 Library & Information Technology Association |
||
|
Home
 LITA Membership LITA Committees Legislation & Regulation Committee LegReg Newsgram September 25 2005
LegReg Irregular Newsgram 9/25/2005In this gram:
----- "Copyright Ownership in Blogs" from digital-copyright Digest 22 Jul 2005 15:00:00 -0000 Issue 534: :The Editorial by Lesley Ellen Harris in Volume 2005, Issue 1, The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, deals with copyright ownership in blogs - it is reproduced below. For further information on this print newsletter, see www.copyrightlaws.com. Editorial - Copyright Ownership in Blogs The Internet continually forces us to test the application and flexibility of current copyright law to new modes of communications and media. The Internet has already spawned debate and lawsuits about hyper-linking, P2P file sharing, and the removal of copyright management information and technological protections. A newer Internet activity, blogging resulting in Weblogs, is now being discussed in the copyright arena. A blog is basically a stream of consciousness discussion available to the public at large. Individuals keep these blogs on every topic imaginable. Blogs are original material, and once they are fixed in some form, saved digitally or in a print out, they are protected by copyright in most countries around the world. In fact, they would be protected for 50 to 70 years after an author's death - much beyond the life of any blog itself. Blogs are becoming more popular amongst professionals, and certain employees are even encouraged to create blogs based on their work. This raises interesting issues concerning copyright ownership in the blogs. If an organization requires blogging as part of the duties of an individual, it is likely that the employer owns the content in the blog, just like the employer owns other copyright-protected works created by that employee in the course of employment. However, if the blog is initiated by an individual though it may discuss work-related issues, outside the scope of his employment, who owns the content in the blog? This is comparable to the situation where a professor writes a book related to, but outside the duties, of his instruction. This is often a gray issue in the academic world. University policies that specifically deal with such issues can help clarify the situation. Also, a professor approaching his university prior to writing the book, may be able to clarify the situation, prior to a confrontation. Many companies have yet to develop Weblog Policies, similar to their other integral policies. Thus, employees who discuss work-related activities are generally held to the rule of "good taste" in their discussions, and of course, not spewing any confidential information. As is the case with many Internet-related activities, would a written Weblog Policy contradict the free flowing nature of information in a blog, and perhaps weaken the effectiveness of these blogs? With ownership comes the issue of who may authorize reproduction of the content in a blog. Generally, only the owner may authorize others to reproduce a work. Would this be an organization or an individual? Or should the whole notion of obtaining permission in relation to blog content be mute, since the whole point of the blog is for as many people as possible to access and read it? The blogs by Sun Microsystem employees at blogs.sun.com take what I call a compromise position. These blogs are subject to a Creative Commons License. Thus, the blogs are protected by copyright, however the rights are conveniently set out in a hyper-linked license and are broader than those rights attached to most copyright-protected works. To date, there are no lawsuits relating to ownership, reproduction or re-distribution of the content of blogs. This in itself may be helpful for organizations and individuals who are determining "policies" in this area. And for those bloggers who want their content read as widely as possible, they are free to put a statement on their blogs to the effect that the content may be freely used without permission. ----- "In Congress - PATRIOT Act" from _Privacy Journal_, Aug 2005: When Congress returns from its August break, a conference of House and Senate members involved in intelligence legislation will seek to hammer out differences between the Senate version of an amended PATRIOT Act - which civil liberties lobbyists say they can live with - and the House version, which favors governmental investigators more. Section 213 sneak-and-peek search notifications should be limited to seven days (as opposed to its current, extremely open-ended time limit) and there should be more judicial discretion in section 215 business records and library searches, says the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties in Washington. Senate Republican conferees Specter, DeWine, Kyl, Sessions, and Hatch will play pivotal roles in determining whether or not the PATRIOT Act reauthorization is made more friendly to constitutional liberties, the group says. Republicans and Democrats in the House voted 257-171 to extend 14 of the act's 16 provisions indefinitely. The Senate was more cautious, voting to sunset section 215 and section 206 on "roving" wiretap authority. Three separate Congressional committees in the rush to recess this month considered similar legislation requiring disclosures by companies to individuals whose data is compromised by hacking or other breaches. Politicians seem eager to enact something by the end of the year. from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3872/is_200508/ai_n14905828#continue ----- "Sanders Amendment Struck from Senate Version of Justice Appropriations" from Patrice McDermott's email to ALA Legislation Assembly from 09 Sept 2005: "From: Don L. Essex Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:10 PM Subject: Sanders Amend Struck from Senate Version of Justice Appropriations H.R. 2862 - Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 - was reported in the Senate yesterday, and a committee substitute was agreed to by unanimous consent. The Senate version struck out the Sanders amendment that passed in the House in June: [Struck out->] SEC. 806. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to make an application under section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) for an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists. [<-Struck out] H.AMDT.280 (A033) Amends: H.R.2862 Sponsor: Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] (offered 6/15/2005) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). POPULAR TITLE(S): Library and Bookseller Records amendment (identified by CRS) STATUS: 6/15/2005 3:31pm: Amendment (A033) offered by Mr. Sanders. (consideration: CR H4534-4542, H4551; text: CR H4534) 6/15/2005 5:52pm: On agreeing to the Sanders amendment (A033) Agreed to by recorded vote: 238 - 187 ( Roll no. 258). ----- _I/S, A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society_". From _Privacy Journal_'s July 2005 Issue: "...has begun publication under a partnership bwtween the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law and the Heinz School of Law and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University ($35 a year from Sol Bermann, 55 West 12th Street, Columbus, Ohio 43201, bermann.1@osu.edu, 614/688-4192, www.isjournal.org)." ----- "What is So Private About Public Employment?" from _Privacy Journal_, Aug 2005. (Really good summary of FOIA Law and its relationship to privacy law): "When the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966, an exemption was included to protect against invasion of privacy." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3872/is_200508/ai_n14905832 ----- "Testing Your Personal Privacy IQ" from _Privacy Journal_, Jul 2005:"The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania asked the following questions of consumers. Do you know the right answers and can you guess what percentage of consumers got the answer wrong? See page two for the answers." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3872/is_200507/ai_n14802008#continue ----- "News in the CT NSL Case" from Patrice McDermott's email to ALA Legislation Assembly from 09 Sept 2005: "From ACLU: Great news! Judge Hall in CT just issued her opinion, and held that the gag violated the First Amendment. The decision has fantastic language about the importance of the Patriot Act debate now. She gave the govt a stay of the ruling for only 11 days, which means they'll have to seek an emergency appeal or the client will be able to speak on Sept 21. ********** This case has to do with a National Security Letter served on a library ("an institution with library records") in CT. The judge had been asked by the librarian to lift the gag order attached to the NSL. ACLU is handling the case." ----- "LWV Report: Local Voices:: Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties & Secure Communities" from Patrice McDermott to ALA Legislation Assembly on 09 Sept 2005: Attached is the PDF of the Local Voices: Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties & Secure Communities report by the League of Women Voters Education Fund. The report is also located on the front page of the LWV website at www.lwv.org It is interesting reading. ----- Appeals Court: Floridians Eligible for Damages in Privacy Case" from: EPIC Alert Digest, Volume 12.18 September 9, 2005: "Damages for a violation of an individual's privacy are a quintessential example of damages that are uncertain and possibly unmeasurable. Since liquidated damages are an appropriate substitute for the potentially uncertain and unmeasurable actual damages of a privacy violation, it follows that proof of actual damages is not necessary for an award of liquidated damages. To us, the plain meaning of the statue is clear -- a plaintiff need not prove actual damages to be awarded liquidated damages." The EPIC brief in the case, Kehoe v. Fidelity Bank, argued that Congress established liquidated damages for successful plaintiffs in passing the DPPA. That law limits use of motor vehicle records to a limited set of permissible purposes, and requires consent from the individual before personal information can be used for marketing. Prior to 1998, the DPPA had an opt-out standard for marketing use, and when the statute was strengthened, the Florida legislature failed to update their driver privacy statute. Data brokers knew that the federal law had changed (they had lobbied against it), but they continued to buy millions of records from the Florida government for a penny each. Last year, Florida patched its statute. EPIC argued that without liquidated damages, unaccountable data brokers would continue to purchase personal information in violation of the law, relying on the fact that it is difficult to quantify damages from the sale. A brief submitted in the case by data brokers strenuously argued that access to drivers' information is necessary for law enforcement and national security purposes. Especially because, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, data brokers have used anti-fraud and security justifications as cover for their marketing activities. The 11th Circuit's decision makes it economically viable for plaintiffs' attorneys to remedy systematic violations of drivers' privacy in Florida. The Kehoe attorneys are currently litigating a similar claim in Fresco v. Automotive Directions et al, a case where 13 companies are alleged to have bought drivers' records for marketing purposes. Also, last Friday, the Kehoe attorneys filed a class action suit against Bank of America for purchasing several thousand records of drivers who owned high-end automobiles in Palm Beach County, presumably for marketing purposes. EPIC's Amicus Brief in Kehoe v. Fidelity: http://epic.org/privacy/drivers/kehoebrief.html EPIC's Drivers Privacy Protection Act page: http://epic.org/privacy/drivers/ ----- "In the Courts: CA" from _Privacy Journal_, Aug 2005 (American Bankers Association Sues to Enjoin Enforcement of CA's 2003 Fin Info Privacy Act): "When Congress amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act in 2003 with the FACT Act, it extended provisions preempting state laws on the sharing of consumer information. Thus, the American Bankers Association sued to enjoin enforcement of California's 2003 Financial Information Privacy Act (SB 1), which is more restrictive than federal law in regulating exchanges of personal data among affiliated financial companies." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3872/is_200508/ai_n14905843 ----- "Sound of Keyboard Clicks Reveals What is Typed". From _Educause_ Digest of 14 Sept 2005: Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have demonstrated that an audio recording of someone typing on a computer keyboard can reveal with surprising accuracy exactly what they have typed. Using commercially available recording equipment, the researchers captured audio of typing and analyzed the sounds using an algorithm they developed. Because keys make different sounds, the system is able to make educated guesses about what key was pressed in what order. The application then applies some linguistic logic, including spelling and grammar checks, to refine the results. After three rounds of revisions, the application was able to identify 96 percent of the individual characters typed and 88 percent of the words. The application was effective even with background noise, such as music or cell phones ringing. Doug Tygar, UC Berkeley professor of computer science and information management and a principal investigator of the study, said the project should raise concerns about the security risks of such a technology. "If we were able to figure this out," he said, "it's likely that people with less honorable intentions can--or have--as well." ZDNet, 14 September 2005 http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5865318.html ----- Patent Bill Would Make Sweeping Changes by Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, September 13, 2005. From digital-copyright Digest 14 Sep 2005 15:00:00 -0000 Issue 548: "When Gordon Gould was a graduate student at Columbia University in 1957, he sketched out the concept of a concentrated beam of light amplified in a gas-filled chamber and coined the term "laser" to describe it." ----- 13 Countries Get behind Open Standards. From _Educause_ Digest of 09 Sept 2005: "Government officials from 13 countries have developed a report to the World Bank on economic growth, efficiency, and innovation in which they argue for the establishment of open technology standards. The report is quick to point out that open standards are not synonymous with open source, in which source code is shared and can be modified by anyone. The open-standards movement advocates defining a set of standards, available to anyone, that allow various applications, whether proprietary or open source, to exchange information. The report is the product of a project led by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. According to Charles R. Nesson, law professor at Harvard and founder of the Berkman Center, the goal of the report is to make a "rational business case for having a broad base of open technology standards." The report urges governments to "mandate technology choice, not software development models." _New York Times_, 9 September 2005 (registration req'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/technology/09open.html ----- Webfeat, the original federated search engine, was granted a patent for its federated search technology by the USOPTO. Patent covers WebFeat's method and technology for managing the authentication and session management necessary to perform a federated search across licensed resources. 866/736 5554; www.Webfeat.org. From March/April _Online Magazine_, Vol 29, #2, p 12. |
||