Freedom of Information Act
Brief Background/Legislative History: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed in 1966 (PL-89-487) and requires the federal government to respond to citizen requests for documents except those in exempt categories. In 1974 Congress imposed deadlines on agencies for filling these requests and allowed judicial review of agency decisions to classify documents. In 1996 FOIA was amended to define ‘record’ as any information kept by a federal agency (required records), including any in electronic format. In 2009 a bill Public Law No. 111-257 was passed on October 5, 2010 to amend FOIA to require Congress to specifically cite the provision used to make a record exempt from FOIA, making certain exemptions to FOIA are narrowly implied. On March 1, 2011, in Federal Communications Commission et al. v. AT&T Inc. et al., the Supreme Court ruled that “Corporations do not have ‘personal privacy’ for the purposes of Exemption 7(C),” which demonstrates the narrow application of exemptions under FOIA.
Current Status: The Faster FOIA Act of 2011, initially presented in the Senate this spring, has passed the Senate twice. In essence the act would set up a panel to review agency backlogs in answering FOIA requests and suggest ways to relieve the backlog. In May the bill made it through the Senate and then the House rolled the bill into the Budget Control Act of 2011, where it expired. Faster FOIA was passed again in August by the Senate. It was received in the House and is on hold as of August 2, 2011.
On March 21, 2011, the Department of Justice put forward a proposed rule change in the Federal Register for 28 CFR Part 16 regarding Freedom of Information Act Regulations. In 16.6(f)(2) the proposed rule change states that officials “will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.” On October 28th Senator Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Holder questioning the Justice Department’s proposed change to FOIA regulations allowing agencies to imply records do not exist if the requested records fit within a legal exclusion under FOIA. On November 3rd the Justice Department announced it would not allow department officials to reply to FOIA requests with the ambiguous phrasing “there exist no records responsive to your FOIA request.” This proposed rule change illustrates the need for attention to the status of FOIA regulations and responses to FOIA requests by government agencies.
Impact on Academic Libraries: FOIA is critical to research and teaching in academic communities. The right of citizens to access government information with a bias toward openness and reasonable, clearly defined exemptions is essential to information seeking in academic communities. FOIA allows researchers an opportunity to access government materials not published but still obtainable that may be important to research or teaching.
Links to Other Information:
· CNN Website, November 3, 2011: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/us/justice-foia-denial/
· Senator Grassley of Iowa, October 28, 2011: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=37603
· Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-03-21/html/2011-6473.htm
· THOMAS: The Library of Congress, Bill Summary and Status: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
· Open Government Plans Audit URL: http://sites.google.com/site/opengovtplans/home/final-updated-rankings/final-rankings-1
· OMB Watch, “Audit Reveals Wide Variation in Agency Plans to Make Government More Open” URL: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10968
· CQ Press, “Freedom of Information, 1995-1996 Legislative Chronology” URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqpac/catn93-0000141422
· CQ Press, “Freedom of Information Act, 1984 Legislative Chronology” URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqpac/catn81-0011176242
· Federal Communications Commission et al. v. At&T Inc. et al. URL: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf
ACRL Position: ACRL supports protection of the Freedom of Information Act and seeks to promote transparency in government.
Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act
Issue: Privacy concerns with library and bookseller records continue due to the reauthorization of Section 215. The Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search library, telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. Specifically Section 215, often called the “library provision,” allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over library records, as long as the FBI states that it is for an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. ALA Office of Government Relations' Lynne Bradley has pointed out Section 215 has “long been the focus of ALA's efforts to seek reforms to the PATRIOT Act because it particularly addresses law enforcement access to any kind of tangible thing or records.”
Legislative History: The USA PATRIOT Act, passed on October 26, 2001, broadly expanded law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers and amended more than 15 different statutes, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search library, telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. Specifically, Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over “any tangible thing” -- including library records -- as long as the FBI states that it is for an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
On March 7, 2006, Congress renewed the USA PATRIOT Act, and President Bush signed the renewal of the legislation. The renewal did not include the major reforms the library community had desired. A sunset of December 31, 2009, was established for Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
On November 6, 2009, the House Judiciary Committee passed by a 16-10 vote H.R. 3845 USA Patriot Amendments Act of 2009, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Representatives Jerrold R. Nadler (D-NY) and Bobby Scott (D-VA). It has been referred to the House Committee on Intelligence. It would restore reader privacy by curbing the use of secret court orders and National Security Letters to obtain library and bookstore records about innocent people. Other key protections in the bill include improved judicial review of investigations, new protections for librarians and others who receive gag orders from the government, and more oversight of how USA PATRIOT Act powers are being used. Among the amendments for Section 215 are the following:
Section 215 Orders
· improves the standard for issuing a Section 215 order by requiring specific and articulable facts to show that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation, other than a threat assessment;
· provides recipients of Section 215 orders with the ability to immediately challenge both the underlying order and any gag order associated with it;
· facilitates compliance with already existing minimization procedures to ensure proper safeguards pertaining to information collected via Section 215 orders; and
· prohibits a request for Section 215 records to a library or bookseller for documentary materials that contain personally identifiable information concerning a patron.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on October 28, 2009, reported out S. 1692, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009, introduced by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senators Benjamin Cardin (D- MD) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE). Although several senators attempted a number of amendments, none of the amendments that would have improved protection of our civil liberties was passed. This bill would substantially weaken the reforms the library community has sought relevant to Section 215 and National Security Letters. On February 24, 2010, without enough time to reach a compromise on the differing bills in the House and Senate, the Senate voted by unanimous consent for an additional one-year extension of the three provisions. On February 25, 2010, following the Senate’s action, the House voted 315-97 for an additional one-year extension. President Obama signed the one-year extension into law (P.L. 111- 141) on February 27, 2010.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (Michigan-R) bill, H.R. 6429 would extend the expiring provisions (orders for tangible things) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 from February 28, 2011 to February 29, 2012. The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) on November 18, 2010, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On March 11, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 (S. 193), to reauthorize three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act -- Section 215, Section 206 (the “roving John Doe wiretap” provision), and Section 6001 (the “Lone Wolf” provision) -- and added important new safeguards for library and bookseller records. These safeguards included provisions such as requiring the federal government prove a terrorist or espionage connection before gaining access to library patron and circulation records. This would have applied to bookseller records as well. For the first time, National Security Letter (NSL) statutes would have been subject to sunset laws. In addition, safeguards would have been imposed on the roving wiretap authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), however, no vote on S. 193 was scheduled.
Current Status: With the existing provisions (206, 215, and 6001) set to expire on May 27, 2011, Congress voted on May 26, 2011, to approve S. 990 which extended the three provisions until June 1, 2015. The bill passed by a Senate vote of 79 - 23 and House vote of 250 – 153. The President signed the measure into law on the same day (Public Law No. 112-14). The extension did not reform the provisions (as suggested in S. 193) in any way.
Impact on Academic Libraries: Section 215 potentially increases government surveillance on college campuses and challenges long-standing library protections for library records, invading library users’ privacy, decrease library users’ confidence in libraries’ assurances of privacy, and prevents libraries from adhering to federal and state privacy laws.
Links to Other Information:
· Public Law No. 112-14 PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ14/pdf/PLAW-112publ14.pdf
· S. 193 To extend the sunset of certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and for other purposes. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s193is/pdf/BILLS-112s193is.pdf
· S. 290 (Placed on Calendar Senate) - USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s290pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s290pcs.pdf
S. 291 (Placed on Calendar Senate) - USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act of 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s291pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s291pcs.pdf
S. 1692 USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s1692rs/pdf/BILLS-111s1692rs.pdf
· H.R. 3845 USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3845rh/pdf/BILLS-111hr3845rh.pdf
· H.R. 6429 To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 29, 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6429ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6429ih.pdf
· DOJ To Implement Provisions of Leahy-Authored Patriot Act Reauthorization Proposal 12/09/2010 http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/
· Attorney General Holder’s Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy [Updated URL] http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/resources/documents/111Documents.cfm
· USA PATRIOT Act (Washington Office) [Updated URL] http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusapatriotact/index.cfm
· Resolution on the Reauthorization of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act (2009 Annual Conference) http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/reference/colresolutions/PDFs/section215.pdf
· Library Associations Statement on the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (PDF) [Updated URL] http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusapatriotact/house-jud-1pgrpsaFINAL%2010%2029%2009.pdf
· USA PATRIOT Issues For Campuses [Updated URL] http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusapatriotact/campusissues.pdf
· CRS Legal Analysis: Libraries and the Patriot Act [Updated URL] http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusapatriotact/CRS215LibrariesAnalysis.pdf
ACRL Position: ACRL supports legislation that will remedy those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act that infringe on the civil liberties of library users. ACRL supports ALA’s position to continue to reform Section 215, the “library provision” of the USA PATRIOT Act.
First Sale/Licensing
Issue: First Sale/Licensing
Brief Background: Built into the 1976 Copyright Act, the right of first sale was designed with the print world in mind. E-book licenses generally trump the right of first sale, which has allowed libraries to lend materials to their communities and to one another via interlibrary loan.
Current Status: Licensing has introduced more restrictions and fewer protections. In March 2011, Harper Collins announced that its books may only be checked out 26 times before the license expires. After those views are exhausted, the e-books will either disappear or the library is required to pay an additional fee. In November 2011, Penguin announced its decision not to allow libraries to lend electronic versions of new titles. Meanwhile, Amazon has begun allowing library lending on Kindles with a license that remains subject to change at anytime.
Impact on Academic Libraries: This issue has both financial and legal implications. Apart from the additional cost implied by licensing restrictions on lending, the licensing agreements that are emerging leave academic libraries with little recourse. Finally, they are restricted in their ability to provide users with the ability to access certain titles through smaller and mobile devices and to meet user demands in this regard.
Links to Other Information:
• A Limit on Lending E-Books: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/a-limit-on-lending-e-books/?scp=1&sq=ebook&st=cse; also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/business/media/15libraries.html?_r=1
• Michael Kelley, March 15, 2011 http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/889672-264/ala_president_criticizes_harpercollins_ebook.html.csp
• Libraries Concerned About E-books: http://cjonline.com/news/local/2011-03-18/libraries-concerned-about-ebooks
• ALA Calls Penguin's Decision to Pull New Library Ebooks an Insult
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/892878-312/ala_calls_penguins_decision_to.html.csp
• ALA Amicus Brief on Vernor v Autodesk: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/vernor_v_autodes/VernorAmicus.pdf
ACRL position: ACRL supports the doctrine of first sale, regardless of format. ACRL also supports the right of libraries to enjoy parallel rights with e-books that they enjoy with print books, and to have that security included in licenses.
Fair Use and Anti-Circumvention
Issue: Fair-use of digital materials/anti-circumvention
Brief Background/Legislative History: According to Section 1201 (a) (1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Librarian of Congress is allowed once every three years to adopt exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions that place technological protections on copyrighted works. However, nearly all requested exceptions have been denied. Additionally, the statute does not permit exemptions for the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools, thus making any approved exceptions impractical.
Current Status: The latest triennial review for adopting exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA Sec. 1201 began in early 2009. In response to requests made by the Library Copyright Alliance (ALA, ACRL, and ARL), the Librarian of Congress in July 2010 issued a decision that broadens the exemption for the creation of film clip compilations for classroom and educational use to all college and university faculty regardless of academic discipline. Now it is legal for college and university faculty in all disciplines to circumvent the Content Scrambling System (CSS) used on DVDs for teaching purposes. Circumvention can also be used to incorporate short portions of new works for the purposes of criticism or commentary. The exemption was expanded to include documentary films and noncommercial videos as well.
Impact on Academic Libraries: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act negatively affects the ability of libraries and educational institutions to make fair use of digital materials. Legitimate anti-circumvention tools are needed to allow fair use access to the complete range of digital resources being paid for by libraries and educational institutions.
Links to Other Information:
• Library Copyright Alliance (ALA, ACRL, and ARL) at URL: http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/
• ALA Washington Office Issues & Advocacy: Copyright: http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/copyright/index.cfm
• ALA Washington Office District Dispatch Blog: http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/?page_id=276
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
• U.S. Copyright Office – Rulemaking on Anti-Circumvention at URL: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
ACRL Position: ACRL supports renewal of the exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to allow fair use access to copyrighted works; ACRL supports exemptions for the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools in order to make such exceptions possible.
“Safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA (e.g. SOPA, PIPA, and the OPEN Act)
Issue: “Safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA
Brief Background: Section 215 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects online service providers from liability for infringing materials located on their servers provided that they quickly remove any infringing materials upon a complaint from a copyright holder.
Current Status: While “notice and take down” is problematic (it can and does result in the removal of non-infringing material) it provides important protections for online service providers including libraries. Both the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act PROTECT IP Act or PIPA) are very similar bills that were introduced in 2011 with the reported intention of protecting online intellectual property. PIPA was introduced in the Senate by Senator Patrick Leahy as S968 on May 12, 2011. SOPA was introduced to the House by Representative Lamar Smith as H3261 on October 26, 2011. These bills are intended to allow the government to block access to “rogue” foreign sites to prevent large scale piracy. Section 210 of SOPA, as example, would expand the definition of “willful” infringement, increasing the activities that could be subject to criminal prosecution.
According to the legislation the Department of Justice and the US Attorney General could create a blacklist of sites to be censored by ISPs, search engines, and advertisers; and would have the authority to shut down entire domains if material in violation of the proposed acts is posted on even a single webpage. SOPA and PIPA also actively encourage internet companies to shut down offending websites. A vote scheduled in the Senate on January 24th was called off by Senator Harry Reid. Similarly, Representative Smith canceled plans to officially draft his version of the bill in February. On December 17, 2011, Senator Ron Wyden introduced S2029, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN Act). The OPEN Act focuses on halting offending websites by shutting off their access to payment and advertising. The OPEN Act was referred to the Committee on Finance.
Even with the events of January 2012 that appear to have put in place significant roadblocks to SOPA and PIPA, neither is completely dead and it is expected they will be revived in some fashion. The OPEN Act is still working its way through the legislative process and ALA is still researching its official position on this particular legislation.
Impact on Academic Libraries:
These bills broaden the definition of willful infringement and could subject libraries to felony charges for streaming media, even if the purpose is non-commercial. This increases the risk for libraries in an already fraught copyright environment. Libraries are currently involved with several copyright lawsuits and tensions between rightsholders and libraries are running high.
Links to Other Information:
- Library Copyright Alliance voices concerns over anti-piracy legislation: http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/892765-264/library_copyright_alliance_voices_concerns.html.csp
- Library Copyright Alliance Voices Concern about SOPA to US House: http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/archives/4216
- Library Copyright Alliance letter to the US House Judiciary Committee: http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-sopa-8nov11.pdf
- The New York Times Website, “Copyrights and Internet Piracy (SOPA and PIPA Legislation)” Updated January 20, 2012: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/copyrights/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=sopa&st=cse
- Distirct Dispatch, “PIPA, SOPA, and OPEN Act Quick Reference Guide” January 10, 2012: http://www.districtdispatch.org/2012/01/pipa-sopa-and-open-act-quick-reference-guide/ and the PDF chart: http://www.districtdispatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ala_sopa_pipa_open1.pdf
- District Dispatch, “ALA applauds Internet blackout in opposition to PIPA, SOPA” January 18, 2012: http://www.districtdispatch.org/2012/01/ala-applauds-internet-blackout-in-opposition-to-pipa-sopa/
- THOMAS: The Library of Congress, Bill Summary and Status:
ACRL position: While ACRL supports Congress’ efforts to reign in piracy on “rogue” foreign websites, ACRL is opposed to any legislation that weakens the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA including SOPA and the Protect IP Act. The OPEN Act and its implications are still under review by ALA for determining the organization’s official position.
Government Information
Brief Background/Legislative History: The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has its roots in the early nineteenth century when the federal government began to take steps to assure the public distribution of selected government documents. The most recent revision to the law concerning the distribution of government documents occurred in 1962 (Title 44, United States Code). As a result of major changes in the distribution of federal government information via the Internet as well as the significant economic hardships faced by many federal depository libraries, the FDLP model, as it currently exists, is rapidly becoming less sustainable. In recent years, a number of federal depository libraries have withdrawn from the FDLP. Regional depository libraries, in particular, are increasingly struggling to maintain sustainability in efforts to provide services and to maintain print and microform legacy collections.
An additional concern focuses on the decision to cut funding for the Statistical Compendia Unit of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. One of the consequences of this decision is the termination of the publication of The Statistical Abstract of the United States after 2012. This is a crucial, particularly relevant resource that’s been used extensively by librarians, researchers, small businesses, and the general public since 1878.
Current Status: The Joint Committee on Printing, a subset of the Senate Committee on Rules and the House Committee on Administration, apparently is not interested in changing the law to allow for the changes needed to make the FDLP more viable or sustainable. In September 2010, the Government Printing Office (GPO) announced that Ithaka, a not-for-profit organization focusing on assisting the academic world to utilize information and networking technologies, would develop recommendations for sustainable models for the FDLP for the 21st century and beyond. The resulting report is noted below under Links to Other Information.
Regional depository libraries and other major depository libraries are seeking alternative measures or options to address the increasingly unsustainable burdens imposed by the current FDLP model. The State Library of Michigan and the University of Minnesota attempted to address the situation by having the University of Minnesota become the regional depository library for both Michigan and Minnesota. The GPO rejected this proposal in September 2011. Also, in 2011, the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) drafted/proposed a Collaborative Federal Depository Library Program in which participating depositories would identify as least one agency/topic/format within their collections as a Center of Excellence by September 1, 2011. As of late 2011, ASERL is seeking support via petition of this proposed program as a result of negative responses from the GPO.
Budget cuts included in the 2012 federal budget have targeted the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Statistical Compendia Unit. Potential consequences include the termination of major reference tools, including The Statistical Abstract of the United States, The Consolidated Federal Funds Report, the County and City Data Book, and other valuable resources. Also under consideration is the termination of the Economic Census.
The American Library Association (ALA) distributed Resolution on Access to and Classification of Government Information to all members of the U.S. Congress and to the White House in March 2011 in recognition of Sunshine Week, a national initiative intended to promote a dialogue on the importance of open government and freedom of information. The Resolution commended President Obama for creating the National Declassification Agency as well as issuing Executive Order 13526 on Classified National Security Information. The Resolution also supports and encourages initiatives to reform the U.S. classification system; urges the President, Congress, federal judicial system, and the executive/legislative agencies to defend the inalienable rights of the press and U.S. citizens to disseminate information on national security issues to the general public and to refrain from actions and initiatives that impair these rights; and affirms the principle that government information available to the general public within the boundaries of U.S. law should be available to libraries and the press without restrictions.
Impact on Academic Libraries: Many of the 1,200+ federal depository libraries are also academic libraries, including 22 regional depositories that are also members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). If the burdens associated with maintaining both print and microform legacy collections becomes too great, it is likely that more depositories will seek to withdraw from the FDLP. Five regional depository libraries have withdrawn from the FDLP in the past three years, leaving forty-seven. Withdrawing from the FDLP is a complex and extended process.
The defunding of the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Statistical Compendia Unit and the resulting termination of major reference tools such as The Statistical Abstract of the United States will have a significant or devastating impact on the ability of librarians, researchers, small businesses, and the general public to locate accurate and convenient statistical data/information. Much of this data/information is neither freely nor easily accessible from alternative resources. As a result, services provided by academic libraries will be significantly affected.
Links to Other Information:
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP):
http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advleg/federallegislation/govinfo/fdlp/index.cfm
Regional Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change: http://www.fdlp.gov/home/repository/doc_view/54-regional-depository-libraries-in-the-21st-century-a-time-for-change
A Strategic Vision for the 21st Century:
http://www.gpo.gov/congressional/pdfs/04strategicplan.pdf
Links to Information on the Michigan / Minnesota proposal:
http://connect.ala.org/node/160211
Collaborative Federal Depository Program (CFDP): ASERL’s Plan for Managing FDLP Collections in the Southeast:
http://www.aserl.org/programs/gov-doc
GPO Report – Regional Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change:
http://wikis.ala.org/godort/index.php/GPO_Report_-_Regional_Libraries_in_the_21st_Century:_A_Time_for_Change
Ithaka Report: Documents for a Digital Democracy: A Model for the Federal Depository Library Program in the 21st Century:
http://ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/documents-for-a-digital-democracy
Register for updates from Ithaka:
http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r
GODORT’s Future of the FDLP Resources:
http://wikis.ala.org/godort/index.php/Main_Page#Future_of_the_FDLP_Resources
ALA Resolution on Access to and Classification of Government Information Distributed to All Members of Congress and to the White House:
http://connect.ala.org/node/133608
ACRL Position: ACRL supports appropriate and necessary revisions to Title 44, U.S. Code, to make the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) more viable, sustainable, and adaptable to current conditions. This will allow participating libraries or institutions to be relieved of excessive burdens in relation to maintaining print and microform legacy collections and to take full advantage of the electronic distribution of federal government information. ACRL supports the Government Printing Office’s implementation and authentication of electronic government information to assure public access. The adoption of appropriate and necessary revisions to Title 44, U.S. Code, will facilitate an effective as well as economic maintenance of government document collections in federal depository libraries, including the best services possible to all library patrons who will be able to obtain needed information efficiently and in a variety of formats.
ACRL supports initiatives such as the Michigan/Minnesota regional depository library proposal and the ASERL Plan as realistic alternatives to the existing FDLP in the face of diminishing budgets and resources for making federal government information available and accessible to the American public. Additionally, ACRL urges the Congressional Appropriations Committees to restore (and, ideally, increase) funding for the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Statistical Compendium Unit so that the American public will be able to access and obtain valuable statistical data/information.
Orphan Works
Issue: “Orphans” are works whose copyright holders cannot be identified or found – and are not made publicly available by libraries for fear that rights holders will come forward, initiate legal action, and demand statutory damages of up to $150,000 a work.
Brief Background/Legislative History: Originally introduced as The Orphan Works Act of 2006 (H.R. 5439) by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) in May 2006, the bill was folded into the Copyright Modernization Act of 2006 (H.R. 6052). Both the Senate and House of the 110th Congress introduced orphan works legislation. It re-emerged in the Senate as the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S. 2913) and in the House of Representatives as the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889). On September 26, 2008, the Senate amended the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S. 2913), sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It was passed and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Although far from perfect, the Senate bill would have helped libraries a little with mass digitization projects, among others, by limiting statutory damages sought if the rights holder of an orphaned work came forward. The House bill died.
Current Status:
No orphan works legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress
and it is unclear whether legislative activity will develop or would be helpful to our community in making orphans available to the public. On May 16, 2011, the Library Copyright Alliance released a statement on copyright reform that mentioned orphan works. On September 12th, 2011 The Authors Guild filed suit against the Hathhiu Trust and some of the member universities in an attempt to halt the Trust’s Orphan Works Project.
Links to Other Information:
• For current full text of H.R. 5889
• For current full text of S. 2913
• Open Congress S. 2913 information
• ALA OGR Copyright: Orphan Works Issues Brief
· Library Copyright Alliance Statement on Copyright Reform (5/16/11).
· University Of Michigan Libraries Copyright Review Managament System.
· University of Michigan Orphan Works Project.
ACRL Position: ACRL would support orphan works legislation that is not unduly burdensome. S. 2913 as passed by the Senate should not represent the starting point for discussion of orphan works legislation, at least with respect to libraries. Instead, orphan works legislation for libraries should begin with a clean slate.
Public Access to Federally Funded Research
Brief Background/Legislative History: On December 26, 2007, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy became mandatory with passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (H.R. 2764). The Federal Research Public Access Act, first introduced in 2006, was reintroduced in the 111th Congress on June 25, 2009, by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX), cosponsors. The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 (S. 1373, FRPAA) aims “to help ensure free, timely online access to the published results of taxpayer funded research produced by 11 U.S. federal agencies and departments.” The Federal Government funds tens of billions of dollars in research annually.
Public access to federally funded research is part of an effort to ensure transparency in government and access to the results of federally funded research. FRPAA requires that federal agencies develop public access policies relating to unclassified research conducted by employees of that agency or from funds administered by that agency. It extends and advances the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, which requires public access to published results of NIH-funded research no later than 12 months after publication via PubMed Central. FRPAA ensures that researchers, employed or funded by a federal agency with an annual research budget exceeding $100 million, who publish a manuscript based on the work done for the funding agency in a peer-reviewed journal must submit the electronic copy of the final manuscript to be made available in a free and stable archive or repository within six months of publication. The FRPAA has been introduced in the House and Senate. On January 12, 2010, ALA and ACRL submitted comments to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President supporting increased public access to research funded by federal science and technology agencies.
Current Status: Legislation related to expanding public access to federally funded research has not yet been introduced during the 112th Congress. Before the 112th Congress, President Obama signed into law the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-358). The law enacted two open access-related initiatives. The law establishes a working group to coordinate federal science agency research and policies related to the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of federally supported unclassified research. The law requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with relevant federal agencies, to develop formal policies for the management and use of federal scientific collections, including policies for the disposal of collections, and to create an online clearinghouse for information on the contents of and access to federal scientific collections. As part of the America COMPETES Act, the OSTP issued a Request for Information (RFI) in November 2011, asking individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for broad public access and long-term stewardship to peer-reviewed scholarly publications that result from federally funded scientific research. The deadline for submissions was January 12, 2012. Submissions can be viewed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/08/public-access-policy-update. The Research Works Act (H.R.3699), designed to roll back the NIH Public Access Policy and block the development of similar policies at other federal agencies, has been introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives. Co-sponsored by Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), it was introduced on December 16, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On January 24, 2012 ACRL joined nine other library organizations and signed a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform opposing HR 3699.
FRPAA has bipartisan support in both chambers and has momentum in Congress and from the wider public; it is endorsed by 120 US university presidents or provosts, 41 Nobel laureates, 16 House co-sponsors from both parties.
Impact on Academic Libraries: Unfortunately, access to research information paid for with tax dollars is limited at most universities and colleges. Academic libraries simply cannot afford ready access to most of the research literature that its faculty and students need. Scholarly journals that traditionally publish federally funded research have high subscription fees and, by devoting funds to them, we are unable acquire other important information resources. Open access to federally funded research, in both the natural and social sciences, from a wide array of federal agencies would substantially improve this situation. Indeed, the growth of PubMed Central as a result of the NIH Public Access Policy has already been of great benefit to the students, faculty, and communities we serve. Local, regional, and national scholarly communication programs will want to track the implementation of this policy in order to inform their response to additional proposed funder mandates.
Links to Other Information:
- FRPAA in the Senate (S. 1373)
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111s1373
- FRPAA in the House (H.R. 5037)
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr5037
ACRL Position: ACRL supports enhanced access to federally funded research through open access publication and open data policies and opposes efforts, like the Research Works Act (HR3699) that restrict such access.
#GeneralNewsandDiscussion