It depends on the library, but in general I'd say that most materials in a library are purchased. There are some materials that are gifts, but that doesn't make their inclusion in the library less valid. Thankfully, that's still completely legitimate due to the doctrine of first sale.
I agree with one of your premises- Google is performing this action to benefit Google. They may have more idealistic views in mind, but they couldn't do it unless the company benefits as well.
If Google's use is fair, however, Google does not need to pay the publisher anything. I don't find it particularly evil that they use fair use. It exists for a reason, and it doesn't automatically preclude commercial gain.
Google may have the right to put your likeness up on its web site. Are you a public figure? Are you in a public place? Answering yes to either of those may allow Google to do this.
Now, I don't agree with all of what the University of Michican president said. The confusing issue is that Google is acting as an agent of the University of Michigan library. Google, however, is not a library. If the library was doing itself, it could take advantage of Section 108 provisions of copyright law for the copying. Google can't do that for the copying or for the display of snippets- it must rely on fair use.
It would be nice if the Federal Government would act in that manner, but it won't. Electronic intiatives are not well understood, much less funded, for the Library of Congress and the National Archives, although there have been promising activities in the last few years- but nothing to that scale.
Fair use, in its statutory defintion, is not a right. Nor is it statutorily what it is commonly considered, an affirmative defense- although lawyers and judges usually treat it as such. Fair use is not an infringement copyright. It is not considered a right, unfortunately- if it was, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA would have been much harder to be made into law.
If Google can do this and make a legitimate fair use argument, then persons doing this for a similar reason can also make a fair use argument given similar circumstances. But the determination of fair use is on a case by case basis. Google's may or may not be fair, and that may lend credence to others performing similar activities- but it may not. It depends on the specific situation.
You may have individual, constitutional right to protect your work from unauthorized copying, but the public also has a public constitutional right to use your work whether you like it or not- to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Your copyright is there to ultimately benefit the public.
I got my degree at the University of Texas at Austin. At the time, I received an MLIS from the Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Since then, the name of the degree has changed (Master of Science in Information Studies) and the name of the school has changed (School of Information). The change wasn't intended to be a slight on libraries, but an acknowledgement that graduates of the school were doing many varied things- libraries, archives, conservation, preservation, information architecture, usability, records management, databases, programming, knowledge management, video editing, etc.
Yes, Sony Rootkits did make it into libraries. Yes, most librarians know not to stock such titles. Many are quite technologically proficient and follow sites like Slashdot.:P
Well, no- it isn't. Copyright is a limited, government created right, created to give the author a financial incentive to continue creating so that ultimately the public can benefit from those creations. The US, in particular, has a strong utilitarian tradition, reflected in its laws. The public has an interest in a creator's work, and has given the creator protection for the eventual good of the public. You're arguing from a strong moral rights stance. Different countries implement moral rights in different ways, but most recognize that moral rights don't last forever.
Sadly, it's not a right. The law only says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright. If it was a right, then the anti-circumvention measures in the DMCA would have been much harder to pass. If a librarian circumvents DRM, even for a use that is determined fair, they are very likely liable for the act. (Not a librarian, but have an MLIS and have been advised by legal counsel.)
One of the problems with fair use in the United States is that it's generally not considered a "right" per se. Most choose to look at it as an affirmative defense- that is, something brought up when you're accused of copyright infringement. It's all about the framing used to determine who has the burden of proof. If it's a right, then the people who are trying to affect your rights have the burden of proof. If it's a defense, then you have to prove that you weren't infringing copyright. The law itself mentions neither rights nor defenses- it just says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.
Librarians are great allies to intellectual freedom issues, including those involving DRM. Look at the briefs that the American Library Association has filed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Many librarians are also quite knowledgable about technology-related issues, as well as fun subjects like copyright.
Libraries have it rough with the increasing prevalence of electronic journals and DRM technologies. Even with material that is accessed online, there's a good chance that once the library stops paying for access, the patrons lose access to that materials- something that never happened with print journals. DRM and licensing are currently putting libraries between a rock and a hard place.
I'm not a librarian, but my mother was, and I have an MLIS myself. The average librarian has likely thought more about information than most people have, and in a more formalized manner. Librarians are concerned with information as a disclipline in and of itself in ways that no other profession is, and longer than any other profession. Most librarians have a Masters degree in which they learn about information- how people use and access information, how information can be organized, presented, and so on. So they certainly know how to evaluate resources and can tell the difference between a Tom Clancy novel and an encyclopedia entry. They're also concerned with issues involving authority, authenticity, integrity, and other information-related problems. Public librarianship, in particular (note that not all librarians are public or academic librarians) have a strong history of protecting intellectual freedom. Don't assume that just because something is entertainment that there are no intellectual freedom issues. If someone is denying access to information, you need to look at why first.
From a government records manager and archivist point of view, his stance makes sense. Archives must be accessible in the future. Proprietrary formats are anathemas to government records and archives.
That analogy isn't really relevant. Google isn't posting the entire work online. They also believe that their actions are legal, so they don't characterize what they're doing as blatant infringement. Google is transforming a work by digitizing it. The use may be fair, like Kelly v. Arribasoft's case that determined that the creation and posting of thumbnails is fair.
You also point out one of the disengenuous parts of the original article. If the use is fair as Google contends, Google doesn't need the authors approval or permission to take this action, although receiving their permission would be nice. Giving them an opt out in the manner that Google is may help their fair use argument as well.
While we're at it, let's point out that the authors are not typically the holders of their copyright in the current system. Then let's point out that the historical purpose of copyright law in the United States isn't to protect the authors or copyright holders. The Constitutional basis is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; -U.S. CONST., art. I, 8, cl. 8.
Protecting the authors is the means of encouraging the creation of new works, but it's not the point itself. The point is to ultimately benefit the public. This article relies on an appeal to the moral rights of the authors. The US has limited implementation of moral rights, but so far they've all flown in the face of the traditional rationale for copyright. Copyright law as implemented now appears to be doing more harm then good. Look at many of the DMCA's provisions.
My only problem with Google Print so far is their reported contracts with the libraries, which seem kind of unfair to the libraries.
How is that cancelling out the emissions reductions? Aren't there less CO2 emissions overall because of those reductions? Aren't there fewer man-made emissions?
You used some interesting terminology... "at the expense of printed books." One of the interesting things not totally discussed in the CSM article is that the library isn't going to be paying for the building upkeep and such all on its own anymore... Space is expensive, and scarce at UT. IT Services is going to be taking some of that on. There were some budgetary reasons for this decision as well as the move to the "information commons."
The fallout of government censorship comes from the government censoring. The increased in public libraries is one of the more positive changes that has occurred with respect to access to information, government or otherwise. While it is true that if the libraries did not receive public money the government would not be in the same position to affect library policy (and censor), there is far less ability for the public to affect private information policy.
You're probably thinking filtering system, not firewall. ^^:
It depends on the library. A library doesn't always need to block adult content from adults. This is partly because a librarian shouldn't be in the position to determine what is or is not adult content for the library's patrons.
The library policy did say that they would monitor access. But constant monitoring is impossible. There are issues with monitoring in general: you don't want to invade patrons' privacy and you don't want to restrict adults' rights. But as everyone here should know, filtering is an ineffective solution. Filtering is also required for federal funding. Rock and hard place.
I acknowledge that- I wasn't clear. I was assuming "commercial use" under trademark law, for-profit or not-for-profit, which is what I think WW is arguing. I agree, though. It's their license. They don't have to charge anything. Holy cow, a free license? Whoever heard of such a thing on Slashdot.;)
Yes... but trademark does not distinguish between for profit and not for profit uses. If they're going to require licensing in some cases, they really need to require licensing in all cases- even when no money changes hands.
If you have a chance, check out the Alamo Drafthouse. My wife and our friends are big movie buffs. It's the only theater I've really gone to in the last few years, and I can't rave about it enough.
The people who work there are great- they love what they do, and it shows. I can't even mention all of the great events they put on. The giant inflatable screen Rolling Roadshows are also a lot of fun. They've done Goonies in a cave, Deliverance on the banks of the Mississippi, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre where it was filmed... My wife and I love those types of events. ^_^ We got to see Buster Keaton's The General out in the country with a live band and train participating in the background, and Mr. Sinus (formerly Mr. Sinus Theatre but ran into Trademark problems) mocking- yes, Xanadu, at a roller skating rink. Just this weekend we saw the Wizard of Oz synced to the Dark Side of the Moon.
The Alamo is an experience. They even have specials with their regular movies- you can order a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster when you see Hitchhiker's Guide, or a That Yellow Bastard hot dog when you watch Sin City.
Re:Was this really illegel?
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You didn't purchase the books. I'm honestly not sure if it's considered theft. But there are certainly laws that refer to legitimately required copies of materials (some parts of copyright law), and I don't think that this would fit the bill (certainly not if this was done intentionally, and I'm not sure about accidentally). Some of it depends on how your library policy reads- do they drop the situation entirely once the fine is paid?
The library police won't be coming after you because both libraries and the police have better things to do with their time (unless this becomes a regular occurence because people think that paying the fine means they bought the book). Libraries have scarce enough resources as it is.
People not returning books sucks for libraries. The reason fines are so high often isn't because they want the fine to act as a detriment- it's to make sure that they can get as close a replacement as possible to the missing item (which is often impossible in out of print books) and to pay for the cost of processing the book. Processing the book is not as easy as slapping on a tag and making the item available for checkout again. There's cataloging and recataloging involved.
At any rate, libraries are a public service. Taking advantage of their services in the way the article describes, whether or not the person falsely checks in the book, is unethical if nothing else.
Tell us what University you're speaking of and what the contact information for the IT group. ^_^ I'm sure there are plenty of University IT people (including me) who would be happy to ask them questions about the incident and their general practices. At the very least, we'll get you traffic on general university security mailing lists (where RIAA subpeonas are currently a hot topic).
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the library, but in general I'd say that most materials in a library are purchased. There are some materials that are gifts, but that doesn't make their inclusion in the library less valid. Thankfully, that's still completely legitimate due to the doctrine of first sale.
I agree with one of your premises- Google is performing this action to benefit Google. They may have more idealistic views in mind, but they couldn't do it unless the company benefits as well.
If Google's use is fair, however, Google does not need to pay the publisher anything. I don't find it particularly evil that they use fair use. It exists for a reason, and it doesn't automatically preclude commercial gain.
Google may have the right to put your likeness up on its web site. Are you a public figure? Are you in a public place? Answering yes to either of those may allow Google to do this.
Now, I don't agree with all of what the University of Michican president said. The confusing issue is that Google is acting as an agent of the University of Michigan library. Google, however, is not a library. If the library was doing itself, it could take advantage of Section 108 provisions of copyright law for the copying. Google can't do that for the copying or for the display of snippets- it must rely on fair use.
It would be nice if the Federal Government would act in that manner, but it won't. Electronic intiatives are not well understood, much less funded, for the Library of Congress and the National Archives, although there have been promising activities in the last few years- but nothing to that scale.
Fair use, in its statutory defintion, is not a right. Nor is it statutorily what it is commonly considered, an affirmative defense- although lawyers and judges usually treat it as such. Fair use is not an infringement copyright. It is not considered a right, unfortunately- if it was, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA would have been much harder to be made into law.
If Google can do this and make a legitimate fair use argument, then persons doing this for a similar reason can also make a fair use argument given similar circumstances. But the determination of fair use is on a case by case basis. Google's may or may not be fair, and that may lend credence to others performing similar activities- but it may not. It depends on the specific situation.
You may have individual, constitutional right to protect your work from unauthorized copying, but the public also has a public constitutional right to use your work whether you like it or not- to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Your copyright is there to ultimately benefit the public.
I got my degree at the University of Texas at Austin. At the time, I received an MLIS from the Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Since then, the name of the degree has changed (Master of Science in Information Studies) and the name of the school has changed (School of Information). The change wasn't intended to be a slight on libraries, but an acknowledgement that graduates of the school were doing many varied things- libraries, archives, conservation, preservation, information architecture, usability, records management, databases, programming, knowledge management, video editing, etc.
Yes, Sony Rootkits did make it into libraries. Yes, most librarians know not to stock such titles. Many are quite technologically proficient and follow sites like Slashdot. :P
Well, no- it isn't.
Copyright is a limited, government created right, created to give the author a financial incentive to continue creating so that ultimately the public can benefit from those creations. The US, in particular, has a strong utilitarian tradition, reflected in its laws. The public has an interest in a creator's work, and has given the creator protection for the eventual good of the public. You're arguing from a strong moral rights stance. Different countries implement moral rights in different ways, but most recognize that moral rights don't last forever.
Sadly, it's not a right. The law only says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright. If it was a right, then the anti-circumvention measures in the DMCA would have been much harder to pass. If a librarian circumvents DRM, even for a use that is determined fair, they are very likely liable for the act.
(Not a librarian, but have an MLIS and have been advised by legal counsel.)
One of the problems with fair use in the United States is that it's generally not considered a "right" per se. Most choose to look at it as an affirmative defense- that is, something brought up when you're accused of copyright infringement. It's all about the framing used to determine who has the burden of proof. If it's a right, then the people who are trying to affect your rights have the burden of proof. If it's a defense, then you have to prove that you weren't infringing copyright. The law itself mentions neither rights nor defenses- it just says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.
Librarians are great allies to intellectual freedom issues, including those involving DRM. Look at the briefs that the American Library Association has filed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Many librarians are also quite knowledgable about technology-related issues, as well as fun subjects like copyright.
Libraries have it rough with the increasing prevalence of electronic journals and DRM technologies. Even with material that is accessed online, there's a good chance that once the library stops paying for access, the patrons lose access to that materials- something that never happened with print journals. DRM and licensing are currently putting libraries between a rock and a hard place.
A clue?
I'm not a librarian, but my mother was, and I have an MLIS myself. The average librarian has likely thought more about information than most people have, and in a more formalized manner. Librarians are concerned with information as a disclipline in and of itself in ways that no other profession is, and longer than any other profession. Most librarians have a Masters degree in which they learn about information- how people use and access information, how information can be organized, presented, and so on. So they certainly know how to evaluate resources and can tell the difference between a Tom Clancy novel and an encyclopedia entry. They're also concerned with issues involving authority, authenticity, integrity, and other information-related problems. Public librarianship, in particular (note that not all librarians are public or academic librarians) have a strong history of protecting intellectual freedom. Don't assume that just because something is entertainment that there are no intellectual freedom issues. If someone is denying access to information, you need to look at why first.
Or, try Uber Goober for an actual documentary about gamers... and if you liked Otaku No Video, the newer TV series Genshiken.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200512070 20812228
From a government records manager and archivist point of view, his stance makes sense. Archives must be accessible in the future. Proprietrary formats are anathemas to government records and archives.
That analogy isn't really relevant. Google isn't posting the entire work online. They also believe that their actions are legal, so they don't characterize what they're doing as blatant infringement. Google is transforming a work by digitizing it. The use may be fair, like Kelly v. Arribasoft's case that determined that the creation and posting of thumbnails is fair.
You also point out one of the disengenuous parts of the original article. If the use is fair as Google contends, Google doesn't need the authors approval or permission to take this action, although receiving their permission would be nice. Giving them an opt out in the manner that Google is may help their fair use argument as well.
While we're at it, let's point out that the authors are not typically the holders of their copyright in the current system. Then let's point out that the historical purpose of copyright law in the United States isn't to protect the authors or copyright holders. The Constitutional basis is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; -U.S. CONST., art. I, 8, cl. 8.
Protecting the authors is the means of encouraging the creation of new works, but it's not the point itself. The point is to ultimately benefit the public. This article relies on an appeal to the moral rights of the authors. The US has limited implementation of moral rights, but so far they've all flown in the face of the traditional rationale for copyright. Copyright law as implemented now appears to be doing more harm then good. Look at many of the DMCA's provisions.
My only problem with Google Print so far is their reported contracts with the libraries, which seem kind of unfair to the libraries.
How is that cancelling out the emissions reductions? Aren't there less CO2 emissions overall because of those reductions? Aren't there fewer man-made emissions?
You used some interesting terminology... "at the expense of printed books." One of the interesting things not totally discussed in the CSM article is that the library isn't going to be paying for the building upkeep and such all on its own anymore... Space is expensive, and scarce at UT. IT Services is going to be taking some of that on. There were some budgetary reasons for this decision as well as the move to the "information commons."
The fallout of government censorship comes from the government censoring. The increased in public libraries is one of the more positive changes that has occurred with respect to access to information, government or otherwise. While it is true that if the libraries did not receive public money the government would not be in the same position to affect library policy (and censor), there is far less ability for the public to affect private information policy.
"what the hell does a suspension of a librarian have to do with my rights or anybody else's?"
An excellent question. Where to begin?
First, the library is one of the traditional places for persons to get information. Things related to your rights that concern librarians:
-Censorship
-Public Access to Information
-Public Access to Government Information
-Intellectual Freedom
-Privacy
-Copyright and Intellectual Property
There's more.
One of these issues is technological barriers to access, such as filtering, and how they impact people (adults and children).
You're probably thinking filtering system, not firewall. ^^:
It depends on the library. A library doesn't always need to block adult content from adults. This is partly because a librarian shouldn't be in the position to determine what is or is not adult content for the library's patrons.
The library policy did say that they would monitor access. But constant monitoring is impossible. There are issues with monitoring in general: you don't want to invade patrons' privacy and you don't want to restrict adults' rights. But as everyone here should know, filtering is an ineffective solution. Filtering is also required for federal funding. Rock and hard place.
I acknowledge that- I wasn't clear. I was assuming "commercial use" under trademark law, for-profit or not-for-profit, which is what I think WW is arguing. I agree, though. It's their license. They don't have to charge anything. Holy cow, a free license? Whoever heard of such a thing on Slashdot. ;)
Yes... but trademark does not distinguish between for profit and not for profit uses. If they're going to require licensing in some cases, they really need to require licensing in all cases- even when no money changes hands.
If you have a chance, check out the Alamo Drafthouse. My wife and our friends are big movie buffs. It's the only theater I've really gone to in the last few years, and I can't rave about it enough.
The people who work there are great- they love what they do, and it shows. I can't even mention all of the great events they put on. The giant inflatable screen Rolling Roadshows are also a lot of fun. They've done Goonies in a cave, Deliverance on the banks of the Mississippi, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre where it was filmed... My wife and I love those types of events. ^_^ We got to see Buster Keaton's The General out in the country with a live band and train participating in the background, and Mr. Sinus (formerly Mr. Sinus Theatre but ran into Trademark problems) mocking- yes, Xanadu, at a roller skating rink. Just this weekend we saw the Wizard of Oz synced to the Dark Side of the Moon.
The Alamo is an experience. They even have specials with their regular movies- you can order a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster when you see Hitchhiker's Guide, or a That Yellow Bastard hot dog when you watch Sin City.
You didn't purchase the books. I'm honestly not sure if it's considered theft. But there are certainly laws that refer to legitimately required copies of materials (some parts of copyright law), and I don't think that this would fit the bill (certainly not if this was done intentionally, and I'm not sure about accidentally). Some of it depends on how your library policy reads- do they drop the situation entirely once the fine is paid?
The library police won't be coming after you because both libraries and the police have better things to do with their time (unless this becomes a regular occurence because people think that paying the fine means they bought the book). Libraries have scarce enough resources as it is.
People not returning books sucks for libraries. The reason fines are so high often isn't because they want the fine to act as a detriment- it's to make sure that they can get as close a replacement as possible to the missing item (which is often impossible in out of print books) and to pay for the cost of processing the book. Processing the book is not as easy as slapping on a tag and making the item available for checkout again. There's cataloging and recataloging involved.
At any rate, libraries are a public service. Taking advantage of their services in the way the article describes, whether or not the person falsely checks in the book, is unethical if nothing else.
Tell us what University you're speaking of and what the contact information for the IT group. ^_^ I'm sure there are plenty of University IT people (including me) who would be happy to ask them questions about the incident and their general practices. At the very least, we'll get you traffic on general university security mailing lists (where RIAA subpeonas are currently a hot topic).