For this week, we explored more reasons as to why electronic resource management (ERM) systems exist, the desired qualities and functions, and how libraries may acquire such systems. No problem, right? Well, as per usual, this is more complicated than one might imagine, depending on that person's imagination, of course. Both Maria Collins and Margaret Hogarth provide us with a nice introduction to ERM systems and the key players. With the growing number of electronic resources and the decrease of libraries purchasing on a title-by-title basis, librarians have found that they need some kind of a system to help keep track of when to start the license negotiations, be able to easily generate A-Z lists, and be able to integrate such functionalities, as well as others, into the Integrated Library System (ILS) or Public Access Management System (PAMS). In short, it is up to the library to make any system or authentication changes and implementations required in a license while the vendor do nothing, which is why we have ERMs.
So how did this come about and what do librarians desire in an ERM system? An effective ERM should have one “point of maintenance”, which most ILS are capable of, or programmed to handle and should streamline the workflow, including maintenance of spreadsheets and databases (license status, etc.). Many libraries created their own ERM systems starting in 1998 with open source systems, and eventually began to work in a more collaborative environment. In 2002, DLF ERMI began in order to look at “the functional requirements desired in an ERM, identify data elements and common definitions for consistency, provide potential XML schemas, and identify and support data standards” (Collins 184). The results of this work was published in a report in 2004, outlining the preferred standards, features, and design of an ERM, including data standards, vendor costs, and system migrations, including those listed above. Some of the preferred standards include EDItEUR, ONIX, SUSHI, and COUNTER. The final three are also mentioned in several Against the Grain articles on ERM systems as a positive example of increased cooperation between libraries, vendors, and publishers. Moreover, as mention by Hogarth, one of the primary concerns to librarians is the issue of standards.
As there are several choices when determining which ERM system to chose for you library, how do you chose? Many librarians want some kind of flexibility, with little manual data entry, good standards in naming conventions, limited staff training and time, interoperability, and a good link resolver. Another consideration is whether or not to use a third party or see if your ILS has an integrated ERM system, such as Ex Libre's VERDE. However, Collins warns against, or at least to be wary of, using the same vendor for both the ILS and ERM system as the library may end up with an under-supported system. If looking at a one size fits all type of system, make sure to know each vendor's track record on development. A one vendor system should have a knowledgeable title management database, link resolver, and A-to-Z listing services. For third party systems, such as Serials Solutions, how well will it integrate with the ILS? This is the primary concern. A third party system should be able to easily link and manage subscriptions, including aggregated resources. There are also subscription agents, such as EBSCO. These systems may be acceptable, but be careful if using another subscription agent or another A-to-Z listing service or link-resolving tools. If using open access or own system, the library must be able to sustain its own systems resources, but can tailor the ERM system to local needs.
All of the options will involve dedication staff and typically includes the need to enter data manually. For example, with EBSCO's system, one of the primary complaints from the Against the Grain articles is that it does not support or update non-EBSCO data efficiently. Serials Solutions 360 had difficulty mapping data to and from the link resolver and it was difficult to get the COUNTER data. Collins suggests that a library should conduct an internal and external needs assessment prior to making the final decision. Considerations should include the type of library, mission statement, size of library and collection, technological infrastructures, cost vs. need, existing tools and ILS, and interoperability. In short, what does you library need and how will the system resolve problems? Hogarth also provides a detailed look at various systems, including open source systems, as well as numerous bullet points of what to consider when choosing a system.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Unit 8: Technological Protection Measures
For this week, we explored the various types of technological protection measures (TPM) present in licensed resources and how they may pertain to libraries. David Millman provides an introduction to authentication and authorization while Kristin Eschenfelder explores how TPM are being used in libraries, including what sort of implementations are most common in particular types of institutions. In general, libraries tend to use authentication systems to control access to materials. Authentication is the process that determines who the user is and pending that outcome, the user will or will not be granted access to the desired materials, which is part of the authorization process.
Libraries typically provide the publisher or vendor of a licensed resource with some kind of list of IP addresses, as well as those associated with a proxy server or virtual private network (VPN). Proxy servers and VPNs are used when patrons, such as enrolled students at UW – Madison, are attempting to access licensed resources from off campus. The authentication system sees the IP address or number as a proxy address, routes it through the proxy server, which is a UW – Madison IP address, and then onto the UW libraries server or the publisher server. If logging in through a VPN, the authentication system sees the off campus address as part of the UW network. So basically, the VPN adds the user to the network, as opposed to simply allowing access. When logging in to access the licensed resource, the system also looks for authorization rights.
In general on the UW – Madison campus, most users have the same rights, meaning that if they are authorized users (as defined in the license agreement), everyone may more or less view the same materials and resources. Authorization provides permission to use a particular resource, which is typically granted through an IP address range. It is through this range that permissions may be denied, as is the case with certain medical resources, for example. Furthermore, systems such as Shibboleth may be used to grant or deny access based on the users department and program. Such systems may be helpful for small libraries to ensure a good price on licensed resources by demonstrating that only a small number of users will be able to access the resource.
While most licensed resources necessitate authentication and authorization protocols, TPM tools may also be in place either through the resource itself or at the library. TPM tools are hardware and software systems that may facilitate limitation of access or the range of uses allowed to users as users could redistribute, alter and republish items from licensed resources. Essentially, since the language in license agreements may be vague or unclear, TPM may block uses that are not explicitly defined in the agreement. These TPMs may be in the form of soft or hard restrictions where soft restrictions are hardware or software configurations making it difficult for the authorized user to download, save, print, or copy/paste items from the resource. A savvy user usually finds work-arounds to these restrictions, but with hard restrictions, certain uses are prevented through hardware or software. Hard restrictions and TPMs should not be confused with Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools, although they are somewhat related, or at least similar.
Eschenfelder, in her three articles for this week, found that soft restrictions are quite common and include a warning, download limits, and “restriction by decomposition”. The most common hard restriction is the blocked copy and paste functionality, yet there are few examples of hard restrictions actually in use. The most common tools in libraries, museums and archives are authentication systems, specifically network-ID logins and IP address ranges. By limiting use through authentication, further restrictions may not be as necessary. In terms of use control, Eschenfelder and Agnew found that resolution limits and watermarking are quite common. However, some could argue that this may limit legitimate use of the resource. For example, what if an art student is studying a particular work of art or artist and the only online collection has poor resolution or a big watermark in the middle of the image? It may be difficult for that student to effectively analyze his or her topic. This begs the question of how should librarians proceed? If we continue to allow the publishers and vendors to dictate the type of TPM restrictions, what will they try next?
Libraries typically provide the publisher or vendor of a licensed resource with some kind of list of IP addresses, as well as those associated with a proxy server or virtual private network (VPN). Proxy servers and VPNs are used when patrons, such as enrolled students at UW – Madison, are attempting to access licensed resources from off campus. The authentication system sees the IP address or number as a proxy address, routes it through the proxy server, which is a UW – Madison IP address, and then onto the UW libraries server or the publisher server. If logging in through a VPN, the authentication system sees the off campus address as part of the UW network. So basically, the VPN adds the user to the network, as opposed to simply allowing access. When logging in to access the licensed resource, the system also looks for authorization rights.
In general on the UW – Madison campus, most users have the same rights, meaning that if they are authorized users (as defined in the license agreement), everyone may more or less view the same materials and resources. Authorization provides permission to use a particular resource, which is typically granted through an IP address range. It is through this range that permissions may be denied, as is the case with certain medical resources, for example. Furthermore, systems such as Shibboleth may be used to grant or deny access based on the users department and program. Such systems may be helpful for small libraries to ensure a good price on licensed resources by demonstrating that only a small number of users will be able to access the resource.
While most licensed resources necessitate authentication and authorization protocols, TPM tools may also be in place either through the resource itself or at the library. TPM tools are hardware and software systems that may facilitate limitation of access or the range of uses allowed to users as users could redistribute, alter and republish items from licensed resources. Essentially, since the language in license agreements may be vague or unclear, TPM may block uses that are not explicitly defined in the agreement. These TPMs may be in the form of soft or hard restrictions where soft restrictions are hardware or software configurations making it difficult for the authorized user to download, save, print, or copy/paste items from the resource. A savvy user usually finds work-arounds to these restrictions, but with hard restrictions, certain uses are prevented through hardware or software. Hard restrictions and TPMs should not be confused with Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools, although they are somewhat related, or at least similar.
Eschenfelder, in her three articles for this week, found that soft restrictions are quite common and include a warning, download limits, and “restriction by decomposition”. The most common hard restriction is the blocked copy and paste functionality, yet there are few examples of hard restrictions actually in use. The most common tools in libraries, museums and archives are authentication systems, specifically network-ID logins and IP address ranges. By limiting use through authentication, further restrictions may not be as necessary. In terms of use control, Eschenfelder and Agnew found that resolution limits and watermarking are quite common. However, some could argue that this may limit legitimate use of the resource. For example, what if an art student is studying a particular work of art or artist and the only online collection has poor resolution or a big watermark in the middle of the image? It may be difficult for that student to effectively analyze his or her topic. This begs the question of how should librarians proceed? If we continue to allow the publishers and vendors to dictate the type of TPM restrictions, what will they try next?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Unit 5: Electronic Reserves and Georgia State
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Unit 4: Licenses, shrink-wrap, and SERU, oh my!
The readings for this week primarily focused on how to negotiate a license agreement, what the terms and clauses mean, and then moved on to “shrink-wrap” licenses and Shared Electronic Resource Understanding (SERU).
1. Harris Licensing Digital Content Chapters 3-8
2. Russell Complete Copyright Chapter 7 “Walter Clicks ‘Yes’…”
3. ALA UCITA 101 http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/ucita/ucita101.cfm
4. SERU Hahn, K.L. (2007). “SERU (Shared Electronic Resource Understanding).” D-Lib Magazine, 13(11/12) (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november07/hahn/11hahn.html)
5. Josh Hadro (8/31/2009) “Texas Attorney General Orders "Big Deal" Bundle Contracts Released” Library Journal http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6686338.html
Harris devoted the majority of her book outlining and defining terms in license agreements, including key license clauses and “boilerplate” clauses. She also discussed several important factors the library representative needs to keep in mind while negotiating with the licensor (vendor, publisher), including “know when to walk away” (“The Gambler” anyone? No?). Anyway, while reading through the clauses, I compared them with what I know about how the UW System Libraries work in terms of electronic resources. However, I am not privy to the agreements, just observant. While it was somewhat difficult to retain the knowledge in these sections, I am happy to know where the information is located in case I need to refer to it sometime. However, I think many of her explanations use common sense, as well as a reliance on having some kind of a draft license agreement in place as a guide in negotiation, harkening back to an earlier chapter. The Rights Granted clause is a good example of this idea. What sort of rights would the library desire? Well, what is the normal use of this resource and what might the future use be?
Some of the more important, or at least new to me, clauses include how to handle possible fears regarding the wide dissemination of materials due to Inter-Library Loans (ILL). Harris suggests that some vendors may not allow copying for ILL purposes, so the library representative might point out that one could easily just print and scan an article, disseminating it just as quickly. This suggestion is supposed to alleviate the licensor's fears? Couldn't they just not allow printing in the license agreement? How would that benefit the library? Perhaps a better way to handle this fear is to negotiate a frequency of “copies” per journal per year. Although, as discussed in class, that has its drawbacks as well.
Another interesting clause is the library and licensee obligations. As part of this clause, the licensor might try to require the library to monitor for illegal use? How? Why? When I read this, my body clenched. Would I be required to monitor patron use? I have never needed to do so in my seven years as a (student) librarian. Then I turned the page. Harris suggested to argue for including the phrase “within reasonable control”. In other words, do not guarantee that no illegal activity, such as copyright violations, will occur. Reasonable control might include posting copyright restrictions and fair use guidelines in a public place. In addition, the staff should be aware of the license terms and agreements. Does this mean everyone? What about a large academic library with student staff? I am unaware of the license agreements of our electronic resources, yet I work the reference desk and interact with patrons. Another problem in this section is the issue of tracking usage. Some licensors might try to require the library to do just that. Harris suggests that if you do track usage, especially by specific users, you should post that you are tracking. This makes me wonder whether or not the UW tracks. I believe no, but how would I know?
In terms of the boilerplate clauses, the one I found the most interesting, especially in regards to the other readings, is Governing law. Because of UCITA (more below), the licensor may wish to have the jurisdiction in a specific state, such as, oh I don't know, Maryland or Virginia. Harris ends her prose with a section on tips for negotiations and a questions section. The tips really harken back to earlier (having a working license as reference), but something she did not address was the use of recording equipment. Obviously, you would need permission, but do people record the negotiations? I think it could be beneficial to both the licensor and library. This would not be a replacement for good notes, but a fall-back position in case of varying stories. The questions chapter, or as I like to call it, did you read the book section, especially in terms of ILL, is a good point of reference and does have a few new ideas, such as what to do if the publisher does not provide you with a license and how to protect the names of the patrons.
Harris briefly addressed software licenses and UCITA, but these were not the primary subject of her book. Software licenses, as addressed by Russell and the ALA, typically fall under the “shrink-wrap” (or click wrap) license category. This means that when a user clicks “I agree” to the license, that person, or institution (?) must follow those terms, if wishing to use the software fully. The terms are non-negotiable, unlike a general license agreement, but may be challenged in court. However, the courts tend to enforce the terms under contract law. Coming out of this in the late-1990s, was the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA).
UCITA, as explained in the ALA reading, is a proposed state contract law, but was only ratified in two states: Virginia and Maryland. UCITA favors the software companies by not allowing software to be transferred or donated due to the license terms. The proponents argue that this will benefit commerce and is needed to promote a healthy e-economy (I was unaware that e-commerce needed any help). The opponents argue that this bit of legislation is harmful to consumers. UCITA is only valid in two states and any litigation would happen in those states (Russell) and as we learned from Harris, litigation location terms are perfectly legal and appropriate. In order to combat UCITA, three states (Iowa, North Carolina, and West Virginia) passed UTICA “bomb shell” legislation (Russell, ALA) protecting its citizens from litigation under UTICA. In 2003, several amendments were passed in order to appease the opponents. While the opponents (libraries, consumer advocates, many lawyers, financial institutions) would rather see UCITA repealed, one amendment is favorable to libraries: donations or transfers of software to public libraries and schools is now allowed under UTICA.
With all of the legislation and complicated terms, how necessary are licenses? I think the software companies would say absolutely necessary, but some publishers are beginning to change their minds, which is partially what led to the Shared Electronic Resource Understanding (SERU). Hahn provides a brief history of SERU and how it evolved. Basically, both publishers and libraries realized that negotiating license agreements took away too much valuable time and resources. Furthermore, others argued that license agreements are not legally necessary, so why have them. Instead, there could be some general concepts and guidelines. In 2006, four groups (Association of Research Libraries, the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) to explore using electronic resources without a license, yet having some kind of an agreement or standards. Eventually, NISO formed a working group to continue the discussion. Later that year, the working group came out with a draft (SERU) based on NISO best practices.
While there is an agreement on the general concepts between publishers and libraries, there still is some disagreement on the specifics. However, SERU (still in a trial period) is believed to reduce overhead and costs, but may not be applicable for high transaction or or high priced agreements. Basically, it works best for smaller parties. Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea and makes me wonder if license agreements are on their way out. In many ways that would be preferable; however, that would mean a dramatic change away from big business and conglomerations. I just cannot imagine Elsevier agreeing to SERU, as opposed to a (probably) lucrative license agreement. I am sure they did not like or appreciate the “Big Deal Bundle” rulings either.
1. Harris Licensing Digital Content Chapters 3-8
2. Russell Complete Copyright Chapter 7 “Walter Clicks ‘Yes’…”
3. ALA UCITA 101 http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/ucita/ucita101.cfm
4. SERU Hahn, K.L. (2007). “SERU (Shared Electronic Resource Understanding).” D-Lib Magazine, 13(11/12) (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november07/hahn/11hahn.html)
5. Josh Hadro (8/31/2009) “Texas Attorney General Orders "Big Deal" Bundle Contracts Released” Library Journal http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6686338.html
Harris devoted the majority of her book outlining and defining terms in license agreements, including key license clauses and “boilerplate” clauses. She also discussed several important factors the library representative needs to keep in mind while negotiating with the licensor (vendor, publisher), including “know when to walk away” (“The Gambler” anyone? No?). Anyway, while reading through the clauses, I compared them with what I know about how the UW System Libraries work in terms of electronic resources. However, I am not privy to the agreements, just observant. While it was somewhat difficult to retain the knowledge in these sections, I am happy to know where the information is located in case I need to refer to it sometime. However, I think many of her explanations use common sense, as well as a reliance on having some kind of a draft license agreement in place as a guide in negotiation, harkening back to an earlier chapter. The Rights Granted clause is a good example of this idea. What sort of rights would the library desire? Well, what is the normal use of this resource and what might the future use be?
Some of the more important, or at least new to me, clauses include how to handle possible fears regarding the wide dissemination of materials due to Inter-Library Loans (ILL). Harris suggests that some vendors may not allow copying for ILL purposes, so the library representative might point out that one could easily just print and scan an article, disseminating it just as quickly. This suggestion is supposed to alleviate the licensor's fears? Couldn't they just not allow printing in the license agreement? How would that benefit the library? Perhaps a better way to handle this fear is to negotiate a frequency of “copies” per journal per year. Although, as discussed in class, that has its drawbacks as well.
Another interesting clause is the library and licensee obligations. As part of this clause, the licensor might try to require the library to monitor for illegal use? How? Why? When I read this, my body clenched. Would I be required to monitor patron use? I have never needed to do so in my seven years as a (student) librarian. Then I turned the page. Harris suggested to argue for including the phrase “within reasonable control”. In other words, do not guarantee that no illegal activity, such as copyright violations, will occur. Reasonable control might include posting copyright restrictions and fair use guidelines in a public place. In addition, the staff should be aware of the license terms and agreements. Does this mean everyone? What about a large academic library with student staff? I am unaware of the license agreements of our electronic resources, yet I work the reference desk and interact with patrons. Another problem in this section is the issue of tracking usage. Some licensors might try to require the library to do just that. Harris suggests that if you do track usage, especially by specific users, you should post that you are tracking. This makes me wonder whether or not the UW tracks. I believe no, but how would I know?
In terms of the boilerplate clauses, the one I found the most interesting, especially in regards to the other readings, is Governing law. Because of UCITA (more below), the licensor may wish to have the jurisdiction in a specific state, such as, oh I don't know, Maryland or Virginia. Harris ends her prose with a section on tips for negotiations and a questions section. The tips really harken back to earlier (having a working license as reference), but something she did not address was the use of recording equipment. Obviously, you would need permission, but do people record the negotiations? I think it could be beneficial to both the licensor and library. This would not be a replacement for good notes, but a fall-back position in case of varying stories. The questions chapter, or as I like to call it, did you read the book section, especially in terms of ILL, is a good point of reference and does have a few new ideas, such as what to do if the publisher does not provide you with a license and how to protect the names of the patrons.
Harris briefly addressed software licenses and UCITA, but these were not the primary subject of her book. Software licenses, as addressed by Russell and the ALA, typically fall under the “shrink-wrap” (or click wrap) license category. This means that when a user clicks “I agree” to the license, that person, or institution (?) must follow those terms, if wishing to use the software fully. The terms are non-negotiable, unlike a general license agreement, but may be challenged in court. However, the courts tend to enforce the terms under contract law. Coming out of this in the late-1990s, was the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA).
UCITA, as explained in the ALA reading, is a proposed state contract law, but was only ratified in two states: Virginia and Maryland. UCITA favors the software companies by not allowing software to be transferred or donated due to the license terms. The proponents argue that this will benefit commerce and is needed to promote a healthy e-economy (I was unaware that e-commerce needed any help). The opponents argue that this bit of legislation is harmful to consumers. UCITA is only valid in two states and any litigation would happen in those states (Russell) and as we learned from Harris, litigation location terms are perfectly legal and appropriate. In order to combat UCITA, three states (Iowa, North Carolina, and West Virginia) passed UTICA “bomb shell” legislation (Russell, ALA) protecting its citizens from litigation under UTICA. In 2003, several amendments were passed in order to appease the opponents. While the opponents (libraries, consumer advocates, many lawyers, financial institutions) would rather see UCITA repealed, one amendment is favorable to libraries: donations or transfers of software to public libraries and schools is now allowed under UTICA.
With all of the legislation and complicated terms, how necessary are licenses? I think the software companies would say absolutely necessary, but some publishers are beginning to change their minds, which is partially what led to the Shared Electronic Resource Understanding (SERU). Hahn provides a brief history of SERU and how it evolved. Basically, both publishers and libraries realized that negotiating license agreements took away too much valuable time and resources. Furthermore, others argued that license agreements are not legally necessary, so why have them. Instead, there could be some general concepts and guidelines. In 2006, four groups (Association of Research Libraries, the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) to explore using electronic resources without a license, yet having some kind of an agreement or standards. Eventually, NISO formed a working group to continue the discussion. Later that year, the working group came out with a draft (SERU) based on NISO best practices.
While there is an agreement on the general concepts between publishers and libraries, there still is some disagreement on the specifics. However, SERU (still in a trial period) is believed to reduce overhead and costs, but may not be applicable for high transaction or or high priced agreements. Basically, it works best for smaller parties. Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea and makes me wonder if license agreements are on their way out. In many ways that would be preferable; however, that would mean a dramatic change away from big business and conglomerations. I just cannot imagine Elsevier agreeing to SERU, as opposed to a (probably) lucrative license agreement. I am sure they did not like or appreciate the “Big Deal Bundle” rulings either.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Unit 3: Copyright and licensing in the digital age
In the second half of her book, Jessica Litman explores issues surrounding copyright in the digital age. Building off her discussion of the complicated nature of copyright law and the various nature of the relationships between the copyright holder and user, Litman concludes that “People don't obey laws that they don't believe in. Governments find it difficult to enforce laws that only a handful of people obey. Laws that people don't obey and that governments don't enforce are not much use to the interests that persuaded Congress to enact them. If a law is bad enough, even if its proponents might be willing to abandon it in favor of a different law that seems more legitimate to the people it is intended to command,” (195). So what does this mean for the future of copyright in the digital age and how might that affect libraries?
The first part of her statement harkens back to the complicated nature of copyright law. Litman repeatedly claims that the law does not make sense to the majority of people, who therefore, will not obey the law, knowingly or not (112, 113, 169). So why then, according to Litman's logic, does the law still exist? It is difficult to enforce copyright violators in the digital age, especially with regards to downloading music or sharing TV shows. Still, the RIAA continues to press suits against violators, although the number of lawsuits are dropping, and may have paid over $64 million in lawsuits to recover about $14 million (http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/07/14/riaa.paid.64m.over.three.years.to.get.14m/). Does the drop in lawsuits mean that the RIAA, as well as the major record labels, are backing off in favor of a different law or means of retaining control, such as licensing? As Litman argues on pages 177-180, the creators of all of the copyright legislation never meant for the copyright holders to have exclusive rights over every digital reproduction, as it is in disagreement with the idea of copyright being a bargain between the holder and user. Therefore, we should no longer rely on reproduction as the impetus for copyright enforcement. The record companies could make up the money for the artists by creating more streamed and downloadable digital content, perhaps through a licensed resource.
In the library world, we are already seeing many more licensed resources for music, as well as many other topics and media. Licensing is one way in which libraries may have access to more online content and is a method in which the issue of reproduction might not matter. For electronic resources and journals, the number of downloads (reproductions) is usually built into the cost of service. In terms of music, many of the services provide streamed content, as opposed to putting mp3 files online for download. Licenses, however convenient for the users and patrons, may provide additional workloads and costs for libraries and librarians. As described by Lesley Ellen Harris in Licensing Digital Content, a library should have some sort of a licensing best use policy to which the librarians are able to refer when negotiating the terms of service.
But going back to Litman and the idea of eliminating digital reproduction as a means of enforcing copyright law, how would this change the outcome of Zeidenberg vs. ProCD? Zeidenberg used copyright law as his defense because he was only copying facts. However, he did make a profit off of digital reproductions at the expense of ProCD, not to mention the fact that he had to click “I agree” to the license terms upon using the program. Setting aside the issue of profit for a moment, I think that the licensing agreement (contract law) would still take precedence in this case, even if digital reproductions were made legal and the courts would rule in favor of ProCD.
Speaking of profit, I agree with this statement by Litman: “Conventional wisdom tells us that, without the incentives provided by copyright, entrepreneurs will refuse to invest in new media. History tells us that they do invest without paying attention to conventional wisdom...many entrepreneurs conclude that if something is valuable, a way will be found to charge for it, so they concentrate on getting a market share first, and worry about the profits – and the rules for making them – later,” (173). (Litman would make a good Ferengi.)This is what is , and what has been, happening now, I believe, in terms of both copyright law and issues surrounding license agreements. The copyright holders, and related stakeholders, such as publishers and intermediaries, have historically been creating the market share and then creating the legislation to back up their desires (see Litman, chapter 3). I wonder if we will see any legislation surrounding licensing, or if the UCC or other forms of contract law will be altered for the digital age.
The first part of her statement harkens back to the complicated nature of copyright law. Litman repeatedly claims that the law does not make sense to the majority of people, who therefore, will not obey the law, knowingly or not (112, 113, 169). So why then, according to Litman's logic, does the law still exist? It is difficult to enforce copyright violators in the digital age, especially with regards to downloading music or sharing TV shows. Still, the RIAA continues to press suits against violators, although the number of lawsuits are dropping, and may have paid over $64 million in lawsuits to recover about $14 million (http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/07/14/riaa.paid.64m.over.three.years.to.get.14m/). Does the drop in lawsuits mean that the RIAA, as well as the major record labels, are backing off in favor of a different law or means of retaining control, such as licensing? As Litman argues on pages 177-180, the creators of all of the copyright legislation never meant for the copyright holders to have exclusive rights over every digital reproduction, as it is in disagreement with the idea of copyright being a bargain between the holder and user. Therefore, we should no longer rely on reproduction as the impetus for copyright enforcement. The record companies could make up the money for the artists by creating more streamed and downloadable digital content, perhaps through a licensed resource.
In the library world, we are already seeing many more licensed resources for music, as well as many other topics and media. Licensing is one way in which libraries may have access to more online content and is a method in which the issue of reproduction might not matter. For electronic resources and journals, the number of downloads (reproductions) is usually built into the cost of service. In terms of music, many of the services provide streamed content, as opposed to putting mp3 files online for download. Licenses, however convenient for the users and patrons, may provide additional workloads and costs for libraries and librarians. As described by Lesley Ellen Harris in Licensing Digital Content, a library should have some sort of a licensing best use policy to which the librarians are able to refer when negotiating the terms of service.
But going back to Litman and the idea of eliminating digital reproduction as a means of enforcing copyright law, how would this change the outcome of Zeidenberg vs. ProCD? Zeidenberg used copyright law as his defense because he was only copying facts. However, he did make a profit off of digital reproductions at the expense of ProCD, not to mention the fact that he had to click “I agree” to the license terms upon using the program. Setting aside the issue of profit for a moment, I think that the licensing agreement (contract law) would still take precedence in this case, even if digital reproductions were made legal and the courts would rule in favor of ProCD.
Speaking of profit, I agree with this statement by Litman: “Conventional wisdom tells us that, without the incentives provided by copyright, entrepreneurs will refuse to invest in new media. History tells us that they do invest without paying attention to conventional wisdom...many entrepreneurs conclude that if something is valuable, a way will be found to charge for it, so they concentrate on getting a market share first, and worry about the profits – and the rules for making them – later,” (173). (Litman would make a good Ferengi.)This is what is , and what has been, happening now, I believe, in terms of both copyright law and issues surrounding license agreements. The copyright holders, and related stakeholders, such as publishers and intermediaries, have historically been creating the market share and then creating the legislation to back up their desires (see Litman, chapter 3). I wonder if we will see any legislation surrounding licensing, or if the UCC or other forms of contract law will be altered for the digital age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)