I haven’t read the decision yet, so I can’t comment about it yet.  The opinion is here.  The Court’ summary states:

Plaintiff‐appellant authors and authors’ associations appeal a judgment  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Southern District  of  New York (Harold  Baer, Jr., Judge)  granting  summary judgment  to  defendants‐appellees  and  dismissing  claims of copyright infringement. In addition, the court dismissed the claims of  certain plaintiffs‐appellants for lack  of  standing  and dismissed other copyright claims as unripe. We hold, as a threshold matter, that certain plaintiffs‐appellants lack associational standing. We also hold that the doctrine of “fair use” allows defendants‐appellees to create a full‐text searchable database of copyrighted works and to  provide those works in formats accessible to those with disabilities, and that the claims predicated upon the Orphan Works Project are not ripe for adjudication. We vacate so much of the judgment as is based  on the district court’s holding related to the claim of infringement predicated upon defendants-appellees’ preservation of copyrighted works, and we remand for further proceedings on that issue. Affirmed, in part; vacated, in part.

The American Library Association issued a statement on the case:

Today, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in Authors Guild v.HathiTrust, deciding that providing a full text search database and providing access to works for people with print disabilities is fair use. The court also ruled that the Authors Guild lacked standing, and therefore could not assert infringement claims against the HathiTrust. The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), of which the American Library Association (ALA) is a member, filed an amicus brief in support of the HathiTrust.

ALA President Barbara Stripling released the following statement in response to the ruling:

“The Second Circuit today affirmed more than a lower court decision—it affirmed that the fair use of copyrighted material by libraries for the public is essential to copyright law. ALA is pleased that the court recognizes the tremendous value of libraries in securing the massive record of human knowledge on behalf of the general public and in providing lawful access to works for research, educational, and learning purposes, including access for people with disabilities.

“The continued acknowledgement of the importance of fair use to enable learning and support for the development of a well-informed citizenry makes the U.S. copyright law unique and well-functioning.”

This decision affirms that libraries can engage in mass digitization to improve the discovery of works and provide full access to those works to students with print disabilities enrolled at the respective HathiTrust institutions.

The general public can search the database using keywords and locate titles held in 80 member institutions. Full text access to the underlying works is allowed only for students with print disabilities enrolled at the University of Michigan and certified as disabled by a qualified expert. Students with print disabilities are blind or have a handicap that prevents them from reading printed text. Because of the full conversion of the texts to digital format that is accessible, these students can use adaptive technologies, such as text-to-speech, to read.

ALA will continue its defense of fair use in the HathiTrust case, should additional appeals be filed.

I expect that some of the reasoning in this case may affect the Guild’s case against Google.  We’ll see.  — Mark

I understand from emails I received that Westlaw Classic is going away on July 1, 2014.  It was last summer when the folks at Three Geeks and a Law Blog noted that WestlawNext Accounted for 80% of the Westlaw revenues.  The post there predicted Classic would go away at the end of 2014.  That was almost right, but certainly right enough for a prediction.

I remember the WestlawNext introduction tour.  I wasn’t sure about WestlawNext at the time.  The “Google”-ization of the search box was an interesting concept.  I wasn’t keen on it then because the new platform seemed more search oriented than browse and search.  That has changed over time with various interface adjustments.  Gone, for example, is the need to put a prefix before a search to indicate that it was Boolean.  I still use the Classic platform on occasion for some tasks.  There is the familiarity factor at work here.  I won’t necessarily miss Classic when it goes away.  WestlawNext is pretty solid at this point.

Turning to Westlaw’s competitor, Lexis has seemed to go in the opposite direction with the LexisAdvance interface.  I thought it was a good product when it was introduced.  The standard database list was available along with a souped up search box.  That changed essentially into the interface we have now.  I know that Lexis has received its share of withering comments over Advanced.  I certainly have made my thoughts clear to the company.  I could elaborate here but there is no point.  I am aware that Lexis is beta testing a new interface that it says addresses customer concerns.  The last target date I heard for release was sometime this summer.  My attitude is that I would prefer the company to get it right than put out an improvement that still needs significant work.  — Mark

The big news today is the announcement that Comcast is acquiring Time-Warner Cable (TWC) for $45 billion.  Internet activists are aghast at the idea as it has the potential to reduce competition between Internet service providers in markets served by both companies.  A petition is already posted on the White House web site urging the rejection of the merger.  Comcast has stated that it believes the merger will likely be approved, albeit with conditions.  It’s already stated that it would shed some 3,000,000 customers for the combined company to stay under or maintain a 30% market share.

I have a funny feeling that the merger will be approved as well due to the politics surrounding it.  I believe activists are right in that competition will suffer.  How many cable and Internet services exist in any given area?  Usually it’s one or two and in some major metropolitan areas it can be three or four.  The FCC wants to foster competition in cable and Internet services and approving the merger would seem to go against that policy.

About three weeks or so ago, the FCC lost a major case where its net neutrality rules were struck down.  The Court said that the FCC didn’t have the power under its rules to regulate information service providers.  The Court said that the FCC has the power to reclassify Internet providers as telecommunications carriers if it wanted to.  These can be regulated.  FCC chairman has made statements that he will take the Court up on its suggestion.  The problem, of course, is that the reclassification is a time consuming process subject to political pressure.

Regulation would prevent an Internet Service Provider from slowing down or blocking traffic from Internet companies.  A deliberately slow connection for Netflix or Amazon media streams isn’t good for that either company.  Payments from either would solve that problem without regulation.  It’s that kind of business model which is at stake.  Congress is not of one mind when it comes to allowing the FCC to regulate in this area or not.  Lobbyists, start your cash machines.

Let’s harken back several years when Comcast merged with NBC.  The FCC lost a similar case when it tried to prevent Comcast from slowing bit torrent traffic on its network.  The FCC’s leverage at that point was to impose net neutrality-like conditions on Comcast in approving the merger.  I suspect that there will be a similar result in this case.  The FCC, in this scenario, will get Comcast to abide by net neutrality principles in exchange for its takeover of TMC.  It’s a politically expedient outcome that will give the Commission more time to work on its net neutrality strategies.

One can only hope that Google starts building out last-mile fiber connections in more places than Kansas City and Austin to expand competition between carriers.  It takes a huge financial investment to wire up a city and Google is one of the few companies with both the money or interest in taking on the challenge.  – Mark

Yesterday the Washington Post-Volokh Conspirarcy joint venture was officially launched. Eugene Volokh explains this new chapter in his 12 year old blog:

We’re now trying what might be the most ambitious experiment yet: a joint venture with the Washington Post. The Post will host our blog, and pass along its content to Post readers (for instance, by occasionally linking to our stories from the online front page). We will continue to write the blog, and Volokh.com will still take you here.

We will also retain full editorial control over what we write. And this full editorial control will be made easy by the facts that we have (1) day jobs, (2) continued ownership of our trademark and the volokh.com domain, and (3) plenty of happy experience blogging on our own, should the need arise to return to that.

The main difference will be that the blog, like the other Washingtonpost.com material, will be placed behind the Post’s rather permeable paywall. We realize that this may cause some inconvenience for some existing readers — we are sorry about that, and we tried to negotiate around it, but that’s the Post’s current approach.

Joe

From the January 6, 2014 notice sent to academic law library subscribers:

We’re writing to ensure you are aware of a change regarding access to BNA (Bureau of National Affairs) publications available through LexisNexis®.  BNA was acquired by a new publisher and at their request, BNA sources will no longer be available on Lexis Advance® and lexis.com® after December 31, 2013. BNA documents saved to a folder or included in an Alert on Lexis Advance, will no longer be accessible.

We understand the value of this content which is why I’m thrilled to inform you that we’re providing access to Law360 content at no additional charge under your current LexisNexis subscription.  Law360 content will be available within Lexis Advance in late January.  Law360 is a premier current awareness publisher providing legal professionals with non-stop coverage of high-stakes litigation across  35+ practice areas. Faculty and students will benefit from the latest news and developments on topics and cases of interest.

In addition to Law360, Lexis Advance continues to have one of the largest collections of secondary content to meet your research needs including

[Yadda yadda]

And there you have it. Really, this isn’t a surprise, right? — Joe

LexisNexis and Fastcase announced that Collier TopForm & File will now be provided exclusively by Fastcase, and will be known simply as TopForm. From the press release:

The exclusive license will bring together the editorial expertise of LexisNexis, a leading provider of content and technology solutions, and the focused product development of Fastcase, an award winning legal software company. LexisNexis will continue editorial updates to the service through 2017, with Fastcase focusing on product development, especially a Web version of the TopForm software tightly integrated with Fastcase’s legal research service. The combination will produce the most authoritative, powerful bankruptcy software on the market.

Under LexisNexis, TopForm has been a CD-Rom product that only works on PCs. With this exclusive agreement, Fastcase will be taking TopForm to the web, adding new features, and essentially refreshing TopForm with smarter tools and technology. See product details at TopForm™ by Fastcase.

Also from the press release:

“This will offer a valuable benefit for professionals in the bankruptcy community,” said Fastcase President Phil Rosenthal. “Integrating the editorial expertise of LexisNexis and one of the industry’s best filing and form systems with Fastcase’s technology and online database will provide every TopForm subscriber with more access and helpful tools than ever before.”

— Joe

And here’s the list.

Opinions for the Court

• Frank H. Easterbrook, Silverman v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 2013 WL 4082893 (7th Cir. 2013)

• Susan Illston, In re National Security Letter, 930 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

• Brett Kavanaugh, Vann v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 701 F.3d 927 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

• Raymond Kethledge, Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 731 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2013)

Concurrences, Dissents, Etc.

• Rosemary Barkett, U.S. v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012)

• Elena Kagan, American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013)

• Mark S. Massa, Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Finance Authority, 992 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. 2013)

• Milan D. Smith, Jr., Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 709 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013)

Books

• Randall Kennedy, For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law (Pantheon Books 2013)

• Margaret Klaw, Keeping It Civil: The Case of the Pre-nup and the Porsche & Other True Accounts from the Files of a Family Lawyer (Algonquin Books 2013)

• Kenneth W. Mack, Representing the Race: The Creation of the Civil Rights Lawyer (Harvard University Press 2012)

Long Articles

• Vanessa Banni-Viñas, Correcting a Ballerina’s Story: The Truth Behind Makletzova v. Diaghileff, 53 American Journal of Legal History 353 (2013)

• John H. Langbein, The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States, 122 Yale Law Journal 522 (2012)

• Diane P. Wood, When to Hold, When to Fold, and When to Reshuffle: The Art of Decisionmaking on a Multi-Member Court, 100 California Law Review 1445 (2012)

News and Editorial

• Jess Bravin, In Mississippi, a Gray Area Between Black and White, Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2013 (updated March 28)

• Jack Chin, Getting Law Review Fans Out of the Closet: Liptak on Jacobs and Waxman, PrawfsBlawg, prawfsblawg.blogs.com, October 21, 2013

• Brandi Grissom, Trouble in Mind: How Should Criminals Who Are Mentally Ill Be Punished?, Texas Monthly, March 2013

Miscellany

• Stephen B. Kaplitt, Letter to Richard D. Trenk (June 17, 2013)

• David Keating, Letter to Senator Richard J. Durbin, Center for Competitive Politics (September 16, 2013)

• John G. Roberts, Jr., 2012 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Supreme Court of the United States, Public Information Office (December 31, 2012)

• Stephen E. Sachs, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, and Daniel S. Epps, Brief of Professor Stephen E. Sachs as Amicus Curiae, Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, 134 S.Ct. 568 (2013)

— Joe

Congratulations and good luck to this year’s crop of elected officers.

Vice President/President-Elect (July 2014 – July 2015)

  • Keith Ann Stiverson, Director of the Law Library and Senior Lecturer, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Secretary (July 2014 – July 2017)

  • Katherine K. Coolidge, Law Librarian, Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP

Executive Board (July 2014 – July 2017)

  • John W. Adkins, Director of Libraries, San Diego Law Library
  • Donna Nixon, Electronic Resources Librarian & Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This year’s election generated about as much rank-and-file interest as previous years. AALL reported that only 29.96% of dues paying members voted. — Joe

By now most people has heard about Amazon’s plans to delivery 5-pound or less packages to a customer’s doorstep within a half hour of placing an order by way of unmanned drones. (If not, here’s the link to Charlie Rose’s 60 Minutes story). But what does the FAA has to say about it? According to Jacob Gersham’s WSJ Law Blog post, the FAA issued a policy notice back in 2007 but has never issued a formal regulation banning the commercial use of drones. Details at What the Law Says About Amazon’s ‘Prime Air’ Drones.

After getting over the wow factor, the first thought that popped into my head after viewing the 60 Minutes segment was, “oh boy, its going to be year-round hunting season if/when Amazon implements this, hopefully with paintball guns, not shotguns”. — Joe

But it is. Anne Ellis is retiring from Thomson Reuters at the end of this year. Hopefully she will make an appearance at the West Party in San Antonio so we all can give her a toast. But, if not, this one’s for you, Anne. All the best, Joe

A message to our colleagues and customers in the librarian community:

Fifteen years is an extraordinary run in any job. But 15 years with a front-row seat in service to the librarian community, at a time of unprecedented change in the legal market, makes the time Anne Ellis has led the Librarian Relations program for Thomson Reuters even more extraordinary. It is thus with a mixture of gratitude and genuine sadness that I inform you that Anne has decided to retire from Thomson Reuters, effective at the end of the year.

In her time at Thomson Reuters, legal information has truly gone digital, and Facebook friends and Twitter followers have replaced the Rolodex as symbols of one’s influence. But it’s also fair to measure one’s impact on the business by the number of customers and colleagues who would happily claim to be friends and admirers.

And by this measure, Anne is without peer.

Anne joined West Publishing with the charge to build a formal librarian relations program and forge stronger ties to the librarian community. She was the point for formal and informal communications with associations and customers on products, support, and research issues. And Anne was the face of our business with a customer group that expects nothing short of our best, and is uncompromising in holding us accountable. She has hosted countless advisory board meetings, industry roundtables and focus groups. She created and directed symposia and coursework that examined the future of the librarian profession and the profound impact ‘digital’ has had on the profession and our products. She has helped to put out a fire or two, and is a wonderful dinner companion. And through it all, Anne has conducted herself with grace and good humor that we should all aspire to.

Our business, the librarian community and the legal market are vastly different from 15 years ago. But change is inevitable. And Anne’s departure reminds us that we need to continue to focus on building long-term, productive and positive relationships with our most important constituents.

To ensure that we do just that, I am pleased to announce that Anne’s primary customer-facing responsibilities will be assumed by Lori Hedstrom, our National Manager of Librarian Relations. Lori and Anne have long partnered on our most important librarian programs, and I am confident that Lori will continue this important work with excellence and care, and do honor to Anne’s legacy. Please join me in congratulating Lori on her new role.

And as for Anne, I am certain that the next chapter will bring new adventures, and new ports of call. I am also certain that she won’t forget her old friends. Please join me in congratulating Anne on a job well done, and wishing her well in retirement. She has earned it.

All best,

Tom Pfeifer
Global Head of Sales & Customer Experience
Thomson Reuters Legal

Yesterday, LexisNexis L&P announced two new legal eBook developments in the academic sector. The Company has reached an agreement with Follett bookstores that provides a means for students to buy Lexis eBooks in both brick-and-mortar and online store environments. According to the press release, “[S]tudents can pay for a LexisNexis(R) eBook in a Follett-run bookstore and receive a passcode for downloading the book online at the LexisNexis Store or they can buy codes directly online via efollett.com and use them to download related legal eBooks from LexisNexis.”

Second, LN announced the launch of LexisNexis® Digital Library – Professor Review Copies  to enable professor-only access to the core collection of LexisNexis law school textbooks for review. To the best of my knowledge this is the first major law eBook vendor to provide access to its catalog of academic eBooks for law school course adoption. Perhaps not; that depends on how one views the relationship between TR Legal and its spin-off West Academic.

Quoting from yesterday’s press release:

“Today’s law students were born digital and eBooks are simply ‘books’ to them, and that is why our strategy is to meet and exceed their expectations in the media format they want,” said Susan Slisz, vice president at LexisNexis. “Law professors are also embracing eBooks and increasingly need a fast and reliable way to find and review eBook titles for possible inclusion in their class curriculum.”

— Joe

And for how much?

“No other law blog has come close the impact SCOTUSBlog has had. It’s become the news source of record on the Supreme Court for lawyers, for the press, for the public, and even the justices and their clerks.” — Kevin O’Keefe, Real Lawyers Have Blogs

ABAJ’s Debra Cassens Weiss has confirmed that Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog, plans to sell his blog next summer. She reports

Goldstein hopes that he can obtain press credentials to make SCOTUSblog more attractive to potential buyers, according to AP. His current expenses to run the blog, he says, are $500,000 a year.

This could get very interesting. Will BLaw, the current sponsor of SCOTUSblog, be bidding (or will BLaw convert USLW into a clone of SCOTUSblog)? WEXIS? Will the sale price mark the floor or ceiling of similar law-related blogs? — Joe

Here’s the Dear EOS Client letter I believe all EOS licensees received last Friday. — Joe

Dear EOS Client,

Hello! This is Scot Cheatham, CEO of EOS International. I’m writing to you today to announce the acquisition of EOS International by SirsiDynix [ed. note: link]. I am genuinely excited about this event and the benefits it will bring to you, our valued client. I would first like to introduce you to Bill Davison, CEO of SirsiDynix. For those of you who are unfamiliar with SirsiDynix, they have been around for over 30 years, and are the world’s leading provider of Integrated Library Systems. You will undoubtedly get to know Bill and the rest of the SirsiDynix team much better in the coming weeks and months. Bill and I want to be the first to welcome you to the SirsiDynix family!

Below, we have included a section of FAQ’s that will hopefully answer some of your most basic and immediate questions about this acquisition. Please take a few moments to review it. While it probably won’t answer all of your questions, hopefully it will give you a basic understanding of today’s announcement, what it means to you and what you can expect going forward.

The fact that EOS is now backed by SirsiDynix is beneficial to everyone involved. SirsiDynix brings a truly global reach, a world-class infrastructure and the solid financial foundation to take both companies to the next level while providing the vision, the products, and the support you need to succeed. With this acquisition, SirsiDynix is demonstrating its commitment to the library market we serve. Collaboration between SirsiDynix and EOS will allow us to apply significant resources to enhance our flagship product, EOS.Web. It will broaden our sales and marketing capabilities, and will help us to continue to strengthen our client services offering.

This acquisition will bring about the following changes. Effective immediately, Bill Davison will take the reins as CEO of the new, combined organization. However, please know that the senior management team at EOS will continue to see to all of your needs. Additionally, I will remain available in an advisory role to assist Bill throughout this transition.

We know that change can be uncomfortable and we appreciate the importance of keeping you informed as we navigate through this transition. To that end, we want you to know that most things will NOT change, including the following key items:   EOS will continue to do business under the EOS name. You won’t see any changes to the fundamentals of the EOS business.

With only a very few exceptions, you will continue to work with the same people at EOS that you have worked with in the past.

There will be no changes to your fee structure, maintenance and other product pricing.

The products and services EOS has provided you in the past will continue to be offered and enhanced. There are no product end-of-life issues, nor product roadmap changes.

Quite simply, the main thing you can expect from this announcement is business as usual. We genuinely appreciate having you as our client, and now welcome you to SirsiDynix’s larger client family. On behalf of Bill and the rest of the combined executive team, we will work hard to earn your trust, exceed your expectations and make you as big a fan of this acquisition as we are!

Sincerely, Scot Cheatham

Several anticipated questions are answered below:

Who is SirsiDynix?

SirsiDynix is the world’s leading provider of integrated library system software. For over 30 years, SirsiDynix has developed, distributed and maintained the most widely-implemented ILS platforms in history. With customers in all four major segments of the library market—public, academic, K-12 and special—SirsiDynix specializes in delivering robust Library Solution Platforms that are highly customizable, extremely efficient and designed to seamlessly deliver both physical and electronic content.

Why did EOS sell to SD?

Two of our core principles at EOS are We Care and We Love Growth. We are committed to the success of our stakeholders – our staff, partners and most especially, our clients. We are also committed to growth that benefits our stakeholders. With that in mind, we decided that partnering with SD will provide the broad infrastructure, solid financial foundation and significant growth opportunities that will ensure continued success for our world-class products clients.

Will I need to switch platforms?

Clients will not need to switch platforms. EOS will continue to support all of the products it currently supports.

How does this announcement affect the EOS product roadmap?

Our product roadmap will continue as currently planned. Jeff Goodwin, our VP of Product Development, will continue to lead our development team as we implement our extensive product enhancement schedule. One of the benefits of EOS being backed by SD is that new product enhancements and features will be added to our roadmap that will bring significant benefits for EOS clients.

How does it affect EOS support?

EOS product support services and offerings will continue unabated. Jeff Smith, VP of Client Services, will continue to manage our award-winning product support team. All of the services that clients have come to appreciate over the years will be maintained. Our Service Guarantee and 24/7/365 support availability will continue with no changes. You will call the same telephone numbers, use the same email addresses, and reach the same friendly EOS client service staff.

Will there be any changes in sales?

Sal Provenza, VP of Global Sales and Marketing will continue to lead our sales and marketing effort. You will continue to work with your existing sales account manager. All EOS sales proposals and license renewal proposals do not change as a result of this transaction.

Any changes in EOS contact information?

You will call the same telephone numbers, use the same email addresses and EOS will have the same headquarters address.

Will there be any changes in the terms of my contract?

All contract terms will remain the same. In some cases there is an ‘Assignment’ or ‘Change in Control’ provision that requires assignment of the contract. An EOS representative will be in touch with you in case such a provision is in your contract.

How will this announcement affect my library?

Our goal is for this acquisition to have only positive benefits for your library. Business, product development, and operational best practices at SD will be implemented at EOS where practical and beneficial. Collaboration between SD and EOS will help enhance our client services and accelerate product enhancements. Best of all, the same EOS team will be there for you, helping you use our products to “Connect People to Knowledge!”

— in order to begin to address domestic concerns that laws are being implemented in ways beyond what was thought allowable and to rebuild faith with our international partners?

I guess we will have to wait ‘n see. Quoting from OpenGovernment.org’s Oct. 29, 2013 newsletter article, “US to Outline New Commitment​s at the Open Government Partnershi​p Summit”:

Later this week the Obama Administration is scheduled to announce the US’ new round of commitments to make the government more open and accountable during the meeting of the Open Government Partnership in London. Due in part to complications created by the government shutdown, the US will not be unveiling its full action plan (the full plan will be released in early December), but US officials will be presenting an outline of what they consider to be ambitious commitments. The commitments that will be discussed during the meeting are expected to be related to modernizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), spending transparency, and open data.

A recent letter coordinated by OpenTheGovernment.org and signed by 45 organizations that work on a variety of issues urged the President to take advantage of the Summit’s international stage to commit to curbing secret law. As regular readers know, secret interpretations of the law have been at the heart of recent controversies ranging from opinions by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel memo authorizing interrogation techniques that many say equate to torture to opinions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that allowed for massive expansion of the National Security Administration’s surveillance programs. The most recent revelations regarding surveillance have raised serious concerns about what the government is doing in our name and the extent of violations of American’s privacy and civil liberties, and critical questions about whether the US’s programs breach international law. We intend to continue to raise these issues with the Obama Administration, and push for concrete commitments.

The embedded link in the above quote sends one to the press release for the Oct. 21, 2013 open letter. Here’s the list of signatories:

  1. American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
  2. American Civil Liberties Union
  3. American Library Association
  4. American Society of News Editors
  5. Arab American Institute
  6. ARTICLE 19
  7. Bill of Rights Defense Committee
  8. Brechner Center for Freedom of Information
  9. Californians Aware
  10. Center for Democracy and Technology
  11. Center for Effective Government
  12. Center for Media and Democracy
  13. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – CREW
  14. The Constitution Project
  15. Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR
  16. Electronic Frontier Foundation
  17. Electronic Privacy Information Center – EPIC
  18. Essential Information
  19. Federation of American Scientists
  20. First Amendment Foundation
  21. Government Accountability Project – GAP
  22. Human Right Watch
  23. iSolon.org
  24. James Madison Project
  25. Just Foreign Policy
  26. Liberty Coalition
  27. National Coalition Against Censorship
  28. National Freedom of Information Coalition
  29. National Security Archive
  30. No More Guantanamos
  31. OpenTheGovernment.org
  32. PolitiHacks
  33. Project On Government Oversight – POGO
  34. Public Citizen
  35. Public Knowledge
  36. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
  37. Reporters Without Borders
  38. Society of Professional Journalists
  39. Sunlight Foundation
  40. Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University
  41. Understanding Government
  42. Vermont Coalition for Open Government
  43. Vermont Press Association
  44. Washington Civil Rights Council
  45. Win Without War

Yup, AALL is not a signatory. — Joe

Help Us Improve The Bluebook !

The editors of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation are about to embark on the exciting task of making revisions for the forthcoming Twentieth Edition, and we need your help.  We rely on user input to guide our revisions to The Bluebook. This survey is an opportunity for you to share your ideas with us as we update The Bluebook so that we can target our revisions to best serve your needs.

Please take a few minutes to fill out our survey at  www.legalbluebook.com/survey.  Surveys must be received by November 8, 2013, in order to be considered for the Twentieth Edition. Comments and suggestions are also welcome through e-mail to editor@legalbluebook.com.

Bonus Prize:

As an added incentive for the completion of our survey, we will select five participants at random to receive a Kindle Paperwhite e-reader. An additional twenty participants will be randomly selected to receive a free copy of the Twentieth Edition as well as a two-year subscription to The Bluebook Online (www.legalbluebook.com). Winners will be notified by December 8, 2013.

Source: law-lib announcement (republished with permission). — Joe