Comments on Preliminary Draft 4 [black letter and comments]

In many respects, PD4 is a helpful synthesis of the law, likely to provoke less controversy than drafts of earlier Chapters. Nevertheless, we remain concerned about this draft’s, like its predecessors’, inconsistent treatment of legal issues. As in earlier drafts, this one sometimes traverses the line between restating positive law and “improving” it. In several instances, these departures from positive law adopt policy positions we would endorse in a different kind of endeavor, such as a “Principles” project, or an acknowledged advocacy piece. But we do not believe it accurate to characterize these departures, however substantively desirable, as “restating” the law (as opposed to revising it)

Ethnic and Gender Differences in Identifying Gifted Students: A Multi-Cultural Analysis

The purpose of this study was to examine ethnic and gender differences in using DISCOVER, a performance-based assessment, for identifying gifted students. The sample consisted of 941 students from grades K-5 belonging to six ethnicities: White Americans, African-Americans, Hispanics, Native-Americans, South Pacific/Pacific Islanders, and Arabs. The 5 X 6 MANOVA (activity x ethnicity) yielded a significant interaction, but no main effect for either activity or ethnicity was found. Plots of the interaction showed that South Pacific/Pacific Islanders scored highest on Oral Linguistic whereas White Americans scored highest in Math and Native Americans scored highest in Spatial Artistic activity. No gender differences in identification were found. All ethnic groups were well represented among identified students, suggesting that DISCOVER might be used in different countries and with culturally diverse students

Letter to Council Members Regarding Council Draft 5

We understand that the ALI Council will consider Council Draft 5 (CD5) of the Restatement of the Law, Copyright (Copyright Restatement) project at its meeting on January 20-21, 2021. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on CD5. We hope that you will give careful consideration to these comments and send CD5 back to the Reporters to address the problems we describe below

Comments on Preliminary Draft 7 [black letter and comments]

PD7 is often confusing, largely as a result of failure to provide important explanations or definitions, or to tell the reader where that information can be found. Key terms, such as “edicts of law” and “formalities” remain undefined. Formalities are a principal topic of PD7; they deserve a more thorough description than the draft contains, addressing what formalities are, whether every declaratory obligation (or option) is a “formality,” or only those that go to the existence or enforcement of copyright (this is the Berne Convention meaning of “formality”)

Letter to Council Members Regarding Council Draft 2

We understand that the ALI Council will consider Council Draft 2 (CD2) of the Restatement of the Law, Copyright (Copyright Restatement) project at its meeting on October 18-19, 2018. We have had – and continue to have – significant concerns about the project and the work to date. We note that numerous parties have expressed concerns about CD2, including the US Patent and Trademark Office, the American Bar Association’s Section of Intellectual Property Law, academics and other Advisers, and that the US Copyright Office and the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Copyright and Literary Property have done so with respect to CD1 and previous drafts

Comments on Preliminary Draft 3 [black letter and comments]

The absence of stated principles underlying the articulation of the black letter and comments – principles that the Reporters have said they will provide at the end of the process – continues to trouble the Draft. It remains unclear whether the Reporters are synthesizing positive law, or seeking to reform it. We are not contending that ALI should not push for law reform (even though Principles or some other form might provide a preferable and more transparent vehicle for aspirational endeavors), but we do think the objectives and methodology should be clear from the outset. We remain concerned that ALI’s credibility is undermined if its output is perceived as promoting an unstated agenda

Comments on Preliminary Draft 5 [black letter and comments]

We appreciate the considerable work that has gone into PD5, and believe that several of its provisions and Comments accurately quote or state and explain the law. Nonetheless, PD5 manifests several of the earlier drafts’ shortcomings. We remain particularly concerned that the relationship of this draft to the statute remains highly inconsistent, not to say erratic. We are not sanguine that our oft-repeated calls that the Reporters and ALI devise a consistent and transparent methodology for restating a statute will finally be heeded. (To the extent there is a guiding principle behind this Restatement, and PD5, it often appears to be to construe the Copyright Act and the caselaw to minimize the existence and scope of copyright protection.) But we and other Advisers will keep urging the articulation of a coherent approach to restating the Copyright Act because we are convinced that continuing to carry on without clear methodological principles will undermine the utility of this project and the credibility of the ALI

Comments on Council Draft 6 [black letter and comments]

We appreciate the Reporters’ incorporation of some of our comments on recent drafts. There remain, however, certain flaws in CD6 that should be addressed. We explain the issues, below

Preliminary Comments on Restatement of Copyright, draft 2

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Preliminary Draft 2 of the Restatement of Copyright. These are preliminary comments, given the short time frame provided to review the draft, and we anticipate sending further comments after we’ve had the opportunity to study the draft further, or as a follow-up to the Advisers’ meeting and the Consultative Group meeting on November 10 and 11, 2016, respectively

Comments on Preliminary Draft 6

We briefly reiterate the principal General Comments we made with respect to PD5, because PD6 continues, including in its two new sections, to manifest the same overall shortcomings: (i) the relationship of the draft to the statute remains highly inconsistent; (ii) the Restatement needs a consistent and transparent methodology for restating a statute; and (iii) continuing to carry on without clear methodological principles will undermine the utility of this project and the credibility of the ALI