The radical nature of the e-reserves policy that was once in place at Georgia State led to an inevitable lawsuit that will set the tone and nature of the fair use of e-reserves. Since the lawsuit was brought on, the e-reserves policy has changed. As argued by Kenneth Crews, Georgia State is using a “good faith” defense, which is really not applicable due to the sloppy nature of their policy. Still, it is an interesting tactic. Those in charge of the policy had a legal background and a consitutional view of fair use, which was to preserve very limited rights. According to this view, copyright was a marketing right and any personal use of copyrighted materials was acceptable. Therefore, the e-reserves policy did not require a password, or any authentication software or authorization requirements for that matter, to access the resources, which made the resources available to anyone, not just those enrolled in that particular course.
While I appreciate the boldness of this policy, I have to wonder what they were thinking. Did they really think they could get away with it? Just take a close look at copyright legislation and you will see that it is really geared towards the copyright holders, not geared to help the public (is it any wonder that I keep typing “copyfight”? Please ignore the placement of the keys on the keyboard.). Perhaps since the policy makers have a legal background, they thought they could help to change some of the details of the Copyright Act through a radical policy, but obviously they re-thought that quite early as after the case was brought, the policy was changed to require users to log-in, hence the materials on e-reserve are not available to everyone. This also changed the nature of the lawsuit, as the policy is now different. Another point to consider is that I believe the syllabii were also available to the general public, which enables the publishing community able to easily track how their goods may be being used. This is also why I am no longer including the list of readings with these blog postings.
Why is the former Georgia State policy such a big deal? The best counter argument comes from Sanford Thatcher when he argued that by having everything online and accessible to the students for free, that really cuts into the market for academic presses. The primary market for academic presses is, wait for it, academic institutions, such as Georgia State. However, as addressed by the ARL and Russell, this is only one of the four factors of fair use. Still, this is a valid point. However, by having a password enabled access to e-reserves limited to those enrolled in the class, the effect on the market is minimized. Furthermore, if the other three factors (character of use, nature of the work to be used, and the amount used) demonstrate fair use, then factor four is weighted less heavily.
E-reserves are an essential part of the modern academic setting and we need to find an acceptable way of using them, without too much attention from the publishing industry. A little attention is okay, as I am sure Ken Frazier would agree. However, we do not need to have the pants sued off of us, but we do need to provide the best educational experience as possible. Students generally like to have access to materials online, whether they want a hard copy or not.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Unit 7: You may TEACH, but only in a very specific manner
1. Tomas A. Lipinski (2003) “The Climate Of Distance Education In The 21st Century: Understanding And Surviving The Changes Brought By The TEACH (Technology, Education, And Copyright Harmonization) Act Of 2002” Journal of Academic Librarianship 362, (362-374).
2. ARL Issue Brief: Streaming of Films For Educational Purposes
(http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ibstreamingfilms_021810pdf.pdf)
3. Russell Complete Copyright pg. 200-201: “CONTU Guidelines on Photocopying under Interlibrary Loan Arrangements (1978)”
Guest Lecture by Tomas Lipinski
The TEACH Act was created in 2002 in order to address issues surround appropriate materials for distance education. This act is specifically for accredited, non-profit educational institutions and addresses what may or may not be performed or displayed “in the classroom”. The TEACH Act specifically builds off of sections 110(2) and 112(f) of the 1976 Copyright Act. Tomas Lipinski attempts to address how to wade through the overly complicated and ridiculous nature of the act, while the ARL (ALA really), concisely and succinctly addresses the issues of what kinds of film may be streamed for educational purposes. These two readings are like night and day in terms of readability and comprehension, which is indicative of the unnecessary complicated mess that is copyright legislation.
Lipinski is much better in person than on the page, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In his article, he speaks around the issues instead of addressing them directly. At least, that was my initial impression. It could also be that he assumed some prior knowledge of the TEACH Act, which I did not have. Moreover, as the nature and language of copyright legislation can be quite convoluted, how might one really write about it without assuming some kind of prior knowledge? I think it would have been better to read the ARL brief first. In any case, I must get this out of the way before I burst. The process of converting an analog copy of a resource to a digital copy is called digitization, not digitalization. Digitalization refers to the process of administrating digitalis, which was once used to help patients with heart problems. I looked this up in several online dictionaries just to be sure. As someone who digitizes sound recordings on a regular basis, I needed to make sure that I have been using the correct terms, which Lipinski, a respected professor with a law background, apparently has not. I was really hoping he would change it for his talk, but alas, he did not. I needed to avoid eye contact when he had a large slide with the incorrect term as a header in bold projecting on the screen. Okay, I got that out of my system. On to the act.
The TEACH Act is a complicated mess addressing the use of copyrighted materials within distance education. The act assumes that distance education is held in discrete installments, with content being available for a limited length of time in a lecture-like package. My first question in learning this was what about electronic reserves and courseware, like Desire to Learn (Learn@UW)? Could an online meeting space, like a Learn@UW site be considered as a face-to-face meeting? The ARL seems to think so, by arguing that an online meeting space is a virtual classroom. Face to face meetings, as addressed by Lipinski, have different requirements, or exemptions, than online places. For example, a professor may not display more materials online than in the classroom. But what if the classroom is online? That is apparently where Section 110(2) comes into play.
In addition to adding the accreditation requirement for online/distance education, thereby making it quite difficult for home schooling communities to share resources online, Section 110(2) also replaces the physical meeting space with an online one. Moreover, the following types of materials are exluded from this section, meaning that in order to use them online, the instructor or content provider must find a different way in which to use them, such as under Fair Use:
Material excluded
1. curricular materials: produced, marketed, displayed for mediated instructional activities
2. supplemental materials: in digital form, such as electronic course-packs, e-reserves, and digital library resources, unrelated background materials, must be REALLY tied into the course
3. “bootleg” materials: must be lawfully made, or at least know that it is not unlawfully made; for 110(2), must be lawfully made AND acquired, the INSTITUTION must know, not just the faculty member or student
Basically, the materials provided online under Section 110(2) must really truly be tied into the course, not made specifically for instructional activities (again, poor home schoolers), and the institution must know that the materials are not unlawfully made. What really gets me on this is the issue of supplemental materials, such as e-reserves and electronic course-packs. How are distance education students supposed to get to the copy shop to purchase a course-pack that has gone through the Copyright Clearance Center, for example?
I was also wondering about making digital copies of materials under the TEACH Act. Is that permissible? It would have to be if that resource was to be put online. According to Lipinski, Section 112(f) allows for making a digital copy in order to stream a resource. The kicker is, however, that the institution must make a new digital copy for each use, even if it is for a different course and used in a different matter. This seems to go against other copyright legislation, as by following Section 112(f), the institution is making multiple copies (systematic?) of a copyrighted resource. Furthermore, it is a waste of time for the employee (me). However, as Lipinski argued nicely in class, you may take the TEACH Act, especially Section 110 to a certain point, and then switch to Fair Use, as if the institution can successfully argue that the intent is Fair Use, there may be no monetary damages to pay or take down provisions. Furthermore, there is a history of case law for Fair Use, but not for the TEACH Act.
2. ARL Issue Brief: Streaming of Films For Educational Purposes
(http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ibstreamingfilms_021810pdf.pdf)
3. Russell Complete Copyright pg. 200-201: “CONTU Guidelines on Photocopying under Interlibrary Loan Arrangements (1978)”
Guest Lecture by Tomas Lipinski
The TEACH Act was created in 2002 in order to address issues surround appropriate materials for distance education. This act is specifically for accredited, non-profit educational institutions and addresses what may or may not be performed or displayed “in the classroom”. The TEACH Act specifically builds off of sections 110(2) and 112(f) of the 1976 Copyright Act. Tomas Lipinski attempts to address how to wade through the overly complicated and ridiculous nature of the act, while the ARL (ALA really), concisely and succinctly addresses the issues of what kinds of film may be streamed for educational purposes. These two readings are like night and day in terms of readability and comprehension, which is indicative of the unnecessary complicated mess that is copyright legislation.
Lipinski is much better in person than on the page, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In his article, he speaks around the issues instead of addressing them directly. At least, that was my initial impression. It could also be that he assumed some prior knowledge of the TEACH Act, which I did not have. Moreover, as the nature and language of copyright legislation can be quite convoluted, how might one really write about it without assuming some kind of prior knowledge? I think it would have been better to read the ARL brief first. In any case, I must get this out of the way before I burst. The process of converting an analog copy of a resource to a digital copy is called digitization, not digitalization. Digitalization refers to the process of administrating digitalis, which was once used to help patients with heart problems. I looked this up in several online dictionaries just to be sure. As someone who digitizes sound recordings on a regular basis, I needed to make sure that I have been using the correct terms, which Lipinski, a respected professor with a law background, apparently has not. I was really hoping he would change it for his talk, but alas, he did not. I needed to avoid eye contact when he had a large slide with the incorrect term as a header in bold projecting on the screen. Okay, I got that out of my system. On to the act.
The TEACH Act is a complicated mess addressing the use of copyrighted materials within distance education. The act assumes that distance education is held in discrete installments, with content being available for a limited length of time in a lecture-like package. My first question in learning this was what about electronic reserves and courseware, like Desire to Learn (Learn@UW)? Could an online meeting space, like a Learn@UW site be considered as a face-to-face meeting? The ARL seems to think so, by arguing that an online meeting space is a virtual classroom. Face to face meetings, as addressed by Lipinski, have different requirements, or exemptions, than online places. For example, a professor may not display more materials online than in the classroom. But what if the classroom is online? That is apparently where Section 110(2) comes into play.
In addition to adding the accreditation requirement for online/distance education, thereby making it quite difficult for home schooling communities to share resources online, Section 110(2) also replaces the physical meeting space with an online one. Moreover, the following types of materials are exluded from this section, meaning that in order to use them online, the instructor or content provider must find a different way in which to use them, such as under Fair Use:
Material excluded
1. curricular materials: produced, marketed, displayed for mediated instructional activities
2. supplemental materials: in digital form, such as electronic course-packs, e-reserves, and digital library resources, unrelated background materials, must be REALLY tied into the course
3. “bootleg” materials: must be lawfully made, or at least know that it is not unlawfully made; for 110(2), must be lawfully made AND acquired, the INSTITUTION must know, not just the faculty member or student
Basically, the materials provided online under Section 110(2) must really truly be tied into the course, not made specifically for instructional activities (again, poor home schoolers), and the institution must know that the materials are not unlawfully made. What really gets me on this is the issue of supplemental materials, such as e-reserves and electronic course-packs. How are distance education students supposed to get to the copy shop to purchase a course-pack that has gone through the Copyright Clearance Center, for example?
I was also wondering about making digital copies of materials under the TEACH Act. Is that permissible? It would have to be if that resource was to be put online. According to Lipinski, Section 112(f) allows for making a digital copy in order to stream a resource. The kicker is, however, that the institution must make a new digital copy for each use, even if it is for a different course and used in a different matter. This seems to go against other copyright legislation, as by following Section 112(f), the institution is making multiple copies (systematic?) of a copyrighted resource. Furthermore, it is a waste of time for the employee (me). However, as Lipinski argued nicely in class, you may take the TEACH Act, especially Section 110 to a certain point, and then switch to Fair Use, as if the institution can successfully argue that the intent is Fair Use, there may be no monetary damages to pay or take down provisions. Furthermore, there is a history of case law for Fair Use, but not for the TEACH Act.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Unit 6: Pricing models
Consortia and Pricing, part 1.
For this week, I decided to address each reading individually. So, here are the first few, with more to follow.
Fischer, C. Electronic Resources Pricing: A Variety of Models. Against the Grain 18.3 (2006): 18-22.
Cheaper by the dozen: bundle for a better deal...sound familiar? I know quite a few people who have cable that they do not use, just so they may get a better price on internet service. Since the big publishers are taking after the telecommunication companies, I wonder if libraries will soon be able to build your own bundle a la AT&T Uverse?
Do the services vary based on price model? I am thinking in particular about the size of the institution. In this model, according to Fischer, larger, doctoral-granting institutions pay more than smaller colleges. The assumption is partially based on the perceived amount of research conducted at said institutions, i.e., user statistics. Yes, larger institutions will have more users. However, are the services the same? Just because one library is from a smaller institution does not mean that users are not heavy researchers. Also, I am curious about the budgets for a small private college as opposed to a large public institution. I would think that the latter would have a larger budget in general, but how does that compare to the price per student and should that affect the pricing models? While these pricing concerns are addressed in the consortia model, what about those not part of a consortium? How would the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education be factored into the equation? It would be quite difficult to determine as libraries are typically not allowed to discuss pricing with other librarians.
The librarian's dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal". Frazier, K. (2001).. D-Lib Magazine 7 (3).
Yay for Ken Frazier!
Why should we learn collection management, selection, weeding, and the rest in terms of journal if our institution is just going to sign on to a Big Deal? The incorporation of game theory, “The Prisoners’ Dilemma” in particular, is quite provocative as an analogy. With that analogy, Frazier basically argues that the publishers wish all of us to “defect”, i.e., not cooperate with one another, as then more institutions will purchase a Big Deal, providing the publisher with more money and the institutions with fewer benefits. But then again, what does “cooperation” mean in this model? With whom are we cooperating and from whom are we defecting?
Big deal = good deal?. Rolnik, Zac. (2009).. The Serials Librarian 57 (3), 194-198.
No other option deal? With this technology, did we lose jobs/funding for graduate students?
If it is low cost distribution on the publishers’ end, then why do online subscriptions cost so much? Sure, it looks good on the surface and some end-users may find new titles from which to research, but at what cost? Librarians are losing their freedom to select and weed resources. The big publishers may incrementally take away more freedoms and control from librarians, and by extension, patrons. So the cost of each journal may decrease in a Big Deal, but are they used? What of other journals?
Consortia and Pricing, part 2.
The use of scholarly journals as the primary means of presenting research has its roots in 19th Germany, since 19th Century German institutions of higher education are the model for those in America now. Furthermore, pricing and space concerns were noted as early as 1833, but we did not see these concerns emerge until the early 20th century. The early price for books and other print materials coming out of Germany between the World Wars were based on the geographic location of the consumer or purchaser, with the exception of periodicals. However, there was a call for an increase in price for non-German or Austrian clientele. This idea may have set the precedent for high priced subscriptions to periodicals, which were then thwarted, or at least analyzed by librarian for lower prices, in the 1930s. Even though librarians today would like to have lower prices, the business models are not conducive to the methods used in the 1930s to effectively lower the cost of subscription. This is a catalyst for the recommendations presented at the end of the chapter by Astle & Hamaker. While I applaud the suggestions, I think we may need a new way of budgeting to implement these changes. What service (budget concerns) might be lost while librarians conduct a cost analysis on their subscription services? In the long run, that type of analysis will be beneficial, but that is difficult to prove when librarians are overworked and the implications of changing costs might not be seen until the end of the fiscal year.
Would a cost analysis help with the “Big Deal” and how do consortia fit in? As argued by Ricky Best, part of the issue that led to the serials crisis, especially at research institutions, is the requirement for faculty to publish or perish, where publishing must occur in a specific style of journal. The crisis led to PubMed, as any research project federally funded must be deposited into PubMed. Moreover, faculty need to be more proactive in selection and then using print journal titles, instead of insisting that the library have them. So, the consortial approach to licensing began as many libraries have eliminated print versions due to budget constraints. However, electronic formats should supplement print versions, not replace, plus librarians loose the opportunity to shape their collections through consortia arrangements and bundle packages. Yet, the Big Deal might be better for smaller libraries as more people may be accessing e-journals that library may not have in print, plus having online access may increase circulation, which is good for circulation statistics. Good deals on the Big Deal within consortia should involve larger institutions, yet the primary beneficiaries are the smaller and medium-sized institutions. OhioLINK has successfully negotiated for decreased content, thus setting a precedent for other consortia to re-negotiate. Furthermore, it confirms the ARL survey that indicates a decline in pricing satisfaction where 81% of bundle deals were from consortia.
Consortia negotiated deals and arrangements can be quite powerful, as indicated by the possible boycott by UC librarians and faculty leaders, aided by the California Digital Library consortium (CDL). One of the primary items that came out of this article is the recognition of pricing and budget concerns by faculty members, not just librarians and administrators. Furthermore, it also shows that taking a stand may help to curb costs. Most vendors would rather have the business than not, I would imagine. This also demonstrates the positive impact of collaboration between consortia members, which can be a challenge. How this plays out will be insightful. Afterall, as argued by Clements, library directors and faculty leaders often provide initial leadership in consortia arrangements, yet leave it up to the librarians themselves to deal with the fallout.
For this week, I decided to address each reading individually. So, here are the first few, with more to follow.
Fischer, C. Electronic Resources Pricing: A Variety of Models. Against the Grain 18.3 (2006): 18-22.
Cheaper by the dozen: bundle for a better deal...sound familiar? I know quite a few people who have cable that they do not use, just so they may get a better price on internet service. Since the big publishers are taking after the telecommunication companies, I wonder if libraries will soon be able to build your own bundle a la AT&T Uverse?
Do the services vary based on price model? I am thinking in particular about the size of the institution. In this model, according to Fischer, larger, doctoral-granting institutions pay more than smaller colleges. The assumption is partially based on the perceived amount of research conducted at said institutions, i.e., user statistics. Yes, larger institutions will have more users. However, are the services the same? Just because one library is from a smaller institution does not mean that users are not heavy researchers. Also, I am curious about the budgets for a small private college as opposed to a large public institution. I would think that the latter would have a larger budget in general, but how does that compare to the price per student and should that affect the pricing models? While these pricing concerns are addressed in the consortia model, what about those not part of a consortium? How would the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education be factored into the equation? It would be quite difficult to determine as libraries are typically not allowed to discuss pricing with other librarians.
The librarian's dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal". Frazier, K. (2001).. D-Lib Magazine 7 (3).
Yay for Ken Frazier!
Why should we learn collection management, selection, weeding, and the rest in terms of journal if our institution is just going to sign on to a Big Deal? The incorporation of game theory, “The Prisoners’ Dilemma” in particular, is quite provocative as an analogy. With that analogy, Frazier basically argues that the publishers wish all of us to “defect”, i.e., not cooperate with one another, as then more institutions will purchase a Big Deal, providing the publisher with more money and the institutions with fewer benefits. But then again, what does “cooperation” mean in this model? With whom are we cooperating and from whom are we defecting?
Big deal = good deal?. Rolnik, Zac. (2009).. The Serials Librarian 57 (3), 194-198.
No other option deal? With this technology, did we lose jobs/funding for graduate students?
If it is low cost distribution on the publishers’ end, then why do online subscriptions cost so much? Sure, it looks good on the surface and some end-users may find new titles from which to research, but at what cost? Librarians are losing their freedom to select and weed resources. The big publishers may incrementally take away more freedoms and control from librarians, and by extension, patrons. So the cost of each journal may decrease in a Big Deal, but are they used? What of other journals?
Consortia and Pricing, part 2.
The use of scholarly journals as the primary means of presenting research has its roots in 19th Germany, since 19th Century German institutions of higher education are the model for those in America now. Furthermore, pricing and space concerns were noted as early as 1833, but we did not see these concerns emerge until the early 20th century. The early price for books and other print materials coming out of Germany between the World Wars were based on the geographic location of the consumer or purchaser, with the exception of periodicals. However, there was a call for an increase in price for non-German or Austrian clientele. This idea may have set the precedent for high priced subscriptions to periodicals, which were then thwarted, or at least analyzed by librarian for lower prices, in the 1930s. Even though librarians today would like to have lower prices, the business models are not conducive to the methods used in the 1930s to effectively lower the cost of subscription. This is a catalyst for the recommendations presented at the end of the chapter by Astle & Hamaker. While I applaud the suggestions, I think we may need a new way of budgeting to implement these changes. What service (budget concerns) might be lost while librarians conduct a cost analysis on their subscription services? In the long run, that type of analysis will be beneficial, but that is difficult to prove when librarians are overworked and the implications of changing costs might not be seen until the end of the fiscal year.
Would a cost analysis help with the “Big Deal” and how do consortia fit in? As argued by Ricky Best, part of the issue that led to the serials crisis, especially at research institutions, is the requirement for faculty to publish or perish, where publishing must occur in a specific style of journal. The crisis led to PubMed, as any research project federally funded must be deposited into PubMed. Moreover, faculty need to be more proactive in selection and then using print journal titles, instead of insisting that the library have them. So, the consortial approach to licensing began as many libraries have eliminated print versions due to budget constraints. However, electronic formats should supplement print versions, not replace, plus librarians loose the opportunity to shape their collections through consortia arrangements and bundle packages. Yet, the Big Deal might be better for smaller libraries as more people may be accessing e-journals that library may not have in print, plus having online access may increase circulation, which is good for circulation statistics. Good deals on the Big Deal within consortia should involve larger institutions, yet the primary beneficiaries are the smaller and medium-sized institutions. OhioLINK has successfully negotiated for decreased content, thus setting a precedent for other consortia to re-negotiate. Furthermore, it confirms the ARL survey that indicates a decline in pricing satisfaction where 81% of bundle deals were from consortia.
Consortia negotiated deals and arrangements can be quite powerful, as indicated by the possible boycott by UC librarians and faculty leaders, aided by the California Digital Library consortium (CDL). One of the primary items that came out of this article is the recognition of pricing and budget concerns by faculty members, not just librarians and administrators. Furthermore, it also shows that taking a stand may help to curb costs. Most vendors would rather have the business than not, I would imagine. This also demonstrates the positive impact of collaboration between consortia members, which can be a challenge. How this plays out will be insightful. Afterall, as argued by Clements, library directors and faculty leaders often provide initial leadership in consortia arrangements, yet leave it up to the librarians themselves to deal with the fallout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)