Handy web resource for Copyright Q's

In the Harris (2009) reading, the blog Copyright Questions and Answers was referenced, so I thought I would look into it and see what there was to offer. Turns out that the blog contents - which still is live at the link above but no longer active - and tons of new resources now are at the weblog CopyrightLaws.com. Like I said, lots of great resources and a solid reference when face with copyright concerns. Check it out!

Unit 4: Hmm...

This week's readings focused on contemporary licensing best practices. To say there are two schools of thought on licensing best practices would not be entirely accurate, but I do want to touch on two issues that seem to reside on either end of theoretical licensing spectrum.

UCITA, or the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, is legislation that would standardize all electronic resource licenses. In other words, regardless of if you are a business, a non-profit, a school, or a library, you would use a standard cookie-cutter license for getting access to the resources you needed. Sure, standardizing contracts might seem like a good idea because of the potential time, cost, and effort it would save because let's face it, who honestly enjoys having to juggle legal language and draft a contract that feels more like a round of tug-of-war. However, libraries are vehemently against UCITA because 1) libraries and businesses are different institutions with very different needs and users, and 2) the standard license would be based on a business exchange model, which they see as bringing security risks and higher costs to the library.

Although UCITA has only been passed in two states (Virginia and Maryland), already there are efforts to propose alternative solutions to licensing hassles (besides 38 amendments to it in 2002). One such effort, residing on the other end of the spectrum, is SERU, or Shared Electronic Resource Understanding. SERU is not a licensing standard or contract but rather a basis on which a non-license agreement contract can be established between two parties. Hahn (2007) writes that SERU is "an expression of community accord" and seeks to enhance the "trust-building cycle." Wait, "trust-building cycle"? "Expression of community"? Um, are we still talking about licensing here??

I’ll be honest; this week's readings had me scratching my head asking "Huh?" There is an evident dissonance in the way licensing is viewed. Hahn (2007) said in the statement about SERU that licensing is an "inherently antagonistic negotiating process" and that "It has become apparent that there is no single agreement a publisher can offer that all libraries can accept" (and vice versa). Yet Harris (2009) insists that negotiating licenses should be "what makes sense to both parties and…a compromise to satisfy both parties – a win-win situation" and assures readers that they are never forced into a contract but always have alternatives. So…which one is it? A fight until a victory determines the triumphant winner and a desolate loser, or an easy-going conversation about wants and needs resulting in a proactive solution that pleases both parties? Or is it either?

Which brings me back to UCITA and SERU. Just the fact that I think about them as opposites makes me think neither one is better in terms of the answers they suggest for licensing e-content, yet I don’t think a hybrid of the two would work either. Perhaps a good license is one that takes elements of agreement (like SERU) and follows standard outlines, not standardized content (like UCITA). As Harris (2009) writes in her chapter on Questions and Answers on Licensing, a perfect license is one that fulfills both parties' needs and wants, and that no two licenses are really going to be the exact same. Like snowflakes. Except I don't think 2nd grade classrooms take joy in cutting licenses out and pasting them as seasonal décor for the classroom.

But how funny would that be, right? :)

Image credit: Wikimedia Cartoon of Hall Caine Harry Furniss (1854-1925)

Unit 3: Brain Freeze!

This past week's readings focused on copyright and licensing history, and I found that while these texts don't exactly keep you on the edge of your seat, they kept me more alert than most of what I have read in grad school, primarily because of the fear they strike in me. For example, Lesley Ellen Harris' Licensing Digital Content introduces the "basics" of making and negotiating licenses for electronic resources. While it's all well and good to read about the process, I can't help but ask myself, "Wait...will this be something I'm expected to know how to do in the first job I have out of library school?" Chances are no, I won't. (*whew!) BUT regardless, taking into account that electronic resources are here to stay and the environment surrounding their licensure and use continues to experience change, I very much want to learn all I can to get some grounding to build on in the future when I am called upon to participate in these library activities.

"Copyright makes sense as an incentive if its purpose is to encourage the dissemination of works, in order to promote public access to them" (Litman, 175). The idea that copyright is actually seen as a way to expand access continued to appear throughout the second half of Litman's book, and it still surprises me. It feels too easy, too simplified. Given the heated discussions and issues surrounding how to address copyright law in the digital age, I just don't buy it. It may make sense as an incentive for creators to have ownership of their works, and that they will be compensated and credited for any usage of it. But at the same time, a dissonance still seems present. Copyright promotes access, yet underlying principles of copyright practice attempt to exercise greater control over use.

Intellectual property is something I've heard about during my studies at SLIS. I attended a guest lecture (fall 2009) who discussed intellectual property and copyright, but I remember being entirely confused and struggling to write a decent response paper to prove to my professor at the time that I was indeed in attendance and listening to the presentation. I hope in this semester I'm able to gain a better understanding of intellectual property, and Litman's book was a good introduction to the "big picture" into which intellectual property fits. Moreover, while it was an interesting book to read and I learned much about the details of copyright and licensing history (*cue fireworks), my main takeaway was derived from the same connection that has been made in three of my classes this week: information versus knowledge. I promise not to get too flighty here, but this continuum of information-knowledge was brought up too many times to not stop and reflect on their intersection, tension, and implications for issues of copyright and, subsequently, the people who will be dealing with them in years to come: library school students (aka future rockstars).

Going back to this two-faced purpose of copyright (access vs. policing use), I think a parallel can be drawn. Not necessarily in that access: information, knowledge: policing use, because that doesn't really make sense. Nor is it that access with policed usage leadds to knowledge from controlled information (though I bet there's an interesting op-ed topic laced into that analogy). Rather: why is it that this excruciatingly lengthy, expensive, and relatively unfair battle over the logistics of information and its ownership is what determines how people are allowed - not able, but allowed - to access that which is necessary for education, individual thought, and eventual knowledge? It seems backwards that the means (information) justifies the end ("knowledge" or whatever creative growth and thought comes from what we are allowed to see/use/remember/expand upon/etc). Especially since all along, primary stakeholders have executed a very end-justified agenda, with the ultimate goal to maintain their market position and power.

And then this is the part where I try to tie my musings back to "real life." *distant cricket chirps...... *muffled cough...... *looooong awkward silence.....

To be continued. :)

Image credit: Wikimedia by Lotus Head from Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.

Unit 2: Reflections on an introduction to the real deal of copyright

Just as a disclaimer, I am entering this class with little to no formal experience with anything to do with electronic resource management, licensing, or copyright, except that I know I cannot avoid purchasing books for class by scanning an entire copy borrowed from the library (tempting as it is). Generationally, I think the most debated copyright issues for kids like me (still in the ripe-hood of our youth) have been the Napster and purchasing music fiasco while in college (most of which I understood the gist but with which I had no real beef); being pawned what my peers termed “black market” DVDs while on a band trip to New York (they were recordings of the first LOTR movie taken with a home recording device in the movie theater—which I did not end up purchasing, needless to say); and utter disappointment at not being able to watch the opening ceremonies of the most recent Olympics on YouTube the day after they aired, thanks to a “This content has been removed by the licensed owner” (or the likes) from broadcasting companies. Yes, I could be losing sleep over worse...

So basically, it’s not like this has come up every day, unless you count the itty bitty yet very ominous looking messages that prelude movies. I’m very new to this stuff. Our first class readings are from Jessica Litman’s book Digital Copyright (2001). Litman, who I believe is a copyright lawyer herself, does a great job of giving readers a lay of the land with regard to copyright. I won’t give you the play by play, but I will spout out a few reflections I have after what I’ve read thus far.

One of the first things I realized is this: I am not alone! According to Litman, most of us "common" individuals today are pretty clueless about copyright law, let alone how it could potentially affect them legally and financially. I almost fell off my chair when I read that businesses and restaurants are actually supposed to purchase licenses to play musical recordings in their stores (flashback to my own days as a scooping specialist at a 50’s ice cream sweets shop, where we played CDs – probably without a license - because the language and content of modern radio DJs provided a less-than-appropriate ambiance).

I oftentimes hear talk that my generation (kids in their 20s, for those of you who don’t know me) neither knows nor cares about things like privacy because we are not taught to value it but rather make our lives a very open and accessible book, thanks to the advancement of the Internet at large, more specifically social networking sites. I began wondering if this principle also applied to the explanation of why I feel in the dark about all this copyright stuff; is it because I’ve grown up in an Internet world in which information is readily accessible and I am both publisher and consumer, where I am not forced to recognize the middle man and worry about copyright law beyond how I get the music that's on my iPod?

Litman provides some wiggle room for those of us on the sidelines (aka the general public left out of copyright negotiations yet still subjected to liability and legal repercussions). She says that many of your average Joes and Janes don’t know the ins and outs of copyright because copyright law is written by copyright lawyers for copyright lawyers of copyright-concerned institutions and businesses. It is not exactly tailored to be applied to everyday life for individual consumers yet can be enforced as such, which confuses and baffles people. Like me.

Tune in again for more exciting adventures as I learn about, grapple with, and hopefully gain a better understanding of the complex web of copyright, licensing, and electronic resource management.

Greetings, Earthlings

Me again. Yep, still here at SLIS working on finishing my degree. AND have no fear, the revelry of a librarian's life continues as I embark upon my final semester and plan to use this blog as a platform for posting about one class in particular: Electronic Resource Management and Licensing.

*Cue wild cheers, applause, and general enthusiasm, complete with several cries of "Yes!" "I can't believe it!" and "This is the best day of my life!"

Enjoy, kids... :)

Image credit: Wikimedia by Isunsetimes.