Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

Posted by kdawson on from the trademark-madness dept.

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."

3 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Ironic, no? by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. The LOC statute is irrelevant. by AllParadox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    All is paradox. Retired lawyer, so this is just one more layman's opinion.
  3. Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. by binarybits · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?