--- Forwarded Message from "Marianne C. Crusius" <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 11:14:53 -0400
>From: "Marianne C. Crusius" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Organization: Princeton University
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: DISTANCE ED REPORT - SENATE HEARING

Dear IALLers,

just in case you have not seen this elsewhere.........


> > From: Carole Barone <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Dear NLII Members:
> >
> > You have probably received other announcements regarding the release of
> > this
> > report.  However, I thought you might be interested in the assessment
> > below,
> > prepared by Garret Sern, the EDUCAUSE policy analyst.
> >
> > Carole
> >
> > Carole A. Barone, Ph.D.
> > Vice President - EDUCAUSE
> > 1112 16th St., NW
> > Washington, DC 20036
> >
> > (202) 872-4200 voice
> > (202) 872-4318 fax
> >
> > http://www.educause.edu/
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Garret Sern
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 9:56 AM
> > To: Policy Team; Carole Barone
> > Subject: FW: ALAWON v8, n50 - DISTANCE ED REPORT; SENATE HEARING
> >
> > Below is a snyopsis of the ALA of the recent release of the copyright
> > office's report on copyright and digital distance education. At first
> > glance, the library community appears to be favorable. This 200 page
> > report
> > appears to be a valid attempt to strike a balance between copyright
> > owners
> > and users.
> >
> > The DMCA instructed the copyright office to conduct a six month study on
> > how
> > best to promote digital education via digital technologies, while
> > maintaining a balance between the rights of copyright owners and the
> > users
> > of information.
> >
> > Marybeth Peters, register on copyrights, testified before the Senate
> > Judicary Committee this morning. She provided the committee with an
> > overview
> > of the copyright office's six month study and fielded some questions.
> >
> > Highlights of Recommendations:
> >
> > 1. Exemption must include digital transmissions over computer networks.
> > 2. Eliminate the physical classroom requirement. Permit officially
> > registered students to access information, irregardless of location.
> > 3. Retain nonprofit requirement.
> > 4. Add new provision to Sec. 112 to allow distance learning to take
> > place
> > asynchronously.
> >
> > The DMCA  coalition will be meeting soon to discuss the report and
> > determine
> > whether further action is needed.
> >
> > Garret
> >
> > ______________________
> > Garret Sern
> > EDUCAUSE
> > 1112 16th Street, NW   Suite 600
> > Washington, D.C. 20036
> > (202) 331-5365 (v) (202) 872-4318 (f)
> > [log in to unmask]
> > http://www.educause.edu
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ALAWASH E-MAIL [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 12:19 PM
> > To: ALA Washington Office Newsline
> > Subject: ALAWON v8, n50 - DISTANCE ED REPORT; SENATE HEARING
> >
> > ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline
> > Volume 8, Number 50
> > May 25, 1999
> >
> > In this issue:
> >
> > [1] Copyright Office Issues Report on Distance Education
> > [2] Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Distance Education
> > Report
> >
> > [1] Copyright Office Issues Report on Distance Education
> >
> > On May 25 the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, released
> > the "Report on Copyright and Digital Distance Education" as
> > required by a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
> > last fall.  The report (169 pages plus appendices) is available on
> > the Copyright Office Web site at
> > http://www.loc.gov/copyright/cpypub/de_rprt.pdf
> >
> > The report is remarkably comprehensive, given the short 6-months
> > time frame imposed by Congress, and the recommendations seem well
> > balanced in recommending an updating of current copyright law
> > exemptions for distance education, but with safeguards to respond
> > to proprietor concerns.  The report's statutory recommendations
> > are descriptions of recommended changes, rather than legislative
> > language.  Full evaluation of the impact of such changes would
> > obviously depend on the specific language and context.  Further,
> > some recommendations seem to depend on, or await the widespread
> > availability of, certain technological protections that the report
> > itself admits are not yet in widespread use, or would only be
> > available to those educational institutions able to use such new
> > technological protections.
> >
> > The report provides a useful overview of the nature of distance
> > education, describes current licensing practices in digital
> > distance education, describes the status of technologies relating
> > to the delivery and protection of distance education materials,
> > analyzes the application of current copyright law to digital
> > distance education activities, discusses prior initiatives
> > addressing copyright and digital distance education, and examines
> > the question of whether the law should be changed, first
> > summarizing the views of interested parties and then providing the
> > Copyright Office's analysis and recommendations.
> >
> > In its discussion of whether the law should be changed, the report
> > notes that educators and librarians believe that a change in the
> > law is required to optimize the quality and availability of forms
> > of distance education that take full advantage of today's
> > technological capabilities.  Members of this community feel that
> > fair use is uncertain in its application to the digital
> > environment, that current exemptions are outmoded and do not
> > extend to the full range of activities involved in digital
> > distance education, and that licensing for such uses is not
> > working well.  The report also notes that copyright owners do not
> > believe statutory amendments are necessary or advisable, that
> > digital distance education is flourishing under current law, that
> > expanding exemptions would harm primary and secondary markets, and
> > that licensing fees should be regarding as a cost of distance
> > education.
> >
> > The Copyright Office itself concluded that some policy
> > recalibration may be appropriate at this point, and offered
> > several recommendations to Congress.  These may be summarized as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1. Clarify that the term "transmission" in section 110(2) covers
> > transmissions by digital means as well as analog.  Do this
> > through legislative history rather than by statutory amendment.
> >
> > 2. Expand coverage of rights to the extent technologically
> > necessary.  Such an amendment should include the rights of
> > reproduction and/or distribution only to the extent
> > technologically required in order to transmit the performance or
> > display authorized by the exemption.  In particular, the ability
> > to make reproductions should be limited to transient copies
> > created as part of the automatic technical process of the
> > digital transmission of an exempted performance or display.
> >
> > 3. Emphasize the concept of mediated instruction.  The key is to
> > ensure that the performance or display is analogous to the type
> > of performance or display that would take place in a live
> > classroom setting.  In other words, it is a use of the work as
> > an integral part of the class experience, controlled by the
> > instructor, rather than as supplemental or background
> > information to be experienced independently.
> >
> > 4. Eliminate the requirement of a physical classroom, but
> > substitute the requirement of official enrollment.
> >
> > 5. Add new safeguards to counteract new risks.  The safeguards
> > recommended include several adapted from provisions contained in
> > Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  First, any
> > transient copies permitted under the exemption should be
> > retained for no longer than reasonably necessary to complete the
> > transmission.  Second, those seeking to invoke the exemption
> > should be required to institute policies regarding copyright, to
> > provide informational materials to faculty, students and
> > relevant staff, and to provide notice to students that materials
> > used in connection with the course may be subject to copyright
> > protection.  Third, when works are transmitted in digital form,
> > technological measures should be in place to control
> > unauthorized uses.  Such measures should protect against both
> > unauthorized access and unauthorized dissemination after access
> > has been obtained.  The law should impose an obligation not to
> > intentionally interfere with technological protections applied
> > by copyright owners. "Access control measures, such as
> > passwords, are already in widespread use.  Technologies that
> > control post-access uses for all types of works are not yet
> > widely available.  The broadening of section 110(2) to cover
> > digital transmissions should be tied to the ability to deploy
> > such measures in addition to access control.  If copyrighted
> > works are to be placed on networks, and exposed to the resulting
> > risks, it is appropriate to condition the availability of the
> > exemption on the application of adequate technological
> > protections."
> >
> > 6. Maintain existing standards of eligibility -- that is, that the
> > exemption is available only to a governmental body or nonprofit
> > education institution, as in current law.  The report notes that
> > there was extensive debate over the appropriateness of retaining
> > the "nonprofit" element in the context of today's digital
> > distance education.
> >
> > 7. Expand categories of works covered.  Section 110(2) could be
> > amended to allow performances of categories in addition to the
> > current nondramatic literary and musical works, but not of
> > entire works, only the performance of reasonable and limited
> > portions of these additional works.  It may be advisable to
> > exclude from the added categories those works that are produced
> > primarily for instructional use.
> >
> > 8. Require the performance or display to be made from a lawful
> > copy, if the categories of works covered by section 110(2) are
> > expanded to include dramatic works, audiovisual works and/or
> > sound recordings.
> >
> > 9. Add a new ephemeral recording exemption.  Adding a new
> > subsection to section 112 would permit an educator to upload a
> > copyrighted work onto a server, to be subsequently transmitted
> > under the conditions set out in section 110(2) to students
> > enrolled in the course, subject to certain limits similar to
> > those set out in other subsections of section 112.
> >
> > The Copyright Office also made recommendations concerning
> > clarification of fair use, licensing issues, and international
> > considerations.
> >
> > If any legislative action is taken with regard to distance
> > education, the report strongly recommends that legislative history
> > explicitly address certain fair use principles:
> >
> > -> Confirm that the fair use doctrine is technology neutral and
> > applies to activities in the digital environment.
> >
> > -> Provide some examples of digital uses that are likely to
> > qualify as fair.
> >
> > -> Explain that the lack of established guidelines for any
> > particular type of use does not mean that fair use is
> > inapplicable.
> >
> > -> Clarify the relationship of guidelines to fair use and other
> > statutory defenses.
> >
> > -> Explain that guidelines are a safe harbor rather than a ceiling
> > on what is permitted, and that guidelines should not be deferred
> > to as absolute codes of conduct without leeway for reasonable
> > activities that they may not adequately accommodate.
> >
> > The report suggests revisiting the licensing issue in two or three
> > years after enactment of any amendment.  If problems persist, then
> > Congress could consider the approaches of other countries such as
> > Canada.  Or Congress could seek to establish some form of
> > legislative incentives for the development of more effective and
> > acceptable licensing mechanisms.
> >
> > The Copyright Office believes its recommendations are fully
> > consistent with the standards established by the Berne Convention
> > and the TRIPs Agreement for limitations or exceptions to the
> > exclusive rights of copyright owners.  The report concludes with
> > the observation that the balance struck in U.S. law will have an
> > importance beyond our borders, both through its potential
> > application abroad and as a model for other countries examining
> > the issue.
> >
> > [2] Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Distance Education
> > Report
> >
> > On the morning of the report's release, May 25, the Senate
> > Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Copyright Office "Report
> > on Copyright and Digital Distance Education."  The only witness
> > was Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights.  Her testimony
> > summarized the report.
> >
> > Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), in his opening statement, highlighted
> > the importance of distance education to his home state of Utah,
> > and recalled a distance education exposition and copyright round
> > table at the Utah Education Network where he hosted the Register
> > of Copyrights.  Senator Hatch asked the Register later about the
> > impact of this visit on the study, and she said it had been very
> > helpful to all involved.
> >
> > Ranking minority member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also noted a visit by
> > the Register to Champlain College in Vermont during the course of
> > the study.  Leahy quoted the report as saying that by 2002, the
> > number of students taking distance courses will represent 15
> > percent of all higher education students.
> >
> > The hearing was also attended by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
> > and John Ashcroft (R-MO).  All Senators were very appreciative of
> > the major work done by the Copyright Office and indicated they
> > would give the recommendations close attention.
> >
> > ******
> > ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is a free, irregular publication of the
> > American Library Association Washington Office. All materials
> > subject to copyright by the American Library Association may be
> > reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial purposes with
> > appropriate credits.
> >
> > To subscribe to ALAWON, send the message: subscribe ala-wo
> > [your_firstname] [your_lastname] to [log in to unmask] or go to
> > http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon.  To unsubscribe to ALAWON, send
> > the message: unsubscribe ala-wo to [log in to unmask] or go to
> > http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon. ALAWON archives at
> > http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon.
> >
> > ALA Washington Office, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 403,
> > Washington, D.C. 20004-1701; phone: 202.628.8410 or 800.941.8478
> > toll-free; fax: 202.628.8419; e-mail: [log in to unmask]; Web
> > site: http://www.ala.org/washoff.  Editor: Lynne E. Bradley;
> > Managing Editor: Deirdre Herman; Contributors: Phyllis Albritton,
> > Mary Costabile, Carol Henderson, Peter Kaplan, Claudette Tennant
> > and Rick Weingarten.
>
> --
> ***********************************
> Marianne C. Crusius
> Manager, Language Resource Center
> 100 Jones Hall
> Princeton University
> Princeton, NJ 08544
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> tel:   (609) 258-2114
> fax:   (609) 258-1897

--
***********************************
Marianne C. Crusius
Manager, Language Resource Center
100 Jones Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

e-mail: [log in to unmask]
tel:   (609) 258-2114
fax:   (609) 258-1897