Can't Use The Name Of The Library Of Congress When Doing What It Should Be Doing
from the what's-a-little-competition? dept
We've been impressed with Jim Harper's Washington Watch site since it launched last year. The site helps track how much various legislation proposals would cost people. Recently, Harper added a really useful feature: a wiki attached to each piece of proposed legislation where people could express reasons for and against each piece of legislation. It's a good idea, and shows how participatory democracy can work better by actually encouraging some amount of actual participation (shocking idea, there). Unfortunately, not everyone was thrilled with the idea. In announcing it, Harper pointed out that Washington Watch could be a better way to follow and understand new legislative proposals than the Library of Congress' own THOMAS system. Apparently, the Library of Congress took offense at this and demanded that Harper stop using its name. Harper is no stranger to intellectual property issues, since his day job is Director of Information Policy at the Cato Institute (where he organized last year's copyright conference at which I spoke). He told the Library of Congress that there seemed no good reason to stop using the name, at which point the Library of Congress trotted out Library of Congress Regulation 112 which says: "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." Of course, Harper isn't using the Library of Congress' name to endorse anything. He's using it to show why the Library of Congress isn't doing everything it should be doing. In the meantime, this whole dustup is on Slashdot, meaning that the Library of Congress' attempt to keep Washington Watch quiet just got a lot more attention -- so that everyone can compare the two sites for themselves. If the Library of Congress had just ignored the issue, we'd bet that Washington Watch would have a lot less traffic today. Sounds like the Library of Congress has just discovered the Streisand Effect. Maybe they should focus on improving their system, rather than worrying that someone else is using their name and encouraging them to do a better job.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not anymore...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
they all the same
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can someone explain how saying your product is better than someone else's is not endorsing your product?
"Harper pointed out that Washington Watch could be a better way to follow and understand new legislative proposals than the Library of Congress' own THOMAS system."
While the LoC isn't endorsing Washington Watch, Harper is endorsing his product using the Library's name..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I bet LoC's THOMAS got a lot more traffic today as well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you honestly confused by the difference b/t saying that your product is better than the someone else's product, and saying that they endorse your product?
You must have a heck of a time shopping for a car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Can someone explain how saying your product is better than someone else's is not endorsing your product?
Sure - it's like the Pepsi Challenge. Pepsi is free to use Coke's name and image in advertisements for their own product along with the phrase, "9 out of 10 people who took the challenge preferred Pepsi to Coke", and as long as everything they say is true (meaning no ad hoc smear statements) it's fair use. This does not mean that Coke endorses Pepsi, nor does it mean that Pepsi is claiming Coca Cola as an endorser.
But that's advertisement. You'd have to take the statements made by Washington Watch seriously sideways to construe it as advertisement... it is merely criticism. That WW uses its own system as a point of comparison to highlight where THOMAS falls down does not make it less so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
probably
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good grief
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xD
Sure, THOMAS will get more hits now but people will realize how much better WW is. Streisand Effect strikes again... you'd think people would catch on by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It would appear that what they are talking about is how to best track legislation using technology. That is an issue under debate. If the Library of Congress has a system that does this, it is one of the comparisons that will be made and it is valid to use their name.
Instead of wining about being criticized, they need to get busy and improve what they do.
By the way, I am not anti-government or anti-libraries. Instead, I am a librarian who believes that we can always improve what we do, as there is so much innovation taking place on a constant basis, that opportunities change seemingly overnight. Also - as as suppporter of Open Government and Open Access (and know that most librarians are also so inclined), I am appauled that they would try to censor debate. Shame on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]