Source: http://policynotes.arl.org/?tag=court-cases
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:07:33+00:00

Document:
ARL has released a new Advocacy and Public Policy Update, covering the period from September 14, 2018 to January 15, 2019. Prior updates are available here.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged advocacy and policy update, appropriations, copyright, court cases, gsu, marrakesh, NAFTA, net neutrality, policy, privacy, public domain on January 16, 2019 by Krista Cox.
On July 12, the Department of Justice has issued a request to web hosting provider, DreamHost, seeking information on visitors to a website that was used to organize protests against President Trump on Inauguration Day. DreamHost has fought this request because it would amount to handing over 1.3 million visitor IP addresses, contact information and content, in what appears to be a clear threat to freedom of speech and privacy.
The broad search warrant seeks for DreamHost to turnover detailed information, including IP addresses, contact information and financial information of all visitors to the site; DreamHost already complied with the request to turn over the registration information of the owners of the website. The warrant also seeks communications and unpublished content, such as draft posts and photos.
The request will clearly have the effect of chilling freedom of speech and freedom of association. It appears that the Administration is seeking to identify dissidents who oppose President Trump, a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of the website’s visitors. One can only assume that the Administration is using the power of the DOJ to threaten and silence critics of President Trump.
For libraries, who have long championed freedom of speech and association, these reports are particularly appalling. Privacy is essential to the exercise of the First Amendment so that an individual may research, inquire and learn without having the subject of his interests scrutinized by others. Patron privacy has long be a fundamental value of libraries and in a world where so much information is now online, it is critical for protections to extend to visitors to websites. The DOJ’s warrant threatens these central tenants to a free and open democracy.
DreamHost is challenging the request, with a hearing scheduled for today. DreamHost argues that the search warrant is overly broad and violates the Fourth Amendment and privacy laws. You can read more at DreamHost’s blog post on the case.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged court cases, DOJ, first amendment, fourth amendment, free speech, freedom of association, President Trump, privacy, search, surveillance on August 18, 2017 by Krista Cox.
On May 19, 2017, ARL released its latest Advocacy and Public Policy Update. The topics covered in this update include various copyright issues (Register of Copyrights bill, Copyright Office study on moral rights, Copyright Office rulemaking on modernizing copyright recordation, and numerous amicus briefs filed), LSU v. Elsevier, appropriations, access to and preservation of government data, net neutrality, developments on trade agreements, and issues related to immigration and border control. The full update is available here.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged access, advocacy and public policy, copyright, copyright office, court cases, immigration, LSUvElsevier, NAFTA, net neutrality, open access, open government, register of copyrights, TPP, trade, update on May 31, 2017 by Krista Cox.
On February 27, 2017, Louisiana State University (LSU) filed a lawsuit against international science publisher Elsevier after the publisher breached its contract and refused to allow LSU’s veterinarian school faculty and students to access Elsevier content licensed by LSU’s Libraries. ARL’s press release is available here.
LSU currently holds a license with Elsevier to cover its entire Baton Rouge campus. LSU’s veterinary school, which is located on main campus of LSU in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, previously held its own license with Elsevier. Upon the expiration of the veterinary school’s license with Elsevier, the veterinary school users continued resources licensed by LSU Libraries. The LSU Libraries’ license (attached as an exhibit to the end of the complaint) unequivocally covers its entire Baton Rouge campus, including the veterinary school.
Despite the fact that LSU Libraries license covers IP ranges specifically covering the veterinary school, Elsevier blocked access to users at the veterinary school. Upon discovery, LSU contacted Elsevier on October 11, 2016 to request reactivation of the IP ranges for the veterinary school. Elsevier unblocked those IP addresses, but then in January again blocked access for users at the veterinary school. Elsevier refused to respond to LSU’s written requests to reactivate these IP addresses.
Additionally, when LSU Libraries made a request to license 19 additional veterinary titles from Elsevier, the publisher initially responded that it would cost an additional $35,000 to add these titles. LSU Libraries accepted this price and requested an invoice only to then find Elsevier refusing to sell these titles to them.
Although LSU requested Elsevier to restore access to the veterinary school, Elsevier failed to respond until nearly six weeks later and only after LSU filed a lawsuit for breach of contract. Ultimately, Elsevier has refused to restore access for those in the veterinary school. Additionally, Elsevier has not accepted service of the lawsuit, which was filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and for which service of process was attempted at Elsevier’s New York headquarters. As a result, LSU is now attempting to effect service of process at Elsevier’s headquarters in Amsterdam through the Hague Service Convention.
On April 22, 2017 Elsevier proposed that LSU “add a minimum of $170,000 of additional 2017 subscriptions to their existing contract” and “increase the price of Freedom Collection by $30,000 for the 2017 subscription period.” This amount represents an incredible increase in cost to LSU, and would not even cover the full 2017 calendar year.
Here’s my breakdown and analysis of what’s happened so far.
In essence, in an effort to exercise sound financial stewardship of public resources, LSU has been punished through Elsevier’s refusal to honor its contract. Elsevier’s actions in this case, from its blocking the IP ranges for the veterinary school to its failure to accept service at its New York office of the lawsuit to its outrageous demands that LSU Libraries pay an additional $200,000, demonstrate the publisher’s bad faith.
As a result of this dispute, Elsevier apparently wants LSU to add $170,000 of journals that the university does not need or want, a complete waste of scarce state dollars. Elsevier is holding hostage access to the veterinary school community in an effort to extort more money from a state institution. Keep in mind that LSU is already paying $1.5 million (and rising) to Elsevier.
All LSU is trying to do in the present case is ensure that it is not unnecessarily duplicating subscriptions for its campus and using state resources in a responsible manner. It is disappointing that Elsevier would respond to its own breach of contract by demanding more money from a public institution.
Elsevier is well aware that LSU, like other universities, is heavily reliant upon the various types of research and educational content for which Elsevier enjoys monopolistic market powers and Elsevier is unfairly abusing its leverage to coerce LSU into paying additional and unnecessary subscription fees for research and educational content that LSU has already contracted for.
The most obvious harm in the case comes from Elsevier’s refusal to honor its contract with LSU by blocking access to the veterinary school. Although the faculty, staff and students of the veterinary school had previously been able to access content licensed by LSU Libraries and such access was expressly covered under the IP ranges contracted for, Elsevier has denied access to these users.
Once again, Elsevier is using its monopoly power—LSU can only get the titles owned by Elsevier from Elsevier itself—to try to extract more money out of LSU. Elsevier is hoping that by refusing to honor its contract, it will be able to pressure LSU to renegotiate its current contract and pay even more money—more than the $1.5 million dollars the university pays each year to the publisher.
While the major portion of the complaint involves Elsevier’s blocking of the IP ranges for the veterinary school and thus breaching its existing contract with LSU, the publisher also refused to honor the negotiations with respect to nineteen additional titles. When LSU inquired about these additional titles, Elsevier provided a quote. LSU confirmed acceptance of these terms and requested an invoice. Elsevier then replied “Thank you for these new title additions.” However, Elsevier subsequently refused to honor this agreement.
Every first-year law student takes contract law and the very first lesson is that an offer plus acceptance of that offer (plus consideration, such as money, to differentiate it from a gift) results in a valid contract. Here, Elsevier made an offer to add the requested titles in exchange for payment by LSU of $35,000. LSU expressly accepted. Elsevier even acknowledged receipt of acceptance. However, like its current contract with LSU, Elsevier has breached its own contract by now reneging and refusing to invoice the institution and provide the promised content.
Offer + acceptance (and consideration) = valid contract. Except, apparently, when you’re Elsevier.
Perhaps the craziest part of the entire story—though there are many deeply troubling actions by Elsevier—is the fact that Elsevier has not accepted service of the lawsuit. More than two months after the lawsuit was filed (during which time, LSU and its faculty, staff and students continue to be harmed by Elsevier’s refusal to honor its contract), Elsevier appears to be playing games with this public university. While it would be understandable for Elsevier to try to aggressively defend itself against the claims (even in a case where the facts clearly favor LSU), here Elsevier is essentially pretending that the lawsuit doesn’t even exist. This is not a standard delay tactic in litigation.
Elsevier does substantial business in the United States. The publisher charges millions of dollars each year to hundreds of universities and institutions in the United States. It has fourteen corporate headquarters and branch offices located in the United States. It is a member of the Association of American Publishers. According to OpenSecrets, last year Elsevier (under RELX) spent $1.72 million dollars lobbying in the United States (and lest you think RELX’s lobbying dollars are going to be substantially different from Elsevier, the 2014 filings show that while the company was still going by the name Reed Elsevier it paid $1.6 million dollars to its lobbyists). It has lobbied substantially on issues related to copyright and against open access. The publisher’s global litigation counsel was a witness in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee copyright review hearing on Section 512. Elsevier has taken advantage of its rights to sue as a plaintiff in United States courts on multiple occasions in cases involving everything from breach of contract to copyright infringement to exemptions from sunshine laws. Clearly, Elsevier enjoys the benefits of its business in the United States and invests substantial resources into shaping the laws in this country.
While Elsevier enjoys all the advantages of doing business in the United States when it benefits the corporation, it conveniently decides that it’s a Dutch company when it is being sued. That LSU is being forced to chase Elsevier down in Amsterdam through the Hague Service Convention is an incredible outcome of the dispute.
Through its continuing breach of its contractual obligations to LSU under the Agreement, Elsevier has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable injury and significant damages to LSU and has significantly damaged, impaired and restrained the university’s ability to conduct research and educate its students, thereby improperly restricting and interfering with LSU’s primary purpose and constitutional mandate under the Louisiana Constitution.
In a time where states are facing enormous budget deficits public universities must ensure financial responsibility of scarce public resources. LSU is attempting to exercise sound judgment and stewardship of limited resources, but its only reward has been Elsevier blocking access to faculty, researchers and students at the university.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged contracts, court cases, double dipping, Elsevier, license, louisiana state university, lsu on May 2, 2017 by Krista Cox.
Over the last 24 hours, several courts have issued opinions regarding President Trump’s recent executive orders banning entry of certain nationals and refugees into the United States. While recent court opinions have imposed temporary restraining orders, how the executive orders fare on appeal (whether they are considered legitimate exercises of executive power or whether they violate the Establishment Clause) may hinge on whether Trump’s and Administration officials’ statements regarding the travel ban may be considered in determining the purpose of the executive orders.
Following President Trump’s two executive orders, numerous lawsuits were filed across the nation. After Executive Order 13,769 was issued on January 27, 2017, district court Judge Robart issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement of certain portions of the Executive Order in Washington v. Trump. The Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s motion for a stay of the temporary restraining order in that case.
The Trump Administration then issued another Executive Order, No. 13,780 on March 6, 2017, designed to replace the prior Order. This Executive Order made some changes, suspending entry for nationals of six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) for 90 days, but did not apply to lawful permanent residents, holders of valid visas, dual nationals or certain other categories of people. It also included a “waiver provision” allowing foreign nationals of these countries to seek entry on a case-by-case basis. Another section of the Executive Order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and also has a waiver provision to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Once again, numerous lawsuits were filed nationwide.
In the last day, two federal judges have blocked portions of this new Executive Order from enforcement. The first decision came yesterday evening on March 15, 2017, from district court Judge Watson in Hawaii v. Trump. Judge Watson’s order enjoins enforcement of the sections discussed above “in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas . . . pending further orders from this Court.” The Order therefore applies worldwide. In issuing this order, Judge Watson found that, based on numerous statements by Trump and Administration officials, “a reasonable, objective observer . . . would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose” and would result in irreparable harm. Notably, Judge Watson relied on precedent set forth by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Washington v. Trump that courts could look beyond the plain language of the law for evidence of its purpose. Judge Watson does, however, caution that prior statements by Trump or Administration officials do not “forever taint any effort by it to address the security concerns of the nation” and “context may change during the course of litigation.” This morning, March 16, 2017, a Maryland district court Judge Chuang also issued a restraining order in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump. Judge Chuang also pointed to the history of public statements as evidence that the Executive Order represented a “Muslim ban.” Chuang’s order will apply only to the portion of the Executive Order suspending of nationals from six countries and does not sweep as broadly.
While the judges in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked enforcement of portions of the new Executive Order, five judges from the Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit issued a dissent on March 15, 2017 from the Ninth Circuit’s denial of reconsideration of Washington v. Trump by an en banc panel. As noted above, the Ninth Circuit previously upheld a district court’s temporary restraining order. Following the issuance of the new Executive Order, the U.S. government filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its underlying appeal, which was granted. Despite the mootness of the appeal, one judge requested rehearing by the full court, but did not garner the votes for rehearing. These five judges, all Republican appointees, signed a dissent stating that the original Executive Order “was well within the powers of the presidency” and that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion was a “fundamental error.” These five judges argued that “Even if we have questions about the basis for the President’s ultimate findings—whether it was a ‘Muslim ban’ or something else—we do not get to peek behind the curtain. So long as there is one ‘facially legitimate and bona fide’ reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.” The dissent also argues that the original Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion “stands contrary to well-established separation-of-powers principles.” Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit will likely have another opportunity to rehear these issues in the context of Hawaii v. Trump.
There are a number of ongoing suits against the travel ban. A roundup of documents for each of the cases is available here.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged court cases, diversity, dni, executive order, immigration on March 16, 2017 by Krista Cox.
The start of Fair Use/Fair Dealing week, which runs from February 20-24, 2017, immediately follows a week in which ARL filed amicus briefs along with other library associations and organizations in two fair use cases. The first case, ARL joined the American Library Association (ALA), Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in filing a brief in the Georgia State e-reserves case which is again before the Eleventh Circuit. In the second case, ARL joined ALA, ACRL and the Internet Archive in filing an amicus brief in Capitol Records v. ReDigi, currently before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that other existing limitations and exceptions can tilt the first fair use factor (character of the use) in favor of the user and that fair use encourages innovative services.
First, in its truncated fair use analysis, the district court ignored the similarity between the use ReDigi sought to make and uses authorized by Section 109(a). This similarity should have tilted the first fair use factor, the purpose and character of the use, in favor of ReDigi. In Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, 102 (2d Cir. 2014), this Court used the rationale for a specific exception—17 U.S.C. § 121, which permits the making of accessible format copies for people who have print disablilites—to support a finding of a valid purpose under the first factor. Likewise, the Copyright Office has repeatedly based fair use conclusions on specific exceptions in the context of a rulemaking under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201. As this Court did in HathiTrust and the Copyright Office did in the section 1201 rulemaking, the district court should have recognized that the purpose behind the first sale right tilted the first fair use factor in favor of ReDigi.
Second, the brief argues that a positive fair use determination in this case would encourage libraries to provide innovative services to their users. Fair use findings in technology cases have permitted libraries to provide new, digitally-based services such as HathiTrust Digital Library. In addition to enabling researchers to find relevant texts and perform critical data mining, HathiTrust provides full-text access to over fourteen million volumes to people who have print disabilities. A fair use finding in this case would provide libraries with additional legal certainty to roll out innovative services such as the Internet Archive’s Open Library. Such a result would increase users’ access to important content without diminishing authors’ incentive to create new works.
The full brief can be read here.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged amici, court cases, fair use, fair use week, fair use week 2017, fairuseweek2017, redigi on February 20, 2017 by Krista Cox.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 121
 § 1201