Slashdot Mirror

Indeed. This is not really a case of legal copyfraud, it's more about moral copyfraud. They might have the right to claim and exert their copyright on these photos perhaps, but in the light of their mission, it is a form of moral copyfraud, to do so, when the photos are of art works that are in the Public Domain. I advise people to read: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/ and http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html

What about in Deming, Washington, where the FBI issued a subpoena for a library to release the names of all people who checked out a biography of Osama bin Laden? (There are reasons for the subpoena - read the story if you aren't familiar with it, but still...)

This is not an isolated case. There have been numerous cases where the local, state, or federal go vernment has asked for such information.

I'm not saying this is a valid solution. (Nor am I saying it's an unreasonable solution.) I think the libraries are doing a reasonable job of protecting us against unreasonable searches. I just want to point out that we're not talking about one or two cases, but a repeating pattern.

The first thing that would come to mind would be a storm of lawsuits from publishers, worried about losing their core business. MP3 sharing and Music Companies come to mind.

But then, this article is more re-assuring.

It seems the publishing industry is behaving more sanely than the music industry. Technology is progressing, and change is inevitable. Its better that we accept it. But then again, sharing music could be more detrimental to CD sales, than viewing text on a computer screen would be to book sales.

No chilling effect?
Check this out: a library in rural Deming, Washington was ordered by the FBI to turn over its patron information because someone wrote in the margins of a book about Osama bin Laden.
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/10/komo _small_town.html/

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/11/emgo ne_with_the.html

erroneous slash sorry

Gone With The Wind US copyright holders have already bitch slapped Project Gutenberg australia

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/11/emgo ne_with_the.html/

I'm not sure how to parse that sentence, but he did show the cop he was not using the library's system.

I see no problem with having "patrons" use the wifi inside where the librarians can oversee as is their job.

So how do you "oversee" a WiFi connection? Watch the logs roll by? Detail one surveillance librarian-bot to every patron to look over their shoulder? Walk around and listen for the tell-tale moans of someone surfing www.kinkyceline.com? BTW, I believe it's illegal in most states for the library (or anyone else except the FBI) to monitor your library activity and loaning habits. One example of those laws are statutes 41-8-9 and 41-9-0 of the Alabama Code which protect the confidentiality of library users.

Furthermore, here's some reading for y'all:

Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information. Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights.
Restricted Access to Library Materials

Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. The courts have established a First Amendment right to receive information in a publicly funded library. Further, the courts have upheld the right to privacy based on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Many states provide guarantees of privacy in their constitutions and statute law. Numerous decisions in case law have defined and extended rights to privacy.
Privacy

Users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. Users' access should not be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, formal notice and a means of appeal.

Although electronic systems may include distinct property rights and security concerns, such elements may not be employed as a subterfuge to deny users' access to information. Users have the right to be free of unreasonable limitations or conditions set by libraries, librarians, system administrators, vendors, network service providers, or others. Contracts, agreements, and licenses entered into by libraries on behalf of their users should not violate this right. Users also have a right to information, training and assistance necessary to operate the hardware and software provided by the library.

Users have both the right of confidentiality and the right of privacy. The library should uphold these rights by policy, procedure, and practice.
Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks

Alse check out LibraryLaw.com for some Patriot Act perspective.

Unpublished works are also protected by copyright for the same terms as published works (see Note 3 here. That was amended in the 1976 Copyright Act. However, copyright only protects the exact text or expression of the work. If they had a scanned copy of the ad that would be a violation, but just showing the products and prices is not copyright infringement.