Fwd: Federal Relations E-News

[Scott Bennett <scott.bennett@YALE.EDU>]

>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:26:07 -0400
>Reply-To: arl-directors@arl.org
>Sender: owner-arl-directors@arl.org
>From: Duane Webster <duane@arl.org>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <arl-directors@arl.org>
>Subject: Federal Relations E-News
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by arl.org id QAA07189
>
>
>
>TO:     Directors of ARL Libraries
>
>FROM:   Duane E. Webster, ARL Executive Director
>
>RE:     E-News for ARL Directors: Part Two, Federal Relations
>         (covering the period December 2000 through April 2001)
>
>
>Note:  Due to the press of activities relating to the current session of
>the U.S. Congress this edition of the Federal Relations section of the
>E-News covers the last month from 2000 and the first four months of this
>year.  The last issue of the Federal Relations Update was
>October/November 2000.
>
>Members are encouraged to route these monthly briefings to interested
>staff within the library or the parent institution.
>
>The Federal Relations E-News is prepared by Prue Adler <prue@arl.org>.  It
>will be posted in the Federal Relations Notebook Updates on the ARL
>website at <http://www.arl.org/info/frn/info.html>.
>
>
>CONTENTS
>
>1. Copyright and Intellectual Property: Section 1
>
>a. U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in New York Times Co. Inc. v. Tasini
>b. Distance Education Legislation Introduced
>c. House Committees to Jointly Craft Database Legislation
>d. UCITA Update
>e. ARL Joins in Amici Curiae brief in the DVD Case
>f. ARL Joins Amici Curiae Brief in Register.com v. Verio
>
>
>2. Government Information: Section 2
>
>a. NCLIS Releases Government Information Dissemination Study, Volume 2
>b. GAO Releases Report on Electronic Dissemination of Government Publications
>
>
>3. Telecommunications and Networking: Section 3
>
>a. ALA Challenges Filtering Law
>b. Department of Commerce and EDUCAUSE in Cooperative Agreement
>c. Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Proposed
>
>
>4. Selected Appropriations and Related Issues: Section 4
>
>a. Nomination of Robert Martin, as Director of Institute for Museum and
>Library Services (IMLS)
>b. Legislative Branch; Library of Congress (LC) and Government
>Printing Office (GPO)
>c. National Agricultural Library
>d. National Library of Medicine
>e. National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and National Endowment for
>the Arts (NEA)
>f. National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS)
>g. National Science Foundation (NSF)
>h. National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
>i. Technology Opportunity Program (TOP)
>j. Artist Museum Partnership Act
>
>
>1. Copyright and Intellectual Property: Section 1
>
>a. U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in New York Times Co. Inc. v. Tasini
>
>On March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case New York
>Times Co. Inc. v. Tasini.  The case is about whether a newspaper or
>magazine that converts its print version to an online version has the
>right to include articles from freelance authors in commercial
>electronic databases when there is no permission from the author.  In
>September 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a
>unanimous ruling by a three judge panel, overturned a lower court
>decision in the case of Tasini v. New York Times.  The appeals court
>ruled that the reuse of a freelance author's work on CD-ROMs and in
>electronic databases without the author's permission constitutes
>copyright infringement.  Publishers claim that the financial liability
>that would result if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Tasini
>would require them to delete the freelance writers work in the
>commercial electronic databases.
>
>Representing the New York Times was the constitutional law professor
>Lawrence Tribe, who claimed that an electronic version of a newspaper in
>a commercial electronic database would be considered a revision, thus
>legally permissible.  Labor lawyer Lawrence Gold, speaking on behalf of
>freelance authors, noted that including freelance writers’ works in
>Lexis-Nexis and the like constituted copyright infringement.  He
>commented: "You are putting articles into an undifferentiated mass, and
>in that sense you are creating a quite different work."  Several
>Justices focused on the issue of when the supposed copyright
>infringements occurred.  In addition, much of the debate centered on
>technical issues such as when and how publishers transmit an electronic
>version of a newspaper to Lexis-Nexis.
>
>ARL and ALA filed an amici curiae in support of the freelance writers
>and suggested that there are constructive ways for the Court to address
>the concerns of the case that is fair to freelance authors, commercial
>electronic database producers, publishers, and the public.  The library
>associations also took the opportunity to correct statements included in
>filings by supporters of the publishers’ position regarding long-term
>preservation and access concerns and the nature and cost of access to
>information in commercial electronic databases.  A copy of the library
>associations’ brief is available via:
><http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/tasini.html>.  Copies of all briefs
>filed in the case can be found at: <http://www.nwu.org/>.
>
>A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is expected by June 2001.
>
>
>b. Distance Education Legislation Introduced
>
>Sens. Hatch (Chair, Committee on Judiciary, R-UT) and Leahy (D-VT)
>introduced S. 487, the "Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization
>Act," or the "TEACH Act," on March 7, 2001.  The bill seeks to update
>the distance education provisions of copyright law to reflect the
>networked environment.   The legislation, supported by members of the
>higher education and library communities, would implement
>recommendations made by the Copyright Office in 1999.
>
>Testifying on behalf of higher education associations and libraries,
>Gerald Heeger, President of the University of Maryland University
>College, commented that colleges, universities, and libraries which are
>members of these associations support S. 487 because it would bring
>copyright law into accord with education realities of today, enabling a
>fuller realization of the enormous potential of digital distance
>education to expand teaching and learning in time, place, and richness
>of content. "  He also noted that the higher education and library
>associations had certain reservations with the bill, such as its failure
>to include reasonable and limited portions of instructional material
>works in the expanded categories of works exempted from the performance
>right.
>
>Allan Adler, testifying in opposition to the legislation on behalf of the
>Association of American Publishers, stated that the recommendations of
>the Copyright Office and S. 487 were "unnecessary to ensure the
>availability of diverse, high quality online educational programs; (2)
>unjustifiable in the face of the bustling marketplace for the production
>of digital content; (3) unworkable insofar as they were contingent upon
>the deployment of technological safeguards not yet widely available in
>the marketplace; and (4) unfair insofar as they ignored the exploding
>competition, collaboration and consolidation among for profit and
>not-for-profit providers of online education programs."
>
>Testimony of witnesses at the hearing is available via the Senate
>Judiciary Committee: <http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/hr031301.htm>.
>
>No companion legislation has been introduced in the House of
>Representatives, though Rep. Boucher (D-VA) has indicated strong
>interest in such legislation.
>
>
>c. House Committees to Jointly Craft Database Legislation
>
>The chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Chmn.
>Sensenbrenner, R-WI) and the Committee on Commerce (Chmn. Tauzin, R-LA)
>announced their intention to work collaboratively to craft database
>protection legislation.  Commenting on the new effort, Chairman
>Sensenbrenner stated: "The question is not whether there will be
>database protection legislation this year, the question is what this
>legislation will look like."  Echoing a similar theme, Chairman Tauzin
>noted: "Make no mistake: I am committed to achieving a consensus on
>protection legislation.  Interested parties would be wise to follow our
>Committees’ lead and iron out any sticking points now because there will
>be legislation this year."
>
>The Committees have scheduled eight weekly sessions through the end of
>May to tackle key questions to shape and draft database protection
>legislation.
>
>
>d. Uniform Commercial Information Transaction Act (UCITA) Update
>
>UCITA is a proposed state law that seeks to create a unified approach to
>the licensing of software and information.  Although there has been some
>level of activity on UCITA in 21 states including introduction of the
>legislation in 11 states, it appears to be stalled this year in
>comparison to its swift passage in 2000 in Maryland and Virginia.  For
>example, a UCITA bill was introduced in Illinois and withdrawn by the
>sponsor within two hours due to heavy opposition.  Similarly,
>legislation was introduced in Maine and promptly killed on the House
>floor. UCITA failed to move forward in Arizona following informational
>hearings.  And New York’s attorney general is backing anti UCITA
>legislation, primarily because of concerns about the impact on
>consumers.  Finally, UCITA continues to be considered in Texas where the
>bill is subject to intense debate but a strong and diverse coalition of
>libraries, oil companies, insurance companies, the Texas Association of
>Business and Chambers of Commerce, and others are making passage
>unlikely.  More information is available via: <www.4CITE.org>.
>
>
>e. ARL Joins in Amici Curiae Brief in DVD Case
>
>ARL, together with the American Library Association, the Digital Future
>Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, and others, filed an amici
>curiae brief in the case Universal City Studios v. Eric Corely et al.,
>commonly known as the DVD case.  The ruling in the case by Judge Kaplan
>of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York raised
>First Amendment concerns.  The defendant in this case, "2600: The Hacker
>Quarterly," posted a computer program for decrypting and copying movies
>on DVDs on its web site.  As DVDs are protected by technological
>protection measures, this action to some seemed to run afoul of
>provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  The Court ruled
>that the defendants could not post the information that would bypass the
>protections and link to that information at other sites.  As
>links are an essential and fundamental element of the World Wide Web, a
>court ruling in this arena has ramifications for both the usefulness of
>the World Wide Web as currently constructed as well as for its
>evolution.  The ACLU's brief in the case is online at:
><http://www.aclu.org/court/corley.pdf>.
>
>
>f. ARL Joins Amici Curiae in Register.com v. Verio
>
>ARL, together with many others, including the American Library
>Association, the Digital Future Coalition, the Computer and
>Communications Industry Association, and the National Writers
>Union, filed an amici curiae brief in the case Register. com v. Verio.
>Verio extracted information from the publicly available Register.com
>WHOIS database for use in telemarketing.  In response to this
>extraction, Register.com sued Verio and was successful in district
>court.  The amici curiae brief argues that these claims are preempted by
>the federal intellectual property system; the district court ruling is
>at odds with the Feist decision regarding facts being in the public
>domain; and it also raises First Amendment concerns.
>
>The brief notes: "Technological innovation has forever changed the way
>people access information.  Increasingly, the information available in
>the digital age involves computer databases.  In the future, more facts
>will be available to the public only via the Internet.  The District
>Court's decision in this case would allow  database publishers
>unilaterally to restrict what others can do with these facts.  This
>contravenes the nation's fundamental information policy: "All
>facts—scientific, historical, biographical, and news of the day . . .
>are part of the public domain available to every person." (Feist, 499
>U.S. at 348.)  "There should be no misunderstanding what is at stake in
>this case.  Even in the digital environment, copyright law permits users
>of publicly accessible, online databases to utilize freely the raw
>factual data gleaned from the databases.  Because the district court's
>decision undermines this fundamental guarantee, it must be reversed."
>
>The brief is available via the ARL Federal Relations page at:
><http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/verio.html>.
>
>
>2. Government Information—Section 2
>
>a. NCLIS Releases Government Information Dissemination Study, Vol. 2
>
>The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)
>released a second volume, "A Comprehensive Assessment of Public
>Information Dissemination," an ambitious legislative proposal that would
>restructure information activities across all three branches of
>government.  This proposal stems from an NCLIS evaluation of federal
>information dissemination activities following the proposed closing of
>the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).  NCLIS conducted this
>assessment of the federal government's public information dissemination
>policies and practices at the request of Sen. McCain (R-AZ and Chair,
>Committee on Commerce).  In addition, Sen. Lieberman (D-CT) requested
>input relating to the reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act
>(PRA).
>
>The legislative proposal is entitled "Public Information Resources
>Reform Act of 2001: Diffusing Government Information to the People."
>Among other recommendations, the report calls for the establishment of a
>new executive branch agency, the "Public Information Resources
>Administration," or PIRA. PIRA would "provide overall policy leadership,
>management, oversight and accountability for public information
>resources." NCLIS also called for the establishment of comparable
>offices in the legislative and judicial branches of government, the
>Congressional Information Resources Office (CIRO) and the Judicial
>Information Resources Office (JIRO).  The report is available via:
><http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess.html>.
>
>
>b. GAO Releases Report on Electronic Dissemination of Government Publications
>
>Responding to the request of members of Congress, the General Accounting
>Office (GAO) undertook a study of electronic dissemination of government
>information.  GAO was tasked with examining the impact of providing
>documents to the public solely in electronic format and assessing the
>feasibility of transferring the Federal Depository Library Program to
>the Library of Congress.
>
>Included within the findings of the report, the GAO concluded that there
>are a number of challenges, such as ensuring the government documents
>are as follows: "(1) authentic, (2) permanently maintained, and (3)
>equally accessible to all individuals.  In addition, cost issues
>including the effect on shifting printing costs to depository libraries
>and end users would need to be addressed. "Finally, regarding the
>feasibility of transferring the Federal Depository Library Program to
>the Library of Congress, GAO noted advantages and disadvantages and
>concerns with such a move.  For example, whereas the Library of Congress
>noted that the depository program was consistent with the missions
>and functions of the Library, the Librarian commented that larger policy
>issues involved in providing citizens useful and persistent access to
>information had not been fully explored.  In addition, the Government
>Printing Office objected to the transfer commenting that the Library of
>Congress "mission and operations are inconsistent with a large scale
>information dissemination program."  To further explore these differing
>views, GAO recommended a GPO/Library transition team.  The Report is
>available at: <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01428.pdf>.
>
>
>3. Telecommunications and Networking: Section 3
>
>a. ALA Challenges Filtering Law
>
>The American Library Association is challenging in court the Children's
>Internet Protection Act (CIPA).  In a suit filed in the United States
>District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ALA hopes to
>overturn the CIPA that mandates the use of filtering or blocking
>software on computers in public libraries.  Under the law, public
>libraries are required to install blocking or filtering technologies if
>they seek Universal Service or E-rate discounts to provide Internet
>access or that use Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funding to
>purchase computers for Internet access or to provide Internet access.
>ALA contends that this law is unconstitutional as it restricts access to
>constitutionally protection information on the Internet.
>
>Academic libraries are not included in the provisions of the CIPA.  For
>additional information on CIPA, ALA’s fact sheet is available at:
><http://www.ala.org/cipa/q&a.html>.
>
>
>b. Department of Commerce and EDUCAUSE in Cooperative Agreement
>
>On April 6, the National Telecommunications and Information
>Administration (NTIA) of the  Department of Commerce announced that it
>will enter into a cooperative agreement with EDUCAUSE for the management
>of the .edu domain name space.  In announcing the agreement, the
>department noted that "this cooperative agreement will facilitate policy
>development and technical operations of the .edu domain by a single
>responsible entity and provide a framework for the administration of the
>.edu domain."  EDUCAUSE intends to extend the .edu to encompass the
>community of regionally accredited U.S. institutions of higher
>education, including community colleges.  Once a 30 day public comment
>period is completed, the agreement between the government and EDUCAUSE
>will be signed.
>
>
>c. Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Proposed
>
>Creation of a multi-billion dollar Digital Opportunity Investment Fund
>has been proposed by Newton Minow, former chair of the Federal
>Communications Commission and Lawrence Grossman, author and former
>president of NBC News and PBS, following extended discussions with
>members of the public and private sectors.  The Trust, to be funded by
>revenues from auctions of publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum, would
>"serve as a venture capital fund for our nation's nonprofit educational
>and public service institutions.  It would enable schools, community
>colleges, universities, libraries, museums, civic organizations, and
>cultural arts, and humanities centers to take advantage of new
>information technologies to reach outside their walls and into homes,
>schools, and the workplace."  Key elements of the Trust proposal include
>building on the models of the National Science Foundation and the
>National Institutes of Health with a board composed of individuals from
>many fields and disciplines.  The Trust proposal envisions commissioning
>grants to stimulate innovative and experimental ideas and models in
>partnership with public- and private sector interests, including many
>federal agencies such as IMLS, NSF, and NEH.  The full report and
>associated papers can be found via: <www.digitalpromise.org>.
>
>
>4. Selected Appropriations Update and Related Issues
>
>a. Nomination of Robert Martin as Director of Institute of the Museum
>and Library Services (IMLS)
>
>On April 18, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Robert
>S. Martin to be director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services
>(IMLS).  Dr. Martin is currently Professor and Interim Director of the
>School of Library and Information Studies at Texas Women's University in
>Denton, Texas.  He served as Director and Librarian of the Texas State
>Library and Archive Commission from 1995 to 1999 and served as Professor
>and as Associate Dean of Special Collections at Louisiana State
>University from 1991 to 1995.  He is a graduate of Rice University,
>received a Master's degree from North Texas State University and a
>Doctorate in Library Science from the University of North Carolina.  It
>is not clear when the Senate will act on his nomination.  ARL, ALA, and
>AALL wrote letters of support for this nomination.
>
>IMLS would see a reduction in FY 2002 funding (above baseline) as
>proposed
>by President Bush in the release of the FY 2002 budget numbers.  The
>agency funding, currently at $207,2219,000, would drop to $168,078,363.
>Of this amount, $11,081,000 would be slated for the National Leadership
>Program.  The Office of Museum Services would receive close to level
>funding at $24,898,879.
>
>
>b. Legislative Branch: Library of Congress and the Government Printing
>Office, Superintendent of Documents
>
>LC: The Library of Congress proposed request of $444.3 million would support
>mandatory pay increases, funding for the National Digital Library,
>security measures, and more.  Funding for the National Digital
>Infrastructure and Preservation Program, $99.8 million, was included in
>the FY 2001 appropriation; thus, no funds were requested in FY 2002.
>
>GPO: The President’s budget includes a small but important increase for
>the Superintendent of Documents in the Government Printing Office—from
>$27,954 million in FY 2001 to a proposed $29.639 million in FY 2002.
>
>
>c. National Agricultural Library (NAL)
>
>No new funding is proposed in the FY 2002 budget for the National
>Agricultural Library.  NAL is slated to receive $19.8 million with
>$1.7 million allocated for buildings and facilities.
>
>
>d. National Library of Medicine (NLM)
>
>The President’s budget includes a 12 percent increase or $275,725,000
>for the
>National Library of Medicine (NLM).  Priorities for FY 2002 include
>consumer health, outreach to health professionals, biotechnology
>information systems, and training in computational biology.  In
>addition, other priorities of interest to the library community include
>permanent access to electronic information and informatics research.
>
>
>e. National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and National Endowment
>for the Arts (NEA)
>
>The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is slated to receive
>level funding in FY2002 under the President’s proposal.  The President
>has requested $120.5 million for the NEH which includes approximately
>$18.3 million for the Division of Preservation and Access.  Proposed for
>he National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is $105.2 million.
>
>
>f. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)
>
>No funding was proposed for the National Commission on Libraries and
>Information Science (NCLIS).  The stated intention is that, "other
>agencies can effectively perform the necessary functions for which the
>Commission has been responsible."  In a recent article in the Columbus
>Dispatch, Robert Willard, NCLIS executive director, noted that he had
>requested a more than doubling of the Commission's budget from $1.4 to
>$3 million in FY 2002.  A White House spokesperson commented that "the
>Commission's work would be shifted to the Institute of Museum and
>Library Services."
>
>
>g. National Science Foundation (NSF)
>
>The National Science Foundation (NSF) will see a boost of over 1 percent from
>FY 2001 or an increase of $56 million.  The total budget for the agency
>will be $4.47 billion.  A $200 million Math and Science Partnership
>Initiative will result in decreases in other NSF programs.
>
>
>h. National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
>
>No funding was proposed for the National Technical Information Service
>(NTIS) for FY 2002.  In addition, no new business plan was announced for
>the agency.
>
>
>i. Technology Opportunity Program (TOP)
>
>The Technology Opportunity Program (TOP), formerly known as the
>Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Program or TIIAP will
>see a proposed 30 percent drop in funding or a funding level of $13
>million.  This program, a key Clinton-Gore Administration program, funds many
>community based infrastructure building efforts including those in
>libraries and museums.
>
>
>j. Artist-Museum Partnership Act
>
>Sen. Leahy with a number of bipartisan cosponsors introduced S. 694,
>the Artist-Museum Partnership Act on April 4, 2001.  The bill would
>amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a deduction
>equal to fair market value shall be allowed for charitable contributions
>of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the
>donor.   It is anticipated that the legislation may be considered by the
>Senate Finance Committee in mid May.  Companion legislation is expected
>to be introduced on April 26 in the House with a significant number of
>co-sponsors.
>
>
>April 25, 2001
>PSA