Copyright 2.0: Issues for Digital Natives
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
1 gostou•383 visualizações
Presentation given to Southern California Theological Librarians Association, October 10, 2008
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/scatla-copyright-110203182630-phpapp01/85/Copyright-2-0-Issues-for-Digital-Natives-1-320.jpg)
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (8)
Semelhante a Copyright 2.0: Issues for Digital Natives
Semelhante a Copyright 2.0: Issues for Digital Natives (20)
Mais de John McDonald
Mais de John McDonald (20)
Copyright 2.0: Issues for Digital Natives
- 2. Defining Copyright 2.0 Content 1.0: printed, physical, library Usage 1.0: browse, read, use, store Content 2.0: print, audio, visual ; analog or digital Usage 2.0: search, repurpose, store, manipulate, manage
- 12. Resources Prensky, Marc (2005/06). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, v. 63 : 4 , p.8-13. http://www.ascd.org/authors/ed_lead/el200512_prensky.html Section 108 Study Group. http://www.section108.gov/ Stanford Copyright & Fair Use: http://fairuse.stanford.edu Claremont Copyright: http://copyright.claremont.edu Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/ UCLA Copyright Infringement Project http://cip.law.ucla.edu/
Notas do Editor
- Here is a picture of some Pasadena area speed bumps. Notice that they are USED…
- Back in 1999, I attended the very popular and very important ARL Workshop On Licensing Electronic Information Resources. During that workshop, as we were told about the importance of negotiating certain aspects of licenses, I began to wonder if it was all that necessary. Surely, no publisher would sue a library or vice versa. I even raised my hand and asked, “Has any publisher sued any library over failure to comply with negotiated license terms?” The answer was resoundingly “Not yet!”, but everyone was sure it was coming. I wasn’t so sure though and remain unconvinced. But the time since then has presented many instances of Internet security-related litigation, especially copyright infringement litigation, and thanks to the RIAA and Napster, even lawsuits levied against providers, middlemen, and even end-users. But nothing yet in libraries, and that’s a good thing. As a community, we usually tackle and resolve our issues before the need to litigate even develops. And that’s what this panel discussion is about. How do we continue to work like this in an increasingly distributed digital environment? How do we make sure the concerns of information providers are met realistically and consistently yet ensure that libraries can still continue to legitimately serve the needs of their users? What processes can we develop that allow information producers, providers, vendors, and libraries to effectively work together and enforce the licenses that we’ve negotiated. The background on security issues for licensed online content stem from license adapted from database and software vendors whose models didn’t really adapt to academic research materials and the mission of research libraries. Over the course of the years, as an industry, we’ve come to some basic understanding on most license clauses, including Who, What, When, Where, How…and mysteriously absent is the Why…as in, Why do we need licenses for online content? Well, the why is implied through the Restrictions on Use clauses in our licenses. Of course, information providers wanted to protect their copyright and make sure that providing information in a new format would not result in negative impact on their businesses. So most licenses included clauses outlining prohibited users and prohibited types of usage. And, in some licenses, clauses outlining the consequences of violating prohibited usage.
- Most prohibited uses outlined in our licenses seem logical and based on common sense. Things like altering, recompiling, reselling, publishing or republishing, making persistent local copies, altering copyrights or changing publisher or authors names, etc. Most prohibited uses outlined in our licenses are either so unusual that they’re unlikely to ever occur, too difficult to accomplish by the average or even above-average user, or aren’t likely to happen since the potential users would lack a clear motivation to do such a thing. Everyone loves some type of music and music is expensive to acquire, and sharing it is easy so there’s a clear motivation to do just that. But not everyone really cares about that article on copper oxides or contribution of backyard grills to air pollution. But we’ve all still seen some violations of prohibited uses and to me, the major prohibited uses that seem to come up in these instances fall into about 3 categories: systematic copying or downloading, downloading by volume, or allowing unauthorized users to access content. And these things to occur and I’ll outline some examples of occurrences at Caltech along these lines. What I’m really interested in is working out a process to stop these common breaches from occurring and getting libraries and publishers on the same page when needing to communicate about these instances. Let’s take a quick look at a few license examples and some recent violations of prohibited uses that have come up and what we need to rectify these things.
- Most prohibited uses outlined in our licenses seem logical and based on common sense. Things like altering, recompiling, reselling, publishing or republishing, making persistent local copies, altering copyrights or changing publisher or authors names, etc. Most prohibited uses outlined in our licenses are either so unusual that they’re unlikely to ever occur, too difficult to accomplish by the average or even above-average user, or aren’t likely to happen since the potential users would lack a clear motivation to do such a thing. Everyone loves some type of music and music is expensive to acquire, and sharing it is easy so there’s a clear motivation to do just that. But not everyone really cares about that article on copper oxides or contribution of backyard grills to air pollution. But we’ve all still seen some violations of prohibited uses and to me, the major prohibited uses that seem to come up in these instances fall into about 3 categories: systematic copying or downloading, downloading by volume, or allowing unauthorized users to access content. And these things to occur and I’ll outline some examples of occurrences at Caltech along these lines. What I’m really interested in is working out a process to stop these common breaches from occurring and getting libraries and publishers on the same page when needing to communicate about these instances. Let’s take a quick look at a few license examples and some recent violations of prohibited uses that have come up and what we need to rectify these things.
- And as librarians, why do we care about these issues? First and foremost, we want to provide information to our users and not violate our licenses. We want to negotiate licenses that are clear about what we are required to do and not be hit by surprises during the life of the contract. We don’t want one user to impact the potential use by others We want to provide seamless access to information with a minimum of intermediation We want to ensure that our usage metrics are accurate representations of usage. That’s what I think is important on this topic, but let’s hear from a number of publishers and another librarian about their perspectives. First up is…
- Why should you really care? And there are content providers in this audience whose companies essentially don’t care – it’s more expensive and laborious to protect their content than to let everyone use it at any time. B ut you do need to protect your content since it’s essentially all you usually have to sell. Paying attention to the use (and mis-use) of the product provides valuable insight into the content, the interface, and potential new types of content production and the associated potential revenue. It’s also important to understand your new consumers and how they potentially will be utilizing the content you provide in the future. Usage enhances your content, so you want to promote usage while still protecting that content from mis-use.
- You have to ask yourself if our new consumers, the Internet Natives, really care about your content and the integrity of your property. First, they might value that content in a different way for for a different purpose than you value it or intend it to be used. They’ve grown up in an environment with liberal re-use of material for educational and academic purposes is commonplace. In addition, your content might be important to them at the time, but if they can’t get it or do what they want with it, they will go somewhere else. And they need it immediately and will use it immediately and often ephemerally, so the stakes are different in acquiring that content.