Monthly Archives: July 2010

Omega watches and library books

Posted on by
Reply

 

“A case about pricing timepieces could crimp library lending.”

Fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 30, 2010, p. W9

Watch Out For the Omega Copyright Windup

DE GUSTIBUS column

By Eric Felten

Constrain the first-sale doctrine and you throw a wrench into the business of used-book stores . . .  And yes, even public libraries might find themselves facing the challenge of figuring out which books on the stacks were first sold in the U.S., and which were first sold abroad.

Trust Online: Young Adults’ Evaluation of Web Content

Posted on by
Reply

A recent study published in the International Journal of Communication (IJOC) would appear to indicate that digital natives do not have much, if any, understanding of Web searching — placing their trust unquestioningly, it seems, in Google or other brand-name search engines or websites:

Trust Online: Young Adults’ Evaluation of Web Content –

Abstract:

Little of the work on online credibility assessment has considered how the information-seeking process figures into the final evaluation of content people encounter. Using unique data about how a diverse group of young adults looks for and evaluates Web content, our paper makes contributions to existing literature by highlighting factors beyond site features in how users assess credibility. We find that the process by which users arrive at a site is an important component of how they judge the final destination. In particular, search context, branding and routines, and a reliance on those in one’s networks play important roles in online information-seeking and evaluation. We also discuss that users differ considerably in their skills when it comes to judging online content credibility.

Hat tip to ResourceShelf.com.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

Codifying Commonsense – the Law.gov Principles

Posted on by
Reply

I am very pleased and proud to add my signature to the LAW.GOV PRINCIPLES AND DECLARATION just posted at public.resource.org.  These principles coalesced during the fifteen Law.gov workshops and have received the unanimous consent of the co-covenors of these Law.gov workshops.  The principles include items that we librarians have discussed for years, even decades, like vendor-neutral citation.  And these principles are consistent with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform States Laws (NCCUSL) draft of a new “Authentication and Preservation of State Electronic Legal Materials Act.”

Here are the principles:

The primary legal materials of the United States are the raw materials of our democracy. They should be made more broadly available to enable an informed citizenry.

Primary legal materials include documents of primary authority issued by governmental bodies, such as court opinions, statutes, and regulations. They also include the supporting documents and other media issued and maintained by those bodies, such as dockets, hearings, forms, oral arguments, and legislative histories. These materials can be found in every branch, at every level, national, tribal, state and local, and should be available to anyone with the will and the heart to obtain them.

The following principles should govern the dissemination of primary legal materials in the United States:

1. Direct fees for dissemination of primary legal materials should be avoided.

2. Limitations on access through terms of use or the assertion of copyright on primary legal materials is contrary to long-standing public policy and core democratic principles and is misleading to citizens.

3. Primary legal materials should be made available using bulk access mechanisms so they may be downloaded by anyone.

4. The primary legal materials, and the methods used to access them, should be authenticated so people can trust in the integrity of these materials.

5. Historical archives should be made available online and in a static location to the extent possible.

6. Vendor- and media-neutral citation mechanisms should be employed.

7. Technical standards for document structure, identifiers, and metadata should be developed and applied as extensively as possible.

8. Data should be distributed in a computer-processable, non-proprietary form in a manner that meets best current practices for the distribution of open government data. That data should represent the definitive documents, not just aggregate, preliminary, or modified forms.

9. An active program of research and development should be sponsored by governmental bodies that issue primary legal materials to develop new standards and solutions to challenges presented by the electronic distribution of definitive primary legal materials. Examples include the automated detection and redaction of private personal information in documents.

10. An active program of education, training, and documentation should be undertaken to help governmental bodies that issue primary legal materials learn and use best current practices.

Adherence to these principles by governmental bodies is not just good for democracy and justice, it will spur innovation and will encourage:

1. Broader use of legal materials in all parts of our education system, including our law schools.

2. Researchers in law schools, universities, and other research institutions to have broader access to bulk data, spurring important research on the functioning of our government.

3. Innovation in the legal information market by reducing barriers to entry.

4. Savings in the government’s own cost of providing these materials through adherence to best current practices.

5. Small businesses to understand rules and regulations they must deal with, reducing their costs and increasing their effectiveness.

6. Increased foreign trade by making it easier for our foreign partners to understand our laws.

7. Better access to justice by making legal information more broadly available to citizens.

How we distribute the raw materials of our democracy is a foundational issue in our system of government. Access to the raw materials of our democracy is a prerequisite for the rule of law and access to justice and makes real the principles of equal protection and due process.

and here are the signatories:

Jack M. Balkin
Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment
 Yale Law School 

Robert C. Berring, Jr.
Walter Perry Johnson Professor of Law
Berkeley Law, University of California 

James Boyle
William Neal Reynolds Professor of Law
 Duke Law School 

Nicholas Bramble
Postdoctoral Associate in Law
 Yale Law School 

Tom R. Bruce
Director, Legal Information Institute
 Cornell Law School 

Richard A. Danner
Archibald C. & Frances Fulk Rufty Research Professor of Law
 Duke Law School 

Laura E. DeNardis
Executive Director, Information Society Project
 Yale Law School 

Edward W. Felten
Professor of Computer Science & Public Affairs
 Princeton University 

Jerry Goldman
Professor & Director, Oyez Project
 Northwestern University 

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Visiting Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley and Princeton University

  Jennifer Jenkins
Director, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
 Duke Law School 

Mitchell Kapor
Trustee
 Mitchell Kapor Foundation 

S. Blair Kauffman
Law Librarian and Professor of Law
 Yale Law School 

Mark A. Lemley
William H. Neukom Professor of Law
 Stanford Law School 

Lawrence Lessig
Professor of Law
 Harvard Law School 

Paul Lomio
Director, Robert Crown Law Library
 Stanford Law School 

Carl Malamud
President
 Public.Resource.Org 

Harry S. Martin III
Librarian & Professor of Law Emeritus
 Harvard Law School 

Peter W. Martin
Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law
 Cornell Law School 

John Mayer
Executive Director
Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction

  Judy Meadows
State Law Librarian
 State Law Library of Montana 

Paul Ohm
Associate Professor of Law and Telecommunications
University of Colorado Law School

  Tim O’Reilly
Chief Executive Officer
 O’Reilly Media 

John G. Palfrey
Henry N. Ess III Librarian & Professor of Law
 Harvard Law School 

Pamela Samuelson
Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law
Berkeley Law, University of California

  Stuart Sierra
Assistant Director, Program on Law and Technology
 Columbia Law School 

Stephen Schultze
Associate Director, Center for Information Technology Policy
 Princeton University 

Tim Stanley
Chief Executive Officer
 Justia 

Erika V. Wayne
Deputy Director, Robert Crown Law Library
 Stanford Law School 

Christopher Wong
Postgraduate Fellow
 New York Law School 

Tim Wu
Professor of Law
 Columbia Law School 

Harlan Yu
Doctoral Student in Computer Science
 Princeton University 

Jonathan Zittrain
Professor of Law & Computer Science
 Harvard Law School

Index Database to Japanese Laws, Regulations and Bills

Posted on by
Reply

From one of the latest issues of the National Diet Library Newsletter (No. 173, June 2010)

http://www.ndl.go.jp/en/publication/ndl_newsletter/173/736.html

In May 2010, the Index Database to Japanese Laws, Regulations and Bills (Japanese only) was renewed.

Along with the Index Database to Laws and Regulations in early Meiji Japan (Japanese only), this database makes searchable information on Japanese laws from the formation of modern nation to the present.

  • Improvements are as follows:
  • ■Texts of the laws and regulations provided by national institutions via the Internet are linked and referable from index information.
  • ■Information on the bills introduced in the Imperial Diet (1890 to 1947) is added.
  • ■Other improvements
  • URL of the index information is fixed, which enables the users to bookmark a specific law or regulation.
  • Link to the Index Database to Laws and Regulations in early Meiji Japan is established.

Index Database to Japanese Laws, Regulations and Bills (Japanese language only)

http://hourei.ndl.go.jp/SearchSys/

  • Popular names of laws and regulations and classification of active laws are shown in the search results.

    • Article: The Common Law and the Constitution as Protectors of Rights in Australia

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Interesting article comparing fundamental rights, judicial review, and  parliamentary supremacy in Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Britain.

    The Common Law and the Constitution as Protectors of Rights in Australia

    Anthony Gray (University of Southern Queensland)

    39 Common Law World Review 119 (2010)

    Available online via LexisNexis.

    Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances 2009

    Hudson Institute Center for Global Prosperity

    http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/Index%20of%20Global%20Philanthropy%20and%20Remittances%202009.pdf

    Table of Contents:

    Philanthropy and Remittances: Helping to Weather the Economic Storm

    Trends in Total Government Aid to Developing Countries

    U.S. Government Aid to Developing Countries

    U.S. Total Economic Engagement with Developing Countries

    All Donors’ Assistance to Developing Countries

    U.S. International Philanthropy: Private Aid at Work

    Foundations: Funding Innovation

    Corporations: Building Partnerships

    PVOs and Volunteerism: Grassroots Action

    Universities and Colleges: Making a Better Future

    Religious Organizations: Doing Good in the World

    International Philanthropy Outside the United States: A World of Generosity

    Global Remittances: A Lifeline for the Poor and Beyond

    Methodology and Acknowledgements

    EU: Brussels Blogger Study 2010

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Waggener Edstrom has published a 16 page report on influential bloggers on European Union affairs. You may request a copy at the following link :

    Brussels Blogger Study 2010: The Influence Index

    http://www.waggeneredstrom.eu/influence

    The top 5 blogs:

    BBC Gavin Hewitt’s Europe

    FT Brussels Blog

    The Digger

    Fistfulof Euros

    Jon Worth/Euroblog

    Report: Cultural Practices of the French in the Digital Era 2008

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Happy Bastille Day!

    It is a few year’s old, but the following report provides the results of a 2008 survey on reading and digital media habits in France.

    Cultural Practices of the French in the Digital Era

    Les practiques culturelles français à l’ère numérique

    http://www.pratiquesculturelles.culture.gouv.fr/08resultat.php

    The print version of the report authored by Olivier Donant was published in  2009.

    French Bill No.2520 of 2010 on burqas and niqabs

    Posted on by
    1

    Here is the full-text (in French) of the May 19th, 2010 bill passed by the French National Assembly on July 13th that prohibits covering one’s face in public.

    Projet de loi 2520: Interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public. 19 mai 2010

    Le présent projet de loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public, délibéré en conseil des ministres après avis du Conseil d’État, sera présenté à l’Assemblée nationale par la ministre d’État, garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice et des libertés, qui sera chargée d’en exposer les motifs et d’en soutenir la discussion.

    Article 1er

    Nul ne peut, dans l’espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage.

    Article 2

    I. – Pour l’application de l’article 1er, l’espace public est constitué des voies publiques ainsi que des lieux ouverts au public ou affectés à un service public.

    II. – L’interdiction édictée à l’article 1er ne s’applique pas si la tenue est prescrite par une loi ou un règlement, si elle est autorisée pour protéger l’anonymat de l’intéressé, si elle est justifiée par des raisons médicales ou des motifs professionnels, ou si elle s’inscrit dans le cadre de fêtes ou de manifestations artistiques ou traditionnelles.

    Article 3

    La méconnaissance de l’interdiction édictée à l’article 1er est punie de l’amende prévue pour les contraventions de la deuxième classe.

    L’obligation d’accomplir le stage de citoyenneté mentionné au 8° de l’article 131-16 du code pénal peut être prononcée en même temps ou à la place de la peine d’amende.

    Article 4

    Au chapitre V (« Des atteintes à la dignité de la personne ») du titre II du livre II du code pénal, il est créé une section 1 ter ainsi rédigée :

    « Section 1 ter

    « De l’instigation à dissimuler son visage

    « Art. 225-4-10. – Le fait, par menace, violence ou contrainte, abus de pouvoir ou abus d’autorité, d’imposer à une personne, en raison de son sexe, de dissimuler son visage est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 € d’amende.

    Article 5

    Les dispositions des articles 1er à 3 entrent en vigueur à l’expiration d’un délai de six mois suivant la promulgation de la présente loi.

    Article 6

    La présente loi s’applique sur l’ensemble du territoire de la République.

    Article 7

    Le Gouvernement remettra au Parlement un rapport sur l’application de la présente loi dix-huit mois après sa publication. Ce rapport présentera les mesures d’accompagnement mises en œuvre par les pouvoirs publics ainsi que les difficultés rencontrées.

    Text of the bill is available online at:

    http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/projets/pl2520.asp

    Legislative reports and other legislative history documents available at:

    http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/dossiers/dissimulation_visage_espace_public.asp

    Building the National Inventory of Legal Materials (resume building too).

    Posted on by
    1

    Erika Wayne and I spoke at the American Association of Law Libraries annual meeting in Denver, Colorado on Saturday, July 10, 2010.  We spoke at the “Legislative Advocacy Training 2010:  Raising the Bar in Your State” session.  Below is the text of my remarks.

    I’m going to let Erika do most of the talking, as she has done most of the work.  And she has done a lot of work on this.

    But I would like to say a word about the importance of the National Inventory of Legal Materials (NILM) and also to encourage other library directors to encourage their staffs to use their 20% time, or 10% time, or even 1% time to contribute to the inventory.

    Rick Klau, who works at Google and who was a guest speaker in our class, used some of his 20% time to help the team developing the Google Scholar Legal Opinions project;  so very great things can come with the help of  small, individual efforts.

    The National Inventory of Legal Materials is part of the Law.gov movement, which I’m very proud to say had its kickoff even on January 12, 2010 at Stanford Law School.

    Law.gov is a very ambitious project.  And, as Jonathan Zittrain said at our January event, it might fail.  But as Professor Zittrain went on to say, even if it does fail, much good will come from the effort.

    And one of those good things is the National Inventory of Legal Materials, which truly has great stand-alone value.

    Anyone who questions the need for Law.gov need only to work on the National Inventory — it is a most eye-opening experience, and should make you advocate for Law.gov.

    One small example:  NOCALL, the Northern California Association of Law Libraries (which has done model work on the California Inventory) has a listserv.  Last spring an S.O.S. went out over the NOCALL listserv:  A firm needed bound volumes of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decisions.  The decisions are online, but with no way to cite them.  The firm needed the print volumes only to get cites for a brief.  Messengers were sent scrambling, while all the content sat online and unused.

    We did our own little national inventory with the 42 students in our Advanced Legal Research class this past spring.  We had each student look at statutes/codes, cases, and regulations/administrative decisions for an assigned state.  One student found that her state posted its version of its public utilities decisions online with volume numbers, but no page numbers.  Close, but still no cigar for citation purposes.

    But what shocked our students the most was the wide use of copyright assertion and the wider use of disclaimers.  So many states said, basically, “we’re posting these legal documents online but you can’t rely upon them.”  Our students, ever the cautious lawyers-in-training, won’t even use eCFR due to its warning that it is not an official source of the CFR.

    I’d like to now suggest another reason to work on the National Inventory and that is to get this nice tag for your resume:

         Contributor, National Inventory of Legal Materials.

    It’s just one little line.

    It’s just six words:  Contributor. National. Inventory. [O]f. Legal. Materials.

    Six words plus a comma that would tell an employer much about the candidate.  Six words (plus a comma) that, for me anyway, would really make a resume stand out from the pile.

    The one line, those few words, would tell me that the candidate is aware; that he or she is involved; that he or she is a big-picture person.  It would tell me that the candidate is a producer — helping to produce positive change.  And it would tell me that the candidate is a “plate-spinner.”  We’re all busy, but a contributor is finding time to toss up one more plate — the National Inventory — and give it a spin as needed.   It’s needed.  The Inventory will never be “done” — it needs to be an organic document, kept evergreen by the contributors to reflect the latest developments.

    As I mentioned before, Law.gov might ultimately fail.  But it might also succeed — there are some amazingly forceful and visionary people behind it.  But for Law.gov to succeed, we need to get everyone on the same page, and that page is the National Inventory of Legal Materials.