Le Committee on Science and Technology de la US House of Representatives (Chambre des représentants) annonce la publication d’un rapport concernant l’accès libre à la science. Le communiqué indique qu’une période d’embargo pouvant aller jusqu’à un an sur l’accès libre aux résultats de recherche scientifique financés par l’État était acceptable  :

One key recommendation is the establishment of specific embargo periods between publication and public access, allowing for some variation across fields of science. The report states: “an embargo period of between zero (for open access journals) and twelve months currently reflects such a balance for many science disciplines,” but notes for “other fields a longer embargo period may be necessary.”

Aux États-Unis, les éditeurs académiques avaient mis en oeuvre une féroce opposition au mouvement de l’accès libre en alléguant la destruction de leur modèle d’affaire. Le milieu des bibliothèques et des chercheurs (les clients et les fournisseurs des éditeurs) ont une position plus ouverte à l’accès libre.

De son côté, SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) a diffusé ses commentaires via son site Internet :

SPARC was formed to act on the library community’s desire to ensure that the promise of the Internet to dramatically improve scholarly communication, particularly in the journals marketplace, was realized. It has been an innovative leader in the rapidly expanding international movement to make scholarly communication more responsive to the needs of researchers, students, the academic enterprise, funders, and the public. Its pragmatic agenda focuses on collaborating with other stakeholders to stimulate the emergence of new scholarly communication norms, practices, and policies that leverage the networked digital environment to support research and expand the dissemination of research findings.

SPARC thanks the Office of Science and Technology Policy for convening a robust, open discussion on the importance of ensuring broad public access to the results of federally funded research. We share the Administration’s view that enhancing access to this information will promote advances in science and technology, encourage innovation and discove

Le bulletin «Pluie des sciences» de la Société pour la promotion des sciences et de la technologie (SPST) propose un voyage au pays des bibliothèques.

Peter B. Hirtle de la Cornell University Library, Emily Hudson de l’University of Melbourne – Law School et Andrew T. Kenyon de la University of Melbourne Law School nous proposent un guide exhaustif (plus de 200 pages!!) sur les questions du droit d’auteur dans la numérisation du matériel de bibliothèque en diffusion libre sous licence Creative Commons.

Ce document est aussi disponible pour achat via www.createspace.com/3405063.

Le guide, intitulé Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums est disponible sur la plate-forme académique libre SSRN. Voici la référence complète :

Peter B. Hirtle, Emily Hudson, and Andrew T. Kenyon, COPYRIGHT AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS: GUIDELINES FOR DIGITIZATION FOR U.S. LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND MUSEUMS, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library Press, Forthcoming

Et le sommaire :

Digital communications technologies have led to fundamental changes in the ways that cultural institutions fulfil their public missions of access, preservation, research, and education. Institutions are developing publicly-accessible websites in which users can visit online exhibitions, search collection databases, access images of collection items, and in some cases create their own digital content. Digitization, however, also raises the possibility of copyright infringement. “Copyright and Digitization” aims to assist understanding and compliance with copyright law across libraries, archives, and museums. It discusses the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, the major exemptions used by cultural heritage institutions, and stresses the importance of “risk assessment” when conducting any digitization project. It also includes two cases studies, examining digitizing oral histories and student work. As well as free availability here, print copies are available for purchase via www.createspace.com/3405063.

Accéder à la version libre de Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums via SSRN.

Anurag Acharya de Google nous apprend via le blogue corporatif du géant d’Internet que les décisions des cours de justice des USA seront maintenant disponible via Google Scholar :

We think this addition to Google Scholar will empower the average citizen by helping everyone learn more about the laws that govern us all. To understand how an opinion has influenced other decisions, you can explore citing and related cases using the Cited by and Related articles links on search result pages. As you read an opinion, you can follow citations to the opinions to which it refers. You can also see how individual cases have been quoted or discussed in other opinions and in articles from law journals.

L’ingénieur de Google remercie plusieurs pionniers du domaine, dont :

Tom Bruce (Cornell LII), Jerry Dupont (LLMC), Graham Greenleaf and Andrew Mowbray (AustLII), Carl Malamud (Public.Resource.Org), Daniel Poulin (LexUM), Tim Stanley (Justia), Joe Ury (BAILII), Tim Wu (AltLaw) and many others.

Nous désirons ajouter notre voix au coeur qui salue le travail incroyable de ces défenseurs de l’accès public aux sources premières du droit ! Au Canada, le travail de Daniel Poulin nous permet d’accéder aux sources premières du droit via www.canlii.org.

Nous nous apprêtons à participer à la conférence « Law via the Internet » sur ce sujet précis qui aura lieu à Durban, en Afrique du Sud. La plupart de ces personnes y seront et nous auront la chance de récupérer leurs commentaires. Nous y présenterons notre mémoire en droit, sur le sujet du Web 2.0 et l’accès libre au droit.

Par ailleurs, ne manquez pas la conférence sur le droit et les technologies, Legal IT qui aura lieu les 26 et 27 avril 2010 à Montréal.

Le site The Public Index diffuse un rapport qui compare la plus récente version de l’accord Google Books à la précédente. De plus, un article dans le Library Journal de la American Library Association analyse ces deux versions.

Michael Geist, professeur de droit à l’Université d’Ottawa, propose quelques détails concernant le mystérieux traité international ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) dans les pages du Ottawa Citizen :

From the moment the talks began last year, observers noted the approach was far different from virtually any other international treaty negotiation. Rather than negotiating in an international venue such as the United Nations and opening the door to any interested countries, ACTA partners consisted of a small group of countries (Canada, United States, European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco, and Singapore) meeting in secret and opposed to broadening the process.

The substance of the treaty was also accorded the highest level of secrecy.

Draft documents were not released to the public and even the locations of negotiations were often kept under wraps. In fact, the U.S. refused to disclose information about the treaty on national security grounds.

Despite the efforts to keep the public in the dark, there has been a steady stream of leaks. Earlier this year, it was revealed criminal provisions would target both commercial and non-commercial infringement, creating the prospect of jail time even in cases where there was no intent to profit. Further, border guards would be given new powers to search people and seize products as they enter a country.

Lire la suite…

En cette semaine de l’accès libre, Carl Malamud propose un billet sur ses plans pour rendre accessible les sources premières du droit aux USA, principalement les lois et les arrêts des cours.

Son projet Law.gov, sous l’égide de Public.Resource.org, Vise à créer un groupe de travail pour réfléchir sur l’avenir d’un tel système.

Au Canada, l’Institut Canadian d’informaiton juridique (CanLII) opère déjà une telle archive ouverte.

Le Center for Social Media annonce la publication d’un guide à l’attention des professeurs afin de les informer quant aux pratiques en lien avec le «fair use» – l’exception générale du droit d’auteur aux États-Unis – dans le cadre de production de contenu libre.

Intitulé Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for OpenCourseWare, ce document PDF

is a code of best practices designed to help those preparing OpenCourseWare (OCW) to interpret and apply fair use under United States copyright law. The OCW movement, which is part of the larger Open Educational Resources (OER) movement, was pioneered in 2002, when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched its OpenCourseWare initiative, making course materials available in digital form on a free and open basis to all. In 2005, MIT helped to organize with the support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation a group of not-for-profit organizations interested in following the OpenCourseWare model and standardizing the delivery of OCW material. This group of institutions, known as the OCW Consortium (OCWC), has grown into a concern of more than 200 universities worldwide promoting universal access to knowledge on a nonprofit basis. The mission of OCWC is “to advance formal and informal learning through the worldwide sharing and use of free, open, high-quality educational materials organized as courses.”

Selon The Economist, les États-Unis considèrent relâcher leur emprise sur la gestion technologique d’Internet. En effet, l’agence ICANN, sous l’emprise du département du commerce américain, serait réformée pour inclure d’autres instances dans son cadre de gouvernance. L’hebdomadaire britannique précise:

For the past decade America has delegated some of its authority over the internet to a non-profit organisation called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)—an arrangement other countries have complained about, both because they have little say in it and because ICANN’s management has occasionally proved erratic. ICANN’s latest mandate is due to expire on September 30th. The day before, a new accord is planned to come into effect, whereby America will pass some of its authority over ICANN to the “internet community” of businesses, individual users and other governments.

Previous agreements had maintained close American oversight over ICANN and imposed detailed reforms, but the latest document, called an “affirmation of commitments”, is only four pages long. It gives ICANN the autonomy to manage its own affairs. Whereas prior agreements had to be renewed every few years, the new one has no fixed term.

The agreement sets up oversight panels that include representatives of foreign governments to conduct regular reviews of ICANN’s work in four areas: competition among generic domains (such as .com and .net), the handling of data on registrants, the security of the network and transparency, accountability and the public interest—the only panel on which America will retain a permanent seat. But there are no penalties if ICANN fails to heed its new overseers short of a termination of the accord. [Lire la suite de l’article dans The Economist, «ICANN be independent» 24 Septembre 2009]

Par ailleurs, l’organisation suisse IP-Watch offre quelques autres détails.

L’American Library Association (ALA) diffuse un sommaire des positions envoyées à la Cour concernant l’entente dans le recours collectif contre Google Books aux USA (pdf, EN, 1.3 Mo, 9p).

Nous avons déjà présenté la position de l’association internationale des bibliothèques (IFLA).