This blog is now located at http://samurailibrarian.blogspot.com/. You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here. For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to http://samurailibrarian.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
Librarians Sourced for Search
This press release came across my desk today: Researchers and developers from OCLC... today announced their participation in a new international effort to explore the creation of a more credible Web search experience based on input from librarians around the globe. Called the "Reference Extract," the planning phase of this project is funded through a $100,000 grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation...
Reference Extract is envisioned as a Web search experience similar to those provided by the world’s most popular search engines. However, unlike other search engines, Reference Extract will be built for maximum credibility of search results by relying on the expertise of librarians. Users will enter a search term and receive results weighted toward sites most often used by librarians at institutions such as the Library of Congress, the University of Washington, the State Library of Maryland, and over 2,000 other libraries worldwide. I'm really excited about this, and if it comes to fruition I plan on contributing. Still, $100,000 seams like peanuts for startup... The capital invested into Cuil exceeds this small sum by several orders of magnitude, yet it's still flopped dramatically. Still, I think the idea is gold, so long as the web platform can be effectively developed, a decent user base can be established, and links really are quality. The utility of crowd sourcing is perhaps over-rated, but given that contributors are drawn from a clearly defined group, a group that's professionally compelled to take part in this sort of activity, it just could work. There's more on the official ReferenceExtract site. Labels: Search
Information Policy
Yesterday I attended Jumpstarting the Public Sphere: Information Policy Issues for the 21st Century, a conference run by BCLA's Info Policy Committee. Apparently they were going to have blog posts from SLAIS students compelled to attend the conference by their instructors, Devon and Heather, who are members of the committee, on the bcinfopolicy.ca blog, but there's nothing yet. I can only assume that this will be forthcoming, seeing as marks likely hang in the balance. Apparently sessions were recorded and will be available via SFU campus radio online, but I don't think there's anything up yet. The conference was excellent and was kicked off by Canadian copyfight celebrity, Michael Geist. Really, it was par for the course for Michael, and I get the impression this a talk he's given before--a lot. The main new insight I took away from his speech was that the now dead bill C-61 (Canadian DMCA) was engendered not by outright pressure from the music/movie lobby, but from the American government. We've been leaned on, and the Canadian Government is only too happy to comply like a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys. This has been a theme with Harper, that sweater wearing, media avoiding, pudgy, cold eyed Conservative patriarch. I think it's not a stretch to say that this is an issue of sovereignty. Anyway, all the speakers were fantastic. It was nice to see David Loukidelis, the BC Privacy Commissioner, who gave an excellent talk on the regulatory climate in BC as it pertains to privacy and policy. Unfortunately, during the question period I could hear the distinct sound of an axe grinding, but these things happen. It was also interesting (by which I mean freaking scary) to learn about TILMA (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement), which is essentially a local version of NAFTA on steroids and crack. The BC Federation of Labour puts it more politely: "a triumph of ideology over common sense, a dubious 'solution' in search of a problem that most British Columbians never knew existed, probably because it didn't" ( link). Finally, Sam Trosow, who is always an interesting speaker, gave the closing speech on developing a critical approach to information policy. It was chewy, and I'm still digesting it. Labels: Copyfight, Information Policy
Underwhelmed by Overdrive
Today I spent the better part of an hour trying to get OverDrive to work. Here in BC, OverDrive has been branded as an extension of BC Libraries: Libraries without walls, and has been licensed by the consortium for all BC public Libraries by the provincial department responsible for libraries: Public Libraries Services Branch (PLSB). After an hour of playing with the system I was unable to get it working. This is not indicative of my skills, but of a poorly conceived product. My first issue is that client, the OverDrive Console, which I was required to install on my system, delivered error messages instead of content. To be fair, the error was engendered by problems with the Windows Media Player, but the effect was the same: a great big waste of time installing, uninstalling and restarting. Next, the books I wanted were not in. This is ridiculous. The "books" are digital. They are infinately replicable. They are not scarce physical copies on a shelf, and to treat them as such is the imposition of an artificial limitation and an barrier to access. Surely a better contract could have been negotiated. Finally, and this is the real deal-breaker, OverDrive does not work on any of my four MP3 players: My tablet (Nokia N800), my iPod Shuffle, my Palm (Tungston) or my phone (Motorola v3t). They've bought a service, that will not work on most hardware because most platforms cant handle the DRM (Digital Rights Management). DRM is always a barrier to access and essentially breaks our devices, removing otherwise available functionality. For these reasons, as a librarian, I find DRM abhorrent, and I feel that as a profession we say no to DRM. We spend a lot of money on DRM locked products, and if we use our collective economic clout, vendors will listen Labels: DRM, Libraries
Copyright Conversations with Conservatives
Ever since the new copyright legislation dropped, I've been meaning to post. Trouble is, there's so much wrong with C-61, I didn't know where to start. Today, however, I received a reply to an email I sent to my MP, Nina Grewal. Here's that email, followed by my reply: Dear Mr. Vernon:
Thank you very much for your recent correspondence concerning Bill C-61.
Last week our government introduced important amendments to the Copyright Act to bring it up-to-date with advances in technology. Our approach is in line with international standards. It should be clear, however, that it is a Made-in-Canada approach that will benefit all Canadians.
For consumers, it allows the recording of webcasts and television and radio programs to be enjoyed at different times; music to be copied on devices such as MP3 players; and the copying of books, newspapers, videos and photos into different formats. It also sets statutory damages at $500 for individuals if they infringe copyright for private use--provided the material is not protected by a digital lock. (Currently, statutory damages could be as high as $20,000 for a single infringement.)
Canadian educators and students stand to benefit from uniquely Canadian reforms that would allow greater use of material posted on the Internet, the legal delivery of course material through the Internet, and electronic delivery of materials loaned between libraries.
For Canadian Internet Service Providers (ISPs), our bill includes a one-of-a-kind "notice and notice" regime. Compared to the "notice and takedown" approach that is used in other markets, it better addresses peer-to-peer file sharing, and clarifies the responsibilities of ISPs online.
Our Made-in-Canada approach strikes a proper balance between all stakeholders. It promotes the protection of creators' rights, and access by students and researchers. It means consumers can enjoy everyday uses of copyright material. And it provides fairness and clarity for industries that operate in the digital environment. Its uniquely Canadian provisions recognize that we all have a stake in fair copyright laws.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence on to the Minister of Industry, the Hon. Jim Prentice, whose department is responsible for Bill C-61 and who can better address your specific concerns with this proposed legislation.
Thank you again for writing and please rest assured that your concerns have been duly noted.
Sincerely yours,
Nina Grewal
Member of Parliament
Fleetwood-Port Kells
I tried to maintain an even tone in my response, even though my immediate response was to call bullshit on the clearly false assertion that C-61 is a "Made-in-Canada approach strikes a proper balance between all stakeholders." Here's my response: Dear Ms. Grewal, Thank you for responding to my correspondence regarding Bill C-61. I still feel, however, that there are grave deficiencies with this legislation, and I hope you will take the time to personally read and respond to my concerns. Before I continue, I'd like to explain the context for my professional and personal concern with this bill. I'm faculty at a local college, and one of my graduate degrees is a Master of Library and Information Studies from UBC. The majority of my professional work is with post-secondary students with perceptual disabilities. I am also a father. As college faculty, C-61 worries me in that it erodes "fair dealing," the copyright tenet on which research and study depends, by restricting the fair use of copyrighted material. Put another way, quoting a paragraph from a digitally locked research study should not be a crime and is indicative of this bill failing to account for dynamic context in which research and study happens. Students and instructors need the freedom provided by a strong "fair dealing" provision to interact with the world of ideas and produce cutting edge research, ideas and products. C-61 will also turn my colleagues, academic librarians, into copyright police. As the Canadian Library Association states in it’s June 18th press release: Bill C-61 ignores the fact that the 2004 CCH Supreme Court Judgment already allows Canadian libraries to do desktop delivery of interlibrary loan. Bill C-61 requires libraries to lock up interlibrary loans with DRM tools, something that most libraries would not have the resources to accomplish. Bill C-61 alone would force many libraries back to delivering interlibrary loan via paper copies. "On loaning of digital content, C-61 attempts to move Canada back to the 20th Century," says Mr. Roberts. "This is clearly not workable." Here too the proposed legislation ignores the reality of the academic process: the research cycle can take years, and researchers must maintain their research sources for this period. It is unreasonable to expect that they will delete digital copies of journal articles within a week, and maintain only paper files, for to do so would be inefficient, environmentally unsound, and unrealistic in a digital work environment. Additionally, as someone who works with students with perceptual difficulties (individuals who have difficulty navigating the written word because of a visual impairment, learning or cognitive disability, or physical handicap), I am also particularly troubled by the blanket anti-circumvention provisions included in C-61, which undermine the exemption for people with perceptual disabilities in section 32 of the current version of the Canadian Copyright Act, which states that: 32. (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a person, at the request of a person with a perceptual disability, or for a non-profit organization acting for his or her benefit, to
1. make a copy or sound recording of a literary, musical, artistic or dramatic work, other than a cinematographic work, in a format specially designed for persons with a perceptual disability;
2. translate, adapt or reproduce in sign language a literary or dramatic work, other than a cinematographic work, in a format specially designed for persons with a perceptual disability…
The new blanket prohibition on reformatting locked content will criminalize the reformatting of materials legally purchased by disabled students, which they need not only to study, but to function in society and democracy. This bill unfairly targets people who already have a difficult time in life, making life harder for them. For the sake of brevity I will list only one more concern for you: as a father I am gravely worried about fines that will be levied in cases of music downloads. Your colleague, Minister Prentice, has claimed that individuals will be fined a maximum of $500 if they are caught downloading copyrighted files. As such, the family of a child who downloads an album of a dozen songs would liable for $6000. Such a fine far outweighs the crime, and serves only to put money into the accounts of big corporations who are unable to change with the technological realities of the current day. Moreover, the usual method of download for copyrighted files, such as music, is via peer-to-peer technology, a system based on simultaneous upload and download. While the proposed fine for downloading is $500, the fine for uploading is $20,000, and as such the fine for acquiring the same twelve song album via a peer-to-peer network could be $240000, a fine that would destroy most Canadian families. I am very disappointed in this punitive and unfair fine structure, and am dismayed that the Conservative Party has privileged corporate interests over their stated commitment to Canadian families. I hope you agree that the goal of copyright legislation is to facilitate the fair circulation of ideas, to foster the innovation, and therefore develop an educated, aware and engaged citizenry. C-61 will not fulfill these goals, and will instead favor the economic goals of foreign interests over the rights of Canadian citizens. The lack of public consultation on this matter is as deeply troubling to me as the ignoring of the negative example of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) on which--despite misleading claims to the contrary--is a clear analogue to C-61. I implore you to encourage your party to remove this bill from the table, and consult with Canadians, for we are not "consumers," as your colleague Minister Prentice so often refers to us, but we are "users" and "creators," and we have the right to a balanced approach which C-61 does not offer. Sincerely, Ryan Vernon CC: Prime Minister Harper Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry Josee Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage James Rajotte, Chair of the House of Commons Industry Committee I wonder if I'll receive a response... If I do I'll be sure to post it, with commentary. Labels: Copyright
|
|
