The Copyright Office issued an interim regulation in the Federal Register Jan 25, giving a qualified exemption to mandatory copyright deposit requirement for online works published in the United States.  The exemption does not apply to online works that are also published in physical form.

The regulation exempts online works, but only unless the Copyright Office issues a demand for deposit.  The Copyright Office will set up categories of works subject to demand, starting with electronic serials i.e.: periodicals; newspapers; annuals; and the journals, proceedings, transactions, etc. of societies.

The regulation sets forth the process for issuing and responding to a demand for deposit, amends the definition of a ``complete copy'' and establishes new best edition criteria for electronic serials available only online.

It is interesting to read that the Copyright Office only got a handful of comments to its July 15 notice. It appears that commenters got a heavier weight because of this, and several comments are referred to in the Register.

Michael Geist offers us a useful background on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) talks happening now in Mexico in The ACTA Guide, Part One: The Talks To-Date

He includes a chronology going back to 2004 on origins of the anti counterfeiting trade agreement. He also provides a summary of the leaked U.S. proposal from last November. See especially these provisions that tighten inducement and access (as the DMCA does).

Paragraph 2 - Third party liability.  The third party liability provisions focus on copyright, though an EU document notes that it could (should) be extended to trademark and perhaps other IP infringement.  The goal of this section is to create an international minimum harmonization regarding the issue of what is called in some Member States "contributory copyright infringement".  The U.S. proposal would include "inducement" into the standard, something established in the U.S. Grokster case, but not found in many other countries.  This would result in a huge change in domestic law in many countries (including Canada).

Paragraph 4 - Anti-circumvention Provisions.  ACTA would require civil and criminal penalties associated with anti-circumvention provisions (legal protection for digital locks).  This goes beyond the requirements of the WIPO Internet treaties and beyond current EU law which "leaves a reasonable margin of discretion to Member States."  There is no link between the anti-circumvention provisions and copyright exceptions.  The U.S. proposal also requires the anti-circumvention provisions to apply to TPMs that merely protect access to a work (rather than reproduction or making available).   This would again go beyond current EU law to include protection against circumventing technologies like region coding.  From a Canadian perspective, none of this is currently domestic law.  As previously speculated, the clear intent is to establish a Global DMCA.

Paragraph 5 - Civil and Criminal Enforcement of Anti-Circumvention. As noted above, this section requires both civil and criminal provisions for the anti-circumvention rules, something not found in the WIPO Internet treaties. The anti-circumvention provisions are also designed to stop countries from establishing interoperability requirements (ie. the ability for consumers to play purchased music on different devices).  The EU notes that this not consistent with its law, which states "Compatibility and interoperability of the different systems should be encouraged."  Of course, might reasonable ask why such a provision is even in ACTA.

Paragraph 6 - Rights Management Information protection. This section includes similar criminal and civil requirements for rights management information.

Take a look at the evolution of U.S. formalities, especially as represented in concise chart form on pages 12-13 in Jane Ginsberg's "The US Experience with Copyright Formalities: A Love/Hate Relationship"
Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 10-225, posted for free at SSRN.It is especially useful in detailing deposit requirements, and the effect of recordation of transfers. Also takes a look at alternatives to registration wrt "marking off" ownership rights a la Creative Commons, noting that the DMCA prohibits the removal of such digital ownership markings. Brief look at what copyright examiners focus on, when approving copyright registrations. Overall an informative read. Recommended.

Here's a great opportunity to talk with Stanford Law Library folks who are co-hosting the free workshop with Carl Malamud (Public.resource.org) on making primary legal materials more accessible. Joining the discussion will be Anurag Acharya (Google) and Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard).

Registration is required. Contact Erika Wayne evwayne@stanford.edu to register.

Here's the schedule. Hope to see you there.

Law.Gov Workshop
Stanford University Law School, Rm 290
January 12, 2010

9AM - Coffee available for early arrivals

10AM - Welcome and Overview

10:30AM - The National Inventory of Primary Legal Materials
Discussion of how to define primary legal materials.
Discussion of how to structure the national survey, including what  
information to collect.

11:15AM - General Discussion of Legal Issues
Discussion of issues such as copyright over primary legal materials,  
enabling legislation, and other issues of the law.

12PM - Lunch

1PM-2PM - Public Presentation, Room 290
"Law.Gov - A Revolution in Legal Affairs"
Anurag Acharya (Google), Carl Malamud (Public.Resource.Org), Jonathan  
Zittrain (Harvard)

2:15-3:30 - Technical Discussion
Discussion of technical challenges, including specification of a core  
open source system, issues of markup and citation, issues of privacy,  
issues of ingestion, issues of authentication.
----------------------------------
Pay parking available at Parking Structure 6 (PS6) at Campus Drive
East and Arguello Mall and the Tresidder Lot near Tresidder Union and
the Faculty Club, off Mayfield Ave.