issue and advance research and innovation objectives while addressing legitimate confidentiality concerns.” Here’s the first part in their forthcoming three part series of articles on their proposal.
From the abstract for Stefan H. Krieger & Katrina Fischer Kuh, Accessing Law: An Empirical Study Exploring the Influence of Legal Research Medium (Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2014):
The legal profession is presently engaged in an uncontrolled experiment. Attorneys now locate and access legal authorities primarily through electronic means. Although this shift to an electronic research medium radically changes how attorneys discover and encounter law, little empirical work investigates impacts from the shift to an electronic medium.
This Article presents the results of one of the most robust empirical studies conducted to date comparing research processes using print and electronic sources. While the study presented in this Article was modest in scope, the extent and type of the differences that it reveals are notable. Some of the observed differences between print and electronic research processes confirm predictions offered, but never before confirmed, about how the research medium changes the research process. This Article strongly supports calls for the legal profession and legal academy to be more attentive to the implications of the shift to electronic research.
On Politico, Seamus Hughes, deputy director of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, calls out PACER: “I’m here to tell you that PACER—Public Access to Court Electronic Records—is a judicially approved scam. The very name is misleading: Limiting the public’s access by charging hefty fees, it has been a scam since it was launched and, barring significant structural changes, will be a scam forever.” Read The Federal Courts Are Running An Online Scam (Mar. 20, 2019) here.
H/T to beSpacific for calling attention to Gov404: The Sunlight Foundation Web Integrity Project’s Censorship Tracker. Gov404 aggregates and verifies examples of the most significant cases of online information censorship on the federal Web since November 2016. The cases come from reporting by the Web Integrity Project team, the news media, and other accountability organizations.
H/T to Bob Ambrogi for reporting that Fastcase will be adding ABA publications:
Steve Errick, chief operating officer at Fastcase, told me that he is working with the ABA to add publications from different sections one at a time, with family law, health, trial, IP, and criminal law among the first sections in the pipeline. He did not specify the titles to be added but said the arrangement would average 30-60 titles per section.
Subscribers will have access to these titles from directly within the Fastcase 7 platform, but they will be required to purchase the titles to which they want access. Individual titles will be sold at the ABA’s retail price, while firms that purchase multiple or enterprise subscriptions will be eligible for discounts based on number of titles purchased and number of firm users.
Even though individual titles will be priced the same as purchasing them from the ABA, subscribers get two benefits by purchasing them through Fastcase, Errick said. One is ease of access to the titles directly from the platform and the other is the addition within the books of links to cases and regulations.
From the press release:
“The vision for Fastcase is to make it easy for users to connect the legal research workflow dots, from primary law and public records, dockets, expert witness, legal analytics, and legal news,” Errick said. “The collection includes law review articles from HeinOnline, alerts, digests and blogs from LexBlog, and now our fast-growing collection of more than 1,000 market-leading expert treatises. To see it all come together and be able to showcase these fantastic books represents the culmination of 20 years of effort, and we feel like we’re really just getting started,” he added.
From the abstract for Ronen Avraham, Database of State Tort Law Reforms (6.1):
This manuscript of the Database of State Tort Law Reforms (6th) (DSTLR) updates the DSTLR (5th) and contains the most detailed, complete and comprehensive legal dataset of the most prevalent tort reforms in the United States between 1980 and 2018. The DSTLR has been downloaded more than 2700 times and has become the standard tool in empirical research of tort reform. The dataset records state laws in all fifty states and the District of Columbia over the last several decades. For each reform we record the effective date, a short description of the reform, whether or not the jury is allowed to know about the reform, whether the reform was upheld or struck down by the states’ courts, as well as whether it was amended by the state legislator. Scholarship studying the empirical effects of tort reforms relies on various datasets, (tort reforms datasets and other legal compilations). Some of the datasets are created and published independently and some of them are created ad-hoc by the researchers. The usefulness of these datasets frequently suffers from various defects. They are often incompatible and do not accurately record judicial invalidation of laws. Additionally, they frequently lack reforms adopted before 1986, amendments adopted after 1986, court-based reforms, and effective dates of legislation. It is possible that some of the persisting variation across empirical studies about the effects of tort reforms might be due to the variations in legal datasets used by the studies. This dataset builds upon and improves existing data sources. It does so through a careful review of original legislation and case law to determine the exact text and effective dates. The fifth draft corrects errors that were found in the fourth draft, focuses only on the most prevalent reforms, and standardizes the descriptions of the reforms. A link to an Excel file which codes ten reforms found in DSTLR (6th) can be found here.
It is hoped that creating one “canonized” dataset will increase our understanding of tort reform’s impacts on our lives.
State and local bar partners, consumer bankruptcy customers, and AmLaw 250 subscribers have been asking Fastcase for risk solutions that include public records data according to Fastcase President Phil Rosenthal and Fastcase COO Steve Errick. To satisfy the request, Fastcase has partnered with TransUnion. In a nutshell, Fastcase users who sign up with TransUnion to access its TLOxp platform can use TransUnion information to perform due diligence, conduct litigation support, locate witnesses, track ownership of assets, verify identities, and conduct other investigations.
On Wednesday, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, described a sweeping new vision for his platform. “The future of communication,” he wrote, “will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure.” From the 3,200 word blog post:
“This privacy-focused platform will be built around several principles:
Private interactions. People should have simple, intimate places where they have clear control over who can communicate with them and confidence that no one else can access what they share.
Encryption. People’s private communications should be secure. End-to-end encryption prevents anyone — including us — from seeing what people share on our services.
Reducing Permanence. People should be comfortable being themselves, and should not have to worry about what they share coming back to hurt them later. So we won’t keep messages or stories around for longer than necessary to deliver the service or longer than people want them.
Safety. People should expect that we will do everything we can to keep them safe on our services within the limits of what’s possible in an encrypted service.
Interoperability. People should be able to use any of our apps to reach their friends, and they should be able to communicate across networks easily and securely.
Secure data storage. People should expect that we won’t store sensitive data in countries with weak records on human rights like privacy and freedom of expression in order to protect data from being improperly accessed.
Over the next few years, we plan to rebuild more of our services around these ideas.”
The post raised all kinds of questions about Facebook’s business model and strategies, as well as the trade-offs the company could face. And so after the post went live, Zuckerberg spoke with WIRED about his vision. Here’s the interview.
Bridget J. Crawford’s Information for Submitting to Online Law Review Companions (Feb. 2019) “contains information about submitting essays, commentaries, reviews, responses, and other writings to online companions to the main law reviews and journals at selected law schools. The document includes word-count limitations, subject matter specifications, preferred submission methods and other information of possible interest to authors. It covers 20 online companions to main law reviews.”