Law Librarian Blog

Whatcha-call-it: E-Books, Ebooks or eBooks?

"We’re just going to start calling 'e-books' 'ebooks,'” writes Jeremy Greenfield, editorial director of Digital Book World. For more, see Going From E-Books to Ebooks and E-Books vs. Ebooks vs. eBooks. [JH]

Copyright Office Issues DMCA Exemptions

In between the news about the coming election, Hurricane Sandy’s devastation of the eastern seaboard, and the announcement of Judith Wright’s retirement as Directory of the University of Chicago’s D’Angelo Law Library, the Copyright Office issued five new exemptions to the DMCA.  The determination is part of a review conducted every three years by the Library of Congress exempting activities that would otherwise constitute a prohibited activity under the Act. 

Some of the exemptions build on some issued previously.  These include using software to “jail break” cell phones under some conditions; breaking DRM for DVD content for film criticism and educational purposes; extending the same to streaming content and adding screen capture as an allowed activity; and the use of audio reading software on e-books for sight impaired individuals.  The announced final rule specifically rejected jail breaking tablets.

The Federal Register notice of the latest exemptions is here.  The narrative describes rejected proposals as well.  [MG]

CJ Roberts: Emerging Technologies Present the Biggest Legal Challenge in Federal Courts, including SCOTUS

"Reconciling ever-changing science and technology with established Constitutional principles - set down by statutes and rulings long before the modern world was even imagined - will be an ongoing challenge for federal courts, especially his own, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday {October 17, 2012] during a Rice University discussion reported the Houston Chronicle's Mike Tolson in Chief Justice Roberts: Technology among top issues for court.

"Is being able to see through walls a violation of search and seizure protections? I think it will be a good opportunity to see how prescient the framers were if the Constitution will be able to deal with these questions," Roberts told an audience of several thousand. "What is the fundamental protection offered by the Constitution when applied to new technology and situations? It's a question that comes along all the time."

Houston, that's the homebase of the very techno-knowledgeable 3 Geeksters. Perhaps SCOTUS should retain them as court-appointed advisors. Yup, this is just a quick comment as a follow-up to Mark Giangrande's much more timely Chief Justice Roberts Speaks post. Mark's post includes a video link to CJ Robert's presentation. Recommended. {JH}

Friday Fun: The Onion Voter's Guides to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

The Onion Voter's Guide To Barack Obama

The Onion Voter's Guide To Mitt Romney

JH

CRS Economic Report A Bit Too Touchy For Senate Republicans

It’s a pity that Don LaFontaine has passed on.  You may not have known his name, but you certainly have heard his voice.  He provided the dramatic narrative to countless numbers of movie trailers, commercials, and other promotional material.  If he were alive today he could speak words such as “In a world where politics define reality rather than the other way around….” Those words could easily apply to a news story in today’s New York Times.  It describes successful efforts by Senate Republicans to have the CRS report titled Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945 (copy available courtesy of the NY Times) removed from circulation. 

I wrote a brief post about the report last September.  Its thesis is that tax cuts do not lead to economic growth.  This conclusion came after studying 65 years’ worth of policy.  I’ll repeat the report’s abstract from the earlier post:

Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth. Data is analyzed to illustrate the association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and measures of economic growth. For an overview of the broader issues of these relationships see CRS Report R42111, Tax Rates and Economic Growth, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

I guess the nonpartisan conclusions of the CRS seem to run counter to economic reality policy of one major political party.  I guess that’s close to blasphemy in an election year.  Why not rebut it rather than supress it.  Too hard?  [MG]

PLL Summit Resuscitated for 2013

Perhaps I missed the "memo" but I think I would have noticed the news if posted on either AALL's Members Open Forum or PLL-SIS web communities. It certainly was not a news item in the October 2012 issue of the AALL E-newsletter. Not newsworthy enough for what would have been a logical vehicle of web communication to all members?

Buried fairly deep in the Board Book for the E-Board's November 2-3 meeting comes this information:

AALL Executive Board Conference Call Meeting Minutes
Monday, October 1, 2012

MOTION FOR BOARD ACTION:

That the AALL PLL-SIS Summit can be held in 2013, as it has in the past with the PLL-SIS responsible for planning and logistics and that the appropriate charges will be made for administrative service costs incurred by AALL in support of the Summit. These charges to include, but not limited to, room charges, registration costs, credit card fees and bank processing charges.

The motion carried.

(Emohasis added.)

If you attended the Members Open Forum in Boston, the podium people clearly indicated that the Summit was "history" but mumbled that perhaps some sort of PLL-SIS "workshop" sessions could be conducted the day before the Annual Meeting officially commenced instead. The Summit "as it has in the past" was not workshop-oriented. It was and hopefully this announcement means it will remain an exchange of ideas about emerging issues that are impacting the private sector in 2013. Whatever happens in the private sector market will eventually impact the government and academic markets.

PO-ing the PLL-SIS members including something like 300 who attended the 2012 Summit (of which 54 members only attended the Summit) plus the vendor community that financially supported the Summit because the private sector is their major food group just was not smart.

However, do note well that the Board action says nothing about 2014. "Can be held in 2013" is not the same thing as "can continue to be held until further notice." [JH]

Time to Get Your Vote On for Electing AALL National Officers

eBallots will be distributed today, Nov. 1st, with Nov. 30th being the deadline. Do note the market segment selection of candidates by office.

• VP-P-elect = private sector;
• Treasurer = state and county but not federal sector; and
• Executive Board = academic sector.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is an obvious attempt to curry favor with private sector law librarians. That is not a bad thing because the last time a private sector law librarian served as AALL president was before the turn of the century.

Vice President/President-Elect:

• Julie Pabarja, Research Services Manager, DLA Piper, Chicago
• Holly M. Riccio, Library Manager for Northern California, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA

Treasurer:

• Joan M. Bellistri, Director, Anne Arundel County Public Law Library, Annapolis, MD
• Gail Warren, State Law Librarian, Virginia State Law Library, Richmond, VA

Executive Board Member (vote for two):

• Femi Cadmus, Edward Cornell Law Librarian, Associate Dean for Library Services, Cornell Law School
• Kenneth J. Hirsh, Director of the Law Library and Information Technology, University of Cincinnati College of Law, Robert S. Marx Law Library
• Allen R. Moye, Associate Professor and Director of the Law Library, DePaul University
• Roger V. Skalbeck, Associate Law Librarian for Electronic Resources & Services, Georgetown Law Library

Biographies and campaign statements are available on AALLNET here. [JH]

Dumb Halloween Laws

It’s Halloween.  Here is a short list of laws related to Halloween courtesy of idiotlaws.com.  Here’s an example:

While in Huntsville, if you see someone in an animal control officer uniform that means by law the person is in fact an animal control officer…

So… does that mean during Halloween, by law there are a bunch dead people running around?

Filed in: Huntsville

There are, of course, other dumb laws listed beyond the current holiday, though note the disclaimer:

The laws listed here are for entertainment purposes only. We have tried to cite specific references when available but, we make no guarantees on the validity of these laws and as such: the laws and regulations including the interpretation and commentary we have provided are for entertainment only.

I think I've seen the same words appear in many of the textbooks I used when I was in law school.  [MG]

Almost a Founding Member? But What the Heck, AALL Has Joined the Owners' Rights Initiative

In the recent flurry of AALL web communities postings on this matter, one time-stamped October 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM in the Members Open Forum announced that "[l]ast week the AALL Executive Committee approved a request from the Copyright Committee for AALL to join the Owners' Rights Initiative." Based on earlier web community messages, my hunch is the decision was made late last week as in the afternoon of Oct. 25 or on Oct. 26. Along with founding members ALA and ARL when ORI was officially launched on Oct. 23, 2012, AALL is now listed as an ORI member. [JH]

Hurricane Sandy: Customer Assistance Available from Thomson Reuters

For folks who may not yet have access to their business email accounts but can access the web somehow, the following message of concern and assistance was sent today:

To our customers impacted by Hurricane Sandy:

We understand that the full extent of the damage will not be fully understood for days, but we want you to know we are here to help.

Thomson Reuters is committed to helping customers affected by Hurricane Sandy restore their practices and businesses as soon as possible. To assist in the rebuilding effort, we’ve set up a dedicated hotline. If you have been displaced by the disaster, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-554-8909, ext. 43356, to let us know that you’re safe and what your needs are. When you’re ready to get back on your feet, we’re ready to help.

Thomson Reuters is committed and proud to stand with you throughout your process of recovery and rebuilding.

Very best wishes,

Bob Azman
Senior Vice President, Customer Experience & Education
Thomson Reuters

[JH]

Duncan School of Law Switches Tactics for ABA Accreditation

In Duncan School of Law Drops Lawsuit Against ABA Over Accreditation Denial (ABAJ News), Mark Hansen reports that Duncan School of Law has (1) dropped ts federal antitrust suit against the ABA over the denial of its bid for provisional accreditation and (2) withdrawn its appeal of a decision before an ABA appeals panel affirming the denial of its application. Instead  the school has filed a application for provisional accreditation with the ABA.

What can one say? Better luck next time... . {JH}

A Brief History of Trick-or-Treating on Halloween

Check out this History Channel video and for more, the History Channel's Ancient Origins of Trick-or-Treating. [JH]

The Kirtsaeng Oral Argument

One of the very interesting things about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday in the Kirtsaeng case is that there was very little discussion of the facts in this case.  See Joe Hodnicki’s post AALL's Interest in the Owners' Rights Initiative and Today's SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Kirtsaeng and links therein for background on the issues in this case.  Most of it focused on the consequences of a ruling one way or the other on the viability of the First Sale doctrine as applied to foreign made goods.  The problem for the Court is that both sides are essentially asking for an all or nothing ruling.  Either the §109(a) consumer First Sale rights trump the rights of a foreign copyright holder to limit importation of copyrighted goods under §602(a)(1) or they don’t. 

Kirtsaeng’s counsel argued essentially that the words “lawfully made under this title” in §109(a) applies to works made in a foreign jurisdiction if they satisfy American copyright law.  Wiley’s counsel, former Solicitor General Ted Olsen argued that §602(a)(1)’s limitations on imports applies to goods manufactured under the laws of another country, thus the language of §109(a) does not come into play in these situations. 

Several of the Justices seized on this position and posited what happens when a library buys a foreign book, a museum buys a foreign painting, or when a Toyota contains copyrighted elements.  Can these be sold downstream?  Mr. Olson suggested other parts of the copyright cover those situations, such as application of the fair use defense.  The Justices weren’t buying it:

JUSTICE BREYER: Now, explain to me, because they're horribles if I summarize them, millions and millions of dollars' worth of items with copyrighted indications of some kind in them that we import every year; libraries with three hundred million books bought from foreign publishers that they might sell, resale, or use; museums that buy Picassos that now, under our last case, receive American protection as soon as that Picasso comes to the United States, and they can't display it without getting permission from the five heirs who are disputing ownership of the Picasso copyrights.

Those are some of the horribles that they sketch. And if I am looking for the bear in the mouse hole, I look at those horribles, and there I see that bear.   So I'm asking you to spend some time telling me why I'm wrong.

MR. OLSON: Well, I'm -- first of all, I would say that when we talk about all the horribles that might apply in cases other than this -- museums, used Toyotas, books and luggage, and that sort of thing -­ we're not talking about this case. And what we are talking about is the language used by the statute that does apply to this case. And that -­

JUSTICE BREYER: But we need -­

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Don't those horribles -­

JUSTICE BREYER: -- interpretation -­

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you have to look at those hypotheticals in order to decide this case.

 MR. OLSON: Well, and that's -­

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You're aware of the fact that if we write an opinion with the -- with the rule that you propose, that we should, as a matter of common sense, ask about the consequences of that rule. And that's what we are asking.

Olson finally said:

MR. OLSON: But the problem is -- the statutes may not be perfect with respect to this, and there may be horribles that occur under one set of interpretations of the statute, and the other interpretation of the statute is to interpret it as -­ as the petitioner -­

The Court does not seem to want to adopt an absolute rule if it can avoid it.  I’m not sure if it can craft something that comes between the two positions.  Kirtsaeng was not a sympathetic character in the case, but the alternative consequences by holding against him seemed worse.

The Government filed a brief in support of Wiley and argued that the Bobbs-Merrill case applies.  In this argument a distributor has the ability to segment markets but doesn’t control all downstream sales.  The Court was skeptical and noted that the statute codified the Bobbs-Merrill decision.  The Government ultimately stated that the consequences would be worse if the Court adopted Wiley’s interpretation:

JUSTICE ALITO: Which of the following is worse: All of the horribles that the Petitioner outlines to the extent they are realistic, or the frustration of market segmentation, to the extent that would occur, if Petitioner's position were accepted?

MR. STEWART: Well, if they actually happened, then I think the -- the horribles would be worse. But, as I say, we -- we feel that we have offered a reading of all the statutory provisions together that would avoid both.

The other couple of things I would say as to why a first sale by itself -­

JUSTICE ALITO: If the -- if that middle ground is -- were found to be not viable, which of the two sets of consequences is worse from the government's perspective, or can you not say?

MR. STEWART: I would say that the consequence that all foreign-made goods, even if imported into the United States with the authorization of the U.S. copyright owner, are subject to continuing licensing requirements, etc., I would say that would be worse than the frustration of market segmentation that would occur under Petitioner's view.

The American Association of Law Libraries is a member of the Owners’ Rights Initiative.  The organization issued a statement after the argument:

The Owners’ Rights Initiative hopes that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to defend owners’ rights and clarify that if you buy something, you own it. We believe when you purchase something you should have the right to sell it, lend it, or donate it, regardless of whether that good was made in the US or elsewhere. If the Court rules in favor of Wiley, libraries may be unable to lend books, individuals could be restricted from donating items to charities, and businesses and consumers could be prevented from selling a variety of products, from electronics, to books, to jewelry, to used cars.  ORI looks forward to the Court’s decision in 2013 and regardless of the outcome, we will continue to be a champion for owners’ rights in America.

A very similar issue was decided squarely in favor of §109(a) in Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) in a 9-0 decision.  That played a part in the argument though the facts in the case did not completely align.  The Justices split 4-4 in the Costco case, keeping the 9^th Circuit opinion holding for import rights in place for the time being.  It’s going to be a hard case.  [MG]

General Trade Book Publisher Mergers: Will a Window of Opportunity Be Opening to Revisit the Legal Publishing Industry Cartel?

Pearson and Bertelsmann have agreed to merge their general trade book publishing houses, Penguin and Random House. See yesterday's LLB post by Mark Giangrande and the WSJ's Penguin And Random House To Form Joint Venture Likely Leading To A New Company ("The combination of Penguin and Random House, if it clears antitrust scrutiny, would create a book-publishing powerhouse responsible for roughly a quarter of global English-language consumer book sales." (Emphasis added.))

Why? According to NYT Media Decoder, (in an article published before the announcement) Amy Chozick and Eric Pfanner explain:

The potential consolidation comes as traditional publishers try to compete with dominant technology companies like Amazon, Apple and Google that have gained power in the e-book market. Lower prices offered by retailers like Amazon have put pressure on publishers to adjust their digital book strategy at a time when brick-and-mortar stores have been disappearing.

In other words, a transformative change based on technological innovation in content delivery and commerce is underway. Some industry experts believe big publishing mergers have been "inevitable for some time." See this BBC story. Chozick and Pfanner add

A deal [between Penguin and Random House] could signal a move toward further consolidation among the major publishers, much the way the music industry realigned itself as it made the painful transition to the digital marketplace.

Rapidly aging and decrepit Boomer gen law librarians who lived through what is now the status quo probably would add:

For a case study of a technology-driven industry realignment, check out the consolidation and globalization of the legal publishing industry to learn from the mistakes when consumers fail to present unified aggressive opposition that resulted in cartel-like behavior; don't roll over and play dead like "we" did.

Reporting on the In re Books conference proceedings last Friday the then rumored Penguin-Random House merger may have been in the minds of some participants when the topic of antitrust issues in the general trade book industry was being discussed. Check out Jeff John Roberts' paidContent report, Do book publishers deserve special treatment? Antitrust experts say no. A couple of snips:

“There’s never been a defendant sued for antitrust who didn’t think their market was special,” said Chris Sagers of Cleveland State University, adding that “agency pricing” (a commission-style pricing system used by the publishers to check Amazon) is just another word for price-fixing.

And according to Ariel Katz, a law professor at the University of Toronto, publishers have been engaging in cartel-like behavior for more than a century.

Will AALL extract its collective head out of the sand? In the likely coming merger mania in the general trade book industy, will a window of opportunity present itself for addressing anti-competitive practices in the legal publishing industy? Will AALL see this as an opportunity to address cartel-like behavior by following ALA's robust consumer advocacy efforts for its member buyers and patrons?

Hell if I know but if consolation in the general book trade industry is "inevitable" (and I believe it is) the issue of competition will be addessed in the US and Europe by regulatory bodies. There is no doubt in my mind that our globalized providers of legal information want to stay under the radar of any new regulatory examination of the legal publishing industry. {JH]

Penguin And Random House To Form Joint Venture Likely Leading To A New Company

The publishing industry is starting to consolidate with the announcement that Penguin and Random House will start a joint venture that may ultimately be spun off as an independent company after five years.  The news is in a Financial Times report (subscription required).  There was some talk that News Corp was interested in bidding for Penguin.  Capital gain taxes in the United States would have raised the price of a News Corp/Penguin deal beyond Rupert Murdoch’s appetite.

One of the more interesting items in the report was the notion that the venture would allow creating a web platform to sell books directly to consumers.  Another was the possibility that the combined company would consider creating its own tablet to compete with the Kindle.  Could this be one of those possible future market developments that Judge Cote cited as supporting her decision to approve the settlement between three publishers and the DOJ?  Penguin, by the way, is still fighting the DOJ’s allegations.  Random House is not a party to the litigation.

While we’re on the subject of the future, I’m going to speculate about another way an e-book publisher might innovate in dealing with consumers.  It involves the touchy subject of licensing terms granted to libraries for e-books.  I can imagine publishers having their “come to Cthulhu” moment when they realize they could easily cut libraries out of the lending equation by creating their own lending programs aimed directly at consumers.  They just need their own platform to make it work; that, and attractive terms. 

The publishers viewed Amazon’s Kindle lending option to Prime customers with disdain even though Amazon paid them as if a lend was a sale.  Why not offer a catalog subscription option for a monthly or yearly fee?  It took the music industry a while to warm up to streaming music services.  Now every major operating system and platform has one streaming option if not more.  I’ll predict that books will go the way of music and become a commodity.  A subscription service is the next logical step.  This development may be bad for libraries in some respects.  As any content owner, publishers love to control the distribution of their products.  What better way than by cutting out the middlemen. 

Other articles that describe the transaction are in the Guardian UK here and here.  They should be freely accessible.  [MG]

AALL's Interest in the Owners' Rights Initiative and Today's SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Kirtsaeng

It took about an hour for AALL to respond to an Oct. 25th walled garden Members Open Forum message time-stamped October 25, 2012 11:41 AM not submitted by me but calling attention to an LLB post:

Please take time to read  the post on the Law Librarian Blog today, "You bought it, you own it..." by Joe Hodnicki. http://tinyurl.com/9oad2cf

Joe discusses the new coalition Owner's Rights Initiative and the case of Kirtsaeng vs. Wiley & Sons, Inc. to be heard by the Supreme Court on October 29, 2012.

Both the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries have joined this initiative. See ORI web site:http://tinyurl.com/bm3oky4 for a more complete explanation.

As librarians we are all potentially affected by the first sale doctrine. This could have enormous impact on libraries. I would like to see AALL make a statement on this topic.

The response on this matter in AALL's closed garden of web communitues was time-stamped October 25, 2012 12:50 PM and read:

The Copyright Committee was in the midst of our monthly meeting. Emily Feltren and Elizabeth Holland of the Government Relations Office, and Lucy Curci-Gonzalez (our Board Liaison) joined us for the call. As it happens, George Pike (former Copyright Committee Chair) and Amy Ash (current Committee member) co-authored an Issue Brief on Kirtsaeng, which will be posted very shortly. We were also discussing the Owners' Rights Initiative (ORI) and whether there is a role for AALL. We have submitted an inquiry with ORI Executive Director Andrew Shore to learn more about the new initiative and what options are available for participation, membership, etc. We hope to know more soon and will keep the communication flowing on this issue, including any Copyright Committee recommendations, through Lucy to the Executive Board.

(Emphasis added.)

Ah OK. An Issue Brief date-stamped Oct. [ ?] 2012, has been posted. See also the Amici Curiae Brief. As of yesterday morning, no additional AALL-sourced information for the membership had been posted that I spotted.

Remember oral arguments in Kirtsaeng will be presented today. Watch Kirtsaeng vs. Wiley & Sons, Inc (SCOTUSblog) for details because SCOTUSblog pays attention to what the hell is happening and provides documentation, commentary and analysis in near-real time. For starters, see Ronald Mann's Argument preview: Court tries again on copyright importation problem (SCOTUSblog, Oct. 18, 2012).

On LLB, see Mark Giangrande's Supreme Court To Hear Case On Applying The First Sale Doctrine To Foreign Goods, (Oct. 15, 2012) and The Deeper Implications Of The Pending Kirtsaeng Case (Oct. 24, 2012) which reported on a Oct. 23, 2012 ORI conference call. So there is plenty of information available to read "more about it."

Is there a role for AALL in ORI? More important is the web community statement that AALL wants to learn more about the Owners' Rights Initiative (ORI) and "whether there is a role for AALL." The first order of business is money. If AALL wants to join ORI like ALA and ARL already have as founding members, note well that members are providing the funding for ORI. How much? Don't know but where might the AALL cash come from if our professional organization wants to join ORI?

1. Using AALL President's budgeted discretionary allowance and/or;
2. Killing print versions of LLJ and Spectrum to save money and join 21st century publishing; and/or
3. Stop paying employed law librarians like the Vendor Liaison position and AALL LLJ  and Spectrum editors to perform work that should be uncompensated contributions for the good of the profession. If no one is willing to take on these good-for-the-profession tasks without becoming AALL hired help, then the tasks should cease.

Update on AALL. See LLB's October 31, 2012 post, Almost a Founding Member? But What the Heck, AALL Has Joined the Owners' Rights Initiative. [JH]

Measuring the North American eBook Market By the Numbers

The Book Industry Study Group (BISG) with Digital Book World (DBW) are offering a three-part live webcast series entitled "Getting Grounded with E-Books: The Latest Statistics and What They Mean". All three may be of interest, particularly tomorrow's webcast on the eBook marketplace. (Cost to register for single sessions in the series is $49 for BISG and/or DBW Members and $99 for non-members.):

Measuring the North American E-Book Market By the Numbers
Tues, Oct 30, 2012 from 1pm to 2pm Eastern
Presented by Len Vlahos, BISG, and Noah Genner, BookNetCanada

In this session, the first in our three-part "Getting Grounded with E-Books" webcast series, we will use data culled from multiple sources to take the mystery out of today's digital marketplace. Looking at the landscape from the point of view of publishers sales into the trade, as well as from consumer purchases and behavior, attendees will learn which categories are showing the strongest e-book growth, how multifunction tablets are competing with e-reading devices, how consumers are spending their discretionary time, and much more. You will leave with a better understanding of where e-books are today, and with a strong foundation to make business decisions about tomorrow.

Parts 2 and 3 in the live webinar series are:

E-Books in the Global Marketplace
Tues, Nov 6, 2012 from 1pm to 2pm Eastern
Moderated by Ed Nawotka, Publishing Perspectives, with presentations from Jo Henry, Bowker, and Sebastian Posth, Publisher and Consultant

How to Define an E-Book Bestseller
Tues, Nov 13, 2012 from 1pm to 2pm Eastern
Presented by Jeremy Greenfield, Digital Book World, and Dan Lubart, HarperCollins Publishers

Study Group ... hum. If the publishing industry can do this "study group" work-around antitrust thing, so too can library institutional buyers. [JH]

What Do You Think of the Law Library of Congress New Homepage?

Check out Andrew Weber's  Welcome to Our New Front Door: A Revamped Homepage and George David Wilson's Legal Research Plus post about the homepage makeover for Law Library of Congress. [JH]