Hat tip to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio (via the Google Play app) where I first read / heard about this 2019 documentary.
“How a missing Wikipedia entry for Who Let the Dogs Out led to a nine-year hunt for answers,” CBC Radio, Posted: Apr 25, 2019:
‘I found myself really thinking about who actually let the dogs out,’ says director Brent Hodge …” [Link to CBC story.]
If you don’t think it matters, i.e. free access to current and historical local law, then you aren’t paying attention.
We can also only hope that any copyright law overhaul will be rational; Congress is involved. But there are a few good people in Congress so make your voices heard.
First: Librarians, please do not make legal decisions, copyright or otherwise, for your employer (or your own business for that matter) if there is possible litigation down the road. Do not be penny wise and pound foolish. Your library employer has, or should have, a lawyer who is paid for making these decisions that will keep you and the institution from getting sued. Keep in mind that it is not just a matter of right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, win or lose. It takes time and money to defend yourself in a lawsuit, frivolous or not. Wouldn’t you rather spend that time and money on services for your library’s patrons?
LawSites continues to be at the top of my list for Keeping Up With Interesting Legal Tech News. There are so many reasons so many of us link back to it. (There are other sites that will keep you abreast of the latest SCOTUS, Law and …, legal scholarship,and legal research news.)
“State Legal Information Census: An Analysis of Primary State Legal Information,” by Sarah Glassmeyer, Published on February 21, 2016.
Sarah Glassmeyer, is a Research Fellow with the Harvard Library Innovation Lab, Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Excerpt: “.… Findings indicate that there exist at least 14 barriers to accessing legal information. These barriers exist for both the individual user of a resource for personal research as well as an institutional user that would seek to republish or transform the information. Details about the types of barriers and the quantity of their existence can be found under “Barriers to Access.” At the time of the census, no state provided barrier-free access to their legal information….” [Link to full LLRX article.]
Citing law back to Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834), “Fastcase maintains that public law cannot be copyrighted ….” [Quoted from Ambrogi, Feb. 6, 2016, article.]
Track Fastcase v. Casemaker news developments at Law Sites Blog and other legal news sources:
Do writers need their own “Taylor Swift” to protect their right to be paid for their labor? (See NPR’s story about Swift, Apple, and right to be paid.)
The latest Amazon plan to pay authors based on pages turned (and presumably read?), makes me wonder if all readers shouldn’t just start turning those pages, whether you read them or not. We can only hope that the Amazon eyes “watching” you turn pages aren’t also able to tell if you have actually read the words. (No, maybe we don’t want to know that.)
“What If Authors Were Paid Every Time Someone Turned a Page?” by Peter Wayner, The Atlantic, June 20, 2015
Link to case and commentary from LLB2: “Court Holds West, Lexis Legal Briefs Offering Is Fair Use”
Re: White v. West Publishing Company and Reed Elsevier (USDC Southern District NY) (12 Civ. 1340 (JSR)), decided 7/3/14.
Excerpt from blog post: “One of the running issues I had been following is the attempt to copyright legal briefs with the intention to gain royalties or prevent others from using them. The particular case that litigates the issue is White v. West Publishing Company and Reed Elsevier (USDC Southern District NY). District Judge Rakoff ruled that the use by West and Lexis is fair use….” [Link to full post and case.]