LibraryLaw Blog

Nolo podcast on Library Law

Nolo podcasts features Library Law at http://www.nolocast.com/?p=120

Section 108 Final Report Released

The final report of the Section 108 Study Group (on which I served, and before which Mary testified) is available at http://www.section108.gov/.  The report examines the exceptions available in copyright law and discusses changes that may be needed in light of digital technologies.

From Red Light to Green Light: Copyright Issues in Digitizing Photographs in Library Collections

California library folks are invited to participate in a free webcast this Thursday at noon.  Others are welcome to view the webcast after it is archived.

From Red Light to Green Light: Copyright Issues in Digitizing Photographs in Library Collections

Libraries are making innovative use of their local treasures. The Library of Congress is sharing a sampling of its rich collection on Flickr, as well continuing to make its own American Memory site a must visit. If your library has been digitizing some of its treasures to put online, stop into this webcast for a concrete, understandable approach to understanding the copyright issues critical to your project.

Spend an hour of prevention watching this webcast, and minimize the chances of lengthy legal battles in the future. This webcast is recommended for all libraries participating in the Local History Digital Resources Program (LHDRP).

Child pornography is NOT free speech

Critical point for all libraries:

Child pornography is NOT protected free speech.  If you see someone looking at child porn in the library, call the police. 

If you see only the website and no patron, you can still report it to the FBI or Cyber Tip Line 800-843-5678

Here's a point where pro-filter and pro-open access folks can agree. 

The Chains of the Constitution and Legal Process in the Library: A Post-Patriot Reauthorization Act Assessment

Posted by Susan:

I just put the final draft of a new paper on SSRN. The paper re-assesses the Patriot Act provisions that affect libraries now that some parts of the Patriot Act have been legislatively revised, judicially interpreted, or audited for compliance. The paper is called The Chains of the Constitution and Legal Process in the Library: A Post-Patriot Reauthorization Act Assessment. If it gets published, I'm going to dedicate the paper to Lee Strickland, whose work was so helpful in drafting the paper, and who was a great friend of libraries.

The "chains of the Constitution" is a concept Thomas Jefferson came up with, as a metaphor for limiting the power of the governing class:

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief
by the chains of the Constitution. 

Here's the abstract of the paper:

Since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, controversy has raged over nearly every provision. The controversy has been particularly intense over provisions that affect the patrons of libraries. This article follows those Patriot Act provisions that affect libraries, and reviews how they have been interpreted, how the Patriot Reauthorization Acts have changed them, and what government audits and court affidavits reveal about the use and misuse of the Patriot Act. The efforts of librarians and others opposed to the Patriot Act have had an effect, both legislatively and judicially, in changing and challenging the Patriot Act. Because libraries are such a potent symbol of democratic openness, the effect of the Patriot Act on libraries has acted in the public mind as a microcosm of the broader problems with the implementation of the Patriot Act. The public's discomfort with the civil liberties implications of the Patriot Act has turned out to be justified, as every agency that has reviewed the implementation of the Patriot Act has concluded that the government has not been able to maintain an appropriate balance between the need to protect civil liberties and the need to prevent terrorist acts. The government's list of domestic terrorist acts that have been prevented or punished is not inspiring: the entire panoply of tools authorized by the Patriot Act has not done much more than stop some home-grown right wing fringe groups and ecoterrorists. In light of the evidence of abuse of civil liberties and the questionable constitutionality of many of the Patriot Act's provisions, this paper suggests that the time for vigorous advocacy has not passed and that further legislative changes need to be made.

The paper is available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105448. That link takes you to the abstract, and if you scroll down, you can find a link to download the paper.

Pulpits and politics in library meeting rooms

New lawsuit against a library in Ohio that allegedly didn't allow a "Politics and the Pulpit" meeting/service in its meeting room. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2:2008cv00223/121378/2/

Report by San Jose Public Library shows filters still don't work well

I attended an inspiring meeting of the San Jose Public Library Commissioners Feb. 13th. I'm frankly tired of the whole filters in libraries issue, as we've thought about this and debated the issues for over a decade. So I was surprised to see how engaged and thoughtful the Commission and library staff were.

A city councilman has proposed that the library filter every terminal. On paper, the proposal makes sense - filter child pornography and obscenity for adults. Add "harmful to minors" filters for children.   

In practice, however, there are no filters that can do this. In fact, I've never seen a filter setting that even tries to distinguish between these three categories.  They all lump the three together in a category such as "sexually explicit" or "pornographic." 

But the bigger problem is that no matter how well intentioned a filter company is, the filters invariably overblock legitimate sites, especially health sites, gay and lesbian sites, etc. These are often the same topics that users are uncomfortable asking librarians for help in finding.  And as Lori Ayre writes, "I think the reason patrons aren't asking to be unblocked is because many of the filters don't let you know that you've been blocked. One of my pet peaves is that they sometimes just display an error (404 - site not found) so the user thinks they entered the URL wrong..."

The Commission recognized the limitations of filters in a government setting (as opposed to family or corporate).  Sarah Houghton-Jan, Digital Futures Manager at the library gave a thorough presentation of her report that shows overblocking and underblocking of sites. See Internet Filtering Software Tests: CyberPatrol, FilterGate & Websense (February 4, 2007). [CORRECTION: February 4, 2008 - mm]  Here is a summary chart of findings - see the report itself for more detailed data:

Average Filter Accuracy (margin of error +/- 5%)

Type of Content Tested	Accuracy Percentage
Content of an Adult Sexual Nature – direct URL access	89%
Content of an Adult Sexual Nature – keyword searches	83%
Content not of an Adult Sexual Nature – direct URL access	88%
Content not of an Adult Sexual Nature – keyword searches	62%
Image Searches	38%
Email Attachments	25%
RSS Feeds	53%
Library Catalog Searches	67%
Library Database Searches	83%

The Commission voted overwhelmingly to keep the open access policy, with recommendations to get more privacy screens. Privacy screens generally block images from passersby. The meeting agenda and supporting documents are here.

The next step is the City Council Rules committee - at a meeting with a date not yet set. The Library is seeking public input. If you can take the time to read the proposal and the library's response, please add your comments online. Be sure to notice in the library's response that in fact there have been very few porn problem incidents in San Jose. The King library keeps a sworn police officer on duty, and has been able to handle inappropriate behavior incidents in ways that do not block legitimate access to the Internet. How many other libraries have a police officer on location!

Interview with Newton Minow on the National Center for Learning Science and Technology Trust Fund

Mary Minow:  Tell us how the idea for the National Center for Learning Science and Technology Trust Fund (formerly known as the Digital Opportuntiy Investment Trust, or DO IT) began.

Newton Minow:  Years ago, several large foundations approached Larry Grossman and me to examine the opportunities presented by the new digital technologies, with the idea of doing good in education. Larry and I spent a year and wrote a book with an idea, called The Digital Promise.

Mary Minow: What is the idea, in a nutshell?

Newton Minow:  The original idea relates back to a concept from over 150 years ago, when the [Morrill] Land Grant College Act was signed by President Lincoln during the Civil War.  It set aside proceeds from federal funds to establish land grant colleges.  We wanted to take part of the money available from public auctions of the airwaves which total over $20 billion, and  put it into education.

Mary Minow:  But the bill doesn’t mention taking funds from the auctions of airwaves.

Newton Minow:  No. Apparently Congress had already spent the money before it was received.

Mary Minow: I didn’t know that.

Newton Minow: We didn’t either. Apparently they use a system called “scoring” which means they’ve already counted that money in their budget.  If you did that in private life, you’d go to jail

Mary Minow: So what’s the source of the money then?

Newton Minow:  It’s the normal federal appropriations process.  This bill sets up the National Center for Learning Science and Technology Trust Fund, with a board to oversee the distribution of funds to not for profits.

Mary Minow: How did you get to this point in the legislation?

Newton Minow:  We had enormous help from librarians, educational institutions and other not for profits who care about how we can use new technology for education in our country.

Mary Minow: What can we do now to support the plan?

Newton Minow: Let your senators know.

Big Money for digitization projects one big step forward

Digital Promise Legislation Passes the House of Representatives

Legislation embracing the Digital Promise proposal to establish the National Center for Learning Science and Technology Trust Fund as a pilot program (originally labeled “DO IT”, the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust) was passed by the House of Representatives by a wide margin on Thursday evening, February 7.

The proposal, which establishes the National Center for Learning Science and Technology (originally called DOIT) as an independent 501(c)(3) corporation within the Department of Education, was placed into H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and passed by the House of Representatives on Feb. 7th! 

The pilot program will have a nine person Board of Directors that will administer a trust fund for precompetitive basic and applied research to help transform education, skills training and lifelong learning for the digital age.  It will assess and research prototypes for innovative digital learning and information technologies; support pilot testing and evaluation, encourage their widespread adoption and use, and introduce digital media education programs for parents, teachers, and children to build technology literacy.  To carry out its activities the Center will award contracts and grants to colleges and universities, museums, libraries, public broadcasting entities and similar nonprofit organizations and public institutions, as well as to for-profit organizations.

Thank yous are in order to Congressmen John Yarmuth of Kentucky, as well as Congressmen Regula, Kennedy, Markey, Pickering, Boucher, Markey, Chandler, Gordon, Eshoo, Sensenbrenner, Lofgren, Lipinski, Courtney, Schakowsky, Shays and many others. 

The House bill will now go to conference with the Senate, where many members have indicated their strong support.

         

For more information or to view the language of the legislation, see www.digitalpromise.org

Super Tuesday VOTE! OBAMA!

If you're in a Super Tuesday state, don't forget to vote. One friend told me he has to work, another said she plans to go skiing.  THIS IS NOT THE TIME to think your vote doesn't count. This time EVERY VOTE COUNTS.  If you want to change this country, if you want to end the war in Iraq, if you want affordable health care, if you want a country that can restore its credibility in the world, then take time off work, ski another day, and make a difference. Vote for Barak Obama. 

If you think you have a reason to not support Obama, read Obama vs. the Phobocracy in today's Washington Post by Michael Chabon before you vote.

See also chart below posted by Declan McCullagh on who's the most tech friendly - from c|net news. Obama trumps Clinton when it comes to privacy and information access.

	Net neutrality	Telecom spying immunity	DMCA fair use reform	Supports Real ID Act	ISP data retention requird	Permanent Net-tax ban
Clinton	Strong yes	No	Ducked question	Maybe	Ducked question	Ducked question
Huckabee	Maybe*	Ducked question	Ducked question	Ducked question	Ducked question	Probably not*
McCain	No	Probably yes	Ducked question	Strong yes	Ducked question	Yes
Obama	Strong yes	No	Probably yes	No	No	Yes
Paul	No	Strong no	Probably yes	Strong no	No	Yes
Romney	Ducked question	Ducked question	Ducked question	Yes*	Ducked question	Yes*

Update: I'm happy to report both my friends voted in the end. One had to get up in time to vote at 6AM and the other skipped her ski trip.  If you're in a state that's still ahead, this is a critical juncture in our political history. Be sure to vote. For Obama.