copy this blog

Posted this as a comment on another blog.

Followed the link from Sivacracy. I don’t 100% agree with everything Siva writes, but I still think he’d be a good guy to go to lunch with. 😛 He really does know a LOT of librarians and talks to them regularly. He isn’t particularly friendly with the publisher perspective, either, though.

Personally, I’m torn on the subject of Google’s digitization project. I’m not a librarian, but I’ve got my MLIS, I work at a library school, and I’m a doctoral student there as well (studying, among other things, copyright and its effects on the missions of cultural institutions). I’m also one of the ALA copyright scholars. I can say with complete certainty that the librarians that are members of the copyright scholar group and ALA’s own copyright committee, representing librarians from around the country, are not completely behind Google’s actions in this case. We’ve been pretty divided, actually. In that setting, I actually usually defend Google in that I believe their use should be fair- but I also think that there are downsides to the Google project as well. I’m glad that Siva at the very least brings some of these issues to our attention. I don’t completely agree with his fair use analysis, although I am familiar with the Tasini, MP3.com, and Arriba cases.

From a copyright perspective, I think it would be great if Google’s use was considered fair use. I agree with part of your statement. Digitiziation is not an either/or proposition. If Google’s use is fair- well, that would just make it all the easier for other groups, including libraries, to take similar actions. Just because Google is doing it does not mean that libraries, or other interested parties, can’t also digitize. Google does have the resources to take action now, and most libraries certainly do not, but I don’t think that immediacy is necessarily a positive thing in this particular situation. It kind of depends on the end result, doesn’t it? Digitization for digitization’s sake isn’t necessarily good.

That being said, I don’t think that what Google is doing is not necessarily good for libraries and information users. In the short term, I think it is. I agree that visibility is a good thing; my gut reaction to the project, when I first heard about Google Print a couple of years ago, was very positive. I think the ability to keyword search for particular books is great. I started having my doubts when I read the contract that Google worked out with the universities. I don’t know that it’s particularly good for users in those systems. I also think that “the choice is ‘Google digitizes everything’ or ‘libraries digitize less than 1%'” is just as much a false dichotomy as Google digitizes everything or libraries digitize everything. There are many ways that libraries or other institutions can participate, and there are better ways for Google or other for-profit institutions and libraries to work together. The contracts could be much better for the university libraries than the existing one with Google, I think. The libraries can’t do some things that would really make this project worthwhile, I believe, due to Google’s control of the digitized forms. I find this ironic, given that libraries that meet copyright law requirements actually do have more leeway to work with copyrighted materials than Google does.

The benefits I see in this project are the general benefits of digitization- additional gains of use such as searching and indexing, and the potential of increased access to material. I agree with Cory Doctorow that it would be in the publisher’s best interest to work with Google. I don’t necessarily know that it’s in the users’ overall best interest. DRM and proprietary formats are problematic. I don’t automatically believe that big corporations are a bad thing, but I do believe that big corporations do not necessarily have the public’s best interests paramount. Nor do all libraries, either, but most public libraries do tend to have missions and mandates that reflect the public interest, while corporations tend not to. (I hope to be studying the missions and laws related to cultural institutions more when I start my dissertation.) When serving the public interest might harm a corporation financially, they may be very well obligated to act against the public interest. Libraries, museums, and archives often have legal mandates to act for the public, and are I think the public’s best advocates in these situations over the long term. On a somewhat related note, I don’t know how Google’s cataloging is- and I do not believe that keyword searches are a replacement for good cataloging, which is increasingly a view that I disturbingly find cropping up.

I read Sivacracy and Madisonian.net pretty regularly. I don’t particularly agree with either one about this particular case all of the time, but I really respect what they have to say. I’ve been quoted on both of them briefly (“not a librarian after all” from Sivacracy, and Madisonian’s misunderstanding of my argument about making a fair use argument rather than a library exemption argument, which was my fault). The Google issue has been very interesting- it’s the first time that people I read and agree with regularly actually disagree with one another in some pretty strong terms.(On a complete side note, if you’re looking for a blog representing what I think is the author’s perspective, Scrivener’s Error is also an excellent one!) I’m glad that they’re engaged in the conversations that they are engaged in, though.

Geez. So overall, I think Google’s use should be fair, but that libraries still have a responsibility to digitize as well, and are probably better stewards of information than Google is.

Wow, this got long, sorry!

—

Original message on Not Liz.

Rockstar legal warriors squash online installation | The Daily Page

Again, games and copyright cross paths and the resulting crash isn’t pretty. GamePolitics linked to this article about Rockstar’s use of a DMCA Cease and Desist notice to take down a student’s site. The site used material from the Warriors in a manner that was critical to their games (and video games in general, really). I find the use of the DMCA particularly unappealing in this case. I don’t particularly care for the GTA series- not that I haven’t played any of them, but they’re just not my thing. Despite that, I would defend the game maker’s own free speech and expression rights. I find their (mis)use of copyright to stifle social commentary in this situation hypocritical.

…is the name of the first class I’m taking as a doctoral student. There are several issues here, all of them worth writing about here or in a “real” publication. ^_^; It’s keeping me busy, particularly examing the software issues associated with automating crawling, saving, and archiving websites and having to worry about archival standards of authenticity. (Future subjects: how digital archives and records management differ, authenticity and integrity of electronic archives, determining the authenticity of an archived dynamic web site, intellectual property issues in absolutely everything).

Copyright issues are also keeping me busy. I may address a conference in South Texas in May. I need to work on ALA’s library copyright website. I’ll be addressing a few classes here this semester. There are some very interesting copyright issues that I’ll need to look at right away. The iSchool is currently working on a project for the Harry Ransom Center, currently in possession of some 1950s interviews of some very famous people by another famous person. I don’t know how much I can write about this publicly yet, so I’ll hold off. However, the copyright implications are really fascinating. There are several contracts involved, some of them pre-Internet. There are contractual materials that have been lost in various disasters. The original company that owned the interviews does not exist. The assumed owner has licensed HRC to do various things with the records. People at our school will be digitizing the materials, creating trascripts and digitizing already created transcripts, and creating derivative works that allow searching, indexing, and so on of the transcript+video.And then the plan is to put at least some of these materials online… staggering. ^_^

In other news, the fact that “libraries” and “archives” are not legally defined in US Law comes up so often that the Section 508 Group formed by the Library of Congress to address the problems in 508 will be having roundtable discussions involving the issue, as well as a variety of subjects involving digital copyright.

The Anime News Network reported that sale of fan art based on properties that the artist does not own the copyright for or have a license to produce will not be permitted at the Otakon artists’ alley this year. The issue turned out to be not quite as broad as that. Here are my collected responses from forums (so I don’t lose ’em).

Read the rest of this entry »

…something like this occurs that makes me question whether or not I want to give money to Blizzard. Early on, the bnetd issue. Last time it was their invasive anti-cheating measures. This time, I haven’t gotten a handle on their policies against advertising for a gay-friendly guild.

Slashdot | Gay Guild Recruitment Disallowed From WoW?

In Newsweekly -.- Gaming -.- Blizzard of GLBT gaming policy questions

Boing Boing: World of Warcraft: Don’t tell anyone you’re queer

A few issues. First, some respond in a way that ignores the problem; that you’ve agreed to a EULA so you have to do what Blizzard says. Of course, that’s not entirely true. EULAs are not necessarily valid forms of contract in whole or in part; and different parts may be enforced differently in various jurisdictions. Again, though, that’s ignoring a problem. Blizzard offers a service, so at some point they are accountable to the users of their service.

Do I think this is bad? Yes, for a variety of reasons. From a game-play perspective, one of their goals is immersion, particularly on the servers that have been designated as RPG servers. Should people not RP that they’re gay, then, because they might be harrassed? Is harrassment itself in character? Where do they draw the line?

Do they allow advertising for the Christian guilds that I’ve been reading about? Wouldn’t that also invite harrassment?

Isn’t harrassment punishable by suspension? Then why aren’t they suspending the harrassers rather then not allowing the advertisement in the first place?

I don’t know. Is Blizzard more likely to listen to people when they no longer give them money, or when they are paying customers? When they leave, or when they return? I don’t have a good answer for this. I can make arguments either way.

You don’t have freedom of speech when using a private corporation’s resources. There is no “public space,” as much as they might want us to feel like we’re in a public space. At some points, like this one, the perception and the reality of the situation collides. I firmly believe that the cure for “bad speech” is more speech, not the restriction of speech.

Of course, this problem hasn’t been resolved in the “real” world, either. This makes the issue… well… realistic. Unsurprising.

Ultimately, Blizzard will need to clarify it’s policies and act consistently in the enforcement of those policies.

Edit: Well, we did it- Holly and I are back. Utopian Hell and Iconochron have good discussions about the subject in their comments.

LISNews.org | Google Cache Ruled Fair Use

50 Cent Sued for Allegedly Stealing Lyric

The reason this doesn’t make sense, of course, is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. In that case, 2 Live Crew was sued for using lines and music from Roy Orbison’s Pretty Woman. They won the case because the court determined that their use was fair. What’s wrong with this picture?

GameSpy3A20A20Boy20and20His20Blob20Preview

A new release of a Boy and his Blob. Old news, but new to me. ^_^ aBahB was one of my favorite games on the NES- basically, you and your alien Blob pal must adventure to save his homeworld (aptly named Blobonia). You get past obstacles by feeding him different jellybeans, which allow him to change shape into useful things. (Cinnamon=blowtorch, licorice=ladder, cola=bubble, ketchup=catch up to you, vanlilla umbrella, trangerine trampoline, etc.). Of course, now I find myself wondering if this new title has the same lack of relationship to the original as a Bard’s Tale did… is this a remake, an appeal to nostalgia, and/or taking advantage of a loss of trademark?

Vatican ‘cashes in’ by putting price on the Pope’s copyright – World – Times Online

Scary. Copyright as a tool of censorship is never a good thing, but to use copyright to get money from religion, particularly in this case- come on. First, you’re limiting the message, which is completely antithetical to the message itself. Next, if as a Catholic you believe that the Pope’s words are divinely inspired, then there are some bigger issues. 😛

CNN.com – Baseball statistics: history or property? – Jan 15, 2006

This is scary. Esseentially, MLB wants to have right sto “identites and statistical profiles” of their players. Statistics, even when associated with an individual, are clearly facts. If MLB wins, it will be disturbing- not only for the fantasy sports industry, as CNN alleges, but for any uses of copyright as well. If statistics associated with a person can be protected by IP, then why not databases? Or for that matter, phone books (currently not protected by copyright)?