Subject: IP NEWS/OPINION: ABA Reviews UCITA; Editorials on Supreme Court & Term Extension
NINCH-ANNOUNCE (david@ninch.org)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:30:05 -0400
Message-Id: <p0510031eb7a05f6374a7@[192.100.21.23]> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:30:05 -0400 To: ninch-announce@cni.org From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org> Subject: IP NEWS/OPINION: ABA Reviews UCITA; Editorials on Supreme Court & Term Extension
NINCH ANNOUNCEMENT
News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources
from across the Community
August 23, 2001
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWS/OPINION
1. Editorials on Supreme Court Reviewing the Copyright Term Extension Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22911-2001Aug16.html
http://www.sptimes.com/News/082101/Opinion/Drawing_a_line_on_cop.shtml
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHES A TASK FORCE TO REVIEW UCITA
============================
2. Editorials on Supreme Court Reviewing the Copyright Term Extension Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22911-2001Aug16.html
http://www.sptimes.com/News/082101/Opinion/Drawing_a_line_on_cop.shtml
A number of editorials in the press are encouraging the Supreme Court
to review the Eldred v Ashcroft case that maintains that the Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was unconstitutional. In February
2001, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit ruled that the Term Extension Act was constitutional. The
plaintiffs plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. The
Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times are encouraging the
review.
>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:05:55 -0400
>Reply-To: cni-copyright@cni.org
>Sender: owner-cni-copyright@cni.org
>From: "DRoe2" <droe2@earthlink.net>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-copyright@cni.org>
>Subject: Re: Eldred v. Ashcroft editorial
>
>Another newspaper joins in:
>http://www.sptimes.com/News/082101/Opinion/Drawing_a_line_on_cop.shtml
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <AlanKabat@aol.com>
>To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cni-copyright@cni.org>
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 9:46 PM
>Subject: Eldred v. Ashcroft editorial
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22911-2001Aug16.html
>
>The Washington Post (Friday, Aug. 17, 2001, at A22) (www.washingtonpost.com),
>has an interesting editorial about the copyright term extension litigation,
>titled "Copyright Craziness," which concludes that:
>
>"The case is difficult legally, because the Constitution so clearly and
>sweepingly gives Congress, not the courts, power over copyrights. As a policy
>matter, however, it isn't difficult at all. Vast quantities of creative
>material shouldn't be perpetually owned privately, and Congress's repeated
>extensions of protection to copyright holders have shredded any meaningful
>limit. The plaintiffs plan to ask the Supreme Court to examine the issue. It
>would be well worth the justices' time."
>
>© 2001 The Washington Post Company
============================
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHES A TASK FORCE TO REVIEW UCITA
UCITA GOES BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
Computerworld - August 3, 2001
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO62803,00.html
The American Bar Association has set up a task force to review the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) in response to
findings by its Tort and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) that UCITA
should be extensively revised to better reflect current law on
licensing intellectual property, "with due regard for basic rights of
consumers and the protection of licensees from unwarranted unilateral
actions of the licensor."
An article in Computerworld above and a report from the American
Library Association below gives fuller information on this news.
Meanwhile, the Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions
(AFFECT), a group organized to oppose UCITA, is planning its annual
meeting in Washington DC on September 19.
http://www.4cite.org/annual_mtg.html
David Green
===========
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: Task force to review UCITA
>Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>
> >From the ALA Washington Office...
>__
>
>AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHES A TASK FORCE TO REVIEW UCITA
>
>[1] American Bar Association establishes a task force to review
>UCITA.
>
>On August 2, the American Bar Association (ABA) Board of Governors
>approved the formation of an ABA Task Force to review the Uniform Computer
>Information Transactions Act (UCITA). A high level task force will meet
>during the fall to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of UCITA and to
>ascertain the willingness of the proponents to negotiate changes in good
>faith. NCCUSL has agreed to stand down from pushing UCITA in the state
>legislatures until the task force completes its work. This agreement does
>not include the other proponents of UCITA like Microsoft or AOL, etc. who
>could still pursue passage in state legislatures. Currently, UCITA is a
>bill in Washington and the District of Columbia.
>
>The formation of this task force prevented a vote on a resolution
>recommending that the ABA formally oppose UCITA and recommend that it be
>withdrawn for redrafting. Librarians and other opponents of UCITA sent
>letters to ABA delegates from their respective states, encouraging them to
>vote for this resolution.
>
>At this point, it is unclear whether this task force review will lead to a
>long substantive redrafting of UCITA or whether it will result in the kind
>of deadlock that has previously characterized any attempt to modify UCITA.
>The ABA mid-winter meeting in February 2002 would be the earliest time for
>UCITA to be considered again by the full membership of ABA. ABA review of
>uniform commercial laws such as UCITA are customary and considered
>essential for advancement.
>
>The ABA action signifies the influence of the opposition on the progress
>of UCITA. The pressure to kill or amend UCITA drastically is building.
>However, it is too early to assume that UCITA is dead. Caution continues
>to be the byword regarding UCITA.
>
-- ============================================================== NINCH-Announce is an announcement listserv, produced by the National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH). The subjects of announcements are not the projects of NINCH, unless otherwise noted; neither does NINCH necessarily endorse the subjects of announcements. We attempt to credit all re-distributed news and announcements and appreciate reciprocal credit.For questions, comments or requests to un-subscribe, contact the editor: <mailto:david@ninch.org> ============================================================== See and search back issues of NINCH-ANNOUNCE at <http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/>. ==============================================================
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:05:55 -0400
Reply-To: cni-copyright@cni.org
Sender: owner-cni-copyright@cni.org
From: "DRoe2" <droe2@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-copyright@cni.org>
Subject: Re: Eldred v. Ashcroft editorial
Another newspaper joins in:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/082101/Opinion/Drawing_a_line_on_cop.shtml
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlanKabat@aol.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cni-copyright@cni.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 9:46 PM
Subject: Eldred v. Ashcroft editorial
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22911-2001Aug16.html
The Washington Post (Friday, Aug. 17, 2001, at A22) (www.washingtonpost.com),
has an interesting editorial about the copyright term extension litigation,
titled "Copyright Craziness," which concludes that:
"The case is difficult legally, because the Constitution so clearly and
sweepingly gives Congress, not the courts, power over copyrights. As a policy
matter, however, it isn't difficult at all. Vast quantities of creative
material shouldn't be perpetually owned privately, and Congress's repeated
extensions of protection to copyright holders have shredded any meaningful
limit. The plaintiffs plan to ask the Supreme Court to examine the issue. It
would be well worth the justices' time."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Task force to review UCITA
Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>From the ALA Washington Office...
__
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHES A TASK FORCE TO REVIEW UCITA
[1] American Bar Association establishes a task force to review
UCITA.
On August 2, the American Bar Association (ABA) Board of Governors
approved the formation of an ABA Task Force to review the Uniform Computer
Information Transactions Act (UCITA). A high level task force will meet
during the fall to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of UCITA and to
ascertain the willingness of the proponents to negotiate changes in good
faith. NCCUSL has agreed to stand down from pushing UCITA in the state
legislatures until the task force completes its work. This agreement does
not include the other proponents of UCITA like Microsoft or AOL, etc. who
could still pursue passage in state legislatures. Currently, UCITA is a
bill in Washington and the District of Columbia.
The formation of this task force prevented a vote on a resolution
recommending that the ABA formally oppose UCITA and recommend that it be
withdrawn for redrafting. Librarians and other opponents of UCITA sent
letters to ABA delegates from their respective states, encouraging them to
vote for this resolution.
At this point, it is unclear whether this task force review will lead to a
long substantive redrafting of UCITA or whether it will result in the kind
of deadlock that has previously characterized any attempt to modify UCITA.
The ABA mid-winter meeting in February 2002 would be the earliest time for
UCITA to be considered again by the full membership of ABA. ABA review of
uniform commercial laws such as UCITA are customary and considered
essential for advancement.
The ABA action signifies the influence of the opposition on the progress
of UCITA. The pressure to kill or amend UCITA drastically is building.
However, it is too early to assume that UCITA is dead. Caution continues
to be the byword regarding UCITA.
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Fri Dec 21 2001 - 11:30:26 EST