September 2006

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2006.

I’ve held back, so far, on comment on the Watson Farley & Williams so-called trainee law blog. The dust has now settled and the issue is well covered by Justin at Human Law. But here’s my take.

This is not a blog: anyone familiar with blogs visiting it will see that it exhibits none of the hallmarks of a blog. Approach via their Publications page and you’ll see that it’s just a category in their CMS.

This was misguided spin: blogs are hip, so let’s call our initiative a blog.

So what lessons do we learn?

  1. Know your stuff. Find out what blogs are about before you claim to have one.
  2. Call a spade a spade. Your effort may be worthy, but sell it for what it is.
  3. A corporate blog should aim to engage, not deliver thinly disguised PR.

And a lesson for journalists/bloggers: check the source, don’t just regurgitate their PR.

Kevin O’Keefe recently posted a thought-provoking piece on the Law on using others’ RSS feeds, garnered from an article at EContent: RSS: Use, Lose, or Abuse?.

The strict position (in US law, but little different here), as stated by Peter Strand, partner of the US law firm Holland & Knight, is that:

In general, the content of RSS feeds, including the headline and the article or story, is protected by copyright, and retransmission, distribution, or other uses without permission is copyright infringement. Headlines, like all short phrases, receive limited protection and can only be protected if the headline is sufficiently original and not a mere statement of facts.

In the reformist camp, Lawrence Lessig argues that “in a digital age, copying is as natural as breathing” and that using a web browser – and indeed any digital reader – every page view is technically a copy, regulated by copyright law. But this is a situation which was unintended and is totally inefficient. See this Guardian piece for a quick summary of his position; his book Free Culture for the detail.

Leaving aside the technicality of the page view, the reality is that not only rogues are copyists, but also some of the biggest names on the web. Every web page that Google (or Yahoo or Technorati or any other search engine) caches is a copy; every headline and excerpt they publish is copied. But who complains? Well, no-one: we all like the “Google juice”.

Is an RSS feed any different to a web page? The eContent article quotes Fred Meeker of Banner & Witcoff:

Since most news feeds are meant to be used and received by users, there is an argument that a copyright owner who creates an RSS feed has granted a non-exclusive license, either expressly or by implied conduct, that the source be freely distributed and/or redistributed [my emphasis]. Consent to use the news feed may be manifest via either silence or lack of objection.

I beg to differ. There is a distinction between access and re-use. I may be happy for anyone and everyone to access my feed, but I wouldn’t be happy if they felt free to treat it as their own (Kevin’s beef).

Many feed publishers do explicitly set out terms and conditions. The problem is, feedsters probably won’t ever see them (as there’s no link to them in the feed itself), or if they do find a link, they won’t read the small print.

Google RSS feeds terms conditions and you’ll find the small print the major publishers set out. The Times wants to deny you, without their permission, doing anything other than access its feeds on your “electronic device”, whereas the BBC and others are happy for you to republish provided you acknowledge with a link. So, I’d say, if you do want to protect your position, you’ll need to put your terms and conditions right upfront – and this is not possible with a standard blog service feed.

Any UK Lessigs out there care to comment?

Yesterday Clare Allison, the Enquiry System Project Manager at the SPO, wrote to Statute Law Database trial users that:

We are pleased to announce that the website as it stands will be launched free of charge to the public once piloting has been completed. A commercial strategy will still be developed next year, but will primarily be looking at options that concern the commercial reuse of the data and the development of functionality that will serve the needs of the specialist user.

That seems clear enough, and we must assume that they mean what they say (ie no charging for historical views). So that’s good news.

So far as the commercial strategy is concerned, as I’ve commented before, charging for “commercial reuse of the data” seems fair enough. But is charging for “development of functionality that will serve the needs of the specialist user” going to be used as an artificial way to charge for functionality that should really be there in the first place?

I mentioned in my recent article, two functions that would vastly improve the SLD:

  • hyperlink every reference to another piece of legislation
  • implement URL addressing by citation (ie not dependent on the internal document ID)

Neither of these is a big deal in development terms.

I have expended much of my creative effort these last few weeks finishing off a couple of new e-books with 5 CPD points a pop on the subject of the legal web, produced by me and Delia Venables and just published on infolaw. You’ll find full details there, but here’s a quick summary.

Changing Practice for Barristers has five chapters on Changing Technologies, Changing Practice Management, Marketing Online, Providing Legal Resources Online and Changing Libraries. Each chapter includes two articles by experts in their fields.

Web Tools for Lawyers is authored by me and provides guidance on web services that will help lawyers promote their practices and get the most from the web. Although these services are of general application, specific examples and guidance are given for the legal sector wherever appropriate.

Blogs are an increasingly important web publishing medium. Chapter 1 explains what they are and how they are used and gives examples of the many law blogs that are now emerging. Chapter 2 explains why you should seriously consider blogging for business purposes and gives guidance both on the mechanics of publishing and developing a blog and how to blog more effectively.

Chapter 3 explains the concept of website syndication, the essentials of the RSS syndication format and why it is set to become ubiquitous and it also points you to the many RSS feeds now available for lawyers.

Most people now use search engines to find what they want on the web. Chapter 4 guides you through the basics of search engine optimisation – achieving a high rank in the search engines. Chapter 5 gives guidance on the complementary topic of search engine advertising.

Thanks to Justin Patten of Human Law for his guidance on blogging with TypePad and to John Bolch of Family Lore for his guidance on the features of the new release of Blogger.

Justin comments: “I find the attitude of the legal profession to blogging quite depressing. I think we may be waiting at least 12 months for some law firm blogs to emerge.” I wouldn’t hold my breath. I’m not as depressed, having experience over more than 20 years of how slow lawyers have been to take up electronic products and services. But I am, nevertheless, perplexed. Why is it that, with the incontrovertible evidence that blogging is good for business and easy to boot, there are only a handful of UK law bloggers? I can see that for the larger firm there are “issues” to be considered, but for the majority of smaller firms, a blog will be far more effective than their current, static, brochureware website.

Making an impact

IMPACT is a new blog brought to you by the Intellectual Property and Technology team at UK law firm Freeth Cartwright LLP.

My article The Statute Law Database – finally a reality looks at the history and current shape of the SLD.

John Bolch at Family Lore is the first law blogger I know of to adopt the new Blogger platform which is currently in beta.

Family Lore thus has a new look and new features. With this release Blogger has at last introduced categorisation. Another nice new feature is that archive links can be expanded to view the headlines from the month’s posts. I believe Blogger has also improved template editing with drag and drop. John will have to tell me more.

The Statute Law Database is a project of the Statutory Publications Office (SPO), an office within the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). It has a long and chequered history, reaching back to 1991 when the initial project was started. Until recently little information was released about the project, though regular assurances were given as to its progress and, since 1995, as to it being publicly available “next year”. Now, finally, it is a reality.

What is the Statute Law Database?

The SLD is a database of UK legislation containing the texts of all Acts that were in force on 1 February 1991, and all Acts and printed Statutory Instruments passed since then. It also contains local legislation, both primary and printed secondary. The SPO editorial team maintains the database by adding new legislation and applying the effects of amending legislation using a specially-designed editorial system. For end users, access to the SLD is enabled with an enquiry system that provides a historical view of primary legislation for any specific day from the base date of 1 February 1991 and any prospective legislation. Although secondary legislation is not being consolidated, the enquiry system facilitates the identification of any legislation that amends or repeals it.

The SLD data is tagged in XML describing each document’s properties (metadata), the structure of its content (parts, sections etc) and, most importantly, also identifying all amendments since original publication: amendment date, commencement/repeal dates, amending instrument citations, etc. Each document thus includes a complete history and enables a view of the document at any point in time (from 1 February 1991) to be generated, with annotations indicating the authority for the amendments incorporated.

Why is it 10 years late?

Hansard reveals (HC Hansard, 17 July 2001) that development of the SLD was contracted to Syntegra Ltd (a BT company, previously Secure Information Systems Ltd) and the project was delivered in November 1993, though not formally accepted until Summer 1995, at a cost of £700,000. It is not clear what was delivered at that time, nor what happened to the project for the next several years.

By March 1999 it was reported that:

The partially updated database is presently available to a number of users within central government who have access to the Statutory Publications Office Intranet. The Lord Chancellor’s Department are considering options for the future marketing of the Statute Law Database. These options include free Internet access, the granting of non-exclusive licences to legal information publishers and the provision of a subscription on-line service. (HC Hansard 15 March 1999)

In September 1999 a demonstration version of the SLD was made available on the Syntegra Track Record website, containing legislation for the years 1985 to 1995, though this soon disappeared.

Subsequent references do not explain why the system was not soon made public but simply that the database was being brought up to date (an unending project of course) and was soon to be made available to the Government Legal Service. However, the whole project was revisited and in May 2004 TSO announced that it was working with the DCA to modernise the SLD, with Computacenter providing the underlying infrastructure.

The modernisation programme had four main objectives:

  • replacement of the editorial maintenance system;
  • development of an enquiry system for the Government Service;
  • development of an enquiry system for use by the general public; and
  • to revise and produce an up-to-date UK Statute Book.

The final mile

The Government Service enquiry system was launched on 31 May 2006 and the pilot for the public version is now under way. This is in three phases. Phase 1 included a very limited number of test users. Phase 2 lasted for 5 weeks ending 6 September 2006 and included a larger number of test users drawn it seems from “stakeholders” with a particular interest in the development and use of legal information. I am one. Phase 3 will include over 100 test users, following which the DCA will evaluate all responses, modify the SLD accordingly and publish the final public version. Public release is now scheduled for December 2006.

The Government Service enquiry system (ie web interface) was developed against specific user requirements drawn up by representatives from (typically) the Government Legal Service, the judiciary and law librarians. The web facility has also been designed to meet the requirements of those with special needs and close attention has been paid to producing a facility that meets government standards for accessibility. Regarding the enquiry system for the general public, requirements have been based on feedback received over a number of years by the SPO Helpdesk from a range of non-government bodies and individuals.

How does it shape up?

As a Phase 2 test user, I’ve been favoured with access to the SLD as it currently stands. Does it measure up to my expectations? Here are the substantial issues in my view:

Completeness

Some 75 Acts – many substantial – remain to be loaded on the SLD. Further, the effects of much 2002 to 2005 legislation and all 2006 legislation are not yet consolidated. Nor are pre-2001 SIs yet loaded. It is understood this work will be completed by the end of the year when the SLD will be launched. It is not essential that the SLD is complete before launch as it already delivers far more value than the free public access alternatives available. However, if it is significantly incomplete, it is likely to be compared unfavourably with the commercial alternatives.

Hyperlinking

An important part of statute law research is the following up of references to other legislation. The SLD links only a few such cross-references in the annotations (and the criteria for those selected for markup is not clear). It would be a huge improvement if every reference to another piece of legislation were hyperlinked. This need not be a burdensome task: hard-coded links are not required; as demonstrated by a number of publishers (including ourselves), it is possible with a good degree of accuracy to recognise statutory citations and mark them up on the fly.

Addressability

One can go to the SLD site and find what one is looking for reasonably quickly. However, one of the fundamental principles of the web (one of Engelbart’s Requirements) is that “every object that someone might validly want/need to cite should have an unambiguous address (capable of being portrayed in a manner as to be human readable and interpretable)”. In the context of the SLD such an address would be constructed from the legislation type, year and number. It is currently only possible to address a piece of legislation by its system ID (the Active Text Document ID). So in order to link to a piece of legislation one needs to find the appropriate provision on the SLD and cut and paste the URL including the document ID. But the system can readily map a query for a particular type-year-number to its document ID, and such a system of addressing should be implemented. Then anyone wishing to link to the SLD could do so “blind”.

Free access to the laws that bind us?

The DCA is reserving its position on rights to access and re-use the SLD which it regards as a “value added product” for which it must, according to the Treasury, attempt to recoup its outlay.

The consolidation, annotation and XML tagging of the statute law is what the DCA regards as its added value (ie over and above what it is required to do) and as such the SLD is specifically excluded by example from OPSI’s PSI licensing. See OPSI’s Guidance – Reproduction of United Kingdom, England, Wales and Northern Ireland Primary and Secondary Legislation, specifically para 15.

In line with this position, the SLD at present contains the following copyright notice:

The Statute Law Database and the material on the SLD website are subject to Crown copyright protection. The Crown copyright waiver that applies to published legislation generally does not apply to SLD because it is a value-added product. Any reuse of material from SLD will be the subject of separate and specific licensing arrangements. No such arrangements have yet been entered into. Users should not therefore reproduce or reuse any material from SLD until further guidance is issued.

The SPO is currently developing a commercial strategy, working with Partnerships UK, in line with the Treasury’s Wider Markets Initiative which is designed to encourage appropriate commercial activity to ensure that public bodies make the most effective use of their assets. The SPO is also endeavouring to secure commercial partnerships with private sector legal publishers for the exploitation of the data. The current position is believed to be that government users will have full and free access and those accessing the public version will not be charged for retrieval of the current in-force versions. It is understood that final decisions concerning access to historical or “point-in-time” views and as to re-use have not been made yet.

Any suggestion that the public might be charged for access to the SLD has aroused heated debate. As Jonathan Mitchell QC argued last year:

In a free society, it is wrong that people should have to pay to find out about the laws that bind them. I draw no distinction between historical texts of legislation that was passed by Parliament and later texts that are produced today or were produced at some intermediate date. The public’s interest in both cases is identical: it is in the law that governs or governed them on the date that matters – it is not necessarily anything to do with the date on which the legislation was passed. (Scottish Parliament, Subordinate Legislation Committee, 25 January 2005)

What of re-use then? There are any number of ways the DCA could charge for commercial re-use. But if the SLD comes up to scratch – ie, as advertised, is the definitive, reliable, up-to-date repositary of consolidated primary and unconsolidated secondary legislation – commercial publishers will think twice about substantial re-use and repurposing of the data. Instead they will link extensively to the SLD and/or frame SLD provisions alongside their own annotations and commentary.

RSSicon.gifI’m surprised how many bloggers don’t link prominently to their site feed. Here are some possible reasons:

Don’t know what a site feed is

Here is a brief primer.

Don’t have one

Yes you do! All blogging services produce a site feed as standard. In Blogger you may need to activate it. Go to Settings – Site Feed.

Don’t know how to link to it

In Blogger, first get the URL of your feed from Settings – Site Feed. It will usually be in the form http://yoursubdomain.blogspot.com/atom.xml (an Atom feed). Click the Template tab and add a link in your siderbar to the feed URL. Blogger provides detailed Help on adding links.

Almost all WordPress themes include a link to your site feed, but this may not be in a prominent position. First establish the URL for the feed by clicking on the link. It will usually be in the form http://yoursubdomain.wordpress.com/feed/ (an RSS 2.0 feed).You can then add a more prominent link by adding the URL to your Blogroll. Call it “RSS 2.0 site feed” and assign it to a new Site Feed category rather than the Blogroll category and you’ll get a new Site Feed heading in your sidebar with your link beneath.