Posting #1

I found the readings for this section interesting, especially the article on website plagiarism. I was actually quite surprised by that particular article. I agree that the wholesale copying of the content of someone else’s site is wrong, and by this I mean all of the visible elements and content of a website – the text, the images, the links. The matter of the actual code used to create a site, that’s a lot trickier for me. I see HTML, XHTML, and CSS as building blocks, like bricks or concrete blocks or even Legos. For some things there are only a limited number of ways you can write the code in order to achieve the results you want. Since this is the case, two people can sit down and write very similar code. When you come across a website that does something interesting, and you work with HTML, I think it’s only natural to look at the source code and perhaps play with it a bit to see how it all works. By exploring other people’s code you learn things you might not otherwise learn and that leads to innovation. Up until now I knew just enough about HTML to be able to look at the source code on broken pages to find links, but I haven’t really known enough about HTML to be able to look at the page source and really understand what I’m looking at. I think encrypting your HTML would be a very bad idea. Without the sharing of code I don’t the think the internet would be the place it is today.

(posting 2)
Let me first say that I understand the reasons for which copyright laws were created and I even agree with the sentiment. I don’t believe that artist should die broke while companies make millions off of their intellectual property. My problem is that I do not believe that our conception of intellectual property is up to date with where we stand artistically or culturally. Come to think of it, I am not really sure that copyright as it exists now is doing anything more than propping up the old ways of distribution, which economically favors the companies over the artists. All too often digital transmission of intellectual property and peer to peer sharing is cast as “piracy”. On some level, it may in fact be piracy. But those same technologies that have are seen as criminal, have also done an enormous amount of good for any number of artists. Napster, torrents, and Youtube may let me download or listen to music for free, but it is also an opportunity for artists to get their art out in the public conversation. These technologies have allowed for artists from around the world to obtain a global audience. Before the internet, it is doubtful that many fringe genres would have ever built an audience large enough to justify a global recording contract. The internet has made that possible. I understand the frustration many artists who found success via the traditional way must feel. The fact of the matter is that the world is changing fast and paying homage to laws 3 decades out of place is simply not culturally productive. There has to be a way to protect the artist and accept that in the new era, digital sharing is a reality that cannot be litigated away. I really think libraries need to be on the forefront of pushing for radical alteration in terms of fair use laws. It is after all obvious that most of the major companies are trying to write libraries out of the game completely. Libraries were created to preserve of our national cultural heritage. We need a radical new dedication to preservation and dissemination.

Here are some arguable DNA copyright issues. First, a team used James Joyce to tag their synthetic DNA sequence, without permission of the Joyce estate.
http://www.geekosystem.com/bacteria-violated-copyright-law/#
Second, when is a chicken no longer a chicken? And is the estate of the first DNA cloned entitled to some compensation?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/jul/31/genetics.internationalnews
Copyright Yourself!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1494746.stm

Post 5
Lisa Bowman describes the tension between the all out free share files over the Internet and the commercial bundlers of e-resouces who can charge your library a bundle. Some bundles are cheaper than others (http://www.zdnet.com/news/librarians-targeted-in-latest-copyright-battles/116275 ). A world of “perpetural rent” favors the e-file holders. Somewhere out there are the writers and artists who deserve to be paid for their work. I was one of those radicals calling for free access. When I visit the library, the book they own is available to me for free. I can browse it, read it or borrow it. The library has always been a site of radical liberation for ordinary people concerned about their pocketbooks. Yet, the corporate control of electronic bundles makes me concerned about the exploitation of libraries.
Shirley Duglin Kennedy offers a nice summary of the copyright law (http://www.zdnet.com/news/librarians-targeted-in-latest-copyright-battles/116275). Until I took a serials course in library school I was not concerned about borrowing photographs or music and placing the files on my own Facebook or in my hard drive. Library school taught me the cruel truth about copying and sharing files, that it was illegal to distribute them without paying royalties. Nonetheless, it is almost impossible to avoid violations of the copyright committed by friends and others sharing stuff. The Washington Post article by Monica Hesse reminded me of a recent incident in my own lifter life (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804626_pf.html). One of the schools where I work installed a strong filter that erases borrowed files downloaded from Facebook. I just booted up, connected to their wi-fi with a quick consent to the check box, and then, three file folders with photographs of acquaintances lifted from Facebook disappeared. I knew that I had hoarded them illegally, but they were cute, poetry events, a surfer friend at the county fair out in California. Zap, caught me stealing and erased the files. I can look at their pages and find the photos again but it is time consuming. I don’t poach strangers, but then again, I did not inform acquaintances that I had made a copy of a picture from their albums and placed it on my hard drive. My bad! In a way I admire the school for creating such a strong trap. The same school does not have public scanners in the computer lab. You have to go to the library and sign in to use the scanner, right next to the librarian, so you really can’t scan photos or magazine images without being seen here. As a librarian, it is a tall task to maintain user privacy and be vigilant for photo thieves at the same time. Steal This Film is a classic rad site, but I wonder if ECC filters would block it.
Jamendo free music linked to the Creative Commons? I could browse and play here for hours. I am looking for some background music for Captivate presentations that I am going to file on my web server and store locally as flash files. I like the Creative Commons, although all of my published professional work is controlled by corporations that do not allow free sharing. I received no compensation or royalties for giving them this content to publish under their prestigious banner. I did not get tenure and I am not subsidized or compensated for any further publications, although I have quite a bit I could work with. I want to free share my work, because few people read it and many people doubt it exists, but I am the unpaid slave who helped the corporate for profit publisher make money. Bah Humbug, up the revolution. Would I feel the same way if I was as rich and popular as Stephen King? I am now more respectful of ”internet properties” than in the past. Asa librarians I probably will be concerned about protecting authors from abuse and following fair use guidelines. Library school did change my views by forcing me to read the law.

An interesting tidbit that came my way,”The Ministry of Education announced that 670,000 textbooks are lost by Tsunami. The new academic year in Japan starts tomorrow, 1st of April.
Libraries and publishers share a general agreement on transfer of digital copy of copyrighted materials to help disaster victims without permission.”
Hiroshi Kawamura, President of the DAISY Consortium
http://www.daisy.org
e-mail: hkawa@atdo.jp
twitter: hkawa33

Post 1
I never really thought much about copyright until I began working on my MLIS at Dominican University. We went over it the third or fourth week in LIS 701 – Introduction to Library and Information Science. After the lecture, I thought back to all of the presentations I created during my undergraduate and professional career; I never cited any of the images, videos, or songs that I used. I was alarmed to say the least. When I write, I find myself citing sources all the time. I always want to make sure that I credit the person whose idea I am stating or building upon. I never really thought about giving credit to the person who created an image or video I found online.

My thought process has completely changed since I realized how much copyright law affects my profession and information sharing in general. Librarians not only have to be aware of patrons copying CDs and DVDs, but also, books and journals as they become more widely available electronically. As copyright holders try to exert control over their works using digital rights management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management), librarians must also consider whether “purchased” digital resources will still be accessible if database subscriptions are discontinued. It seems ludicrous to me that libraries and librarians have come under fire during copyright battles, but as Miriam M. Nisbet stated in “Librarians targeted in latest copyright battles,” (http://www.zdnet.com/news/librarians-targeted-in-latest-copyright-battles/116275) libraries strive to ensure access and copyright law is designed to restrict access.

I’ve come a long way from that evening in LIS 701. Whenever I deal with any document, whether it be an image, video, or website, I consider my use of the document and decide how I should credit the creator or copyright holder. I constantly suggest that my husband and friends do the same. I’m pretty sure they’re annoyed with me!

I remember being a teenager, writing my silly teenager poetry and songs, and wondering if I had to send in a request to a government office before I could put that little ©-symbol at the bottom of my webpages – which undoubtedly had some stolen code. I had no idea that my work was copyrighted the moment I created it. I also had no idea, until these readings, that taking code was a violation of copyright. Understandable for a teenager, but even some Dominican instructors have told me that it’s okay to take code from other websites.

To me, that shows just how complicated these laws can get, that we as librarians (i.e., distributors of copyrighted materials) don’t always understand how they work. The Rule of Thumb article was helpful, but it was geared toward university usage, and it got me wondering if my own constant stealing of images from Google has been ignored and even encouraged because I’m a tuition-paying student in an educational institution.

But what about taking copyrighted images from a Google search and putting them in a PowerPoint presentation given in a public library? Is that still “educational,” even though the patrons aren’t paying tuition? Maybe it’s okay if the PowerPoint is given for an educational purpose, like a web searching workshop – but what if it’s used to for marketing purposes, to convince patrons to use a new service in the library? Does it matter that it’s a free service, or is it still infringing copyright? Does it matter if there’s somebody in the equation – not the library, but a third party – who would benefit from use of the service, for example, a database provider? Does it matter if the image is just used to make a pretty background? What about desktop backgrounds that aren’t educational but aren’t commercial: is it illegal for us to set our public computer wallpapers to a photo from National Geographic? And as a patron, isn’t it technically illegal for me to just look at Nat Geo photos on a public computer since I’m inadvertently “displaying” them?

After all of the readings, I feel hyper-aware of infringing upon somebody’s copyright, but still really, really confused. I started a blog recently for my family and friends in Pennsylvania (http://urban-exploits.blogspot.com/), but I’ve barely posted; instead, I’ve spent hours on Creative Commons searching for a satisfactory photo of ha cheong fun (those lovely shrimp rice noodle rolls they serve at dim sum places). I’m not even totally sure if I’m doing it right – if I can just use the images, if I have to specifically credit authors for their photos, or if it’s even necessary to use CC since only a handful of people will ever see this blog and it’s not commercial.

A manual I encountered in my LIS 881 class this weekend does provides some clear advice of when it’s okay to digitize (http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/14142/2/Hirtle-Copyright_final_RGB_lowres-cover1.pdf). At almost 300 pages it’s not practical reading, but it shows that there are people trying to make sense of copyright laws. I noticed it’s big universities with a lot of funding who are making these guides: overtly educational institutions protected by fair use, serving rather small academic communities. Who is creating guidelines for underfunded public libraries, which serve the general public and provide them with Internet access that may be used for commercial purposes?

I admit it. I watched the Grammy Awards this year for the first time in a long time. I’m a huge fan of music; I’m a huge fan of fashion, too. For the most part, though, I don’t feel like the right people win awards. It seems like a huge popularity contest. This year, however, I was intrigued by a speech given by Neil Portnow, President of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. In his speech, which you can read the transcript of at http://www.grammy.com/news/the-recording-academy-mission , Portnow makes reference to artists getting compensated for their work, among other things.
I would like to know who exactly Portnow is speaking about, as well as to whom he is speaking. It seems as though he’s trying to reassure the dues-paying members that their work is safe. But, are the people who are in that audience the only ones who are in need of protection? This brought to mind the article, “Hey, Isn’t That…” from this week’s readings. There are not just famous people in need of protecting. The situation certainly works vice versa. This article represented a case of “the industry” taking advantage of the little guy. But, who is speaking out to protect them and their interests? It’s also obvious, especially in the recording industry, that not everyone feels that mashing songs is a bad thing. Look at GLEE (obviously, because it’s televised, there’s GOT to be legal issues worked out ahead of time). Follow Lady Gaga on Twitter; she frequently tweets Youtube videos that her fans have posted. She is constantly THANKING her fans for remixing her songs and doing videos (Like this Tweet from February 22: “Such a doll. Monstercovers are all beautiful. I love this song so much, thanku [sic] for giving it life.” And it includes this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTW-14e6KsE . Ironically, “this video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner Bros. Entertainment.” Who wins here? Is it a sad irony or the way that business works?

Posting #1
Initially, I had a hard time coming up with any meaningful response to the IP/copyright issues discussed in the reading. I think librarians know what copyright and fair use are, and libraries are full of policies and procedures to prevent people from stealing ideas. As Shirley Duglin Kennedy says in her article http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/jun01/kennedy.htm , the problem is not the lack of legal presence or guidance to never do anything at all nearly controversial. And how big of a concern could it be if people are photocopying books for the wrong reason if we can even afford a coy machine to works?

While watching The Social Network recently, it occurred to me the speed with which these infringements usually occur. It isn’t that a library fails to have a policy in place to prevent copyright infringement. The problem is that in the moment, somebody makes a decision that seems like the right thing, but later burns them. With shrinking funding, these are the times when we can be most tempted to borrow an idea or design, or to accept ‘donations’ for something that we elsewhere rationalize as a free service.

So, should I make a big red banner with bold black letters and hang it by the street to remind folks that the library is a great place to download movies or rent them and easily return them to the big red metal box by the street, and see how long it takes before Redbox or Netflix calls?

When I decided to go back to school, I never thought that copyright would be that much of a concern. With the exception of the cases of citing and plagiarism, I never really considered a form of ‘electronic plagiarism’ if you will. There is a complexity and misunderstanding of copyright laws & concepts that the issue. Needless to say I had a lot to learn and most of the materials we read for this discussion was the Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials page. What I especially found interesting was the Four Factor Fair Use Test found with this link: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test.
What was really handy was how the material was set up. Part of the FFFUT (link found here: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm ) is to sort through the ambiguities that lurk about copyright and fair use and this information did just that. The one thing that I really thought was redundant was the use of the numbers for grading. At the end of the first section is the following:
“Actually, numbers wouldn’t make the analysis any easier: copyright owners and users would have just as much trouble agreeing on weights as we have agreeing on any other judgment about fair use.”
I understand the concept in using the number system. However, by using the above statement it is almost like they are more theoretical then concrete. Despite this, I used a similar method when I worked at a museum. When we worked on advertising, there were times when copyright could be an issue. If we had sponsors or companies gave donations, we wanted to make sure that all was copyright friendly. Even though we had never had any issues we didn’t want them to start. I think that is a big part of working with copyright. Do your homework and make sure it looks like you are putting forth the effort to obey copyright laws.

Posting #1
Copyright, to me, can be a very daunting subject, but is also extremely interesting! I find myself fascinated by the conflicts that arise when new technologies cause clashes with outdated regulations and the approaches that are taken to resolve them. Last year, a major issue in academic institutions was the streaming of copyrighted videos on course websites (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/26/copyright). While it is deemed fair use to show these materials in a classroom setting, the law had not yet been updated to reflect distance education courses. Some argued that online classes did not qualify as “face-to-face” instruction and were in violation of copyright. In the music industry, the leaking of albums continues to be a problem. However, it seems some record labels have begun partnering with blogs to provide downloads as teasers. This maneuvering has allowed them to change what was once a problem into a marketing tool.
Terry Gross boils “Remix” down to this: “When a new technology comes along and it changes the culture, you can’t just try to fight it. You have to recognize its existence and figure out how to deal with it in a productive way.” This ability to adapt to change is the key to Lessig’s argument and the success of librarians dealing with copyright issues (and all areas of librarianship, really!). In addition to understanding and adhering to copyright regulations, it is also crucial for librarians to help educate people about intellectual property issues. I don’t necessarily mean holding long lectures about copyright, but practical things, such as helping users avoid infringement by providing guidance. One way could be through various tools. I was recently introduced to OpenAttribute (http://openattribute.com/), a tool that makes it easier to credit any Creative Commons licensed work. By making the task of crediting simpler, people are more likely to do it. To encourage the sharing of content from your website or collection, making the usage rights clear to the user is helpful as well as providing the functionality for sharing via social media, which allows it to be easily tracked back to your site. I think the Smithsonian Commons (http://www.si.edu/commons/prototype/) does a great job incorporating both of these elements (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46758972@N00/4691641718/in/set-72157624129123275/).