College of Information Media Production

Picture by Flickr user Thomas Hawk

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License.

I swear!!  With so much ‘drama’ in the industry, it’s kind of hard being a fan of the things I see.  Now whether or not “remixing” a popular line made by Snoop Dogg back in the early 90’s seems legal or fair, it does however raise the lack of knowledge people have over the copyright laws, fair use,  and public domain.   So with me being somewhat a part of the newer generation, I wanted to bring to light a big topic within the hip-hop community.

Back in January of 2007, an iconic pioneer to the mixtape game, DJ Drama, was arrested and charged with a felony violation of Georgia’s Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization law, also known as the RICO law.  DJ Drama’s “Gangsta Grillz” mixtapes were at one time the biggest selling mixtape CDs in the music industry.

A mixtape is a CD or tape in which artists perform written material over the beats that lawfully belong to other artists.  Mixtapes are widely used throughout the industry to keep artists relevent to the current releases.  It has been a staple in the music careers of artists like Lil Wayne, 50 Cent, TI and Young Jeezy, some of hip-hop’s biggest artists.

Recently, artists have initiated their own websites for fans to follow.  Websites like Thisis50.com and  hiphopgame.com   allows fans to follow their favorite artists around the world and stay up to date on their latest happenings.  They also allow fans to download their mixtapes — FOR FREE! 

In listening to Lessig describe Walt Disney’s manipulation of the entertainment industry, we seem to always come back to the age old trend – how to get rich!  The industry seemed to be lenient when it came to DJs pushing their mixtapes to the masses.  But since piracy has cost all record companies millions of dollars, they now find themselves trying to make up for the loss.

So I ask you, do you agree whether government regulations have a place in the music industry?

Is the government overstepping their boundaries by coming down so hard on DJ Drama?

If you feel the government should not be responsible for these regulations, then who should be?

Teaching technology

After all of the readings and postings about copyright, I am a little concerned that I just might be breaking the law everyday in my classroom.  Sometimes we watch videos during homeroom that are based on books (not necessarily in our curriculum) and sometimes we watch clips of video that are just funny.  I have copied pages of workbooks.  I have allowed kids to copy and paste into powerpoints with only minimal attribution.  This might sound like I am a slacker teacher, but for the most part I am very professional and I take my job very seriously.  But sometimes during exam week, it is so easy to watch a video on Netflix.com during homeroom that will just entertain the students for twenty minutes or watch an episode of Glee on Fox.com or Hulu after taking a test.   What would elementary schools use as a reward if they did not have Fun Friday with a movie and popcorn? 

 My classroom is a very modern Smart Classroom equipped with a document reader, a huge screen and a projector that links my computer and DVD player to the room.  It is a wonderful teaching tool, but sometimes I think it is too easy to grab things off the Internet without much forethought.  Most of the coyright infringement is overlooked at schools until it is too late.  I have worked in schools in Florida and in Tennessee and everyone just seems to have an air of nonchalance when it comes to breaking these laws.   Even my principal kicked off our back-to-school meeting with a clip from Ferris Beuller’s Day Off to illustrate poor teaching practices.  Of course, he had to download it and email it to himself because our filters at school do not allow youtube videos!  Even though the principal had to download the video clip, I would consider it to be Fair Use under Best Practices policy 2 that we discussed in class.  What do you think?  Are we good or are we breaking the law?  I have so many choices to make during the school day, that sometimes I don’t have time to consider the repercussions….I know that is no excuse!

On the other hand, students are doing wonderful things at my school and creating art and other original works everyday.  Our TV production kids produce a weekly show with commercials, skits and music videos.  They are funny and intelligent and you can check them out here: http://www.kenwoodnow.com  But even these students use popular songs to create the music videos with students lipsynching the words.  This seems to infringe on the copyright of the song.  But do we overlook it because it is funny?

Fort'ea Williams- Art 1, Kenwood HS, Clarksville, TN

The art students are continually creating orignal works and they are posted on a wiki space.  How do we make sure this work is protected and not stolen from our students?  Check out there work here: 

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Faverittneperudkhs%2Fhome&h=dd0b16236250b91c8fc4d6154a2d3a89

So my questions to you are:

Do you think we should prosecute teachers for copyright infringement?  To what ends and what purpose would it serve?  Are teachers doing any real damage by showing a movie for Fun Friday? (other than wasting instructional time)

How can we better equip our teachers and our staff to do the right thing?

To what extent do we need to protect our students who produce art and creative material on the Internet?

Photo was taken by Flickr user Editor B and has a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License.

Works Cited:

“Code of Best Practices in the Fair Use for Online Video”. Center for Social Media. 5 October 2009. Web.

(Read on …)

In April of this year, four Swedish men were found guilty of breaking copyright law. These men, operators of the website The Pirate Bay were sentenced to one year in jail and millions of dollars in penalties. The lawsuit was brought by a consortium of recording industry groups and companies.

The Pirate Bay is a peer-to-peer filing sharing site that acts as a search engine to connect users with BitTorrent files (audio, video, games, porn, etc) that are available for download. Once a user identifies the file they wish to download, they would then use a BitTorrent downloader to get the actual file. BitTorrent files are files that are downloaded in pieces from various users on a Peer-to-peer network and then reassembled to once again form a whole. This saves download time, and reduces strain on browsers and networks. The Pirate Bay connects users to other users with the sought-after files.

The Pirate Bay does not contain any copyrighted material, nor can the site be used to download copyrighted material. BitTorrent does contain pieces of copyrighted material, but does not provide full copies of copyrighted files – the complete files must be assembled by the user who is ultimately responsible for the use or misuse of any copyrighted material. There are uses for these bits of files other than reassembling them to make the original files complete again. Software uses, editing and remix uses, etc are all valid reasons to download and use BitTorrent files. The law, however, came down on the side of the recording industry claiming that The Pirate Bay was conspiring to commit piracy by showing users where to find these files.

Here is a brief video from BBC News about the incident:
Inside the Pirate Bay

Here are some questions for contemplation and discussion:

Regardless of the political views of The Pirate Bay website operators, do you see their website (which is little more than a search engine) as an infringement on copyright?

We can locate copyrighted images on Google and we can download them. Is Google legally responsible to the copyright owner for presenting us with the image? If not, then why is The Pirate Bay in trouble for offering a similar service?

Would The Pirate Bay have gained as much attention or have come under as much attack if its name was something less anarchical? What if it was called “Cute and Fuzzy Bunny Bay” for example? Would the intent of the operators have been as obvious to those who feel threatened by piracy?

Do you think the recording industry has been justified in going after this website and if so, do you feel that the sentence was appropriate for the “crime”? If not, what more amicable solution could have been reached (such as charging a fee to search, perhaps)?

Do you think that, like jaywalking, file sharing/piracy will become a law that remains on the books, but is never, or rarely enforced?

BONUS:
In the spirit of the Lessig lectures, here is my favorite Internet remix/mash up video:

Photo Credits:
P1000001.JPG (pirate ship) is by FlickR Creative Commons user jurvetson

Copyright will protect you from Pirates is by FlickR Creative Commons* user loan Sameli *note on this Creative Commons license: The user admits to possibly having stolen this photo and it is not clear if the FlickR user made a fair use of this work. I am re-using it based on the CC license, but I cannot verify that the CC license is valid.

Video Credits:
Inside the Pirate Bay is by BBC News

Total Eclipse of the Heart: Literal Video Version appears on You Tube and was posted by dascottjr

The USA PATRIOT ACT:  Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.  A controversial law affecting Information Specialist and freedom of speech with strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

I was searching Creative Commons for a photo for another class and decided to type in USA Patriot Act.  sorry betsy is the first photo that came up and it speaks volumes about the feeling of the person who posted it.  I was so glad to see the Attribution 2.0 Generic License, permitting the sharing, altering, and use of the photo or I would have wondered about the true feelings of the artist.  Any other license would have seemed hypocritical to me.  What a statement: FREEDOM or COMMUNISM?

While most of the Patriot Act is not controversial, the section affecting libraries is very controversial.  The American Library Association has taken the stance that the USA Patriot Act inhibits the freedom of library patrons; telling the patrons usage history violates their First Amendment Rights.

Questions:

How does the USA Patriot Act affect copyright issues?

Will author’s modify their book contents to be politically correct?

Does the Patriot Act limit the ability to learn ALL aspects of controversial issues for fear of governmental reprisals?

Credits:

Photo sorry betsy by Flickr user THEE ELECTRIC MILKSHAKE.  This photo has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

I found this week’s readings on Fair Use intriguing and of current value. But, not unlike other legal matters, I was left with feelings of confusion regarding the ‘gray areas’ of this issue. Readings from the US Copyright office confirmed my feelings of insufficiency in determining Fair Use in many cases:

“The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.”

Using the Internet, I went in search of tools to use for determining Fair Use –tools which would supplement our course readings. The Campus Guide to Copyright Compliance has a useful checklist. A left hand column lists items favoring Fair Use , while the right hand column lists items opposing Fair Use. These are grouped into four categories: Purpose, Nature, Amount, and Effect.

Not surprisingly, the ALA also has a useful tool: Fair Use Evaluator This tool provides the user with a time-stamped, PDF document for your personal records. If nothing else, the tool really makes you think about what it is you are doing and whether it meets the guidelines of Fair Use.

I would have to say that I find the most abuses of Fair Use to lie in the plethora of online videos. The Center for Social Media’s publication Recut, Reframe, Recycle is worth reading. It discusses -and cites examples- of nine types of legitimate uses of copyrighted works in online videos:

• Parody and Satire
• Negative or critical commentary
• Positive commentary
• Quoting to trigger discussion
• Illustration or example
• Incidental use
• Personal reportage or diaries
• Archiving of vulnerable or revealing materials
• Pastiche or collage

So are these enough tools for us to gauge our use in libraries, schools, and personal media?
What tools do you use when deciding whether a use is Fair or Foul?
Do you feel the guidelines for Fair Use are too restrictive?
How often have you viewed a video that left you thinking it was a copyright violation?
What, if anything, can we do to preserve creativity (and First Amendment rights) while meeting the guidelines of Fair Use?

Images:
Library Police by flickr user Travelin’ Librarian
This photo has a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic license.
Google Parody Shirt by flickr user bamalibrarylady
This photo has a a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

People are walking about, with no regard to their surroundings, women are carrying expensive toys in plain view; schoolkids with expensive iPods on the bus, makes me wonder how many crimes and even deaths have been initiated due to wireless technology. Will the wireless device industry soon face the same criticism as the tobacco industry?

This is a photo taken by my own daughter while driving up to Tallahassee to begin the fall semester at FSU last month. The problem is that she was driving by herself!  Not only did she take the photo, but typed the text below it,  and the photo was uploaded to Twitter while she was driving, according to the time of the post!

I came across this photo that evening, while doing my routine scan of the Twitter feeds posted by my kids. It gave me goosebumps. (They don’t know that I know their Twitternames. It’s not that I am  invading their privacy or judging their behavior, they are both adults now. Just my way to give myself peace of mind without being a pest, by checking in occasionally.)

Look, I’m not a techniphobe, in fact I would be an early adopter in my heart, just not in my pocketbook, yet I can’t help but wonder if the easy, portable access to wifi is going to become the issue that leads to more deaths than DUI. At least we know and expect that many drivers might be impaired on holidays, or Friday and Saturday nights, and we can be aware of cars that are straying out of their lanes, but texting while driving takes place all day long, even by moms driving their kids to school!

Apparentely, I am not the only one who is outraged at all of this. President Obama signed an executive order yesterday banning Federal employees from texting while driving on government business. See details in the article linked below:

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/151925/obama-bans-federal-employees-from-texting-while-driving/

Driving while texting…think you’re good at it? So did the drivers in these clips.  Check out this video..if you have not seen it already, and tell me what you think. If you agree, pass them along to your friends!

YouTube video posted by: nrawesa
August 25, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6biw3LEq_0c

(Read on …)

In his speech at the O’Reilly Open Source Conference, Larry Lessig repeatedly asks what we have done to promote free culture, with the implied answer being “not enough.”

So what have we done? In the face of ever-expanding copyright protections, what have we done to promote creativity and defend the expansion of culture?

harry potter

We have remixed circuitously

When I was in elementary school, the closest thing we did to remixing was cutting up a bunch of magazines and smooshing pictures together to make collages. And that was totally legal. As Lessig points out, you can’t legally smoosh up bits of video and music and digital images, because in doing so, you are always making a copy of the original and are always violating copyright. What are remixers to do?

Brad Neely circumvented the issue when he created Wizard People Dear Reader, an alternative soundtrack for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. The project offers a re-imagined narrative for the film. Internet users can download the soundtrack and listen to it while watching their legally-obtained, muted copy of the film. Here is legal remixing, remaking, rebuilding.

maxwell 2

We have used the almighty dollar

Under pressure from huge corporations, the length of copyright protection has been repeatedly extended. Why? According to Lessig, there‘s one reason: money. Corporations have money to throw at the issue, and they get the results they want.

But those corporations are getting their money from us, the public, who pay for their products, and we can make them listen to what we have to say. Take the AiboPet issue that Lessig mentioned. Aibo is a robotic pup crafted by Sony. A fellow who goes by the handle “AiboPet” hacked Aibo’s encrypted, digital code and taught it to dance, speak, etc. Sony soon demanded that AiboPet stop sharing his hack, as he was violating their copyright according to the DMCA, which forbids breaking encrypted digital code.

To put it bluntly, Aibo buyers were pretty outraged, and they staged a full-on boycott of Sony products. In less than a month, Sony agreed to allow AiboPet to repost his hacks on the internet. They’re still there today.

creative commons logo

We have built communities designed to share

Creative Commons, of which Lessig was a founding board member, has done a lot to reclaim our right to creativity. Fifty years ago, copyright law may have been less restrictive, but did kids have over 15 million images to manipulate right at their fingertips? There are a lot of tantalizing images on the internet that we can’t muck around with, but there are now so many that we can. With the rise of the internet, there has been such a proliferation of shared art, and now we are marking pieces that can be remixed and repurposed.

So now I ask these questions:

What are other examples of ways that we can legally work to protect creativity and culture?

As library professionals, who guide the public in information use on a daily basis, what can we specifically do to promote creativity and culture?

Credits:

Photo: harry potter by Flickr user retro_writer. This photo has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Photo: Maxwell 2 by Flickr user aldenchadwick. This photo has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Image: creative commons logo by Flickr user AJC1. This image has a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License.

It seems that everyone from librarians to the newscast from CBS Evening news are discussing ebooks, and most sources seem to agree that digital books are the future of book reading. Indeed, millions of books have been digitally copied by several different organizations all over the world.  The million book project was a joint plan by several major corporations and educational centers to scan one million books by 2007. They have since surpassed that goal. Google is another company that has lead the way, copying and digitalizing ten million books, eight million of which are copyrighted under the law. And anyone who has shopped at Amazon has noticed their advertisements for the Kindle.

Even colleges and public libraries are jumping on the e-book bandwagon. Patrons of several libraries in California can check out digital books through the Northern California Digital Library. Princeton University has begun a pilot program to study the classroom use of e-readers this fall. They hope to increase convenience for students as well as to decrease the printing costs of their libraries and computer labs.

    What do you all think?

Are e-books the way of the future?

What implications (both good and bad) do you think e-books will have on the various library systems?

Do you own an e-reader? If so, how do you think it’s qualities and ease of use compares to an actual book?

Will digital books remove any need society has for traditional books? Why or why not?

Credits:

Image: ebooks kindle amazon by the Flickr user libraryman. This image has a Creative Commons 
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license.

Video: Will Google’s Book Scan Project Transform Academia by the YouTube user ForaTv.

Perhaps some of you, as I myself have wondered about the copyright implications of your 140 character tweet. Is there a way to share your tweet under “some rights reserved”?

Yes there is! Andy Clarke and Brian Surda have created tweetCC. The idea started during a conversation between Andy and Brian about republishing tweets from other users and the work that it would entail to ask permission from every user. Millions of users are now familiar with sharing their work on the site, Flickr. Why not do the same with the tweets that we create?

It is not difficult to get a CC license twitter feed. All one must do is send a message to tweetCC via Twitter that says  “@tweetCC: I license my tweets under a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication” or you may also choose from the other CC licenses available on the site.

In an online article for Plagiarism Today, Jonathan Bailey discusses the copyrightability for tweets. He says that most tweets do not have enough creativity to meet the “threshold of copyrightability”. I would agree that there are several twitter users that don’t need to worry about someone wishing to republish what they ate for lunch that day, but there are others such as Melvin Burgess who uses his 140 characters to slowly write a story or what could eventually turn in to a novel.

I know that when I post something to Twitter, my intention is for others to read it and then hopefully share it with others. TweetCC lets me make this point clear. I agree with Bailey that it would have been better if Twitter chose to embed a CC license policy option into its services but until then, TweetCC is a great alternative.

As of writing this, there are 3, 121 Twitter users that license their tweets.

Will you choose to CC license your tweets?

Do you agree or disagree with Jonathan Bailey that most tweets are not copyrightable?

Can you think of another new service that should provide CC license options?

———————————————————————————————————————–

Credits:

• Visit tweetCC and find out more here
• Jonathan Bailey is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today. To read his article, TweetCC: Creative Commons for Twitter, click here. 
• Photo: Twitter Badge by Flickr user 7son75 is under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Throughout this class we have seen and experienced many of the innovative things that we can do with new technology.  Joyce Valenza, in her blog 14 Ways K-12 Librarians Can Teach Social Media, feels that “This is the best time in history to be a teacher-librarian. Major shifts in our information and communication landscapes present new opportunities for librarians to teach and lead in areas that were always considered part of their role, helping learners of all ages effectively use, manage, evaluate, organize and communicate information, and to love reading in its glorious new variety.”

So how, as librarians, are we going to teach these new tools (as well as their copyright regulations) to our students and patrons?  In an interview with John Paffray, author of Born Digital, the author stated two phenomena that he is seeing with students.  “Young people perceive that while unlawful, it’s somehow OK to download music in which you don’t have a copyright interest. Secondly, that young people don’t have very much of a sense of the law, of what it means to be able to reuse this content in creative ways, to use it as part of education, to use it as part of civic activism, and so forth.”  This is obviously a problem that can be remedied by teacher-librarians.  Valenza encourages librarians to discuss copyright with their students, focusing especially on what can be used for educational purposes. 

I feel that students should be taught copyright laws and what can be used legally.  Here are some questions for you:

1.  If you plan on teaching in a school setting, how are you going to introduce Web 2.0 tools into your instruction time?

2.  Do you feel that copyright laws should be taught to students?  At what age do you think they should start being taught?

3.  Do you think that an understanding of copyright and fair use should be part of state standards for media literacy?

4.  If you plan on working outside the school system, how are you going to teach copyright and fair use to your patrons?

Credits:

Photo:  Bank of Computers. by Flickr user shareski.  This image has an Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons License.

References:

Valenza, Joyce.  “14 Ways K-12 Librarians Can Teach Social Media.”  School LIbrary Journal. September 21, 2009.  Retrieved on September 29, 2009 from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/blog/1340000334/post/1230049123.html

Harris, Christopher.  “Excuse Me, Do You Speak Digital?  Harvard’s John Palfrey Explores What’s it’s Like to be a Digital Native.”  School Library Journal.  September 1, 2009.  Retrieved on September 29, 2009 from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6685547.html?nid=3362

Disney seems to be a popular target for our class in regards to copyright issues, so when I stumbled across the devil itself in the New York Times today, I knew what I was going to discuss in my post.  Rather than copyright issues, though, this article triggered other thoughts, specifically about the way children are growing up in this digital age.

I think it’s at least an ambitious project that Disney is undertaking with Disney Digital Books.  To be sure, Disney recognizes that children nowadays are not reading nearly as much as they used to.  And what incentive is there for them to read books when there are so many other attractive distractions out there?  I would hazard that, for most children I know, books fall beneath the internet, video games, and TV on their list of hobbies.  Books are simply ink on paper, so how can they possibly hope to compete for children’s attentions without flashy graphics and accompanying music?

Enter Disney with it’s brand-new project (I think it just went public today).  There are so many bells and whistles that, for me, it’s hard to find the book underneath.  Why is it that books must be these elaborate, interactive affairs to keep the attention of children?  Is a computer screen an adequate surrogate for a physical book?  While advances in technology should be praised and embraced on some level, there is no need to completely abandon more traditional ways for doing things (in this case, reading) so quickly.

• As library and information science students (especially those of you interested in school media and public libraries), do you think this shift toward more digital methods to get children to read is beneficial or detrimental?  Or are there both positives and negatives?
• How might this affect a child’s relationship with the local library/the school library if all sorts of books (not just Disney-related) become available at the click of a mouse?
• Do you see this move by such a huge and influential company as Disney to be a death-knell for traditional books, traditional publishing, and even traditional libraries?

Credits:

Photo:  Books lift you higher, but only so you can use the computer. by Flickr user makelessnoise.  This image has an Attribution 2.0 Generic Creative Commons License.

References:

Barnes, Brooks.  “Disney Tries to Pull the Storybook Ritual Onto the Web.”  The New York Times. September 29, 2009.  Retrieved on September 29, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/business/media/29disney.html?_r=1&ref=books.

Rich, Motoko.  “The Future of Reading – Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?”  The New York Times.  July 27, 2008.  Retrieved on September 29, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?ref=books.

It can take a long time for any creative works and materials (intellectual property) to enter the public domain. Once material enters the public domain it becomes “public property” and is free for anyone to use in whatever way they want to. This is what society has come to believe, right? Well, it can get tricky and did not hold true for ordinary citizen Mark Guertin who is currently in an interesting situation. In the article “Copyright Conundrum: Was ‘Public Domain’ Music Silenced on YouTube?” by Michael Masnick discusses how Guertin is involved with a charity and to promote the charity he created a YouTube video of some swimming pugs. He wisely searched the internet for music that was in the public domain where he decided to use Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” to put in his  Swimming Pugs Montage video. However, when he posted his video he was blocked and the music in the video was muted. It turns out that the song is owned by Warner Music Group. Guertin was blocked for a second time when he filed a counter-notice. What probably happened is that, although “Ride of the Valkyries” is indeed public domain, every recording and rendition of it is not and is protected by copyright. Guertin, like many ordinary citizens, probably did not even think of it. He just saw that the song itself was public domain and free for him to use. This is an easy mistake to make and copyright law and public domain issues can be very confusing.

It’s probably safest for people to use music that has a Creative Commons license rather than music that is in the public domain. With big time bands and musicians like Nine Inch Nails releasing Ghost I-IV (which was a 36 track collection) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license (for ten weeks) we may soon find ourselves with an even bigger collection of music from some of our favorite artists.

What do you think of what happened to Mark Guertin? Was it fair? Would you look for/use music that was under a Creative Commons license before using music that was in public domain? Should other big named artists release music under a Creative Commons license?

Credits:

Photos: Afternoon well spent by flickr user katherine lynn. This picture has a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license.

Creative Commons logo by flickr user SV Contact. This picture has a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic license.

Video (link): Swimming Pugs Montage by YouTube user pugaluggerk.

With the discussion of copyright and the subsequent “free culture” lecture, I thought this would be an ideal time to discuss open source software. While many of you may be familiar with this concept, I was not aware of it and its benefits to the cash strapped consumer until a techie friend of mine introduced me to Open Office about a year ago.

Open Source Software, explained simply, is that a computer program makes its source code public, so that it can be changed, modified, and then publically distributed as a new version of the product in lieu of a traditional copyrighted model in which these types of changes and improvement would be viewed as an infringement. It is similar to a group project in which each member tweaks and changes a report to make improvements.

There are substantial amounts of open source software options available; word processing, chat services, photo editing, and many others!
Here is an excellent video that describes and shows some of these products:

One of the best places to find a wealth of information about Open Source is at the Open Source Initiative, which provides a wealth of information for coders and consumers, as well as news releases about anything and everything having to do with Open Source.
What do you think?
• Is Open source a good alternative?
• Do you think creating Open Source software is unfair to those software producers in the retail market?
• Have any of you tried an Open Source product that you enjoyed or hated? How did it rate against the retail competitor?

Credits:
Video: free/open source softwareby Youtube user g1ug

This week we have focused on copyright issues as they pertain to schools.  Although not everyone in this class will one day find themselves working in a school setting, this information is still a useful and integral part of our professional development.  I believe the same can be said about Doug Johnson’s article Lessons School Librarians Teach Others.  Johnson defines the five ethical challenges that school media specialists face on a daily basis. When discussing the evolution of these ethical responsibilities Johnson cites the ALA’s Code of Ethics, “Protecting one’s privacy, guarding one’s property, and stressing the safe use of technologies, especially the Internet, is now one of the most important ways we ‘safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions’ as the ALA Code of Ethics asks that we do.”  From dealing with intellectual property rights to teaching library users to be critical information consumers, I would argue that the ethical issues Johnson defines are universal to all librarians regardless of the institution they work.

Plagiarism is an issue that goes hand in hand with copyright and one of the ethical concerns Johnson addresses is the prevention of plagiarism in an increasingly digital age.  Before widespread access to computers plagiarism was a bit harder, one had to actually locate and copy their work by hand from a book are article. Now plagiarism can occur in just a few clicks of the mouse, and students hope their teachers are none the wiser. Johnson argues that too much time is being spent by teachers who are trying to catch these acts of plagiarism rather than preventing plagiarism by allowing the school media specialist to educate students on proper research and citation methods.

What do you think?

• What role do you think should school media specialists (or even academic librarians) have in the prevention of plagiarism?
• Should teachers receive training on copyright and/or ways to spot plagiarism from the school media specialist? Or is this a waste of precious time?
• How can students be made to understand the gravity of plagiarizing a work when digital resources make the act so simple?

Credits:

Lessons School Librarians Teach Others by Doug Johnson.  Available here.

Photo by flickr user maebemij.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

THERE is, of course, a man (if he isn’t a woman) behind the
librarian. When the librarian leaves his office or the counter, the man
steps forth… If someone says “So-and-so looks like a librarian,” he is
probably thinking in terms of the old-time librarian, spectacled, round-
shouldered, peering, and surrounded by an astral aura derived from the
immemorial dust that time has dropped gently on his books.
-Author unkown, from “The Man Behind the Librarian:
the Results of an Enquiry” in Library Review, vol. 9, issue 8, 1944 (URL).

The aura of the librarian is as dusty as a witch’s spell
or as the passages of space between lines of poetry, cast away in a Charles Halloway-esque attempt at redemption. But before we cast about in our own mutterings of Shakespeare let us remember who had the last laugh: because just as Mr. Cougar crumbles to dust in his attempt to outsmart the angel of history, so, too, does the machine. Perhaps, after all, only Halloway was right.

Technology is moving as rapidly as this opening paragraph, with as many connections and inquisitions, and sometimes it makes just as much sense. There is something poetic about its movement, however, something dynamic and progressive. And most of all, democratic.
Walter Benjamin argued that the mechanical reproduction of works of art (through mass copies, photographs, and assorted other methods) destroys the feeling of awe that the spectator feels when gazing at, say, a painting by Monet. This feeling is inspired by what Benjamin called the “aura” of art. The aura, according to Benjamin, was not something inherent in the art itself, but was based rather on the historical and cultural values—values that are political in nature. Monet is impressive because he represents a major development in the history of art, and because society has deemed his work to be impressive. But is he any more impressive—intrinsically—than the work of another and less popular impressionist painter?
Benjamin’s friend Theodor Adorno agreed with him that mechanical reproduction “shatters” the aura of art. Not only do major art works become commonplace through mechanical reproduction, but they lose their history and uniqueness within a historical context. Monet’s singular and unique work—awe inspiring as an exhibition at a major art museum—is commonplace and ordinary hanging over the booth at the local truck stop. But does that make a viewing of the original any less dramatic? Or are lesser known works, works without such dramatically spectacular auras, truly less resonant?

Monet

We all know that copyright is confusing. We have to be careful with what we use personally as well as in the work place. But for most of the general public, the need to know copyright law is limited and rarely comes up as a concern. For librarians and media specialists it’s a very different story though.

When we’re dealing with education, copyright issues become especially difficult and a sticky situation can turn into a legal blowup of epic proportions. And most of the time educators are only trying to help their students, not attempting to become copyright criminals. Sometimes it gets to the point where it’s just easier NOT to use material than to try to negotiate the legalities of copyright.

In fact, The Center for Social Media is trying to change things. According to them, “The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy, based on scores of longform interviews with teachers, shows that the fundamental goals of media literacy education—to cultivate critical thinking and expression about media and its social role—are compromised by unnecessary copyright restrictions.” Why should it be so hard for educators? Check out their site – a lot of amazing resources for teachers on fair use as well as blogs and resources for educators and students.

So, while schools often have lengthy lists of sites, such as these to go to for copyright laws, should they really need to know that much? Teachers are supposed to read them, and media specialists are supposed to be the “experts” in these cases, but teachers rarely read them, and media specialists are often confused themselves. Who wouldn’t be unless they were a copyright lawyer?

Another issue that affects schools in regards to copyright is the ever changing format of potentially copyrighted material. It used to be that we only had to worry about works in print, whether it was a book, photo or magazine. Now that has expanded to digital items and everything associated with them. When copyright law was written a few years ago, who knew that it would have to cover things like blogs? The list gets longer and longer all the time. Do you think schools should have to be legal experts in copyright law in order to teach their students using digital media?

What do you think?

Credits:

Video: A Fair(y) Use Tale created by Professor Eric Faddon of Stanford Law School. An Attribution-Noncommercial Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License

Photo: The Internet by Flickr user adsci an Attribution-Noncommercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License

References

American University (2009). The Center for Social Media. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/fair_use_and_teaching

Actor Jack Black has played in many comedy films.  Stumbling across the DVD entitled, “Be Kind Rewind” by writer / director Michel Gondry at my local public library, I noticed it featured Jack Black and decided to check it out.  Admittedly, the images on the cover of the DVD case portrayed a low budget kind of film.

The movie trailer may be viewed here:

Be Kind to Rewind from Rafe Show

Undaunted and hoping to have a good laugh, I watched the film.  The crux of the movie was about re-creating major films when the copies owned by a local video store were damaged, well, erased.

Interestingly, I had stumbled upon a DVD that dealt with the very topic we are discussing in class; the issue of copyright!  The main characters set about making their version of major movies to serve in place of the originals.  These versions were “SWEDED” renditions that justified in the minds of the main characters that what they were creating was their version of the original and thereby altogether a new version, and they figured this made their creation more valuable since it was the “new and improved’ version and the only “SWEDED” DVD of its kind.   Naturally, copyright infringement / violation ensued.

Despite their creative genius attempts to turn this catastrophe around, in the end copyright law would prevail.  All hope was not lost, however, when it was realized that an original film could be produced based on the history of a famous jazz musician, Fats Waller, and many in the community joined together to help produce the movie, thereby preserving a rich cultural heritage.

When it comes right down to ensuring the preservation of culture, do you think there should be exceptions to the rule?  Do you think the copyright laws protect or impede cultural expression?  Others may have a different take on a storyline, so to speak, and should they not have the freedom to express such?  Perhaps, the question is not whether a work is a copy (adaption or otherwise), as much as to whether the work is an original in its own creation.  Your original thoughts will be entertained, they may even be entertaining, but can they actually ever really be recreated?  The last question is a rhetorical one; meant purely for amusement.

Credits:

Picture:   Be Kind Rewind, by Flickr user LATELIERDE JACQUES.  This photo has a Creative Commons  Attribution, Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License.

Video:    Be Kind to Rewind from Rafe Show on BlipTV has  an Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

The authors or licensors noted above do not in any way endorse me, Lori Carmona, or my use of the works cited in the credits above.

In 2004, Google announced a new project known as Google Books, which is a collection of books that have been scanned into digital copies. Not long after announcing this project, the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and a few other authors sued Google claiming this project violates their copyrights. Then, in late 2008, the lawsuit was settled outside of court. For a concise description of the main issues involved check out Baylor University’s explanation of the Google Book Settlement.

According to this settlement, Google Books can offer previews (“up to 20% of a work, although no more than 5 adjacent pages”) of in-copyright but out-of-print books (Baylor University, 2009, The Settlement section, para. 2). Additionally, Google declares that authors and publishers have the ability to “turn off” that feature (Google Books, 2009, Three Types of Books section, para. 2). Yet, Simpson (2005) asserts in Copyright for Schools that one of the automatic rights belonging to copyright holders is the ability “to decide where (or if) their works will be distributed” (p. 53). Thus, according to our current copyright laws, a copyright holder is immediately granted the right to choose how and where their work is available. This is an important issue, especially for out-of-print books that may have a variety of valid reasons for no longer being in print, such as containing inaccurate information. However, Google Books effectively steals this right from the copyright holder of out-of-print books by automatically displaying a preview of the book. It is true that they have the ability to turn this feature off, but according to current copyright law shouldn’t it be the other way around where they can turn the feature on?

This is simply one example of the way our current copyright laws fail to deal with the digital media issues generated in a world that is reliant on the Internet. Do you believe the Google Books project will inspire a complete overhaul of copyright laws? Or do you believe the current copyright laws can effectively handle digital media concerns?

Credits:

Photos:

The Google Book by Flickr user Jim Barter under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. 

Contra-copyright by Flickr user Marco Gomes under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.

References:

Baylor Univesity.  (2009).  Google Book Settlement.  Retrieved from http://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=63562. 

Google Books.  (2009).  Google Books Settlement Agreement.  Retrieved from http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/.

Simpson, C. (2005).  Copyright for schools: A practical guide (4th ed.).  Worthington, OH: Linworth.

Vivienne Waller notes in “The Relationship Between Public Libraries and Google:  Too Much Information,” that Google and libraries share common values, most notably the goal of making information accessible.  In fact, Waller reports, “some librarians enthusiastic about the Google Book Project consider that it means that there is no need for libraries to house large collections of physical books, freeing libraries to be ‘high-end consulting centres.”   Waller further remarks that the Google Book Project is ostensibly “the perfect opportunity” for libraries unable to digitize their own collections.

Serious criticisms of the digitization project exist, though, Waller observes, and this week National Public Radio’s Talk of the Nation addressed the Google Book Project and the objections raised by library professionals to Google scanning millions of books into its digital collection.  Waller cites criticisms such as Google’s exclusion of non-English content, the poor quality of the digital product, and the refusal of some libraries to include their collections in the Google Book Project because Google requires that it be the only search engine that may link to the digitized content.  Moreover, a listener of the NPR program emailed the show with the comment that “A bunch of books, regardless of format, is not a library.  A library has a collection that is carefully selected, organized, catalogued and presented for easy use…Google books is more like a heap of books on the floor.”

Thus, the Google Book Project represents a flashpoint in a number of digital debates, including the value of the brick-and-mortar institution as well as the possibility of achieving a digital democracy with regard to content and accessibility.  Daphne Keller, managing product counsel for Google Books, remarked on NPR that the value of the Google Book Project lies in its “free, all-you-can-eat” accessibility, so that “a kid…in the rural South or a kid in the inner city can come look online with the help of a librarian and find the same works that somebody who’s going to Harvard can look at.”  Moreover, Waller recognizes that Google responded to the criticism of English-only content by forging partnerships with university libraries in Japan, Belgium and Spain.

So, is Google doing enough to promote equality in content and accessibility, or do the search engine restrictions stifle any hope of digital equality?  Is Google the perfect solution for libraries, or does the project represent a useless pile of books on the floor?

Credits and References

Google Books by Jowki.  This photo is licensed under an Attribution 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license.

Signs:  The Light in Democracy by LarimdaME.  This photo is licensed under an Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license.

Waller, Vivienne.  (2009).  The relationship between public libraries and Google:  Too much information.  First Monday, 14(9).  Retrieved September 19, 2009.

Who Should Control the Virtual Library? (2009, September 15).  National Public Radio, Talk of the Nation.  Retrieved September 19, 2009.