March 6, 2006 at 8:01 am
· Filed under Copyright, General, Intellectual Property
From a Boing Boing story noting that the US House of Representatives has introduced a mandatory radio-crippling law.
There are serveral disturbing parts of the proposed law, dubbed the Audio Broadcast Flag Licensing Act of 2006. The relatively short full text of the bill can be found on Thomas at the Library of Congress.
One of the most problematic portions of the bill would prohibit “unauthorized copying and redistribution” of digital radio. The bill itself has language that MIGHT allow exemptions such as fair use or the myriad other exemptions, but it isn’t clear, and the bill relegates these uses to the “custormary use of broadcast content by consumers.” I find the terms customary use and consumers disingenuous. “Customary use” smacks of the problematic “historical use” that some content publishing industries are advocating as a replacement for fair use. Historic/Customary use is not sufficient to protect the public interest in copyrighted material. “Consumers” completely ignores members of the public who are not necessarily what a market would consider consumers- like, say, instructors teaching in the classroom, for one example.
Permalink
March 2, 2006 at 7:19 pm
· Filed under Cultural Institutions, General
There, I’ve said it. Shut up already.
Why?
Well, there’s things like this, for instance. In one news post, an “El Dorado” reference (from old-time Superfriends) AND a practical joke from Sony Online Entertainment. This could only be more complete if they posted images of some of the Elemenstor Saga cels they salvaged (although that might have just been a rumor).
Permalink
February 28, 2006 at 7:36 am
· Filed under General, Intellectual Property
http://outofambit.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_outofambit_archive.html#114069083471800451
Very interesting, and I hope the author makes money on this attempt. If this technique is successful, I wonder how much the novelty of the situation will play into the success… I’m interested in the book, but I only found out about it due to the unusual story behind its authoring and publishing. (But c’mon- wizard cats? Where can you go wrong?)
Permalink
February 27, 2006 at 10:34 am
· Filed under Censorship, General, Security
Slashdot | Diebold Whistle-Blower Charged With Felony Access
From Slashdot, a disturbing article involving the person who blew the whistle on Diebold.
Permalink
February 24, 2006 at 10:20 am
· Filed under General
NFL Draft Prospect Dreams Big – Deadspin
Last night, my housemate was telling me about this story involving the dreams of UT football player Michael Huff. In a moment of what I can only describe as an extreme disconnection with reality, I was trying to figure out what an iHop was- some new electronic jumping stick of some sort?
Permalink
February 23, 2006 at 6:45 pm
· Filed under Cultural Institutions, General
RLG DigiNews February 15, 2006, Volume 10, Number 1
A useful chronology of Massachusettes’ efforts to adopt an open standard as a file format. Beyond the access issues that the state was atempting to address, additional justifications included the fact that file format becomes a huge issue in the archiving and preservation of digital objects over the long term as well as problems with digital records retention schedules.
Permalink
February 23, 2006 at 2:29 pm
· Filed under General
There has been more discusson about Google on Madisonian.net and Sivacracy.
I do believe that there are actions Google could take to improve perceptions about that particular project. Google could be more transparent in it’s classification and standards process, as Madison points out. I believe that would be a positive step. Google and the libraries could also have a contract that would be better than the existing contract.
Regarding the contract, available from the University of Michigan website, I have a couple of problems. First, I think that Michigan should retain the ability to share the digital objects it receives from Google with the public when the material is in the public domain. Also, I believe that Michigan should be able to continue with lawful activities such as Interlibrary Loan.
The Google Book project should be an addition to library activities in serving patrons, not a substitute to those activities. I know of some librarians that are considering passing on digitization efforts because of Google’s digitization. I believe this rationale is a mistake. Google’s Book project will increase the ability to find books, which is a good thing. However, it is not a substitute for library digitization efforts. Libraries add collection efforts, cataloging and classification standards, preservation, public access, and other services. In my opinion, libraries are better stewards of information than Google can be at this point in time, including librarians’ protection of users’ rights.
I find it interesting that the discussion in these areas has moved away from the copyright concerns. ^_^
[Edit: Typos that I didn’t notice until I read the thing on Sivacracy. Sheesh.]
Permalink
February 21, 2006 at 2:49 pm
· Filed under Copyright, General, Intellectual Property
Boing Boing: US copyright head: world “totally rejects” webcasting restrictions
Very interesting article about the controversial “webcasting provision” of the new proposed WIPO broadcasters’ treaty. The treaty would very much broaden strong copyright protection by adding yet another complex layer on top of copyright law- giving webcasters rights that they do not (and should not) have at this point in time. It makes fair uses more difficult for the public, by adding additional liability to people making fair uses of copyrighted work. It would give casters more authority than the copyright holders in many cases, which I would think should be objectionable by copyright holders as well as the public.
Permalink
February 21, 2006 at 10:05 am
· Filed under Copyright, Cultural Institutions, General, Libraries
Joining in the discussion about Google and Libraries at Madisonian.net.
Here’s the text of my comment. To summarize, I like Google, I like libraries, I use them both, and they’re not mutually exclusive. I think people should be very wary of the idea that Google is a replacement for libraries instead of another avenue to use in information seeking.
—
Again- I’m not a librarian, but I am pro-librarian. To answer your last question, I don’t think so.
I don’t believe that you need to stop Google to save librarians, because I don’t believe that Google serves as a replacement for libraries. I believe that even if all information in the world was available digitally, there would still be a place for librarians. I’m not anti-Google, either- I use Google constantly. I also use libraries, though. ^_^ In my day to day activities, I use Google more than the library. Really, it depends on what I’m doing.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
February 18, 2006 at 11:41 am
· Filed under Cultural Institutions, General, Libraries
Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description
In this story, we learn that homeland security is not the library police. Hmm… if they want to help the community by working with libraries, how about going after overdue books? ^_^
Permalink