Category Archives: oa.legislation

Our Right To Challenge Junk Patents Is Under Threat 

Posted on by
Reply

“The U.S. Patent Office has proposed new rules about who can challenge wrongly granted patents. If the rules become official, they will offer new protections to patent trolls. Challenging patents will become far more onerous, and impossible for some. The new rules could stop organizations like EFF, which used this process to fight the Personal Audio “podcasting patent,” from filing patent challenges altogether. 

We need EFF supporters to speak out against this proposal, which is a gift for patent trolls….”

News article: For democracy, libraries and the right to knowledge* – Knowledge Rights 21

Posted on by
Reply

“In 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued an important ruling, Judgment C-174/15, in response to a question from the Court of First Instance of The Hague on the use of e-books by libraries. The judgment, among other things, states: “There is no decisive reason to exclude, in any event, the lending of digital copies and intangible objects from the scope of Directive 2006/115 [the Rental and Lending Directive].“

Especially in the proposals of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, we find an excellent rationale: “Without the privileges which flow from a derogation from the exclusive lending right, libraries are therefore in danger of no longer being able to perpetuate, in the digital environment, the role which was always theirs in the era of printed books.“

As this shows, in the legal world, researchers, educators, and citizens recognize that the models for publishing and making knowledge and culture available in the new digital environment are problematic and systematically hinder people’s access to knowledge. Ultimately we are heading toward an luxury model of access to knowledge, which only those who can pay will access. For many, the only way out risks being either to give up, or less legitimate means. 

This should be a political priority. There’s a great debate about fake news, misinformation, and manipulation and how these issues can be addressed. But at the same time, the sources that can be used by public institutions (such as libraries) come with prohibitive cost and technological limitations. And herein lie crucial issues of democracy that politicians often overlook. During the pandemic, the need for scientists to immediately access data and information, studies, and research, to better address the situation and ultimately save more lives became apparent. The need for democratic participation in knowledge and culture becomes imperative.

Policymakers must move immediately towards adopting rules and practices that ensure that libraries can purchase, preserve and lend electronic and digital books while respecting authors’ rights, as they do for print publications. We need to create a democratic model of access to knowledge that serves people and societies.”

Das Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht und die Causa Konstanz – iRights.info

Posted on by
Reply

From Google’s English:  “Finally, in 2023, the Federal Constitutional Court wants to decide in the dispute over the right of secondary publication. The core question is whether scientists can be required to publish their articles freely accessible a second time after twelve months. What makes the regulation so offensive that law professors complained about it? …

In the open letter, the new statutes are described as “legally encroaching”, as a “violation of the fundamental right to academic freedom” and as “a violation of the guarantee of intellectual property”. Although one is “not against the idea of ??open access itself”, as the letter says literally, “but against the path taken by the university of converting the possibility of secondary publication into a compulsory instrument that is discredited in this way.” The new The regulation is therefore unanimously ignored by the professors of the law faculty. They would not republish their publications in the Open Access repository of the University of Konstanz….”

The Publisher Playbook: A Brief History of the Publishing Industry’s Obstruction of the Library Mission

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Libraries have continuously evolved their ability to provide access to collections in innovative ways. Many of these advancements in access, however, were not achieved without overcoming serious resistance and obstruction from the rightsholder and publishing industry. The struggle to maintain the library’s access-based mission and serve the public interest began as early as the late 1800s and continues through today. We call these tactics the “publishers’ playbook.” Libraries and their readers have routinely engaged in lengthy battles to defend the ability for libraries to fulfill their mission and serve the public good. The following is a brief review of the times and methods that publishers and rightsholder interests have attempted to hinder the library mission. This pattern of conduct, as reflected in ongoing controlled digital lending litigation, is not unexpected and belies a historical playbook on the part of publishers and rightsholders to maximize their own profits and control over the public’s informational needs. Thankfully, as outlined in this paper, Congress and the courts have historically upheld libraries’ attempts to expand access to information for the public’s benefit.

 

Congress Introduces Bill to Tackle College Textbook Costs – SPARC

Posted on by
Reply

“SPARC, a non-profit advocacy organization working to make education and research open and equitable, today applauded the reintroduction of the Affordable College Textbook Act in the U.S. Congress. The bill would address a key but often overlooked factor in the cost of higher education—the cost of textbooks—by establishing a grant program for the creation and use of free, openly licensed textbooks, while also strengthening federal price disclosure requirements for textbook publishers and institutions. If passed, the program would build on the success of the Open Textbook Pilot which is already projected to save students an estimated $250 million since its creation in 2018….”

The Future of Copyright: Achieving Sustainable Universal Open Access through Copyright Reform (A Debate), 8 March 2023, 4pm (GMT) | Oxford Talks

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the Oxford Festival of Open Scholarship (OxFOS), the Bodleian Libraries will host a discussion between leading experts in the fields of copyright scholarship, librarianship and publishing to debate the role copyright law reform might play in advancing open access publishing. Keynote speaker Professor John Willinsky (Simon Fraser University, Stanford University, Public Knowledge Project) will present his talk ‘Achieving Sustainable Universal Open Access through Copyright Reform’:

“A presentation on the potential role that copyright reform might play in advancing open access to research publications at a fair price. Copyright has been updated for the digital area in almost every area of communication and culture, except research and scholarship, while current consensus among scholarly publishing stakeholders on the value of open access — even as progress toward to this ideal is proving far too slow and expensive — makes open access the perfect focus for changing the law. An example of what such a reform could look like will discussed in legal terms, as well as with regard to its implications for universities.”

Professor Asuncion Esteve Pardo (University of Barcelona) will provide a European civil law perspective on Prof Willinsky’s presentation and share the findings from her own research into the relationship between copyright and open access.

The proposals raised in both presentations will then be discussed by a panel which will include Chris Banks, Director of Library Services, Imperial College London and Andy Redman, Director of Open Access, Oxford University Press.

Speakers and Presenters:

– Chair: Chris Morrison, Copyright & Licensing Specialist, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford

– Keynote presentation: John Willinsky, Professor, Simon Fraser University; Co-Scientific Director, Public Knowledge Project

– Academic respondent: Asuncion Esteve Pardo, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Law, University of Barcelona

– Panel discussion with: Chris Banks, Director of Library Services, Imperial College London and Andy Redman, Director of Open Access, Academic, Oxford University Press

Intended Audience:

– Researchers with an interest in copyright

– Librarians and research support staff at all levels

– Copyright and intellectual property scholars and students

– Open access advocates

– Funding and Policy bodies

Format:

The 90-minute event will involve two presentations followed by a panel discussion during which time questions will be posed by the audience (both in person and from remote participants via the Teams chat). The event will be live-streamed and recorded.

Notice of Recording:

The event will be recorded and the recording made publicly available afterwards. Attendees who do not want to be included in the recorded video will be asked to speak to one of the event organisers.

 

Guest Post – Advancing Accessibility in Scholarly Publishing: Recommendations for Digital Accessibility Best Practices – The Scholarly Kitchen

Posted on by
Reply

“For publishers, it is also important to be up to date with the following:

PDF/UA (PDF/Universal Accessibility), formally known as ISO 14289-1:2014 (Document management applications — Electronic document file format enhancement for accessibility), is an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for accessible PDF technology. PDF/UA complements WCAG 2.0 and should be used to make PDF files that also conform with WCAG 2.0.
EPUB Accessibility 1.0 Specifications: The EPUB Accessibility 1.0 EPUB Accessibility 1.1: Conformance and Discoverability Requirements for EPUB publications specification specifies content conformance requirements for verifying the accessibility of EPUB publications, as well as accessibility metadata requirements for the discoverability of EPUB publications.
The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (MVT). “The treaty allows for copyright exceptions to facilitate the creation of accessible versions of books and other copyrighted works for visually impaired persons. It sets a norm for countries ratifying the treaty to have a domestic copyright exception covering these activities and allowing for the import and export of such materials.”…”

Digital Ownership Policy Paper

Posted on by
Reply

“In the past several years, we have seen a dramatic digital shift by book publishers and ebook platforms away from traditional sales toward licensing content, particularly to the public sector. 1 The shift away from ownership and toward licensing opened the door to the substitution of statutory property rights with unilateral contract terms. With the availability of digital content, libraries and consumers should have more rights and access, but in fact, they have fewer. Licensing has resulted in a deeply broken system around ebook lending, impeding libraries from serving the needs of their communities while also creating critical access issues. Licensing often makes significant collections, archives, and repositories of digital content now inaccessible, unaffordable, or subject to exploitative terms that make it difficult for libraries to purchase materials to lend and preserve. A small group of large publishers and distributors dominate the ebook market, and charge high costs for digital resources, forcing libraries to license rather than own works as they have traditionally with print resources. In response, Library Futures recommends policymakers adopt an approach of digital ownership that extends the current paradigm for print works and allow libraries to both maintain the benefits of print collections and innovate even further toward providing new methods of access, preservation, and education by creating new lending models, equitizing access for underserved communities, and contributing to a more democratic balance. The remedy for these issues is situated in three different realms: legal reform (judicial, legislative, and regulatory), collective action, and library-owned infrastructure—these are not mutually exclusive, but rather overlap and build upon each other….”

Digital Ownership Policy Paper

Posted on by
Reply

“In the past several years, we have seen a dramatic digital shift by book publishers and ebook platforms away from traditional sales toward licensing content, particularly to the public sector. 1 The shift away from ownership and toward licensing opened the door to the substitution of statutory property rights with unilateral contract terms. With the availability of digital content, libraries and consumers should have more rights and access, but in fact, they have fewer. Licensing has resulted in a deeply broken system around ebook lending, impeding libraries from serving the needs of their communities while also creating critical access issues. Licensing often makes significant collections, archives, and repositories of digital content now inaccessible, unaffordable, or subject to exploitative terms that make it difficult for libraries to purchase materials to lend and preserve. A small group of large publishers and distributors dominate the ebook market, and charge high costs for digital resources, forcing libraries to license rather than own works as they have traditionally with print resources. In response, Library Futures recommends policymakers adopt an approach of digital ownership that extends the current paradigm for print works and allow libraries to both maintain the benefits of print collections and innovate even further toward providing new methods of access, preservation, and education by creating new lending models, equitizing access for underserved communities, and contributing to a more democratic balance. The remedy for these issues is situated in three different realms: legal reform (judicial, legislative, and regulatory), collective action, and library-owned infrastructure—these are not mutually exclusive, but rather overlap and build upon each other….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”