Thursday, May 24, 2007

Copyright Utopia, Day 3 - Technological Alternatives Panel

Transforming Copyright: Technological Alternatives
Kimberly Kelley (moderator), Karen Coyle, Laurence Roth, David Sohn
  • DRM (digital rights management) has been market failure because consumers not happy with digital controls
  • not all technical protection is bad; some protection is important, useful, needed
  • files today will outlive software needed to open them
  • technology does fail: not if, but when
  • when technology fails in regard to DRM, there is nothing that can be done
  • users need to explicitly know what they can and cannot do under DRM of each individual file; shouldn't have to discover limitations when they are stopped trying to do something not permissible
  • we should be informing people every time they access something of the copyright that applies: holder, date enacted, uses permitted
  • possibly include copyright in metadata of MARC records
  • DRM likely to remain part of copyright landscape
  • if public understands DRM, they will exert pressure on DRM developers for more choice and flexibility
  • DRM developers need to contribute by making infringement unattractive not technologically impossible
  • DRM has collateral impact: privacy - data collection questions; computer security - are necessary downloads/installations safe
  • DRM must have transparency/disclosure, both initial and ongoing
  • not all DRM systems raise problems in all areas
  • if more files are available DRM-free (iTunes songs), will public have enough information to make informed decisions?
  • similar to DRM are digital watermarks
  • almost all TV broadcasts have digital watermarks
  • Photoshop has digital watermarking capability
  • watermarks provide persistent digital identity with embedded metadata defining origin, use permissions
  • watermarks can be made resistant to standard content processing techniques
  • watermarks used for copyright communication, copy protection, monitoring, filtering/classification, authentication/identity, media serialization & tracking, asset/content management, rights management, remote triggering, linking/ecommerce
  • digital watermarks similar to automobile VIN
  • work as compliments to DRM
  • could possibly help identify data leaks
  • would help in identification of future born-digital orphan works
  • ancillary copyright violations could (and should) be accounted for by digital watermarking (accidentally filming Disney movie in background of home video of child's birthday party)

Evidence-Based Library/Info Practice Meeting

This was a different kind of meeting for me, used to MAC and MLA. It was a small meeting (230 participants) and very international in flavor. It also included lots of different kinds of librarians, not just medical librarians. It was co-sponsored by the EBLIP guru Andrew Booth and the Library School at UNC and held in Research Triangle Park. I wondered what the foreign librarians found to do in the RTP when the meeting wasn't taking them out in buses. Since the airport is across I-40 and RTP is composed of businesses, there was only a Gold's Gym and a walking trail as destinations in RTP without a rental car. Rochelle and I joined the meeting halfway through and stayed for CE classes. The meeting focused on library research, how to make it better, how to fit it in, how to get it published, how to evaluate it. I attended the debate on whether EBLibrarianship was useful/necessary by Scott Pluchak and Andrew Booth. This talk and the following discussion was fairly contentious. I went to sessions where librarians presented their research on teaching, including Connie Schardt who studied a course taught locally and as a distance ed class. The final luncheon had several library heads discussing the importance of EB research in running libraries. These included a small special library, Duke Med library, NCSU library, a school library professor, and a state library. The CE class I took, on critically appraising library research/articles, was one of the best CEs I ever taken, probably due to the knowledge and personality of the instructor who was from Newfoundland.

Copyright Utopia, Day 3 - Licensing Panel

Licensing and the Commons as Copyright Alternatives
Kimberly Bonner (moderator), Mike Carroll, Solveig Singleton, Elizabeth Winston

Cautionary/negative view (Elizabeth Winston):
  • copyright does not fit all takers - some want tighter controls, others want fewer
  • legislation restricts copyright holders' rights after the first sale, but licensing enables holders to retain control
  • using licenses to transfer copyrights (retaining titles) risks monopolization [*I personally believe such risks are minimal*]
  • one legitimate justification for use of license does not automatically justify licensing rather than transferring, as other user rights may be unnecessarily corroded

Supportive view (Mike Carroll):

  • goal of Creative Commons is to get out of normal copyright allowances by licensing legal sharing of creative, scientific & educational materials
  • one size does not fit all but standards are nonetheless necessary
  • CC provides standardization in licensing
  • CC inspired by Open Source movement; idea born in 2001, licenses released 2002
  • each of the 6 possible licenses have three versions: metadata, human readable, legal
  • CC licenses do not apply only to digital works; try to be medium-neutral
  • have been used on blogs, photos, research articles, teaching materials, music, film, books
  • CC licenses have role to play in domain where researchers just want credit/prestige for their work, not monetary compensation
  • growth in use of CC licenses impressive (measured by link backs): Dec. 2003=1 million; Dec. 2004=5 million; June 2005=12 million; June 2006=145 million [*when these numbers where shared the person sitting beside me - a top administrator with the Copyright Clearance Center - softly exclaimed "Wow"*]

Cautionary/positive view (Solveig Singleton):

  • licensing may not solve copyright problems
  • trade creates wealth, voluntary licenses are trade, so both parties are better off, both benefit
  • compulsory licensing, however, cuts into benefits; top-down, non-negotiable, one side raw deal
  • voluntary licensing is form of Utopia but requires active participation
  • nevertheless, there are problems with voluntary licensing: fragmentation (think of all the issues with music: composer, performer, producer, etc.); getting around public legislation (DRM); public legislation itself (criminalization of violations)
  • the need to get around public legislation and the extent of public legislation are themselves symptoms of a collapse of copyright enforcement in the digital landscape, an issue which none of the licensing options address
  • it is worth thinking hard, creatively about Congressional-level addressing of license fragmentation and non-enforceability issues in technological world
  • think "hatless": when thinking about how to solve copyright problems, we need to take off the multiple hats we wear (those of consumer, producer)
  • private licensing agreements are worthwhile experiments that need to go forward

Copyright Utopia, Day 3 - Legislative Panel

Tweaking Copyright: Legislative Alternatives
Kimberly Bonner (moderator), Miriam Nisbet, Robert Samors, Gigi Sohn
  • 110th Congress (current term) is unusually quiet on copyright, although 3 of the 4 copyright reform bills/initiatives are positive
  • big copyright issues are currently in the courts, hence affecting the actions of Congress
  • also slower due to shift from Republican majority to Democrats, as well as focus on judicial system issues (fired lawyers), FBI examination, & patent reform bill
  • Democrats have tended to be more friendly to Hollywood (the land of big donors) by protecting copyrights
  • notion of only one type of copyright holder no longer holds with rising among of user-generated content
  • the current big danger is not potential Congressional action but action from the copyright office: some believe the office is over-reaching its role to make policy pronouncements, believing duty is to push back changing tide of copyright control in defense of traditional copyright holders; as an office, the mission is to serve the people, which includes copyright holders of participatory media
  • reforms are needed in areas covering orphan works, DMCA, DRM notices, licensing that permits YouTube posting without fear of notice-and-takedown, limiting statutory damages
  • although such reforms are not possible in the short term, they might be in long term
  • H.R. 1201: introduced in late February; would amend DMCA to add relief to DRM breaking prohibition in legitimate circumstances such as fair use, educational uses, and library/archives preservation (all currently illegal)
  • hoping to see orphan works (works whose copyright holder cannot be identified/located) bills in both House and Senate; would allow for use of orphan works without risk of statutory damages if good faith search does not locate copyright owner
  • study group examining possible changes to Section 108 (library/archive specific section); section is out-of-sync with digital age in terms of copying guidelines (both preservation and personal use), ILL
  • librarians have an important role to play in copyright reform, either by individually contacting Congressional representatives or by identifying our institution's government relations/Congressional liaison person
  • imperative that faculty and students understand copyright, so hold copyright education campaigns on campus; doesn't necessarily have to be clever but needs to be sustained
  • work to have copyright added to Faculty Senate and institutional agendas
  • think about copyright reform less as an economic issue and more as an educational mission
  • clearly stipulate self-interest for universities, faculty, students

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Copyright Utopia, Day 2 - International Panel

International Approaches
Kimberly Bonner (moderator), Susan Anthony, Olufunmilayo Arewa, Matthew Skelton

This panel session basically provided a peak at other countries' approaches to copyright and fair use, and served primarily to emphasize how different US copyright law is from other Berne Convention member countries, especially with regard to fair use. Several European countries, including Germany and France, use private copying levies as an exception to copyright holders' exclusive reproduction rights. These levies are charged to manufactures of machines and data storage devices used to make copies of copyright-protected materials. Copyright holders then use an intermediary organization for remuneration with governments to recover levies. Although the US fair use doctrine does allow for some private copying, it is not as permissive as private copying levies.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently released a paper/statement on participatory media. Participatory media or UCC (user created content) does not apply/cover consumptive entertainment. UCC - blogs, wikis, mashups, social networking sites - currently dominated by young, male creators. Making an entire copy of anything is virtually never fair; good rule of thumb? Maybe...

Culture by definition is shared. US fair use law is atypical in context of other international copyright laws. The Berne Convention's education exemption is neither transparent or apparent, so lots of countries don't use it. The debate between producers and users of copyrighted materials plays out in different ways internationally, but still plays out.

Copyright Utopia, Day 2 - Open Access Panel Discussion

Closed is Not Necessarily the Opposite of Open: Open Access Initiatives
Paul Jaeger (moderator), Ann Bartow, Brian Crawford, Heather Joseph, Denise Troll Covey

This session was remarkably hostile, and unfortunately, given the complexity of the topic, did little to clarify the issue at hand: Open Access and its potential for radical (and in my opinion, greatly needed) change in the scholarly communications arena. While I don't claim to be an OA expert, I do feel that I have a solid understanding of the principles and issues, and this session made me anxious and frustrated as I realized that people without my background were undoubtedly more confused afterward than before we even began. Despite Heather Joseph's "modern interpretive copyright dance," the session was truly characterized by the following phrases (supplied by panelists, not audience): "pit bull", "fired up", "drank a bottle of Tabasco." Nevertheless, there were good points made, which I share below.
  • faculty are more concerned with what their peers are doing with OA journals, not about the dysfunction in scholarly communications or serials pricing
  • if everyone waits to see what their peers do (chicken & egg issue), then nothing will change!
  • to get faculty to go green, must understand current culture in order to change it
  • advancement & stature in field are key issues for faculty, not public access; faculty don't understand that there is an access issue...until you cancel journals
  • if ILL changes to strict document delivery (current section 108 review) then faculty will likely become interested in publicly accessible materials
  • lobby for OA resolution to be adopted by Faculty Senate
  • publishing agreements are contracts, and contracts are negotiable
  • what is in it for individual researchers? what are the carrots?
  • only through use of research findings by others is research impact maximized

Copyright Utopia, Day 2 - Keynote & Panel Session

Utopian Visions of Copyright: Tweak, Transform or Opt-out
William "Terry" Fisher, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard

Copyright utopia would include...

  • creators are fairly compensated
  • opportunities to engage in creativity are widespread (semiotic democracy)
  • cultural diversity
  • all persons have ready access to ideas, information and entertainment
  • all persons have access to rich, empowering, continuing education

5 ways current copyright system impedes this Utopian vision - and possible cures...

  • proliferation of protected, unregistered works - creates unnecessary obstacles for use & reuse; Creative Commons license is a cure already in place that doesn't require legal changes
  • impediments to education - outmoded/clumsy educational exemptions; ambiguity of fair use; DMCA applied to education hurts film studies; overly cautious gatekeepers (universities, publishers, insurers); cure by expansion of exemptions
  • impediments to semiotic democracy - modified films, mashups, amateur webcasting currently not permitted; cures include modifying fair use for greater latitude for transformative works & less latitude for consumptive works, define "derivative work" more narrowly or eliminate altogether, and resist expansion of rights of integrity
  • impediments to search tools - cures include changing fair use to shield innovative tools such as Google Books or change default rule to opt-out (example: notice-and-takedown policy)
  • crisis in entertainment industry - heightened by technological destabilization; cures include strengthening intellectual property rights, reinforcing self-help strategies, an alternative compensation system, or a renewed entertainment ecology
  • modest reforms, even some without required changes to existing law, are obviously necessary

Panel Session Response
Kimberly Kelley (moderator), Patricia Aufderheide, Alec French, Jim Gibson, Tracy Mitrano

  • universities traditionally resist critical assessment of copyright, which is converse to established educational practices, and simply state "this is wrong, end of discussion" - this needs to change if we're going to foster engagement and understanding in students, faculty
  • copyright is intended to promote continued creation of culture; to promote progress of science & useful arts - need to remember this!

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Copyright Utopia, Day 1 - Keynote

Copyright Utopia: YouTube and the DMCA's Silver Lining?
Fred Von Lohmann, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Participatory media (user-generated content) creates lots of copyright questions
  • YouTube synonymous to new, emerging media form
  • Political satire: "This land is your land..." Bush/Kerry video from 2004; Obama/Clinton 1984 video (take off on Apple's 1984 Super Bowl ad unveiling Macintosh computers) from 2007
  • Mashups: movie trailer mashups such as "Brokeback to the Future"; "Experiment in Sound" audio & video mashup
  • Parody:'s parody of Colbert Report was removed from YouTube after Viacom copyright complaint, which was actually falsely back on YouTube; Disney copyright video from Stanford
  • Oddities: 8 minute "Star Wars" silent movie
  • The people's archive: old TV ads from the 1970s "archived" on YouTube
  • When do you ask the copyright questions in regard to this emergent media?
  • Because this content reaches audience first, we're able to have this debate
  • DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998) actually made user-upload sites possible by way of copyright violation exemption for host sites, so long as the offensive material is removed when requested (safe harbor provisions provided notice-and-takedown policy)
  • Gatekeepers: traditional intermediaries (TV, radio, etc.) conservative with regard to copyright, so if material is questionable, it doesn't go out
  • Bouncers: OSPs (online service providers) exempt from violations under DMCA safe harbors; everything is welcome but it'll be thrown out if getting out-of-control
  • Thanks to DMCA, finally getting to see all the fair uses we deserve to see
  • It isn't that copyright is not being violated - it probably is - but for the most part, no one cares
  • However, the creation made possible under DMCA threatened by lawsuits, mechanized censorship (filtering technologies), DRM (digital rights management)
  • DMCA safe harbors fight is fight for a *public* remix culture; essentially, a fight for fair use and free expression; this culture will continue to happen regardless but risks being driven underground
  • Transformative works risk becoming collateral damage in fight against actual violations
  • Things to think about in higher ed: 1) think DMCA not fair use (universities are OSPs not copy providers; have notice-and-takedown procedures; distribute links rather than copies); 2) build tools not collections (public does a better job of building archive of pop culture than any institution could so focus on ways to assist not control)

Copyright Utopia, Day 1 - Preconference

The 7th annual Center for Intellectual Property (CIP), University of Maryland University College, symposium - Copyright Utopia: Alternative Visions, Methods, and Policies - got off to a great start yesterday (Monday) afternoon with a 4-hour preconference: "Copyright 101." Being relatively new to copyright, I found this introduction helpful, particularly as the presenter, Kenneth Crews, welcomed audience members' questions and real life circumstances, providing us with a practical introduction. Since my notes from this session are lengthy and likely not of exhilarating interest to most (although *very* important to understand), I'll simply recap the highlights...
  • fun of copyright is figuring out rules as they apply to our situation
  • copyright and fair use are two different worlds (albeit overlapping); before you can address fair use, you first must determine existence of copyright
  • copyright automatically applies to original, tangible fixed medium works, therefore in essence we are all copyright holders
  • it doesn't take much to be deemed "creative" with regard to copyright
  • stay away from joint copyright ownership if possible
  • many types of uses desired not possible under exceptions (sections 107-122 of copyright law), so there are several options: alter use to meet exception; get permission; examine if use falls under "fair use" doctrine
  • fair use "protections" such as word counts, 10%, 30 seconds, spontaneity not codified in law, only hammered out in guidelines established between libraries, higher ed institutions, publishers; *get rid of this line of thinking, especially with regard to institutional copyright policies*
  • keep institutional copyright policies simple and general
  • if you can avoid copyright questions altogether, do so!

MLA 2007 Tuesday, May 21

Our poster presentation went well. Rochelle and I got the poster up without difficulty and several people stopped and picked up our handouts and asked questions. I got to walk around with my green "Presenters" ribbon for the entire conference and look cool.

I am blogged out... I went to a couple of other sessions but I am completely 'typed' out so over and out...

Everyone have a great Memorial Day weekend and post comments!!!

MLA 2007 Tuesday, May 21

Evaluative Measures for Resource Quality Beyond the Impact Factor
Eugene Garfield spoke about impact factors and Bob Schaufreider of MPS Technologies spoke about "making sense of your usage statistics". I didn't understand anything. The moderator listed some papers and web sites that seemed to be of interest:

"Measuring Journals" by John Ewing in Notices of the AMS, Octo. 2006

UKSG Usage Factor

Bergstrom McAfee "cost per citation" site <> couldn't write fast enough

Eigenfactor Ranking

MLA 2007 Tuesday, May 21

Dynamed Sunrise Seminar 7 AM AGAIN!!!
Excellent presentation by Dynamed's creator and editor-in-chief Brian Alpert, M.D. who explained how evidence is evaluated and updated. Over 500 journals and the Cochrane Reports are monitored cover-to-cover by the Dynamed staff. New features include the Medline search strategies that are available for all new and all updated content. The AHFS Drug Information Essentials textbook is being added by the end of 2007. Full text links to all EBSCOHOST databases are now available. 1/2 CE credit is available for any question that a physician can answer using Dynamed. An Electronic Integrator Toolkit allows Dynamed info to be accessed through the Electronic Medical Record.

MLA 2007 Monday, May 21

Two other presentations were interesting but I don't have much to say about them.

Millenials Find Treasure in the Library was a description of an orientation that the Weill Cornell librarians created for incoming MD students. New students met at the library where they were given a "treasure Map" of the Library and they had to find their ways to various locations within the library and on the library's web pages and through the use of rhyming clues find the answer to the clue. The member of the first team to find all of the clues got a USB Memory Stick as a prize. It turned out to be a fun way of introducing the students to the library even if things were a little hectic during the actual hunt!

Books to Bedside is a program from the SUNY Upstate Medical Library (in conjunction with the Onondaga County Public Library system to deliver reading materials to the patient's bedside utilizing the library staff and hospital volunteers. Some problems encountered along the way: patient rooms too small to get the book cart in so that a patient couldn't browse the selection, some patients too ill, library staff unfamiliar with public library online library system (since many patients were not registered public library users), lots of books disappearing; but the patients who utilized the service were very happy with it and the volunteers were very enthusiastic about participating in the program.

MLA 2007 Monday, May 21

Curriculum Integration - University of Nevada School of Medicine
presentation from Terry Henner on their program to integrate library resources into the medical school's curriculum. Their med school's program is similar to ours with a problem-based learning structure where student meet in small groups on Monday and Friday. In the Monday session they are introduced to a new case and they have to determine what their learning objectives are and then report and discuss their findings in their Friday afternoon session.

The Library reviews all cases for "teachable" moments and then establishes links to library resources and the librarians act as a resource to the faculty facilitators for each group.

The Library's objectives for this program is to:
a. introduce the students to a broad array of digital resources
b. guide students in their selection of resources
c. teach resource specific search mechanisms
d. without impeding the group process

There were pros: students found answers, they felt more confident in finding information, and the process led to them requesting more lectures to go into more depth on some of the information they pulled up in their searches. The cons were that some students felt that going online in the small groups impeded their discussion time, students got confused with what resources to chose since there are many and several of them focused on the same kinds of materials, and three, it can't be demonstrated that by the end of their fourth year the students had retained much of the information on searching and library resources they received in their first and second years.

MLA 2007 Monday, May 21

Having a Librarian in the OR area
presented by Denise Hersey from Cushing/Whitney Library of Yale University
Denise is a liaison to the Anesthesiology Department and when it was suggested to her that she should interact with anesthesiologist residents she set up space in their lounge area with a laptop and a pda. The first week was awkward but then residents started asking her about her pda and what stuff they had access to which gave her an opening to introduce library resources and services. Eventually, anesthesiologists went from being infrequent to non-existent library users to being one of the library's biggest user groups. Denise started out spending 4-6 hours a week there but now most of her clients contact her so she spends less time in the OR. She has been invited by the Chairman of the Department to be a member of the interview committee for prospective new residents. Denise typically spend a great deal of time doing literature searches, teaching RefWorks and Endnote , and demonstrating PDA resources.

Some of her suggestions on how to start and run such a program were:

1. Captivate your audience
a. signs
b. set hours
c. establish a listerv
d. advertise through Grand Rounds

2. Establish what you will need in the way of equipment

3. Establish where you should be physically

4. Provide 0ne-on-one consultations

5. Create a web site for the department

My Idea (this is for you Julie) is why not offer to create Sharepoint sites for various depts' residency programs for their Journal Club articles.

Monday, May 21, 2007

MLA 2007 Monday, May 21

Sunrise Seminar 7 AM !!!! EBSCOHOST CINAHL Demonstration

EBSCOHOST hosted a demo of their CINAHL databases(I believe we currently get access to the "basic" CINAHL from NCLIVE but not CINAHL with full text.) CINAHL Full Text has 579 full text journals but some of them are embargoed for up to twelve months by the publishers. CINAHL has also started indexing most journals cover-to-cover rather than selectively and they are also indexing abstracts from proceedings. 230 new titles have been added over the past two years.

EBSCOHOST has added three new features:
- immediate TOC for 800+ Nursing and Allied Health journals
- links to full text also available from these TOCs
- can be searched simultaneously with CINAHL

Searchable Cited References
- 1,147 (800 of this are Nursing Journals) journals from 2000 to the present
- this number is compared to 66 Nursing Journals indexed in ISI's WOS

both of these features are available free with either CINAHL subscription

Nursing Reference Center
- this will be in beta testing later this summer
- it will have 2200 care sheets and lessons
- 700+ legal cases
- 300+ research instruments
- 300+ CEU modules

this looks promising and might be something for our nurses to look at when more information is available about pricing.

MLA 2007 Sunday, May 20

I attended a presentation by the Portico people. Portico is a not-for proft off shoot of JSTOR and their reason for being is to provide an archive of electronic materials that will exist as a complete repository for participating publishers of all digital content published on the web. Portico collects all of the digital content the publisher makes available to them and strips away all extraneous "content" such as formatting, preserving only the text and graphics relating to the text for permanent archiving. Participating libraries who agree to "contribute " dollars will then have access to this content if the publisher should cease to exist, if the publisher names Portico as the sole archiver, or if the library's own collections are destroyed [see Katrina] in which event a participating library will be able to "link" their users to this content. Currently 35 publishers are participating with a majority of those 35 publishers naming Porticio as the sole archiver. Over 340 libraries are also participating including our very own ZSR. Participating libraries are asked to make an annual Archive Support payment that is based upon that library's total Library Materials Expenditures. I can't evaluate the feasibility of this program for us but Molly B is well-acquainted with this program and has done an evaluation for us. I can only report that it seems that Portico is picking up participants but there seems to be no "critical mass" developing on whether Portico's approach will dominate in field with other players like Locks (sic), etc.