Thomson Reuters Listening Session in Boston

As mentioned in last week’s CRIV Blog about the Thomson Reuters/CRIV Biannual Call,  a group of Boston-area Acquisitions Librarians, a representation of both academic and firm libraries, met with TR executives to discuss billing problems and other customer service issues and concerns.  As promised in the last CRIV Blog post, please find the notes captured during our discussion here.

These notes constitute the issues that were raised during the meeting.  The TR executives were there to listen and learn with an aim to create better efficiency, coordination, and communication.  Since this meeting, they’ve identified team members and are appraising feasibility for some of these changes and will be working with the original participants of this gathering for further direction.

Thomson Reuters/CRIV Biannual Call

Thomson Reuters/CRIV Biannual Call

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Attendees:  Kate Hagen (AALL), Lori Hedstrom (Thomson Reuters), Caroline Walters (CRIV)

Agenda #1:

To address a member’s concern about the scheduling of editions for Wright and Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure, Lori Hedstrom had a lengthy interview with the editor of that publication to get the background and history.  The issue regards a recent decision to publish the newly revised Vol. 30B as 1st edition.  For many years it had been published as a hardbound interim edition.   Yet older editions within the Evidence Unit were labeled 1st editions in the 70’s and 2nd editions were published in 2005.  The timing of the new 1st edition Vol. 30B, published in 2017, was therefore confusing to catalogers and serials inventory.  This is what Lori learned in order to illuminate and explain the irregular publishing schedules for Wright and Miller:

Unlike other West publications, Wright & Miller is primarily written by the work of outside authors, specialists in their area of interest.  Material within the set is updated as needed when the law evolves and also when a subject specialist contributes new scholarship.  This is why individual volumes within Wright & Miller have, for quite some time, taken divergent paths as far as how often they are revised between one edition to the next.

With respect to volume 30B’s recent publication as a 1st Edition, until recently, the subject of this volume (the hearsay rules) were not covered in Wright & Miller by an independent author.  While an original analysis of the hearsay rules was being written by Wright & Miller’s original authors, this subject was covered within the treatise by material that was largely copied from the Handbook of Federal Evidence.  The volumes that contained this material were labeled as “interim” editions for many years.  Recently, a new author was retained to independently research and create a wholly original analysis of the hearsay rules, for which a new chapter was created within the treatise.  This is why the new Vol. 30B, which replaces the last of Wright & Miller’s “interim” editions, is labeled as a 1st edition.

Agenda #2:

Thomson Reuters Listening Session in Boston:  This fall Thomson Reuters agreed to send high-level executives to meet with a group of Boston-area Acquisitions Librarians, a representation of both academic and firm libraries, to discuss billing problems and other customer service issues and concerns.  It was a very productive meeting and a first step toward meaningful change.  During our call, Lori offered to summarize the meeting for CRIV which will then be published with a wider audience.  She hopes to schedule follow-up meetings with this same group to report their progress and get feedback for further development.  A separate blog post will follow detailing the results of this meeting.

Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated!

Read on to learn how the Internet Archive has employed an obscure copyright law to release these titles: http://blog.archive.org/2017/10/10/books-from-1923-to-1941-now-liberated/

ProQuest Announces Partnership with Google Scholar to Make Dissertations Findable

“Google Scholar and ProQuest expand collaboration to improve research outcomes.” http://www.proquest.com/about/news/2017/ProQuest-Dissertations-Now-Discoverable-in-Google-Scholar.html

New Copyright News on the European Front

Read on to learn how unintended consequences for a suit brought against Google hinges on a German law referred to as English as the Ancillary Copyright for Press Publishers:  “German Publishers’ Lawsuit Against Google Threatens to Backfire.”

New twist in the copyright wars

The proverb “he who laughs last, laughs longest” comes to mind here:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/17/528680860/can-you-copyright-your-dumb-joke-and-how-can-you-prove-its-yours

Important Copyright Legislation to watch

In light of last week’s passage of House bill H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017 this blog spot offers three articles and a blog post gleaned from Against the Grain that illustrate the problems of politicizing this key Copyright position, traditionally appointed and managed by the Librarian of Congress.

As illustrated in “A Worrisome Harbinger of Changes in Copyright Law” from the Chronicle, in addition to H.R. 1695, there are two more bills on the horizon:

Copyright Office for the Digital Economy Act (H.R.4241) and the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2016 (H.R.5757), expected to be re-introduced as part of the copyright-reform movement.

H.R. 4241: “This bill establishes the U.S. Copyright Office as a separate independent agency in the legislative branch, to be headed by a Director appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (Currently, the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress [LOC] and is headed by the Register of Copyrights.)”

H.R.5757:  “This bill establishes in the U.S. Copyright Office a small claims board to serve as an alternative forum for parties to voluntarily seek to resolve certain copyright claims if the total monetary recovery sought by a party does not exceed $30,000.”

All three legislative initiatives could have wide-ranging implications for academic institutions, starting with making the Register of Copyrights a Presidential political appointee, the move that just passed the House last week.

Notably from “Big Content Cheers as Congress Votes on Changes to US Copyright Office” (an article posted in Ars Technica) opponents to these measures cite this concern among others:

“Special interests will be involved in picking the person who makes decisions over copyright,” said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during debate today on the House floor. “Congress is choosing big powerful interests over consumers, over innovation, and over the little guy.”

Further reading on this important development to watch:

“New Bill Would Let Trump Pick the Next Register of Copyrights”

“‘Register of Copyrights’ Bill Easily Passes House”

“Library Copyright Alliance Continues Opposition to Register of Copyrights Bill”