FOIA Hearing

“The secrecy reflex at some agencies remains firmly in place,” said Tom Curley.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing (audio) on, “Advancing Freedom of Information in the New Era of Responsibility.”

The witness list included (with names linked to statements):  The Honorable Thomas J. Perrelli (Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice),  Miriam Nisbet (Director,  Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration), Tom Curley (President and CEO, The Associated Press, Representing the Sunshine in Government Initiative), and  Meredith Fuchs (General Counsel, The National Security Archive ).

For coverage of this hearing, see stories in the AP, Washington Post, and ProPublica.

From the AP story:

“[Senators] Leahy and Cornyn have introduced legislation [S.612] that would require any such exemptions included in legislation to be clearly stated, rather than buried. The legislation has passed the Senate twice but has not yet been considered by the House.”


Best Evidence and the Wayback Machine: A Workable Authentication Standard for Archived Internet Evidence

“Note, Best Evidence and the Wayback Machine: A Workable Authentication Standard for Archived Internet Evidence”

Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming

DEBORAH R. ELTGROTH, Fordham University – Fordham Law Review

This Note addresses the use of archived Internet content obtained via the Wayback Machine, a service provided by the Internet Archive that accesses the largest online digital collection of archived Web pages in the world. Given the dynamic nature of the World Wide Web, Internet content is constantly changed, amended, and removed. As a result, interim versions of Web pages have limited life spans. The Internet Archive indexes and stores Web pages to allow researchers to access discarded or since-altered versions. In the legal profession, archived Web pages have become an increasingly helpful form of proof. Intellectual property enforcers have recognized the value of the Internet Archive as a tool for tracking down infringers, but evidence from the Internet Archive has rarely been admitted at trial. This Note surveys the handful of judicial opinions and orders that comment on the admission of Internet Archive evidence and explores the conflict underlying these approaches. As an alternative to the courses they have taken, this Note urges courts to treat the introduction of archived Web pages as implicating a best evidence issue in addition to an authentication question. Under this approach, courts would decide using evidence sufficient to the purpose, but not necessarily admissible at trial, whether the archived page qualifies as a ‘duplicate’ of a page that once appeared on the Web. Beyond that, courts would apply authentication standards already developed to decide whether a reasonable jury could find, based only on admissible evidence, whether proffered evidence accurately represents the page stored on the Internet Archive server and, if necessary, whether the original page accurately represented material placed on the originating site by the site’s owner or operator. With this additional step, reliable evidence from the Wayback Machine can become as easily admitted as any other Internet-derived proof.

 

Source:  LSN Intellectual Property Law Vol. 2 No. 109,  09/30/2009

Erich Pommer Institute – German Media Law

The Erich Pommer Institute in Potsdam, Germany maintains an online catalog of its library holdings related to German and  EU media law, entertainment law or IP issues.  The library catalog records are searchable by year, theme, and keyword. Very few full-text items are listed; however, it is a useful site for literature searches and collection development.  Search interface is in German, but catalog entries include various languages.

Erich Pommer Institut Bibliothek 

http://www.epi-medieninstitut.de/Bibliothek_de.html

Electronic Public Access Program/PACER Assessment Begun

From the September issue of the Third Branch:

“The Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program is looking for user input. The program, which recently celebrated its one-millionth Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) subscriber, has launched a year-long, comprehensive assessment to identify potential enhancements to existing and new public access services.

Focus groups, interviews, and surveys are being used to gather information on what PACER users would like to see in the program. The assessment initiative was endorsed by the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access working group in 2008, begun in early 2009, and is slated to conclude in 2010.

“This is a comprehensive effort to listen to our users and hear what they have to say,” said Michel Ishakian, chief of the Administrative Office’s Public Access and Records Management Division. “Their input will help define the next generation of PACER and how we expand public access services.”

PACER enables users to obtain federal court case and docket information for all 94 district courts, 90 bankruptcy courts, and 13 courts of appeals on the Internet. PACER currently provides access to 500 million case documents, which are available immediately after they have been electronically filed.

The diverse user population includes lawyers, litigants who represent themselves, government agencies, trustees, researchers, educational institutions, commercial enterprises, financial institutions, the media, and the general public. The Congressionally authorized Electronic Public Access fee revenue is used exclusively to fund program expenses and enhancements that increase public access to the courts, including court websites, electronic bankruptcy noticing, on-line juror services, Violent Crime Control Act victim notification, the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, and a digital audio project offering recordings of court proceedings. The fee is set by the Judicial Conference at $0.08 per page; there is a $2.40 maximum charge for any single document, no matter its length; the fee does not apply to opinions– which are available through PACER free of charge; and the fee is waived for usage amounting to less than $10.00 per year. In fiscal year 2008,

50 percent of PACER users did not pay fees as a result of fee waivers and exemptions.

Additional information on the assessment, including how to participate, can be found at www.pacer.gov or www.uscourts.gov.”

As the Court’s assessment will be ongoing until 2010, I should remind you that we are also close to our original goal of 1000 signatures on the Improve PACER petition.  Please sign and comment.  We will send an updated list of signatures to the A.O. in the coming weeks.

Ecosystem Marketplace

The Ecosystem Marketplace is a Web site devoted to information on environmental and climate change markets. The “library” link includes the following resources: latest laws, reports, whitepapers, articles, presentations, case studies, and books. The site also has a blog (EcoEko).

Ecosystem Marketplace

http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/index.php

From the Web site description:

The Ecosystem Marketplace seeks to become the world’s leading source of information on markets and payment schemes for ecosystem services; services such as water quality, carbon sequestration and biodiversity. We believe that by providing solid and trust-worthy information on prices, regulation, science, and other market-relevant issues, markets for ecosystem services will one day become a fundamental part of our economic and environmental system, helping give value to environmental services that have, for too long, been taken for granted.

China Business Law Journal – bilingual journal

This month Vantage Asia Publishing  launched  a  new practitioner based China related legal journal: “China Business Law Journal.” $490 per year.

From the promotional materials:

This entirely new, fully bilingual monthly magazine provides practical guidance to China legal practitioners and those who manage cross border investments into, and out of, China. … It will provide in-depth analysis of the legal, financial and regulatory challenges that make or break deals in China’s fast-changing business environment. The specialist magazine will investigate the practical implications of legal developments, identify optimal legal strategies for managing complex business transactions and provide unparalleled insight into the legal market by highlighting the work of lawyers and law firms in China and overseas.

Hat tip to Annie Chen.

China Business Law Journal

http://www.cblj.com/english.html

Book on Forest Management in Indonesia

International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia (Down to Earth) has published an online book on indigenous forest managment in Indonesia. Edited by Liz Chidley, Yuyun Indradi, and Emilianus Ola Klenden.

Forests for the Future: Indigenous Forest Management in a Changing World

http://dte.gn.apc.org/GNSCON.htm

Table of Contents

Methodology
The Ciptagelar Indigenous Community, West Java
Developing a bargaining position over customary forest
Ki Ugis Suganda 
The Guguk Indigenous Community, Jambi
Protecting customary forests with local regulations
Datuk H. Abubakar 
The Kiyu Dayak Indigenous Community, Meratus, South Kalimantan
Strengthening alliances to campaign for forest protection
Andy Syahruji (team leader), Balai Kiyu 
The Sembalun Indigenous Community, Lombok
Building consensus to save adat forest on Mount Selong
Abdulrahman Sembahulun and Y. L. Franky 
The Indigenous Ngata Toro Community, Central Sulawesi
Reforming Adat to promote environmental, economic and cultural sustainability
Rizal Mahfud and Rukmini Paata Toheke 
Tana Ai Indigenous Communities, East Flores
Maintaining traditional culture as a way of protecting the environment
Murray Muhammad H. Basyir 
Indonesian Overview
Indigenous Peoples’ Writing on Forest Management: A Counter Discourse?
Suraya Afiff 
International Overview
Indigenous Natural Resource Management Systems at the Crossroads
Chip Fay 
Conclusions
Communities in Transformation
Emil Kleden

Signed, sealed, delivered

Adobe bloger John B. Harris is reporting the first instance of a judge signing an order digitally.  The order was signed by the Honorable John M. Facciola of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  As Harris notes, in the past orders (etc.) have been printed out, signed by hand, and then re-scanned to be added to the courts electronic filing system, adding both time and expense to the filing process.

“By keeping the generation, signing and filing of the order completely electronic, the process is made much more efficient, potentially driving costs down and making the court’s systems work more effectively.”

A less costly, more efficient court filing process?  Can low cost/no cost access to PACER be far behind?  We can only hope (and keep on petitioning).

Update: Mea culpa, it seems our readers have been more discerning in their research than I was.  Check out the comments for a better take on this story.

Overview of the Singapore Legal System

The Singapore Academy of Law maintains an online guide to the legal system of Singapore. The guide, composed of 27 chapters,  is focused on commercial law, covering subject such as economic torts, insurance law, intellectual property, and competition (anti-trust) law.  Different authors are responsible for individual chapters. Frequency of updates is not uniform for all chapters. The Guide is available in English, Chinese, and Bahasa Indonesia.

Overview of the Singapore Legal System

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/LegalTopics.html

USPTO latest agency looking to outsource their data (Cross-Posted from FGI)

Our friend James Jacobs wrote the following post on his really informative Free Government Information blog.  Given the timeliness of this posting, we will cross-post it here:

Carl Malamud made me aware (see his letter to USPTO CIO John Owens) of a posting on FedBizOpps of a Request for Information (RFI) from the US Patent and Trademark Office:

“This RFI seeks to obtain information from interested parties, including the vendor community, about potential opportunities to acquire patent and trademark data in bulk (my emphasis) and to provide such data to the public without cost. The USPTO is seeking comments on the identified problem and solutions that will make the data available to the public without charge.”

While there is mention in the RFI of IP data being easily accessible to the public, there’s no mention of data.gov. This seems to be purely a “no-cost” way for USPTO to upgrade their IT infrastructure by giving away public domain information.

This is worrisome on so many levels as it is just one more example of a government agency looking to outsource and privatize public domain information *and* its IT infrastructure — see for example the Thomson West contract with the GAO to digitize their legislative histories. Additionally, in a vague nod to transparency, USPTO will be holding 1 (yes only 1) vendor information meeting on Sept 24. I’m not sure how USPTO thinks that a 2 week notice for a meeting held in DC will help the cause of transparency. Shouldn’t they have several meetings in different geographic locations to talk about such a huge and important public resource (nearly 2 petabytes of data!!)?

Luckily, this is only at the RFI stage, not RFP stage. USPTO is currently only looking for information on how to do this. This is the time for the government information/transparency communities to submit ideas for how the USPTO could make their patent information available *without* giving it away to vendors. Please contact the USPTO at the addresses below and give them ideas for making their data open, standardized and freely available in bulk.

Public Meeting:
Thursday, 24 September 2009
9:00 a.m. -11:00 a.m.
USPTO Campus in the Madison Auditorium
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA, 22314

Contracting Office Address:
P. O. Box 1450 – Mail Stop 6
600 Dulany Street, MDE, 7th Floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

Primary Point of Contact.:
publicdatadissemination@uspto.gov

Secondary Point of Contact:
V. Anne Tugbang,
Contracting Officer
vanne.tugbang@uspto.gov
Phone: 5712726550
Fax: 5712736550

by James R. Jacobs

[On a related note: Michael A. Keller, Stanford University Librarian, wrote a letter to John B. Owens, on September 17, 2009.  The letter is posted here.]