Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

BackRow writes "Washington Watch, a site devoted to tracking the cost of federal legislation, has raised the hackles of the Library of Congress with a new wiki that makes an unfavorable comparison to the LOC's THOMAS legislative search engine. After Jim Harper, Washington Watch's creator and the director of information policy at the Cato Institute, announced the wiki, he received a nastygram from the LOC." Quoting: "After the announcement, he was contacted by Matt Raymond, the Director of Communications at the Library (and the author of the Library of Congress' blog). Raymond said that he possessed 'statutory and regulatory authority governing unauthorized use of the Library's name and logo and those of Library subunits and programs,' and he asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' and 'THOMAS' in his marketing materials."

Comments

Obvious Solution

[Qzukk]

Call it the Library of Progress, and refer to JEFFERSON.

Re:Obvious Solution

[philpalm]

Quote from article:
"I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation." For Raymond, the issue here is that Harper was critical of the Library's own work in a way which endorsed his own; as Raymond puts it, "the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch press release in a negative way is clearly used in the context of endorsement, rather than general criticism."

Raymond claims that he has no intention of trying to silence critics, and points out that the Library's blog has opened itself to reader comments, critical or otherwise. His concern, rather, is "in the context of marketing and endorsement."
My comment:
It is not an obvious solution, Washington Watch wants to take it to court to determine the validity of the Law. Raymond the bureaucrat wants to be protecting himself (his job entails enforcing rules made by Congress) and the LOC in emphasizing that there is a law not permitting the use of the LOC in any marketing scheme.

Now if Washington Watch is a non-profit organization then I guess there would be no marketing scheme....

Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[qbzzt]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[WilliamSChips]

It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[tourvil]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

It would be worth a lot more if you cited some examples and/or sources. I know very little about Cato, so I have no reason to give their studies more or less weight than others. But your post, which is currently modded 5 Insightful, gives me no information on why I should distrust their information.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

I would be curious to know which industry sources funded my paper criticizing the DMCA. Or for that matter, their recent papers criticizing the Bush administration's civil liberties record and the NSA's wiretapping program.

It's also interesting that you don't cite any "false information." Are we supposed to just take your word for it that a lot of what we put out is false?

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

The problem is that metrometro didn't point to any specific examples of "false information," so there's not much I can do to respond to such a vague accusation. Instead, I thought I'd highlight our recent work on issues of particular interest to Slashdot readers in order to give readers some context. I'm not going to claim everything we publish is high quality (we publish about a dozen books, 50 papers, and hundreds of articles every year), but in my experience, the vast majority of what we publish is of high quality.

And incidentally, the insinuation that we're "well funded by industry" is false: if you look at our annual report, you'll see that only about 2 percent of our funding is from corporate sources.

Ironic, no?

[JohnnyBGod]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

Re:Ironic, no?

[MindStalker]

The offending bit was.
"WashingtonWatch.com provides a more user-friendly and interactive way for the public to learn about legislation than the Library of Congress' THOMAS site. It's all about government transparency."

Sorry, but its still legal to say that Nike provides a better running experience than Reebok (assuming its true).

The Library has no trademark ground to stand on, BUT they have extra Federal Statute protecting their name. When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

The LOC is wrong

[HaeMaker]

The LOC is wrong. Making a comparative in an endorsement is protected speech, and goes beyond trademark protection.

If he had said, "The LOC, and their THOMAS service, fully back the use of Washington Watch." that is misuse of trademark in the context of an endorsement.

To say a service is like another service only better, fully protected.

IANAL/JM2c.

Re:The LOC is wrong

[Brickwall]

since it just fits into their image of the USG as a bunch of corrupt, wasteful, generally inept bureaucrats.

Er, just exactly how does this image conflict with reality?

LOC Needs Thicker Skin

[WrongSizeGlass]

"the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch press release in a negative way is clearly used in the context of endorsement, rather than general criticism." Used in a negative way is an endorsement? Maybe Raymond should read a few of those books in his library.

What's the real reason for the nastygram?

[panaceaa]

Did Matt Raymond sent the nastygram to Washington Watch because the Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch, and Washington Watch can be perceived as critical of the corruption in Congress? Or did someone on the THOMAS team get personally insulted that someone could develop a better system than theirs, and push to punish the creator of the superior system out of jealousy? The latter seems a bit extreme, which leads me to believe Congressmen are scared of people knowing how much the government is actually spending on pork projects that they're even willing to have the Library of Congress send threatening letters to people who share the Library's vision for open information.

Re:I want a letter!

[Romancer]

You can say any comparison you want in your marketing materials, just so long as you have the fine print at the bottom saying that their logis if used are the property of their respective owners.

I pay may taxes.

[EaglemanBSA]

How soon before we're not allowed to make derogatory remarks about Congress itself, or the president? I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

Re:I pay may taxes.

[exi1ed0ne]

I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

I believe you have that backwards unfortunately. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The laws are already there on the books to take all your stuff, as was done with gold in 1933.

Or in slash-speak: a beowulf cluster of laws own all u base, it runs windows vista ultimate cluster edition, and that's Condoleezza under the hot grits.

It's hell...

[Black Parrot]

...having to compete.

And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.

If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Shihar]

You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Brooking's, American Heritage, and lots of other think tanks can be 'flexible' in what they advocate based upon the party flavor of the month. Cato is unbending, rock solid, and deeply principled. Now, you can argue that their principles are abhorrent, but anyone who knows anything about Cato can not say that their principles are bent by who gives them money. They are Libertarians who are as happy to criticize business, Democrats, Republics, and anyone else who violates their principles (and all three do, regularly).

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

Being principled means two things - being consistent in the causes you advocate for and being consistent in the causes you do not advocate. Cato is pretty consistent in the first case, but the causes they choose to advocate for seem to be driven by their sponsors, perhaps leaving behind other causes that are not so beneficial for their sponsors, but may be more idealogically important to their principles.

So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do something to support that organization, It makes anything they do suspect because of my funding?

I mean seriously, we aren't talking about the chicken and egg concept here, we are bypassing it with you logic and going straight to connecting dotted line without paying attention to the numbers to paint whatever picture we want. Here is the scoop. I I run a business and someone is saying things benificial to my business, If it support them, I benefit. It doesn't not mean I tell them what to say.

The same can be said for politics in general. There was a lot of hubub going on about Charlie Tree (not sure on spelling and don't care enough to check) the chinese embassy worker who showed up to the white house with bags of cash called campaign contributions at the same times China was stealing nuclear secrets from the US the some claim led to their Nuclear arms program being successful. Nobody has convincingly made the case Clinton was selling secrets for campaign contributions. Similarly, Al Qeada has came out in support of some democrat leaders and their policies. This doesn't mean they are connected. Although there is enough other evidence that some kook could make a small case for that.

Whenever I see someone discount something specifically because of funding when they organization survives on donations, I see it as that person looking for a reason to be in denial. It s just that simple.

Re:I want a letter!

[Romancer]

I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.

In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resources or brands or logos as public property in the way you may have meant (as in completely free use). It's more likely the same rights anyone has to use a corporate name, brand, or logo. They can't restrict discussion or reference.

The LOC statute is irrelevant.

[AllParadox]

This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress. If I see some commercial business doing that, I will turn them in myself.

This is plainly about freedom of political speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Harper's use of the site, even his comparison of his search engine against THOMAS, is aimed at promoting his personal political agenda, both for his site and including his comparison.

Congress did not repeal the First Amendment.

For once, somebody has a beef with some meat on it. This is where you hire the attorney to reply with a nastygram.

In my opinion...

[It doesn't come easy]

Whoever originally coined the word Con-gress ... should be modded the most insightful and prescient individual in history.

you misunderstand

[commodoresloat]

as long as your right to criticize the King of Thailand is unfettered, you live in a free country.

A test case for something bigger?

[Caspian]

This guy criticised a service of the government's library, and got a nastygram/Cease-and-Desist. Perhaps this is an advance test of the feasibility of using lawyers to squash criticism of the government, much like how corporations often do the same?

Cato Publications

[binarybits]

I'm a longtime Slashdot reader and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the Cato Institute, but you might want to check out a few of our recent publications:

• Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (By me, criticizing the DMCA)
  
• Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining (By Harper, criticizing the NSA wiretapping program))
  
• The REAL ID Act: Ill-Considered (By Harper, testimony before the Utah legislature against a de facto national ID)
  
• Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (By my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch, criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties)
  
• "Supreme Court Ruling Could Save Vonage" (By me, criticizing software patents)
  
• "Broadcast Flag Burning" (By me, criticizing the broadcast flag)
  

Obviously, you're not going to agree with everything we publish, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another think tank that's done as much work on the issues near and dear to the hearts of Slashdotters.