Members Present	Acanfora, Borgman, Butter, Campbell, Hume, Kurtz, MacDonald, Matkin, Zelmanowitz
Members Absent	Hecht, Klein, Viswanathan, Wienhausen
Staff	Lawrence, Winnaker

1. Preliminaries
   1.a Review of meeting objectives
 

MEETING OBJECTIVES 1. Decide whether to submit an amicus brief on behalf of the University of California for the Supreme Court’s consideration of Eldred v. Ashcroft 2. Review and discuss the revised Draft Policy on Ownership and Use of Course Materials

2.  Submit amicus brief for Eldred v. Ashcroft (from Samuelson Clinic at Boalt) on behalf of UC
Background Material:
· Memo (3/5/02) from Martha Winnacker to SCC members on the copyright term extension case before the supreme court
· Los Angeles Times article (2/20/02), “‘Limitless’ Copyright Case Faces High Court Review”

Winnacker summarized the background material setting out the issues in Eldred v. Ashcroft. . MacDonald reported that she had consulted with Deputy General Counsel Lundberg about this: the decision to prepare an amicus brief in support of Eldred would require wide consultation and a decision by senior management, as well as consultation with the Regents.  The Office of General Counsel would oversee the preparation of a University brief.  Hume noted that the Association of American Universities might file in this case, and suggested that less formality might be required to indicate UC support of an AAU brief, although MacDonald indicated that the same consultation and approval by the Board would be required whether the University filed its own amicus or signed one prepared by another entity..  MacDonald also pointed out that costs would be incurred in preparing a brief, and asked whether funding sources had been identified.  Kurtz expressed the consensus of the committee, that SCC can only recommend an action in this area.  Committee discussion then focused on the academic effects of copyright term extension, which were felt to include limitations on the ability of researchers to build on the work of others or to employ protected material in teaching and research, on long-term access to information, on the ability to preserve protected materials (e.g., through copying into other formats for preservation purposes), and on free speech.  The committee supported a strategy suggested by MacDonald and Zelmanowitz, that SCC prepare a letter to Provost King laying out the arguments supporting an amicus brief and setting out the alternatives (UC-prepared, support for a brief by AAU or others, etc.).  It was agreed that faculty must be involved in this, and that their involvement could be organized through routine Academic Senate channels.  Action:  1) Borgman will prepare a draft setting out academic issues with copyright term extension and reasons for support of an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff; 2) using Borgman’s material, staff will draft a letter to Provost King, for the Committee’s review.

3.   Universitywide Copyright Policies
   3.a.  Review of revised draft Policy on Ownership and Use of Course Materials
Background Material:
· REVISED DRAFT (3/4/02) Policy on Course Ownership and Use of Course Materials
· REVISED DRAFT with tracked changes

Committee members made several suggestions for revision of the draft Policy on Ownership of Course Materials.  It was agreed that additional descriptive information should be added explaining the context of this draft policy and its relationship to existing policies, but that this could be addressed in a transmittal letter accompanying the formal review draft of the policy.  In discussion of the Course Materials Policy Committees, it was generally agreed that these must be structured in a way that faculty will perceive as being somewhat independent of campus administration; it was felt that the draft policy accomplishes that to a sufficient degree.  The committee agreed with Hume’s view that with the changes discussed today, the policy is ready to move forward to the Provost without another Committee meeting, subject to an opportunity for committee members to review the penultimate draft.  Action: staff will prepare a revised draft of the policy, based on today’s discussion, for review by committee members.

3.b.   Review of Committee Report on Draft Policy on Ownership and Use of Course Materials
Background Material:
· Committee Report on Draft Policy on Ownership and Use of Course Materials

The committee had numerous suggestions for revising the background document to adhere more closely to the actual discussions of the committee.  It was also suggested that references to federal copyright law be deleted.  The committee agreed that, with editing, this document provided useful background about the committee’s deliberations, and should accompany the draft policy through the formal review stage. Action: staff will prepare a revised draft of the background document, based on today’s discussion, for review by committee members.

4. Next steps/Next meeting

As reported above, the committee will handle revisions to documents reviewed today through email.  The next regular meeting of the committee will be a joint meeting with the Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee on the topic of scholarly communication, to be held on May 23, 2002 in Oakland.