Courtney and Ziskina on The Publisher Playbook: A Brief History of the Publishing Industry's Obstruction of the Library Mission

Kyle K. Courtney, Harvard University Law Library, and Juliya Ziskina have published The Publisher Playbook: A Brief History of the Publishing Industry's Obstruction of the Library Mission *. Here is the abstract.

This article traces a long history of conflict between libraries and the publishing industry, documenting how publishers have consistently sought to restrict library access to materials in pursuit of profit and control. Through nine key episodes—from 19th-century legal battles over the first sale doctrine to 21st-century litigation against controlled digital lending (CDL)—the authors reveal a persistent playbook of obstruction: publishers challenge new technologies, resist expanded access, and litigate or lobby against library innovation. Yet, in case after case, courts and Congress have upheld the public interest role of libraries, affirming rights such as lending, fair use, interlibrary loan, and accessibility for patrons with print disabilities. The article concludes that CDL, currently under legal challenge, is the next chapter in this historical arc—an essential library practice that should be defended and affirmed, as past access innovations have been. The pattern is clear: when libraries push to democratize knowledge, publishers push back—and public policy must continue to support libraries’ mission over private restriction.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Papers: The Legal Treatise: Past, Present, and Future @nmignanelli

 Call for Papers – The Legal Treatise: Past, Present, and Future

 

The Lillian Goldman Law Library and Law Library Journal invite proposals​ for a symposium on the Legal Treatise to be held at Yale Law School on Friday, March 24, 2023. 

 

The purpose of this symposium is to examine the many aspects of the history, present circumstances, and future of the legal treatise as a source and genre. Possible topics include but are not limited to: the origins of the treatise, the role of the treatise in English and American law practice and legal culture during particular periods in history, the commodification of the treatise, international and comparative perspectives on the treatise, microhistories of specific treatise titles, biographical accounts of treatise writers, rivalries between treatise writers, treatise authorship successions, reflections on contemporary treatise writing and publishing, the rise of the scholarly monograph, the (in)accessibility of the treatise, the transition of the treatise from a print resource to an electronic resource, the decline of the multi-volume treatise in law practice and legal scholarship, and theories about and proposals for the future of the treatise. 

 

Please send proposals in the form​ of an abstract to Nicholas Mignanelli at nicholas.mignanelli@yale.edu. Please be sure to include your name, institutional affiliation (if applicable), and contact information in your email. Those whose proposals are accepted will be invited to present at the symposium and will have the opportunity to publish their paper in Law Library Journal.  Early-career and previously unpublished scholars, as well as previously published authors​, are encouraged to submit. The submissions deadline is June 1, 2022.

Measuring Publications in Top Law Journals

Reza Dibadj, University of San Francisco School of Law, is publishing Fashions and Methodology in Rethinking Legal Scholarship: A Transatlantic Interchange (Forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

I attempt in this chapter to build on prior empirical work where I compared who and what was being published in top law reviews in three different jurisdictions: the United States, Britain, and France. Part I begins by discussing the key empirical findings of a research project that analyzed a sample of legal publications in the United States, Britain, and France. As discussed, the work proceeded in two phases: first, identifying what “top” journal and “elite” law school might be in each jurisdiction; second, analyzing each article according to author characteristics, legal method employed, and subject matter. Part II then draws implications from this preliminary work, attempting to relate the empirical results to the academic legal culture in each jurisdiction. Put simply, can one try to find meaning in these results? After having surveyed what is being published in “top” law journals across three different jurisdictions, as well as trying to explore links between these results and legal culture, Part III tries to draw some implications. At least two important points emerge. First, that as legal academics we need to pay more attention to quality and how to measure it. Yet existing quality metrics — journal rankings, peer review, bibliometric citations, and the like — are by themselves at best incomplete and at worst misleading. As such, I argue that quality cannot be understood without the threshold concept of methodology. Entering the dangerous territory of linking methodology with quality becomes all but inevitable if we hope to begin improving the state of legal research. Ironically, what is deeply missing in this literature is a focus on methodology. While it becomes extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to generalize across jurisdictions there remains a central question of what Americans may learn from Europeans when it comes to legal research and vice-versa? Methodology can begin to provide a framework to address this question.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.