Latest From All Groups

View:   Faces | List | By Group

Discussion Conference call

by Jessica McGilvray (staff) on Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:44 pm
in ALA Legislation Assembly Subcommittee

Our first conference call will be held on October 29th at 4:00pm EST.  The call in information is:

1-888-537-7715

code: 17919438

I look forward to speaking with everyone then!

Jessica

Discussion GSU is out -- initial thoughts and links

by Laura Quilter on Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 09:40 am
in ALA Copyright Subcommittee

GSU decision is out -- I attached the PDF.  

Don't panic!  It's a reversal on fair use, but if you read more deeply, it's actually pretty good.  My notes (written for my library director, on a first quick read, not yet edited) are below.  I am posting them around because, frankly, I'm not going to have time to write up anything more formal for a few days -- still prepping for open access week!  

GSU decision is out -- I attached the PDF.  

Don't panic!  It's a reversal on fair use, but if you read more deeply, it's actually pretty good.  My notes (written for my library director, on a first quick read, not yet edited) are below.  I am posting them around because, frankly, I'm not going to have time to write up anything more formal for a few days -- still prepping for open access week!  

This morning I was also pointed to Nancy Sims' blog post (h/t Kenny Crews); that's here: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/copyrightlibn/2014/10/11th-circuit-gsu-ruling.html

* Also just saw Mike Masnick @ TechDirt; his analysis comports with mine.  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141017/14481728861/appeals-court-ove...

---------------

GSU *looks* to have lost on appeal, because aspects of the fair use holding were reversed, and so the attorney's fees award was reversed.  But if you read a little more deeply, you see that 

   (1) all the big pro-GSU decisions in the fair use analysis that the lower court made were affirmed, actually or in substance; and 
   (2) the ways that the court corrected the district court will not, on balance, do much to harm educators, and in one respect may be very helpful.  
 
First factor ("purpose and character of the use")
  - Like the lower court, the 11th Circuit said ereserves was not transformative. 
  - Like the lower court, the 11th Circuit (majority) said that nonprofit educational use was tilted toward fair use.  This is great, I think.  I'm very very happy about this. 
 
Second factor ("nature of the work") 
  - The Court reversed the lower court on the 2nd factor, saying that the lower court was wrong to presume that nonfictional works tend more towards fair use. But then they said that this factor wasn't very important in this case.  
  - They talked about distinguishing between analysis and data, which I think is an unfortunate direction, but I have trouble seeing how it will make much of a difference in the near term to ereserves/courseware uses -- especially given the emphasis on how unimportant this factor is. 
 
Third factor ("amount and substantiality taken") 
  - The Court said that the lower court was in error in establishing a fixed analysis -- 10% or 1 chapter.  That's great, actually, because that was a troubling part of the lower court's analysis.  Moreover, this was good because the 11th Circuit said the lower court can't just do it arithmetically, but has to actually look at the specific amount, the substantiality, and look at it individually for each use.  The publishers definitely don't want this -- as soon as it gets into the details, and the facts of how works are used in the classroom, it starts to look better for faculty.  And this is something that we can really help faculty with.  
   Needless to say, this sort of arithmetic formula is what's included in the classroom guidelines, which is what the publishers wanted.  So another win for us.  
 
Fourth factor ("effect on the market") 
  - The Court said the lower court got some things wrong here on a technical basis but basically did the analysis right in the end.  In other words, the lower court gave a pass to GSU if there was no available license, and the 11th Circuit said that was the right approach.  
  - There was discussion about the burden of proof here.  The publishers argued that by being forced to show they did or did not have licensing available, that was an unfair burden of proof; the 11th Circuit said it was fine, because the publishers are the only ones with that information, and the overall burden on this factor & fair use defense as a whole is still with the alleged infringer.  (If plaintiff shows they had made licenses available, then defendant has to show why their use wasn't a harm to the market.)  That's what CCC wants, of course, but that's not news to anybody, and doesn't change anybody's behavior.  
  - The court even went out of its way to note that the mere existence of a license, or failure to get a license, doesn't end the inquiry.  I think that's helpful. 
 
The 11th Circuit also found error in the lower court's "mechanical" assessment of the factors, weighting each of them the same, and this was part of the reversible error.  But then they basically ratified the lower court's analysis of 1 and 4; said the court got it wrong on 2 but that is not important; and on 3 said look at each one individually.  That does not help the publishers, who wanted a critique of the entire ereserves / course software program.  The "concurrence" makes this clear when they complain about the majority's decision.  
 
The 11th Circuit also found that the lower court's consideration of various extra factors was wrong -- but only because those extra factors could have fit into the four factor analysis.  
 
The 11th Circuit did not reverse the holding that the proper calculation here was the entire work including index, table of contents, etc., rather than individual chapters of the work.  For procedural reasons, sure, but a win is a win.  
 
The majority also spurned both the classroom guidelines and the coursepack cases as NOT decisive (and noted that the coursepack cases aren't binding in the 11th Circuit, which was a nice reminder), which is huge.  Again, not what the publishers wanted, and the concurring opinion (which reads more like a dissent) was not happy about this.  The Court also went out of its way to note that if the classroom guidelines were applicable, the numerical limits establish floors not ceilings.  
 
To me, reading (skimming) the concurrence brought this into focus: The concurrence really read as a dissent.  Why?  Because notwithstanding the form of the opinion (reversed on fair use), on the big decisions, GSU (well, educational uses) won, and the concurrence was not happy about that.  
 
So, I am pretty darn happy.  I really thought this could have gone way south, and it didn't, and in fact the 11th Circuit cleared up a couple of things that I wasn't happy with (the mechanical weighting of the factors, and the objective  10% / 1 chapter rule).  The outcome is a remand to reconsider the evidence in light of the new test.  What does that mean?  
 
If this actually gets back to the lower court, then the lower court will have to make a nod to the nature of the work in her analysis, looking more closely at what each type of work is.  Same with amount taken.  Both of these will necessarily involve closer examination of the way the work was used, because the 11th Circuit made it clear that they want close analysis of each alleged infringement, and of each factor.  
 
This is not what the publishers want.  GSU doesn't either, of course, nobody does, but the publishers brought this suit because they wanted clear decisions that established mandatory licensing, or ratified the classroom guidelines, or defined ereserves / courseware as copyshop cases.   In short, they wanted to kill ereserves / courseware.  They didn't get this, and instead they got a decision that said (1) classroom guidelines & copyshop cases don't control; (2) nonprofit educational use is a win on the first factor even if non-transformative; (3) no we're not going to give you a fixed percentage; and (4) if you don't license it you can't really complain.  They got a chump change win on nature of the work.  At this point, they're litigating over a small number of individual uses, but they can't win what they want to win.  
 
So, I bet this will settle.  The publishers will claim victory, but they've lost, because they lost all their big arguments, and this decision does not kill ereserves or courseware use of content -- or require that all such uses be licensed by CCC -- which is what they wanted.  Instead, it strongly affirms that educational uses are a big plus on the fair use factor.  If there are available licenses for specific content (rarely available for monographs) then that can change things -- but then, we already knew that. 
 
So, like I said, we dodged a bullet.  This could have gone so badly, and in my read, I'm pretty happy.  
 
Laura

 

More...

Discussion Meeting Agenda Item: LITA Patron Privacy Technologies Interest Group

by Jason Griffey on Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:28 pm
in LITA Board of Directors

LITA Board,

Attached you will find the Charge and the Petition for a new IG, the LITA Patron Privacy Technologies Interest Group. As the Petition has the signatures of interest of 1 Chair, 2 co-chairs, and at least 8 LITA members, the next step for instantiation is a vote by the Board.

The officers of the IG have been indicated as:

LITA Board,

Attached you will find the Charge and the Petition for a new IG, the LITA Patron Privacy Technologies Interest Group. As the Petition has the signatures of interest of 1 Chair, 2 co-chairs, and at least 8 LITA members, the next step for instantiation is a vote by the Board.

The officers of the IG have been indicated as:

Co-chair: Galen Charlton, Equinox Software gmcharlt@gmail.com>
Co-chair: Emily Morton-Owens, Seattle Public Library,
emily.morton.owens@gmail.com>
Co-chair: Matt Beckstrom, Lewis & Clark Library, mbeckstrom@lclibrary.org>

I would like to request that said vote take place at the upcoming online Board meeting.

Thank you,

Jason Griffey
Chair, Bylaws Committee

More...

Online Doc Fall 2014 Board Meeting (PLA)

by Julianna Kloeppel (staff) on Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:13 pm
in PLA Board of Directors (Public Library Association)

Public Library Association

Board of Directors Meeting

Public Library Association

Board of Directors Meeting

Location: Judith Krug Room, ALA Headquarters, enter at 40 E. Huron, Chicago, IL

Agenda: Additional items may be added to the agenda prior to the adoption of the agenda. Items also may be moved from the Consent Items to become a discussion item. While not agenda items, policies related to Board service and the PLA Strategic Plan http://www.ala.org/pla/about/strategicplan have been posted to ALAConnect (http://connect.ala.org/node/114854) as reference materials.

Board roster

Please save the documents to your laptop or tablet. We cannot guarantee wifi or electrical outlets in the meeting room. To print the documents double sided, use this combination of all docs pdf: all board documents as of 10-17 It's 2.8MB and 150 pages.

Note: Document 2015.6 Financial Orientation/ Overview is a 36 page pdf

Review committee rosters and charges from this page: http://www.ala.org/pla/about/committees

More...

Online Doc 2014-10 Executive Board Meeting Agenda

by Melody Townley on Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:23 pm
in GLBTRT Executive Board (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Round Table)

2014-10 Executive Board Meeting Agenda

October 22nd, 2014, 4 pm CST

Location: Conference Call

Dial - (605) 475-4700

Enter Access Code - 974507#

 

1. Call to Order

2014-10 Executive Board Meeting Agenda

October 22nd, 2014, 4 pm CST

Location: Conference Call

Dial - (605) 475-4700

Enter Access Code - 974507#

 

1. Call to Order

Action: The meeting will be called to order.

Item Facilitator: Ann Symons

Vote: n/a

 

2. Introductions

Action: Callers present should introduce themselves.

Item Facilitator: Ann Symons

Vote: n/a

 

3. Approval of Agenda

Action: Approve agenda for October 2014 meeting.

Item Facilitator: Ann Symons

Vote: Yes

Background Information: http://connect.ala.org/node/229703

 

4. Approval of Previous Board Meeting Minutes (5 mins)

Action: Approve minutes from September 2014 Executive Board Meeting.

Item Facilitator: Melody Townley

Vote: n/a

Background Information: http://connect.ala.org/node/229102

 

5. Treasurer's Report (5 mins)

Action: Update & Discussion

Item Facilitator: Dale McNeill

Vote: n/a

Supporting Information:  

 

6. Motion to Accept Restricted Gift (10 mins)

Action: Motion to accept a restricted gift for the round table for the purposes of advocacy.

Item Facilitator: Dale McNeill

Vote: Yes 

Supporting Information: This item is for a motion to accept a restricted gift to the GLBTRT operating fund of $500 from  Patricia Glass-Schuman for the purpose of advocacy.
We received this gift in February and Dale reported on it. Dale worked with ALA staff at the time, as restricted gifts are not common to the Round Table. However, he has recently learned from ALA Development that the Board does need to take action to accept any restricted gifts. 

 

7. Annual Conference Schedule (15 mins)

Action: Discussion and “finalize” information for 2015 Annual schedule of events and meetings for preliminary schedule database.

Item Facilitator: Roland Hansen

Vote: No

Supporting Information: Here is what we had in Las Vegas, 2014:

Saturday Exec Bd Mtg, 830am-1130am

Saturday,  Program, 3pm-530pm

Sunday,  Membership Meeting, 1015-1115am

Sunday,  Social, 6-8pm

Monday,  Stonewall Event, 1030am-2pm                  

Just using the index for the Program Book, I didn’t see any time slots for meetings of any committees, so am assuming there aren’t any. The Membership Meeting will have to be moved from Sunday since I don’t  think we should have it on Pride Sunday;  possibly Monday morning, or possibly Saturday 1-2pm right before Program.  We also need to include the RBMS Co-sponsored program, and include the pre-conference.  For each scheduled event/meeting/whatever, the name of the Chair, Job title, and Institutional affiliation is now required.  The Midwinter time choices were really limited, but there is an option to choose OTHER, which allows any times to be entered.  I’m assuming though that these choices may come under some scrutiny at ALA if “odd times” are chosen, like 1015am, which will not be chosen. 

 

8. 45th Anniversary Annual Celebration Brainstorm (15 mins)

Action: Informal Discussion with board, Tom Fortin and Karen Strauss

Item Facilitator: All

Vote: No

Supporting Information: Members will brainstorm and discuss ways to celebrate GLBTRT's 45th anniversary at the 2015 Annual Conference in San Francisco, CA.

 

9. ALA Annual 2015 Social (15 mins)

Action: Information

Item Facilitator: Dale McNeill, Tom Fortin (San Mateo County Library), and Karen Strauss (SFPL)

Vote: n/a

Supporting Information: Dale, Tom, and Karen will discuss the status of the ALA Annual 2015 Social in San Francisco, CA. 

 

10. ALA Design Office Web Mock-Ups

Action: Update & Discussion

Item Facilitator: David Isaak

Vote: Informal

Supporting Information: Dave will ask the Executive Board for feedback on the new GLBTRT custom Connect page designs created by the ALA Design Office. The actual mock-ups can be viewed here: http://connect.ala.org/node/229789

 

11. Announcements

Action: Update & Discussion

Item Facilitator: Any

Vote: n/a

 

12. Adjournment

Action: The meeting will be adjourned.

Item Facilitator: Ann Symons

Vote: n/a

 

More...

Event ACRL Instruction Section, Teaching Methods Committee Virtual Meeting 2014/12/11, 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. MT

by Merinda McLure on Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:21 pm
in ACRL IS Teaching Methods Committee (Instruction Section)

ACRL Instruction Section

Teaching Methods Committee

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, December 11, 2014

11 a.m. - 12 p.m. MT 

AGENDA

I. Welcome and introductions.

II. Additions to the agenda.

III. Announcements.

[TBD]

VI. Adjourn.

 

ACRL Instruction Section

Teaching Methods Committee

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, December 11, 2014

11 a.m. - 12 p.m. MT 

AGENDA

I. Welcome and introductions.

II. Additions to the agenda.

III. Announcements.

[TBD]

VI. Adjourn.

 

If you wish to attend the meeting as a non-member guest, please contact the Chair in advance for details: Merinda McLure merinda.mclure@colostate.edu.

More...

Event ACRL Instruction Section, Teaching Methods Committee Virtual Meeting, 2014/11/20 10 a.m. - 11 a.m MT

by Merinda McLure on Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:18 pm
in ACRL IS Teaching Methods Committee (Instruction Section)

ACRL Instruction Section

Teaching Methods Committee

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, November 20, 2014

10 a.m. - 11 a.m. MT

AGENDA

I. Welcome and introductions.

II. Additions to the agenda.

III. Announcements.

[TBD]

VI. Adjourn.

 

ACRL Instruction Section

Teaching Methods Committee

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, November 20, 2014

10 a.m. - 11 a.m. MT

AGENDA

I. Welcome and introductions.

II. Additions to the agenda.

III. Announcements.

[TBD]

VI. Adjourn.

 

If you wish to attend the meeting as a non-member guest, please contact the Chair in advance for details: Merinda McLure merinda.mclure@colostate.edu.

More...

Pages