Blogs are starting to change the information and copyright landscapes for future users. I think Web 2.0 will have lasting ramifications on copyright.

[VIA: Library Journal Academic Newswire, February 15, 2007]

The incident may have long lasting ramifications in respect to copyright. The video of the virtual attack has been posted to YouTube and Google video. Snapshots have been published in newspapers. Graef has claimed copyrights violations under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) for those that have used the images of her avatar.

In the Second Life environment, no one argues against the fact that each person owns the copyright on anything they create. The media sources are claiming "fair use" for sharing the video. The CNET News.com article relates it to the same thing as a news cameraman filming an incident and the TV news showing it on the evening news.

I am in agreement with this theory. The virtual world is no different than the physical world. If you hold a press conference, video and/or pictures of the activity will be and should be shared. It appears Graef (Chung) is abusing DMCA in this situation.

[VIA: Library Journal - Academic Newswire, September 28, 2006]

Libraries should be clear and honest about the logic of our advocacy, too, which seems to be: Faculty copyright retention is a necessary precondition for developing new forms of dissemination that (possibly) allow restructuring of some of the economic patterns to be more sustainable. Or, more bluntly, copyright retention and subsequent grants of use (might) reduce/remove (some) economic barriers to acquiring content for research/teaching.

For one thing reader and author visits to IR create a point-of-use opportunity, and usually a specific need, to educate scholars about copyright management, and ensure that they do, in fact, have the right to deposit their work. And while IRs can be promoted as a way to serve the scholar and library interests mentioned above, to be used IRs have to strive for unusually good related services.

Lets look further at the state of scientific publishing...

First, the procedure of traditional publishing is flawed from the eyes of libraries. An author freely gives their article to a publisher, and the publishers sells it at a profit. The author's library than purchases the content that was originally available within the organization. The author may have signed over full rights of the article to the publisher, thus the library has to pay for something that should have been available internally for free.

What advantages are provided by traditional publications? Basically, you are looking at name recognition and a system of distribution. I think it is fairly obvious how the Internet is changing those systems.

Kantor looks at several changes that are developing already. For example, the open access publishing movement, as demonstrated by the Public Library of Science.

Coming across this article was perfect timing. Kenneth Crews, Director of the Copyright Management Center just spoke at the Kelvin Smith Library on Tuesday, April 4th. He expressed how copyright laws are driven by international pressures, money, and many other factors. He pushed hard for authors to manage their copyright rights in order to meet the needs of their organizations and themselves well into the future. It is the one time, during author to publisher negotiations, that publishers can be convinced to change their ways.

(Originally shared on Open Access News, March 23, 2006)

I think this article has long reaching consequences on libraries. First, what role does copyright have in the development of future library resources and services? I believe the intentions of copyright, that "Congress shall have the power 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. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8), is very important. As copyright protection limits are continually increased in length, are will still protecting "progress" or just monetary interests? Someone would argue that economic numbers demonstrate progress, but are we using this measure at the death of future educational, cultural, and scientific discoveries? Just look at the article I shared on the KSL Reference Weblog for an example.

It appears that the "long tail" examples also counteracts the statements by book and journal publishers that open access materials would mean death to their sales. The article showed that increased access, free or very cheap, only boosted sales drastically. As people gained access, they always wanted more and more.

I think in libraries we are seeing a similar fate with Google and other Internet resources. While people are going to Google first for their questions, it results in only more questions and curiosity. The type of questions I see in the library are becoming more complicated in nature and more inquisitive on the user's part.

I think the academic libraries in Ohio have been very lucky with OhioLINK. It has allowed individual libraries more freedom (i.e. money) to maybe focus on what could be considered items that fall into the "long tail." In addition to consortia, libraries need to find the other processes that allow users access to everything and anything. It appears CASE is headed in the right direction with the increasing amount of electronic resources and collections, such as Digital Case.

• Copying word for word materials written by others, which would be a violation of copyright
• Copying all or a portion of a material written by others without citing the original source
• Posting an item, allowing extensive discussion to occur in the comments section, and than changing the original post so the commentators look like idiots
• Allowing commenting to occur, than deleting comments you do not agree with
• Not linking to the source that you are commenting about, so others can form their own opinions
• On and on...

I like the Bloggers' Code of Ethics that was created by CyberJournalist.net. And in a related note, CyberJournalist shared the New York Times view on blogging.

Sponsored by the Center for Intellectual Property at University of Maryland University College

"Copyright at a Crossroads: The Impact of Mass Digitization on Higher Education"

Two full days of seminars and discussions June 15-16.
Pre-symposium seminars the afternoon of June 14.

UMUC Inn and Conference Center
Adelpi, MD

Details forthcoming at http://www.umuc.edu/cip

Some of the interesting points that should make you want to read the full 9 page document:

• "A student working at a minimum wage job would have to put in nearly 170 hours of work each year, just to pay for her textbooks."
  
• "Textbooks are only expensive because they are subject to copyright protection."
  
• "Copyright protection in textbooks leads to enormous inefficiencies, just like any other government intervention in the
  market."

[About the Digital Library Federation]
DLF initiatives change with needs; as some projects come to fruition or find new support, the DLF invests in others, staying flexible as a catalyst for experiment and change. For example, the DLF has promoted work on the following:

• Digital library structures, standards, preservation, and use
  
• Archives for electronic journals
  
• Online collections for use in teaching
  
• Internet services that expand access to resources of use to scholars
  
• Assessments of the future roles of libraries.

ECommerce Times published an article on August 4th, 2005, called Bloggers Cautioned About Being Copy Cats. It provides a summary of some of the concerns about copyright as it relates to blogging.