ARL Policy Notes

A blog of the Association of Research Libraries Influencing Public Policies strategic direction. Unless otherwise noted, posts after January 10, 2014 are written by Krista Cox, Director of Public Policy Initiatives at ARL. Some of the content here will not be written or created by ARL, but rather will be collected from elsewhere on the web. Quotation does NOT imply endorsement! We tweet @ARLPolicy. Check out all of ARL's programs and resources at our homepage.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

USA FREEDOM Act Fails to Advance in Senate

Cross-posted from ARL News

ARL is disappointed that the US Senate failed to advance the USA FREEDOM Act (S. 2685), a bill that would have provided meaningful reform to current National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance practices and protect civil liberties. A November 18, 2014, evening vote on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) cloture motion to proceed with the USA FREEDOM Act fell two votes shy of the necessary 60 votes.

The USA FREEDOM Act, reintroduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in July, would have ended the current practice of bulk collection of phone records and prevented bulk collection of other records under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “library records” or “business records” provision. Additionally, S. 2685 included several reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), such as requiring unclassified summaries of FISC opinions with information necessary to understand the impact on civil liberties and creating a Special Advocate position charged with protecting privacy and civil liberties. Leahy’s bill also included enhanced transparency provisions.

The USA FREEDOM Act had broad support of advocacy groups and technology companies. The bill also gained support from key individuals, including President Obama, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act will expire in June 2015 unless the US Congress votes to reauthorize the provision, and a continued fight over this provision is expected. Last year, revelations about the NSA program, including the breadth and scope of bulk collection of data, raised serious concerns regarding curtailment of civil liberties and the compatibility of these programs with the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Even prior to these disclosures, the library community expressed reservations regarding overly broad national security powers and has repeatedly urged for necessary reforms.

While ARL is disappointed that the US Senate failed to address the serious civil liberties concerns raised by NSA surveillance practices and bring the USA FREEDOM Act to a vote, the Association remains hopeful that meaningful reform can still be achieved as the fight over bulk collection of records continues. ARL is grateful to Chairman Leahy for his leadership on NSA reform and looks forward to continuing to work with his and other offices on these important civil liberty issues in the future.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

LCA Statement for House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on Education and Visually Impaired

Today, November 19, 2014, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet will continue its copyright review with a hearing on "Copyright Issues in Education and for the Visually Impaired." Witnesses for the hearing include Jack Bernard, Associate General Counsel, University of Michigan; Allan Adler, General Counsel, Association of American Publishers; Scott LaBarre, State President, Colorado, National Federation for the Blind; and Roy Kaufman, Managing Director, New Ventures, Copyright Clearance Center.

In advance of the hearing, LCA submitted a statement for the record. The statement discusses the exceptions to the Copyright Act enabling libraries to support educational institutions and concludes that revision of these provisions is unnecessary. It also discusses the Chafee Amendment and fair use doctrine, provisions allowing libraries to provide accessible format copies to the print disabled.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

Senate to Vote on Future of USA FREEDOM Act

Today, November 18, 2014, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a cloture motion by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the USA FREEDOM Act (S.2685), determining whether the Senate will move forward with a vote on this important piece of legislation. The motion needs sixty votes to proceed to the floor. Senator Leahy (D-VT) re-introduced a new version of the USA FREEDOM Act on July 29, 2014, which includes significant improvements over the version passed in the House (H.R. 3361) in May. Leahy's bill, which has bipartisan support, provides for meaningful reform and protects civil liberties.

Leahy's bill would end the current practice of bulk collection of phone records and prevent bulk collection of other records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, also known as the "library records" or "business records" provision. It would also make several reforms to the FISA Court, such as requiring that unclassified summaries of FISC opinions include information necessary to understand the impact on civil liberties and create a Special Advocate position charged with protecting privacy and civil liberties. Leahy's version of the USA FREEDOM Act also includes enhanced transparency provisions.

ARL, along with a broad coalition of advocacy groups, supports this bill and has called for swift passage of this new version, without any dilution or amendment. The White House has now endorsed the bill, as well.

Senator Leahy's USA FREEDOM Act represents a significant step forward in reforming NSA surveillance practices. ARL urges the Senate to move forward on the USA FREEDOM Act and pass the bill in its current form.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

Senate Majority Leader Reid Moves USA FREEDOM Act One Step Closer

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a motion for cloture on the USA FREEDOM Act, bringing the legislation one step closer to passage. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced a revised version of the bill in July 2014 which includes significant improvements over the version passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 3361) on May 22, 2014.

Leahy's version of the USA FREEDOM Act includes more effective language to end bulk collection and protect civil liberties as well as strengthened oversight and transparency provisions. The bill garnered bipartisan sponsorship and has a long list of supporters, including ARL.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

ICYMI: President Obama Supports Net Neutrality, Urges Title II Reclassification

On November 10, 2014, President Obama issued a strong statement in support of net neutrality. In his statement, Obama recommended bright-line rules in certain areas, including rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization and enhanced rules on transparency. He also recommends that the FCC reclassify consumer broadband services as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. You can watch the video and read the statement here.

President Obama's support for net neutrality and recommendations on bright-line rules mirror some of the principles advocated for by ARL and other higher education and library organizations in submissions to the FCC.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

ARL and ALA File Comments Opposing E-Reader Waiver Extension and Disability Tax

On October 27, 2014, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the American Library Association (ALA) filed comments with the FCC opposing the petition for waiver extension by e-reader manufacturers. On January 28, 2014, the FCC granted a one-year waiver of its advanced communication services (ACS) accessibility rules for “basic e-readers” considered to be “single-purpose reading devices that consumers use for accessing text-based works (i.e., reading), not for other purposes such as ACS." The e-reader manufacturers recently filed a petition requesting an extension of this waiver, which essentially creates a tax for disabled persons purchasing basic e-reader devices.

In the filing, ARL and ALA explain how basic e-readers are used, including for “co-primary uses” which allow the user to connect to the Internet and use the device to communicate with others via e-mail and social media services. ARL and ALA oppose the extension of the waiver, noting that denying the e-reader manufacturers’ petition “is consistent with the public interest. Finally, ARL and ALA argue that if a waiver is extended, that the FCC should narrow the scope of the waiver class and limit its duration. The full comments can be found here.

The comments focus on heavily on the public interest, noting:

As discussed above, the Kindles and other basic e-readers are capable of accessing ACS in potentially very convenient and useful ways. Access to these features on these devices, by disabled persons weighs heavily in the public interest. A denial of the waiver extension will increase public access to ACS through the Coalition’s e-readers. By requiring that the Coalition include accessible ACS functionality with the browser, the Commission will be supporting increased access for print-disabled members of the public through universally designed devices available to all consumers

Appallingly, the e-reader manufacturers defend their request for extension by arguing that persons with disabilities can purchase a more expensive device to address accessibility needs. ARL and ALA also point out that this proposal effectively creates a disability tax. Furthermore, not only would the proposal require a disabled person to pay more for a device with accessibility features, but such devices also have drawbacks such as heavier weight and less battery life:

Under the current e-reader ACS regime proposed by the Coalition and tentatively adopted by the Commission, disabled persons must pay a ‘device access tax’. By availing oneself of one of the ‘accessible options’ as suggested by the Coalition, a disabled person would pay at minimum $20 more a device for a Kindle tablet that is heavier and has less battery life than a basic Kindle e-reader. There is also some irony that the Commission’s current waiver rules would suggest that a blind person would need to purchase a device that is marketed for its screen with a high refresh rate, high resolution, and vibrantly colored screen in order to get the proper accessibility. In order to get the features that they do need, the blind will be forced to pay for an array of features from which they cannot benefit. It is completely inappropriate to ‘tax’ those with disabilities who seek information on the same terms at the sighted. By requiring that all of the Coalition’s products include accessible ACS, it opens a market for the print-disabled for the same e-readers at the same price points as for other sectors of the public.

ARL and ALA oppose extension of the waiver, but suggest that if the Commission does extend it, the Commission should amend the current waiver class and ensure that the extension is time-limited. ARL and ALA note that the “the current slate of basic e-readers offered by Coalition members do not fall under even this overly-expansive waiver class, sufficient evidence and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of modif[ication].” The comments suggest that one of the requirements be amended to read “the device is not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications, including any browser, and the device manufacturer does not develop ACS applications for its respective device” so that those e-reader devices that have a co-primary uses, such as to access e-mails, are not exempted. The comments note that with this amendment, “Any truly single purpose non-ACS devices will still fall under the proposed waiver class should the Coalition seek waiver in the future.”

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

UAE Becomes Third Country to Ratify the Marrakesh Treaty

On October 15, 2014, the United Arab Emirates became the third country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Print Disabled. The treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions designed to facilitate access to accessible format works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. It would also permit cross-border sharing of these works.

India and El Salvador ratified the treaty earlier this year. The European Commission recently proposed ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, which needs a total of twenty ratifications for entry into force.

The United States signed the Marrakesh Treaty in October 2013, but has not yet ratified.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

ICYMI: President Obama on IP

President Obama made the following comment on intellectual property during a town hall meeting in Los Angeles on October 9, 2014:

"I think the basic concept is that you want to have sufficient IP, and–whether patents or copyrights–that you are continually encouraging and rewarding innovation and creativity. But you don’t want those structures so tight, in terms of protecting that intellectual property, that that ends up being actually an inhibitor to people getting good information, folks coming up with new uses for existing information." (emphasis added)

[bc-butler]

When can teachers share copyrighted works (or excerpts therefrom) with students without payment or permission?

While other parts of the law come into play in narrow contexts, this is primarily a question about the scope of the doctrine of fair use. Educators have struggled with the dimensions of...

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

European Commission Proposes Ratification of Marrakesh Treaty for the Blind

On October 21, 2014, the European Commission proposed ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The EU signed the treaty in April 2014.

From the press release:

Michel Barnier, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Internal Market and Services, said "The Marrakesh Treaty will simplify the lives of millions of visually impaired people around the world. The EU can help to improve access to books with equal conditions for all and contribute to the fight against the book famine. The Commission’s proposal is a signal that Europe is ready to support the rapid entry into force of this important Treaty. I count on the Council and the European Parliament to authorise the ratification as soon as possible." (emphasis added)

Two countries -- India and El Salvador -- have ratified the treaty which sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions designed to facilitate access to accessible format works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. It would also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible format works, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts in the creation of accessible format works and also facilitate the importation of works in other languages.

The treaty needs eighteen more ratifications to enter into force. The United States signed the Marrakesh Treaty in October 2013; when will it ratify the treaty?

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

In Georgia State University E-Reserves Case, Eleventh Circuit Endorses Flexible Approach to Fair Use

On Friday, October 17, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit released its long-awaited decision in the Georgia State University (GSU) e-reserves case. Some key takeaways from the majority opinion include:

Affirms that fair use is applied on a case-by-case basis;

Rejects bright-line rules, such as using a ten-percent-or-one-chapter rule to allow fair use (a rule that the district court adopted);

Affirms that even if a use is non-transformative, a nonprofit educational purpose can still favor fair use;

Rejects applicability of the coursepack copying cases;

Finds that a publisher’s failure to offer a license will tend to weigh in favor of fair use in terms of the fourth fair use factor; and

Gives weight to a publisher’s incentive to publish, rather than focusing on the author’s incentive to create.

Another positive aspect of the case is the Eleventh Circuit’s discussion of the purpose of copyright, affirming the fact (as has long been held by the Supreme Court) that copyright is not a natural right of the author, but rather, is designed to stimulate creativity and progress for the public good. Nancy Sims has an excellent analysis of the court’s ruling covering what she liked and didn’t like from the opinion.

It is important to note that while the case has been reversed and remanded, the Eleventh Circuit did not rule against GSU. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit directed the district court to revisit its fair use analysis and not to take an arithmetic approach to the four fair use factors (rejecting the notion that if three of the factors favor fair use, but one disfavors fair use, then fair use will always apply).

In fact, most of the publishers’ arguments were actually rejected by the Eleventh Circuit. Kevin Smith has a great summary of five arguments advanced by the publishers that were ultimately rejected by the Eleventh Circuit.

Thus, e-reserves remain alive and well, though the exact policies on fair use for e-reserves at some institutions may need to be revisited in light of this case, particularly those that rely on a checklist. Although the Eleventh Circuit’s methodology is binding only on Alabama, Florida and Georgia, this case is persuasive authority in other jurisdictions.

Here’s what the court had to say on each of the four use factors:

Factor One (the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes): While GSU’s use was non-transformative, the nonprofit educational purpose of the e-reserves favors fair use.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s finding on the first factor, determining that while the use of the Plaintiffs’ works was not transformative, the first factor favored GSU nonetheless. The court noted that the excerpts posted in the e-reserve system were verbatim copies converted into a digital form and were used for the same intrinsic purpose as the works. However, because GSU’s use was for a nonprofit educational purpose rather than a commercial purpose, the first factor favored GSU.

In finding that GSU’s use was for a nonprofit educational purpose, the court noted that the Supreme Court and Congress have favored fair use for educational purposes. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the user was a nonprofit educational institution and that the use of the works was clearly for educational purposes. It discussed the ways that GSU could have profited from the use or “commercially exploited” the work, but concluded that while Defendants could have profited from the use of the works (for example through collection of student tuition and fees) such reasoning is circular because any unlicensed use of a copyrighted work results in profit to the user and thus no use would qualify as nonprofit under the first factor. The Eleventh Circuit noted that GSU’s use of the works “provides a broader public benefit—furthering the education of students at a public university.” In sum, “despite the recent focus on transformativeness under the first factor, use for teaching purposes by a nonprofit, educational institution such as Defendants’ favors a finding of fair use under the first factor, despite the nontransformative nature of the use.”

Factor Two (nature of the copyrighted work): Factual works may include original expressive contents and relay more than bare facts, but this factor is of relatively little importance.

Here, the Eleventh Circuit states that highly creative works are entitled to greater protection, while the use of factual or informational work is more likely to favor fair use. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court’s holding that the second factor favored fair use in every instance because of the factual nature of the works-at-issue and found that the works still included expressive content. The court stated that where the works “surpass[] the bare facts necessary to communicate information, or derives from the author’s experiences or opinions, the District Court should have held that the second factor was neutral, or even weighed against fair use in cases of excerpts that were dominated by such material.” However, the court acknowledges that “the second fair use factor is of relatively little importance in this case,” noting that the works were neither fictional nor unpublished.

Factor Three (amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole): Blanket ten-percent-or-one-chapter rule is not appropriate; bright line rules must be avoided.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court’s formulation favoring fair use under the third factor where GSU copied no more than ten-percent of a work or one chapter in the case of a book with then or more chapters. The court notes, “We must avoid ‘hard evidentiary presumption[s] . . . and ‘eschew[] a rigid bright-line approach to fair use.’” The Eleventh Circuit rejects this formulation even as a starting point in the analysis, finding that “application of the same non-statutory starting point to each instance of infringement is not a feature of a proper work-by-work analysis.”

In its discussion of the third factor, the Eleventh Circuit also rejected the Classroom Guidelines as indicative of what is permitted under fair use. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the Classroom Guidelines “do not carry force of law,” and furthermore, these guidelines “were intended to suggest a minimum, not maximum, amount of allowable educational copying that might be fair use, and were not intended to limit fair use in any way.” Here, the Eleventh Circuit references the coursepack cases, but finds that while they may provide guidance, they are not binding authority (both in terms of jurisdiction and the context).

Factor Four (effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work): Market substitution is the primary concern; failure to offer a license should generally weigh in favor of fair use.

On the fourth factor, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the adverse impact of primary concern is market substitution and “[t]he central question . . . is not whether Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ works caused Plaintiffs to lose some potential revenue. Rather it is whether Defendants’ use—taking into account the damage that might occur if ‘everybody did it’—would cause substantial economic harm such that allowing it would frustrate the purposes of copyright by materially impairing Defendants’ incentive to publish the work.” The Eleventh Circuit’s apparent focus on the incentive to publish is a bit unusual, given that courts are generally focused on an author’s incentive to create rather than a publisher’s incentive to publish. Given the weight the Eleventh Circuit has given to a publisher’s incentive, academics should strongly consider open access publication options.

On the licensing point, the Eleventh Circuit found that “it is not determinative that programs exist through which universities may license excerpts of Plaintiffs’ works. In other words, the fact that Plaintiffs have made paying easier does not automatically dictate a right to payment . . . the ability to license does not demand a finding against fair use.” Furthermore, the court pointed to the lack of an available license as an “inference that the author or publisher did not think that there would be enough such use to bother making a license available” and in such cases, “the fourth factor should generally weigh in favor of fair use.

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the district court should have afforded the fourth factor greater weight due to the nontransformative nature of GSU’s use (as opposed to finding that each factor weighed equally in the district court’s arithmetic approach).

Ultimately, the district court will need to re-do its fair use analysis for each of the works-at-issue, consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. In doing so, however, GSU could still prevail on its fair use claims.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

New WikiLeaks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Intellectual Property Chapter -- Analysis of Copyright Provisions

The United States is currently negotiating a large, regional free trade agreement with eleven other countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. On October 16, 2014, WikiLeaks published a new leak of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’s (TPP) negotiating text for the intellectual property chapter. This text, dated May 16, 2014, contains some substantial changes from last year’s November leak of the text (which revealed the state of negotiations as of August 2013).

The chapter is now shorter and numerous brackets (brackets denote areas of the text which have not yet been agreed to) have been removed. The text also includes some new provisions. Some differences between the copyright provisions from last year’s leak to today’s leak are highlighted below. However, given that the leaked text is from May, further changes may have been made in the last five months and bracketed issues may have been resolved. TPP negotiations will continue in Australia next week where issues may reach further resolution.

Copyright Term

In the prior leak, New Zealand, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Canada and Japan supported a proposal allowing the copyright term of protection to be determined by “each Party’s domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.” The current leak reveals that this proposal has been eliminated.

The new text suggests that the copyright term will be specified in the TPP, though the exact number of years has not yet been agreed to. Bracketed language around the period of years reveals that the three options being discussed are life of the author plus fifty, seventy or one-hundred years. The United States, along with the countries with which the United States already has bilateral trade agreements with—Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore—currently have a period of protection of life plus seventy years. Mexico is the only country that provides for life of the author plus one hundred years. The other countries in the agreement use the international standard of life plus fifty years.

For corporate works that have been published, the bracketed text includes periods of protection of fifty, seventy, seventy-five or ninety-five years.

In addition to these specified periods of years, a new proposal similar to the Berne rule of shorter term appears in the leaked text. This rule would essentially allow parties to limit the term of protection provided to authors of another party to the term provided under that party’s legislation. For example, if the final TPP text required a period of copyright protection of life plus fifty years, the United States would not be required to provide its period of life plus seventy years to authors in New Zealand if New Zealand continued to provide a term of life plus fifty years. The United States currently does not implement the Berne rule of shorter term.

Formalities

Another new provision in the text is a rule against formalities. Article QQ.G.X is unbracketed and therefore appears to be agreed to by the TPP negotiating parties. It reads, “No Party may subject the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms provided for in this Chapter to any formality.”

This language could be problematic if the United States, or other TPP parties, wanted to re-introduce formalities for copyright protections granted that go beyond minimum international standards. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante, for example, proposed the re-introduction of formalities for the last twenty years of copyright protection in the United States. If adopted, such a proposal would violate the TPP and subject the United States to investor-state dispute settlement, under which a corporation could sue the Unites States government for failure to comply with the TPP.

Limitations and Exceptions

Parties to the TPP have agreed to include language on limitations and exceptions, including a provision that has not been included in prior U.S. free trade agreements. This language reads:

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16.1, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to [AU oppose: published] works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print [AU propose: or perceptually] disabled.116 117

116 {In particular,} As recognized by the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (June 27, 2013). 117 For purposes of greater clarity, a use that has commercial aspects may in appropriate circumstances be considered to have a legitimate purpose under Article QQ.G.16.3.

Most of this language had already been agreed to in the November 2013 leak. However, the new leak reveals that parties have now agreed to include facilitating access for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. Additionally, footnote 116 specifically referencing the Marrakesh Treaty is a new addition. While the Marrakesh Treaty has not yet been ratified by any of the TPP countries and has not yet entered into force (the treaty requires twenty ratifications; India and El Salvador are currently the two countries that have ratified it), several of the TPP negotiating parties have signed the treaty including the United States, Australia, Chile, Mexico, and Peru.

Technological Protection Measures

The language on technological protection measures (TPMs) in last year’s leak was heavily bracketed, highlighting the lack of agreement in this area. The United States initially proposed a closed set of limitations and exceptions to allow circumvention of TPMs, with additional limitations and exceptions possible through a three-year rulemaking process modeled off of Section 1201 of the United States Copyright Law.

The new TPP text eliminates the specific limitations and exceptions and three-year rulemaking process. It now allows limitations and exceptions through legislative, regulatory or administrative processes. Additionally, the United States’ proposed “substantial evidence” burden (proposed in conjunction with allowing new limitations and exceptions through the rulemaking process)—a standard not found in the United States Copyright Law—has been eliminated. This new text, with the exception of a few clauses, has been agreed to by the TPP parties.

The text now provides that:

Each Party may provide [MY/MX/PE oppose: certain] exceptions and limitations to the measures implementing subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) in order to enable non-infringing uses where there is an actual or likely adverse impact of those measures on those non-infringing uses, as determined through a legislative, regulatory, or administrative process in accordance with the Party's law, giving due consideration to evidence when presented in that process, including with respect to whether appropriate and effective measures have been taken by rights holders to enable the beneficiaries to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Party's law [in accordance with Article QQ.G.16] [CL propose:, as well as the evidence presented by the beneficiaries with respect to the necessity of the creation of such exception and limitation]

This language is an improvement over the United States’ previous proposal because it would allow for new permanent limitations and exceptions that would allow for circumvention of TPMs—for example, for cell-phone unlocking. However, the language seems to assume that parties need to provide for limitations and exceptions even for non-infringing uses. As noted in a recent Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) statement, one of the flaws of Section 1201 in the United States Copyright Law is that this section could be interpreted to prohibit circumvention of a TPM even for the purpose of engaging in a lawful use of the work.

Additionally, it may be difficult to create a general permanent limitation and exception allowing for circumvention for any non-infringing use, such as was proposed in the Unlocking Technology Act due to the language requiring consideration of an “actual or likely adverse impact” of TPMs and evidence presented, including “whether . . . measures have been taken by rights holders to enable the beneficiaries to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Party’s law.” Requiring such considerations could be interpreted as allowing new permanent or temporary limitations and exceptions, but only on a case-by-case basis rather than by a general rule.

Internet Service Provider Liability

The latest leak of the TPP text also includes several new non-papers attached as addenda. The non-paper on Internet service provider liability is included as Addendum III and heavily bracketed.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

Infographic on Libraries, Academic Freedom and Balanced Copyright

Download the infographic, Libraries are Champions for Academic Freedom and Balanced Copyright, illustrating the benefits of a balanced copyright system and the roles research libraries play in maintaining the balance of copyright and intellectual property.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

El Salvador Ratifies the Marrakesh Treaty

On October 1, 2014, El Salvador became the second country to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, adopted at Marrakesh on June 27, 2013. India was the first country to ratify the treaty on June 24, 2014.

The treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions designed to facilitate access to accessible format works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. It would also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible format works, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts in the creation of accessible format works and also facilitate the importation of works in other languages.

Eighteen more ratifications are needed for the treaty to enter into force. The United States, which has robust limitations and exceptions allowing for the creation and distribution of accessible format works, signed the treaty in October 2013, but the treaty has not yet been sent to the Senate for ratification.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

Watch Jonathan Band Speak on Implications of HathiTrust for Libraries

Watch Jonathan Band speak on what the decision in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust means for libraries.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

LCA Submits Testimony to House Judiciary Subcommittee for Copyright Review Hearing on Technological Protection Measures

On September 17, 2014, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet continued its copyright review with a hearing on Chapter 12 of the Copyright Act, which governs technological protection measures (TPM). The hearing included four witnesses: Mr. Mark Richert, Director of Public Policy, American Foundation for the Blind; Mr. Jonathan Zuck, President, ACT | The App Association; Mr. Christian Genetski, Senior Vice-President and General Counsel, Entertainment Software Association; and Ms. Corynne McSherry; Intellectual Property Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted a statement to the Subcommittee in advance of the hearing.

The LCA testimony points out that overly-broad anti-circumvention language was initially proposed in 1994 and 1995 over objections that these prohibitions could prevent circumvention for lawful purposes. After the 1996 adoption of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), PTO Commissioner Lehman proposed new anti-circumvention language to implement the treaties. Again, the proposals were overly broad, regulating both tools and conduct, regulating circumvention apart from underlying infringement and governing circumvention for both access-control technologies and copy-control technologies rather than only prohibiting copying. Significantly, the WIPO treaties did not require these overly-broad features, as Commissioner Lehman himself conceded when testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee.

Despite the fact that alternative proposals were made to address these overly-broad proposals, “Congress instead created a set of complex exceptions and limitations to the administration’s sweeping language, resulting in the convoluted, inconsistent section 1201 we have today. Some of these limitations are of limited effectiveness.” Additionally, Congress, in recognition that additional exceptions other than those explicitly included in Section 1201 may be desirable, directed the Librarian of Congress to conduct a rulemaking process every three years to determine additional classes of works that should be granted an exemption for the subsequent three-year period. However, as the LCA testimony points out, “A narrower section 1201 limited to circumvention that led to infringement would have obviated the need for the rulemaking procedure altogether.”

Over the years, there have been several efforts to amend section 1201 to address the potential problems resulting from an interpretation of this section as prohibiting circumvention of access controls or the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools, even if they are for non-infringing purposes. These bills have varied from creating additional specific exceptions to requiring a nexus between circumvention and infringement. Most recently, controversy over the Librarian of Congress’ 2012 decision not to renew an exemption for cell phone unlocking that had been granted in previous rulemakings, resulted in renewed efforts to address flaws in Section 1201. Although Representatives Lofgren (D-CA), Massie (R-KY), Eshoo (D-CA) and Polis (D-CO) introduced a broad bill, the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, that would have permitted circumvention for non-infringing uses, ultimately Congress took a narrower approach and adopted a temporary fix specific to the problem of cell phone unlocking.

The LCA testimony also includes a summary of litigation over Section 1201, explaining that currently a circuit split exists as to whether the language of 1201 requires a nexus between infringement and circumvention for liability to attach.

Additionally, the LCA testimony covers the three-year rulemaking process, which LCA members have participated in during each cycle. The testimony points out some of the absurdities of the process as well as the high costs and burdens of participating in the rulemaking cycle. The testimony points out that “From start to finish, the process can take more than a year” and that the inefficient system places burdens on not only the proponents of exemptions, but the Copyright Office, as well.

The testimony concludes with several proposed amendments to Section 1201 including:

Attaching liability to circumvention only if it enables infringement

Placing the burden of proof on those opposing renewal of exemptions to demonstrate why it should not be renewed or should be modified

Making exemptions permanent if a second renewal is granted

Shifting final rulemaking authority from the Librarian of Congress to the Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the Department of Commerce

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

ARL and Eleven Other Library and Higher Education Organizations File Reply Comments on Net Neutrality

On Monday, September 15, 2014, twelve library and higher education organizations, including ARL, filed reply comments with the FCC on net neutrality in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to protect and promote the open Internet. The FCC issued the NPRM following the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s January 2014 decision striking down the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order’s rules on no-blocking and anti-discrimination . Eleven of these organizations previously filed comments as well as net neutrality principles in July; the reply comments recommend that the FCC adopt the principles and strategies contained in these prior filings. In the reply comments, these groups continue emphasizing the importance of net neutrality in protecting free speech, educational achievement and economic growth. While the initial comments pointed out that the FCC could use its legal authority to reclassify broadband Internet services as a Title II “common carrier” or exercise its Section 706 authority, the reply comments focus on options under Section 706.

The comments point out the importance of the open Internet, also known as net neutrality, so that these institutions can carry out their missions and promote education, research and learning. The twelve organizations ask the FCC to “take special heed” of the importance of net neutrality for library and higher education institutions pointing out:

We are not aware of any commenters who disagreed with the importance of an open Internet for education, research, and learning. In fact, the New America Foundation specifically recognized the importance of an open Internet for schools, libraries and other public institutions.

At the same time, few commenters called attention to these needs, and the NPRM does not focus on these issues as much as it could. As an example, we note that the opening paragraph of the PRM released on May 15, 2014, does not use any of the words “education,” research” or learning.” . . . Recognizing the important public interest in education, research and learning throughout the FCC’s final order will help the commission orient its net neutrality policy in a way that recognizes these cherished public interest values.

The comments also note the concerns that without net neutrality, paid prioritization may occur as broadband providers would have the incentive and opportunity to divide the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes based on the ability or willingness to pay for enhanced access. The coalition of library and higher education institutions emphasize that, “If public broadband providers are allowed to prioritize or degrade certain Internet traffic, or discriminate in favor of or against certain content or applications, the future of the Internet as a platform for education, research learning, innovation and free speech will be put in jeopardy.”

Specifically, libraries and higher education institutions depend on the open Internet as they increasingly rely on access to and storage of information remotely, including subscriptions to online-only resources; serve as centers where people complete online education courses; act as partners with the Internet Archive to digitize and make accessible various materials; use the portal developed by the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) to allow patrons to search and scan resources; and transition to cloud-based productivity application services to support faculty and student access to email, word processing and related applications as well as for administrative and learning management systems.

The comments also suggest that in addressing a no-blocking rule, the FCC could require that when a broadband provider chooses to offer Internet service, that provider must then fulfill the consumer’s decision to interact with his or her chosen edge provider and cannot block such access. This rule focuses on consumer choice, but does not obligate the broadband provider to serve every consumer as the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order’s no-blocking rule did. This suggestion provides an alternative path for the FCC than a rule that would require providing a minimum level of service.

Building on the July filing, the reply comments again encourage the FCC to adopt an “Internet reasonable” standard to govern the relationship between broadband providers and edge providers rather than the FCC’s proposed “commercially reasonable” standard. Numerous groups and organizations, such as the Center for Democracy & Technology, Free Press, Public Knowledge, the New America Foundation, the Internet Association, the Communications and Computer Industry Association (CCIA), among others, have opposed the “commercially reasonable” standard because such a standard would likely be ineffective in preserving net neutrality. The reply comments suggest that an “Internet reasonable” standard would provide a more tailored approach that would evaluate impact on the Internet ecosystem. Additionally, the reply comments again propose that the FCC establish clear presumptions, such as against paid prioritization, on conduct that would violate the “Internet reasonable” standard.