Reflections on the semester

I feel that I learned so much this semester. I wish I could look back at the pre-quiz we took on the first day, because I really knew nothing about electronic resources at the beginning of the semester.

It was so interesting and inspiring to learn how much librarians have taken upon themselves in this field. The entire spectrum of skills needed to manage electronic resources includes knowledge about copyrights and licensing, creating ERMS, developing and understanding standards, wrangling the linkage and searching issues, and keeping track of all the various and interrelated players. In addition, librarians not only manage the intricacies of ER, but also remain vigilant in ensuring that commercial publishers and aggregators don't call all the shots. In this age of intellectual property, publishers of digital content do their best to make it easy to follow their ownership model--for example, Apple and iTunes. Nothing is easier than getting all your music within the closed system of the iPod/iTune. Just a little click does it, which leads to consumer complacency. The same concept applies to scholarly information. Giant aggregators and publishing monopolies make it so much easier just to buy everything from them, and have it all fall into place at the click of a button, It is more convenient to purchase documents on a pay-per-view basis instead of negotiating licenses that allow interlibrary loans. It is safer to purchase copyright permission instead of risking infringement suits. It is less time-consuming to purchase all of the libraries information systems from one source than it is to work together to ensure interoperability by standards.

Electronic resources are at the heart of academic librarianship, and I think anyone who works in an academic library or uses an academic library is affected by the issues that surround electronic resources. Rising subscription costs, bundling of journals, technology monopolies, the loss of smaller independent publishers, restrictions on interlibrary loan and fair use, and erosion of the first sale doctrine are threats to academic scholarship and research, and are detrimental to the social good that copyright law was originally meant to protect. Just because it is easier to pay for privileges than it is to stand up for rights, doesn't mean we should give them up. The unique role of facilitating information exchange between commercial digital publishers and the public puts the electronic resource librarian in a key position to affect the future of digital rights.

Unit 14: Perpetual Access

This unit deals with two unfortunate facts using electronic journal subscriptions and digital information to fill library collections. First, the material is not owned by libraries, so libraries may not continue to have access to material they subscribed to in the past. Second, information stored in digital form can be difficult to preserve. Digital archiving is faced with problems of breakdown and obsolescence of storage media. In addition, some forms of digital information can be very difficult to archive. This includes large multi-faceted objects, e.g. databases, and digital communications, such as blogs.

The Watson chapter in this week's readings observed that many libraries do not make selections based on whether perpetual access will be part of the licensed rights to the material, or inclusion of a print counterpart. Patrons are not as interested in problems of preservation as they are in electronic access to current content. Tight budgets may dictate giving up print+electronic resources in favor of electronic-only resources, if that is less expensive. The chapter gave the example of choosing to subscribe from an aggregator for budgetary reasons, even though aggregators often do not offer perpetual access. Because libraries are under pressure from patron needs and budgets that can interfere with their mission of preservation, third parties are stepping in to fill the gap. Here are some of the organizations that are working to preserve digital information and heritage:

• JSTOR: On its website, JSTOR describes itself as a "not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers and students discover use and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive of over one thousand academic journals and other scholarly content." Libraries subscribe to archived collections held in JSTOR.
• LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe): LOCKSS is an open source software that libraries can use to store content from publishers. Permission needs to be written into the license by the publisher before the library can deposit content. The LOCKSS software crawls the publisher site to pull in content. Libraries have perpetual access to content, and the presence of multiple copies helps with preservation.
  
• Portico: A centralized storage service. Participating libraries and publishers pay a fee to deposit content. Access terms are vague. Is better as a preservation model than a perptual access model
  
• Google Book Search: Massive digitization project through Google. Preservation librarians do not necessarily feel that relying on Google Books is good preservation practice, because G-digitized books have been seen to have digitization errors. Also, Google is a for-profit company which may have long-term drawbacks for preservation issues.
• PubMed Central (PMC): From its website, PMC is "The U.S. National Institutes of Health free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature. Archives content from some online journals and provides it free of change
  

The Stemper & Barribeau article talked about the difference between perpetual access rights and archiving rights. Perpetual access means that you can continue to access a copy of the item, but not necessarily make and store your own copy. Archiving rights allow you to make your own copy.
The article spends time talking about the difference between Portico and LOCKSS, which I am still a little unclear on. Both provide the means to archive material, and both are founded by the Mellon Foundation. LOCKSS is a distributed system, while Portico is a centralized system. Libraries can use either. LOCKSS has looser control, and is less expensive. Publishers and libraries must pay annual fee to deposit into Portico. Portico restricts access to material, unless there is a trigger event, such as a natural disaster. I guess I would say that LOCKSS represents perpetual access/archiving, while Portico is archiving/conditional access.
Through surveys, the authors found that the majority of libraries do ask for perpetual access, but are willing to subscribe without it. The goal of the paper was to find out how many licenses included clauses for perpetual access. The UW-Madison and University of Minnesota have a policy of asking for perpetual access if it is not included in the license. (Note--just these two? Why does the study mention UW-Madison, when it used data from U of Minnesota?) The study of licenses signed by University of Minnesota. It found that the majority of publishers will offer perpetual access, and commercial publishers are more likely than scholarly publishers to offer it.


The lessons that I take from the readings are that librarians that work with electronic resources should be aware of access and preservation issues, and what the difference is between access and preservation. Publishers are not naturally interested in either, unless there are dollar signs or useful services attached. It falls to libraries to push for perpetual access to subscribed material, putting pressure on publishers to provide it. Third party programs like LOCKSS are good way to combine issues of preservation and perpetual access, while programs like Portico are a good way to lure publishers into depositing their material for archival, by providing a backup to their material and a secure location to keep it in.


References:
Jennifer Watson (2008) “Preservation Concerns in the E-Resources Environment” in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 45-63.
2. Library of Congress Speaker Series: Eileen Fenton “Portico: An Electronic Archiving Service” 45 minute video http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3863
3. Stemper, J. & Barribeau, S. (2006). “Perpetual Access to Electronic Journals: A Survey of One Academic Research Library‟s Licenses.” Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(2), 91-109.
4. Seadle, Michael1 (2006). “A Social Model for Archiving Digital Serials: LOCKSS.” Serials Review, 32(2), 73-77.

Unit 13: A day in the life of an electronic resources librarian

Curiouser and curiouser...

Managing electronic resources certainly seems like it should be a full-time job onto itself.

If I were to guess, before reading the articles for this week, what a day in the life of an electronic resources librarian would be like, it would go something like this:

8a-9am Staff meeting. (there are always staff meetings).
9am-10am Teach citation management software class
11am-12pm Test links
12pm-1pm Take lunch. Wait, don't take lunch. Figure out why link resolver to database is not working. Call system admin. Find out that problem is with publisher. Stay on hold while it is sorted out.
1pm-2pm. Web conference with vendor to discuss latest additions to their subscription package.
2pm-3pm Go to gym, get a massage. Ha ha, just kidding. Budget meeting
3pm-4pm Start trying to decide which subscriptions to cancel now that budget is even smaller
4pm-4:15pm Lunch at last!
4:15 to 5pm Webinar on latest COUNTER standard
5 pm to 6 pm. Work with usage statistics to create report for meeting next week

According to the Albitz & Shelburne article, the primary responsibilities of an ER librarian as described in 2000/2001 surveys are: ER Coordination, purchase management, acquisition, renewals and cancellations, license and pricing negotiations, and troubleshooting technical problems. Newer responsibilities that ER librarians noted in the 2005 survey include link-resolver maintenance, coordination or trials of projects and usage statistics management.

An interesting point brought up in this article is that non of the ER librarians surveyed reported having a background in ER management. ER management is still a new and developing field. Very likely more and more MLS graduates will have received some training in ER management.

Other main points of the Albitz & Shelburne article are that being an ER librarian is kind of like being through the looking glass, because job duties are so quickly evolving and changing, and ER staff may feel removed the reality of other library staff. In addition, job descriptions for ER librarians are often overambitious and unrealistic, and do not describe what ER librarians actually do.

I found a sample posting for an "Electronic Management Resource Librarian" posted in Against the Grain for a position at Colorado State University. It did indeed contain a very long and intimidating list of job responsibilities. All responsibilities are very much related to the management of electronic resources, suggesting that it has grown into its own as a position since the surveys mentioned. The posting only asked for two years of experience with electronic resource management, which is not all that much. Other qualifications include knowledge of database structure (yay, SLIS751) and computer logic (hmm...need to take some DoIT classes) and electronic document delivery.


Curiously, the next article, "How to Survive as a new Serialist," recommends that new ER librarians carefully peruse their job description for hints of what to actually do. Other useful hints from this article include:

• Learn the ILS
• Don't panic
• Get training
• Learn about associations and go to conferences
• Discover resources on managing serials
• Be part of discussion groups
• Learn from colleagues

Process Mapping for Electronic Resources: A business model
In this chapter, Afifi describes the use of process mapping to document and improve electronic resources acquisition workflow. I took the Health Information Systems class that is cross listed with Industrial Engineering, and we spent a lot of time talking about the use of engineering and business tools to evaluate work processes in information systems. My impression was, and is, that although these tools seem silly and oversimplistic (i.e. documenting a process in little steps, with swim lanes) that actually they provide really valuable feedback on how a workflow functions, and what can be done to improve it. Breaking big, complicated, multi-doer tasks into smaller pieces for analysis by a predetermined model works very well. I think that using process mapping to analyze electronic resource management is a great idea. Also, engineering students are a good resource for a library to utilize. Projects where students apply engineering principles to workflows can be helpful, and don't cost anything.
The chapter contains some nice diagrams on Electronic Resource workflow, worth keeping around. I think that they would fit well into the survival guide for serialists.

References:
1. Rebecca S. Albitz, Wendy Allen Shelbern (2007) “Marian Through the Looking Glass: The Unique Evolution of the Electronic Resources (ER) Librarian Position” in Mark Jacobs (Ed) Electronic Resources Librarianship and Management of Digital Information: Emerging and Professional Roles, Binghamton NY: Hayword, pp 15-30.
2. Glenda Griffin (2009) “How to survive as a new serialist” Chapter in The E-Resources Management Handbook. (2006-present) Editor Graham Stone, Rick Anderson, Jessica Feinstein.
http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.18.1
3. Afifi, M. “Process Mapping for Electronic Resources: A Lesson From Business Models” Chapter 6 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.

Unit 12: E-books:Audio and Text.

I actually have strong feelings on the subject of audio E-books. It makes me crazy that the Madison Public Library has so few audio E-books that are Mac compatible. I have been deploring this situation for a year. Now I finally understand it (at least the logistics, if not the overall business decision).

So, Madison Public Library uses OverDrive. OverDrive audio books come in a WMA format. The WMA format has DRM built in, and is not compatible with Apple. However, iPods have a huge share of market for portable audio file players. Because there is such a demand, Overdrive has started providing MP3 files for some books. Apparently the publishers have to agree to having their books available in this format, because the MP3 files are not DRM protected. So you can keep the MP3 file, burn them to cd, etc. After you have checked out a title for a week, a message starts popping up that looks like this:



It is a *soft restriction*, it discourages saving of the file. However, if you don't click delete, and click cancel instead, the item remains in your library (Note--I just tried this once. The prompt pops up every time, and I hit delete the next time around). Like most people, I am not all that interested in filling my media library up with books I have already listened to. I just want access in the first place.

An additional, interesting note is that Steve Jobs takes an anti-DRM stance, although iTunes/iPod also were using DRM protections, built in to the iTunes software. Jobs said that iTunes had to provide DRM protection, so that major labels would sell on iTunes. Currently iTunes has started selling DRM-free music, although it is still difficult to transfer music from ipod to ipod. Again, soft restrictions still exist.


Some of the readings for this week talked Overdrive and some of the other popular audio book providers that libraries can subscribe to. The articles evaluated the different providers through several different criteria.
The popular providers include:

• Audible http://www.audible.com/Over 85,000 titles available.
• Overdrive http://www.overdrive.com/. Integrates with ILS, MARC records provided. over 300,000 titles (includes ebooks, audio books, music and video). Madison Public Library offers about 5,000 titles of audio books in WMA format, and about 400 audio books in MP3 format.
• NetLibrary http://library.netlibrary.com/Home.aspx. 200,00 eBooks, over 5,000 audio books
• TumbleTalking Books and Read-a-longs. http://www.tumblebooks.com 400 titles. Unlimited use model. Subscribing libraries get a link (but do not own titles), Tumble provides support and maintenance of catalog.
  
• Playaway http://library.playaway.com/. Over 7400 titles available. 2500 titles available from Madison Public Library.

Criteria for provider evalution:
The articles read for this unit provided evaluation for audio and ebook providers under a set of criteria. It seems important to note that things are rapidly changing, so a re-evaluation of all providers should be done. For example, in the 2007 article by Peters, Audible is said to have 14,000 audio books. Currently Audible's website claims 85,000 titles are available. And Peters notes that Overdrive only carries WMA format files, but currently Overdrive also provides some MP3 files.

Here are the criteria listed in the Peters article:

• Number of titles, and rate of growth (or shrinkage)
• Collection strengths and focuses
• Age of content: Public domain titles, recent releases. etc.
• Content characteristics: Narrators, abridged vs. non abridged, sound quality
• Format: MP3, WMA, etc.
• Technical support
• Use model (library owned: one user/title or leased: one user/title or unlimited users)
• Statistics--are they provided?
• Licensing and agreement terms
• Cost components: annual fees, devices, etc.
• Administrative modules
• Integration with library system and collections

It seems wise to decide what would work best for your library before investing in a provider. The Madison Public Library uses both Overdrive and Playaway, which is nice because it provides for the needs of a variety of users.

References:

Bruno, Antony. "Stop Throwing Stones." Billboard 117.17 (2005): 10. Print.

Gideon, Tim. "Apple's DRM-Free Music: 8 Things You should Know." ExtremeTech.com (2009)Print.

Thomas A. Peters “Comparison Points and Decision Points” Chapter 2 in Digital Auidobook Services through Libraries. Library Technology Reports vol 43 no 1. ALA Techsource, 2007.

Peters, T., Bell, L., & Sussman, D. B. (July/August 2005). “An Overview of Digital Audio Books for Libraries.” Computers in Libraries, 25(7), 6-8, 61-64.

Wolverton, Troy. "Jobs Assails Music Labels: APPLE CEO URGES INDUSTRY TO DROP COPY LIMITS." McClatchy - Tribune Business News (2007): 1. Print.

Unit 11: Finding content: Discovery tools

At last, thanks to Anna presentation and the talk from Judith, and in-class demonstrations, I kind of know how FindIt works.

Important concepts:

Knowledgebase
OpenURL
LinkResolver

FindIt is a link resolver for OpenURLs. Its brand name is SFX, from Ex libris. Link resolvers give libraries local control over OpenURLs, by directing user to copy of resource (or target) that is subscribed to (source) by the library. When users click the FindIt button, a query is placed into a knowledgebase. The knowledgebase contains detailed information about electronic resources, and the query finds its target there. The user is directed to the electronic resource that is licensed by the UW-Madison libraries. The link can vary in granularity. Sometimes you go straight to the article, but sometimes you are just taken to the journal and must search for the article. I think if there are multiple copies available, then you are presented with a list of target providers. If no electronic resource exists, the link resolver provides a link to a MadCat query that looks for the item in library holdings.

I also now understand what a DOI (digital object indentifier) is. DOI syntax is a NISO standard, that provides a uniform way for publishers to identify material at the article level. CrossRef is the biggest repository of DOIs. DOI is used extensively in publishing and works well as an identifier in OpenURLs. However, DOI is not used as much in libraries, because it points to THE COPY--the authoritative version from the publisher, whereas libraries want to point to their own copies.

Unit 10: Data Standards and Silos

Name these standards...







The readings this week focused on standards for data related to the management and use of electronic resources. Data standards facilitate cross-system data transfer, and storage of data. This takes us back to last week's unit, and Tim Jewel. Based on research by Tim Jewel indicating that libraries were growing their own ERMS, the DLF started the Electronic Resource Management Initiative. The major goal of the initiative was to develop a standard to keep track of licensing details. The readings this week discuss some of the standards that arose through groups like DLF and NISO, and where they are used in the life-cycle of an electronic resource.

Paushan Yue's article "Standards for the Management of Electronic Resources (ER)" starts with a look at the DLF ERMI. Tim Jewel's research into use of homegrown ERMs, and the Web Hub that he set up with Adam Chandler of Cornell University, prompted some big group meetings that included librarians, publishers, PAMS, vendors, and subscription agents. Everyone agreed that standards were needed in order for ERMS to be effective. DLF ERMI was formed to develop standards and define functional requirements for ERMS

In addition to DLF ERMI, Yeu talked about subsequent standardization initiatives for ERM:

• ONIX (Online Information Exchange)--Commonly used in the publishing trade. Adopted as standard for license information
• XML based Metadata--Identifying objects, making bibilographic MARC data into XML data. Library of Congress standards include MARCXML, MODS, and MADS
• OpenURL--Standard for dynamic linking, getting users to the right copy of content. Has sources, target and link resolver.
• NISO Metasearch Initiative--improving cross database searching.
• International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) Revision--Unique identifiers are needed for electronic resources. The ISSN had flaws: was not being universally used by publishers, and dealing with the issue of format. ISO working group trying to fix those problems.
• COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked ER)--An international effort to track online usage. Vendors who meet COUNTER guidelines can register themselves as COUNTER compliant.

Oliver Pesch, Chief Stratagist at Ebsco Information Services, writes about the "information supply chain," where information about e-resources is transferred across multiple systems. Some of this information includes pricing information, holdings details, bibliographic elements and rights and permissions. In order for this information to be interoperable, it is necessary to avoid proprietary data formats.
Pesch provides detailed figures of the life cycle of an electronic resource, the information detail for each phase in the life cycle, and the standards being used to store and transfer the information. Life cycle phases include:

• Acquire (Title lists, license terms, order information, etc.)
• Provide access (A to Z lists, Proxy, Catalog, Link resolver etc.)
• Administer (Usage rights and restrictions, claims, holdings changes)
• Support (contacts, troubleshooting)
• Evaluate (Usage data, costs data)
• Renew (Title lists, business terms, invoices)

ONIX is big for lots of things--license terms, pricing info, title lists, MARC is used for bibliographic records, SERU for license Terms (SERU! a return visit from Unit 4), OpenURL for linking, ICEDIS for order and invoice information, COUNTER and SUSHI for usage data.

We read an article about COUNTER, which discussed some future directions for COUNTER, such as a JUF (Journal Use Factor) which would take usage measurements and use them to calculate a journals relevance and popularity.

References:

1. Todd Carpenter (2008) Improving Information Distribution Through Standards. Presentation at ER&L 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/20877 2. Oliver Pesch “Library Standards and E-Resource Management: A Survey of Current Initiatives and Standards Efforts.” The Serials Librarian, Vol 55 No 3, 2008, pp 481-486.
3. Paoshan W. Yue “Standards for the Management of Electronic Resources” in Mark Jacobs (Ed) Electronic Resources Librarianship and Management of Digital Information: Emerging and Professional Roles, Binghamton NY: Hayword pp155-171.
4. Peter T. Shepard (2010) “Counter: Current Developments and Future Plans.”Chapter in The E-Resources Management Handbook. (2006-present) Editor Graham Stone, Rick Anderson, Jessica Feinstein. http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.23.1

Images:
ONYX image: By Simon Eugster --Simon 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
COUNTER image: By Biol (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Shirtless Mark Twain: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Twain-Shirtless-ca1883.jpg
SUSHI: By Lionel Allorge (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Applecore: By Philippe Proulx (Own work (Photo personnelle)) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Unit 9: Electronic Resources Managment Systems

Electronic Management Systems (ERMS) are confusing in their scope and variety. But necessary, because managing electronic resources is even more confusing in scope and variety. Managing large volumes of electronic resources is too complicated for spreadsheets and word documents and humans alone-- which poses a problem for librarians. A cohesive system that can manage all the tasks relating to electronic resource management is the ideal solution. Many different systems have evolved that manage these tasks, but none quite live up to the ideal, and almost all are named with an acronym of some sort.

What is an ERMS:
Wikipedia says it is a software system that keeps track of information about electronic resources.

What should an ERMS be able to do:
The Collins Chapter and the Hogarth and Bloom Chapter list some of the processes that can and should be handled with an ERMS:

• Public Display
• License Management
• Collection Evaluation
• Statistical Analysis (usage, etc)
  
• Maintenance of multiple spreadsheets and databases
• Ability to generate A to Z lists
• Financial/purchasing (align publishers, handle renewals)
• Track processes of electronic resources through acquisition, purchasing, and licensing.
• Contact and Support
  

How ERMS evolved:
The H& B chapter discusses of the needs that began to arise in the early 2000's. Libraries needed to create and maintain patron-accessible, searchable lists of their electronic resources, to save and share information about licensing, and track usage.

A variety of systems evolved to fill these needs, but information management needs kept getting bigger and more complex. It was important to not have to enter data in multiple places, and to be able to import it automatically. To do this, one needs standards!

Collins says that in the early 2000's the need for ERMS became pressing, as well as the need to develop standards for such said ERMS. Tim Jewel (University of Washington) did some key research into the issue of ERMS and standards for license information. He noticed that many libraries were cooking up their own ERMS, and that the variety of data forms was going to cause some long-run interoperability problems. Tim Jewel formed Web Hub in 2001 to provide a place for information exchange on ERMS by interested parties. The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative was formed, and has been working on developing data standards for license agreements and administrative details. Some goals of DLF ERMI are to:

• Provide XML Schema
• Create Data Dictionary
• Describe functional requirements of an ERM
• Identify and support data standards (like ONIX for license agreements, from EDItEUR)

What types of ERMs available:
There are a variety of ERMS available for libraries to choose from. Each type has pros and cons associated with it. The Collins chapter lists some of these types and their strengths and weaknesses.

ERMS available from ILS vendors.
Examples: Endeaver's Meridian, Ex Libris' Verde, Innovative's ERM
Pros: Interoperability!
Cons: Overly dependent on a single vendor, and potential lack of a knowledge database

ERMS available from 3rd party vendors
Examples: Carls Gold Rush, Serials Solutions, TDnet TERM
Pros: knowledgebase, A to Z lists, link-resolvers
Cons: Integration with ILS and with tools from other 3rd parties

Homegrown ERMS
Pros: Tailored and customized
Cons: Time and staff intensive to develop and need ongoing tech support

Note- there is a table on page 190 of the Collins reading that lays out information on assorted ERMS, and has a checklist on p. 192 for determining the ERMS needs of a particular library

Implementation of ERMS:

In my Health Information Systems class last semester, we discussed how adoption of an information system is often hard on a workplace, especially if it involves changes in workflow. Unrealistic expectations about how the system will be integrated and how well it will work often get in the way of successful implementation. This seems to be pretty applicable to Collins' discussion of implementation, and how important planning is for the process.

Some implementation complaints that Collins notes are:

• overwhelming amount of manual data needs to be entered
• hard to incorporate tool into workflow
• not having enough staff involved
• poor mapping
• underappreciation of the value of the ERMS

Summary:
In class we discussed ERMs and read an issue from Against the Grain that covered ERMS. A survey from Against the Grain noted that 75% of respondants use ERMS in their library. The top uses are:

• E-journal package management
• Online database management
• Access to license terms and conditions

Many librarians in the survey expressed frustration at the amount of manual data entry required. One librarian referred to it as "care and feeding" of the ERM. But there was a general feeling that ERMS are still a work in progress, and are improving, and are worth the effort.

UW Madison libraries use Ex Libris's VERDE ERM, Voyager ILS and SFX OpenURL link resolver.


References:
1. Maria D.D. Collins “ERM Systems: Background, Selection and Implementation, Chapter 10 in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 181-206.
2. Hogarth, M.; Bloom, V. “Chapter XVII: Panorama of Electronic Resource Management Systems” Chapter 17 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.
3. ERM Special Reports (2010) Against the Grain, Vol 22, No 2

Unit 8: Technological protections measures

This is unit is about:

1. Which kinds of technological barriers stand between prospective users and the information they are seeking
2. Which technological barriers are being used by libraries/museums/archives
3. Which technological barriers are being used by publishers and vendors that provide licensed scholarly resources to librarians
   
4. Why is it important for librarians to be aware of items 1,2 and 3?
   

1) So, what stands between users and information? At the most basic level it is control of access.

The Millman article "Authentication and Authorization" discusses methods of information systems security, privacy and access management by authentication and authorization.

Authentication is defined by Millman as the "Process of validating an assertion of identity" p.229.
Authentication involves "telling" who you are to a computer system, and the way the system decides whether you are telling the truth. This has grown increasingly complex since the early days of authentication ( into the 1980's) when users had a more intimate, physical relationship with their computer system. The emergence of remote resources has promoted the evolution of a variety of authentication methods.

This makes me think about the many ways that I use authentication services during the day: school, banking, email, social networks, etc. I probably go through an authentication process about 10 times per day, at least. As the article points out, methods of authentication are becoming cumbersome--it is very difficult to remember all of one's passwords, usernames, security questions, etc.

The article discusses the various methods of authentication, including:

• Passwords. This is a "what one knows" or "shared secret" type of authentication. Is the most common type of authentication method. Has security risks--passwords can be hacked, or shared. The more frequently passwords change, the more secure they are.
  
• digital signatures
• Network topology: Systems identifying other systems based on where they are in network (i.e. IP addresses)
  
• Biometrics (what one is): comparing physical characteristics with information in a databases. This is the most stringent method of authentication.
  
• Public key cryptography: (what one possesses?) I did not understand the Millman explanation for this. I looked it up on "HowStuffWorks.com" and I still don't really understand. Each user has two keys, public and private. Private is assigned to user's computer. Public is used to transfer information. The keys are inverse of each other. You need both to decrypt information. Extra note 0n public key cryptography--Windows Media Audio uses a form of public key cryptography in its DRM. User gets an encrypted key and an unencrypted key to decrypt WMA files. A program called FairUse4WM was created in 2006, by an entity named "Viodentia," to strip DRM from WMA's. Windows tried to sue, but could not find the identity of Viodentia.
• Smart Card (What one possesses) tiny low-power computer that can store authentication information (for example, a private key)
• Digital Signatures: A small bit of data associated with a larger bit of data that "fingerprints" or identifies data. For example, a private key can leave a fingerprint when a user encrypts with it.
  

The article also discusses authorization, or the "process of determining which operations are permitted between a given subject and object" p.233.
Authorization methods can be:

• mandatory access control (MAC): An administrator assigns classifications to subjects and objects, representing levels of security.
  
• discretionary access control (DAC): Owner determines access permissions
  
• role-based access control (RBAC): Permissions change based on a subject's role

2) What technological barriers to access and use are commonly used by libraries, museums and archives?

The article "Technologies Employed to Control Access to or use of Digital Cultural Collections: Controlled Online Collections," contained surveys that were used to evaluate what the most popular types of Technology Protection Measures (TPM). The article defines TPM as "computer hardware and software based systems or tools that seek to limit access to a work or use of a work" where systems are "branded (often commercial) software packages involving numerous interrelated functionalities" and tools can be seen in many different systems.

Access control was most commonly accomplished by use of authentication methods (usually networkID authentication), authorization systems, and IP ranges. Some use of terminal-restricted access was also reported.

Use control was most commonly accomplished by resolution limits, clips and thumbnails. Visible watermarking and click-through agreements were also used by a significant number of institutions.

No one reported using Biometric controls... :)

3) How are vendors and publishers restricting use?

For material to be valuable to users, they often need to be able to print it, save it, and cut and paste from it. The article "Every Library's Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions and Licensed Scholarly Resources" discusses some of the ways that vendors restrict use to licensed scholarly resources.

First type of restriction discussed by the article is "soft restriction." Soft restrictions do not strictly prevent use, but deter certain uses by making it difficult to perform the needed operations. 6 kinds of soft restrictions were discu-ssed:

• Extent of use: Vendors warn against excessive use of material, or give print/save batch limits
  
• Restriction by frustration:Breaking contents into chunks that must be saved/printed as a chunk rather than as needed. Common in ebooks.
• Obfustication: Interfaces that make finding print/save functions difficult
  
• Interface omission: Interfaces that do not have certain functions like print/email/cop/save/paste.
  
• Restriction by decomposition: When material breaks down into files when it is saved
  
• Restriction by warning: Using warnings against certain uses, like saving, but not preventing them with technology.

The other kind of restrictions are referred to as "hard" restrictions in the article, and are restrictions that strictly prevent use.
There are two types described in the article

• Type 1: No copy/pasting/printing possible
• Type 2: Secure container TPM in place

These were rarer than the soft restrictions. No examples of Type 2 were found in the article's surveys.

4. Why is it important for librarians to be aware of methods for preventing user access/use and employment of these methods in libraries and by vendors?

First of all, many librarians work with communities of users who must be authenticated before they can access the library's licensed resources. Levels of authorization are also common in these libraries, where different staff are giving different permissions to access the library's network. In class we discussed the Shibboleth system, which is an open source authentication system that can identify which 'group' a user is in. This can affect libraries, because it offers a way to restrict information to departments.

Secondly, librarians should be informed about what types of TPM are being used in libraries/archives/museums. They may be in a position to select TPM themselves, and even if not, should be aware of how TPM affect users (i.e. visible watermarking is detrimental to use).

Third, it is important for librarians to be aware that vendors may use soft restrictions that do not reflect their terms of use or signed licenses (for example, making saving difficult, when it is allowable under the terms of use).

As a user, I find it difficult to separate TPM in place by the library from TPM used by vendors. Clearly NetID and password authentication process is through the UW system. Generally the TPM that I come across most often, aside from login, are TPM that prevent copy and pasting from articles that are accessed through licensed resources, which I presume is a vendor/publisher thing. Another example I can think of ( and we discussed in class) that represents soft restriction--by the library itself--is the use of the goprint system, which uses ID cards as print cards. This makes it much more difficult for the public to print.

References:

1. Eschenfelder, K. R. (2008). “Every Library‟s Nightmare? Digital Rights Management and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources.” College and Research Libraries, 69(3), 205-225.
2. Eschenfelder & Agnew (2010) Technologies Employed to Control Access to or Use of Digital Cultural Collections: Controlled Online Collections. D-Lib Magazine. Vol 16, No 1. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january10/eschenfelder/01eschenfelder.html
3. David Millman (2003) “Authentication and Authorization” Encyclopedia of Library and Information Studies, 2nd Edition.
4. Zhu, A.; Eschenfelder, K.R. L(2010) Social Construction of Authorized Users in the Digital Age. College and Research Libraries. Anticipated Publication Date: November 2010 http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2010/04/29/crl-62r1.full.pdf+html

Unit 7: Distance Education and TEACH Act

Prior to this unit I had not even realized that distance teaching would be subject to more rigorous copyright restrictions than classroom teaching. I suppose broadcast or digital material is treated as more sensitive than hard copy material.

An article by Tomas Lipinksi was assigned for this unit. The TEACH Act is difficult to understand, and the article seemed...vague, so I had to refer to some more basic sources to get a grip on what we were talking about.

I referred to the Copyright Clearance Center Guide to the TEACH Act to get an overview of the TEACH Act.

TEACH is an acronym for "Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization. Harmonization? The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not even consider "Harmonization" to be a word. I looked in BusinessDictionary.com, which defined Harmonization like this:

Adjustment of differences and inconsistencies among different measurements, methods, procedures, schedules, specifications, or systems to make them uniform or mutually compatible.

Which makes more sense to me...the TEACH Act is intended to make technology, education and copyright mutually compatible. OK.

Other facts about TEACH:

• Modifies previous Copyright Law regulations (pre-digital) about distance teaching.
• Applies to accredited, non-profit educational institutions (and some Government institutions).
• Materials displayed most be for educational purposes directly related to class, limited to students in class, technologically protected, and be only a "reasonable and limited portion" of the total work.
• Does not apply to electronic course reserves, digital textbooks, document delivery
  

Dr. Lipinski's article discusses the TEACH Act in some legal detail.
The TEACH Act, according to Lipinski, is a very complex law legislated to update the pre-TEACH law 17 U.S.C. 110 (2), which was restrictive. It allowed unlimited performance of non-dramatic works, and unlimited display of any other category of work. It was written in the era of the mid-1970's, and the legislative language was meant to apply to analog transmissions (like television) to a physical classroom. A goal of the TEACH Act was to remove the concept of broadcasting to a physical classroom, and provide for use of digital materials distance education beyond the classroom. While TEACH Act expanded the rights to use digital materials, it also limited amount. Pre-TEACH law allowed for unlimited display, but TEACH Act limited to display to what would normally be shown in a live classroom session.
Lipinski specifically address streaming films, saying:

It can further be argued that use of the entire video can never be used under TEACH. If Congress had desired educators to be able under section 11o(2) to be able to use the entire video no such conditional language would have been included...

The second reading for the unit, the ARL/ALA Issue Brief, "Streaming of Films for Educational Purposes," argues in the other direction. The authors suggest that Fair Use is a better guideline to follow than the TEACH Act when it comes to deciding how much of a film to stream. However, it seemed to me that the overall tone of the brief was hopeful rather than decisive. Like...you will PROBABLY be ok if you decide to stream a full film. It is LIKELY that the courts would decide in your favor if it came down to it. There is a definite risk implied in streaming a full film. It is interesting that Fair Use is a separate guideline from the TEACH Act, and that authors prefer using the Fair Use guidelines over the TEACH Act.

Mr. Lipinski came and gave a (well-attended) lecture to our class. He addressed the full-length streaming issue further, saying that it is very unclear how much a video you can show--there is no set limit. You could, for example, show everything but the credits, and say you didn't show the whole film.

He spent some time discussing "ephemeral recordings" which has a lovely sound to me, like tapes of ghosts talking--which is not what it is. The U.S. Copyright office defines ephemeral records as

Ephemeral Recording is a phonorecord created solely for the purpose of facilitating a transmission of a public performance of a sound recording under the limitations on exclusive rights specified by 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(1)(C)(iv) or under a statutory license in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 114(f), and subject to the limitations specified in 17 U.S.C. 112(e).

So, that is kind of old school. Now ephemeral recordings seem to be more defined as a copy made for purposes of electronic distribution. The TEACH Act updated ephemeral recordings guidelines so that instructors could make digital copies of teaching materials, if they were following TEACH guidelines (limited portion, time-limited, etc).
Lipinski emphasized that intention is very important in copyright law. Being able to use the Good Faith argument prevents you from having to pay damages. On the other extreme, willful copyright infringement brings the highest penalties. Conduct limits does not limit liability, but does limit damages.

My take home message is that the TEACH Act is classic copyright law...confusing, hard to understand, open to interpretation.

Additional TEACH Resources:

Penn State
North Carolina State (Tool kit--Checklist!)

References:

Tomas A. Lipinski (2003) “The Climate Of Distance Education In The 21st Century: Understanding And Surviving The Changes Brought By The TEACH (Technology, Education, And Copyright Harmonization) Act Of 2002” Journal of Academic Librarianship 362, (362-374).

ARL Issue Brief: Streaming of Films For Educational Purposes
(http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ibstreamingfilms_021810pdf.pdf)

Unit 6: Pricing models and consortial agreements

I think this was my favorite unit so far....out of many good ones.

Last week I was talking to a reference Librarian at Steenbock, and she explained to me that the different campus libraries all have their own budget and use their individual budgets to purchase resources that are then used by the whole campus. I am curious to know how this fits in with bundling though...it seems like there would be a lot of overlap between departments and database needs, and the big bundles include such a variety. Maybe there is a umbrella budget that covers the big ticket items that contain a variety of journal types.

I took a few main messages from the readings this week.
The articles that we read about the Big Deal were really interesting because it touched on the concept of how bundles both help and hurt libraries. In particular, I liked Ken Frazier's 2001 piece "The Librarian's Dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the Big Deal" about the psychology of how individual parties lose sight of the big picture when it comes to short-term gain.
In psychology 101, years ago, I read about a similar experiment to the one Ken Frazier describes, where participants could play a game. In the game they could co-operate with each other, and be gauranteed small success, or work against each other with the possibility of bigger success, at the cost of the greater good. And, just as in Frazier's article, the kicker is that they don't know what choices the other participants are making. It always stuck with me as a truism about the way people operate. Its not that we are not willing to work together, but no one wants to be the shmuck who gives up things when no one else is giving them up.
Frazier's point (that I took) is that libraries need to be willing to develop a trust relationship with each other that will permit them to take united stands against publishers when the time calls for it, and support alternative publishing.

The article about journal pricing in the 1930s and 1980s (Astle & Hamaker, 1988) was also very interesting, and seemed to mirror some of the ideas in Frazier's piece (even though it was not written with electronic resources in mind). It echoed the message that libraries hurt themselves when they become complacent about pricing. A quote within the article kind of previewed what Frazier discussed happening in later times: "American libraries, by their ability and willingness to pay, have enabled publishers to persist in charging exorbitant prices" (p.12).
A longer quote from the Astle & Hamaker article tied into Frazier's concept of "disintermediation"--where libraries are become passive vessels for publishers:

The academic and research library community must become actively involved in the development and implementation of alternative technologies for information distribution as an adjunct to print sources if they are to maintain their central place in the information chain (p.31).

The other readings were also very good, and talked in more detail about pricing considerations, consortia, and publisher-library conflict.

In addition, there were two speakers from WILS (Wisconsin Library Services) who came to discuss how WILS negotiates with vendors on behalf of libraries and how ILL works.


References:

• Journal publishing: Pricing and structural issues in the 1930s and the 1980s, Astle, D. & Hamaker, C. (1988). Advances in Serials Management 2, 1-36.
• The librarian's dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal". Frazier, K. (2001).. D-Lib Magazine 7 (3).

Week 5: E reserves, Fair Use and GSU

The readings this week were about the fair use guidelines, how they applied to E-Reserves, and a real life case featuring Georgia State University.

In class we discussed three sets of fair use guidelines discussed in the readings:

1. Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copyright (Approved by Congress 1976)

1. Brevity--Article of 2,500 words or less or excerpt of 1000 words or 10%
2. Spontaneity--Use must be from individual teacher and a directive from the Institution. Use should be for late-breaking, current information
3. Cumulative effects--Work can be used for only one course; not used from term to term; only one article/work per author and no more than three from a periodical volume

2. ALA Recommendations (1982)

I. Presents the four fair use factors of Title 17, 107.
II. Unrestricted photocopying:
a.)Writing published before Jan 1, 1978 that has not been copyrighted
b.) Published works with expired copyright.
c.) Unpublished works. (pre Jan1, 1978)
d.) U.S. Gov Publications
III.Permissible photocopying of copyrighted works.
a.) Research and preparing for teaching--chapter, article, story, essay, poem, chart.
b.) Classroom uses--One semester, only one copy/student, copyright notice, no profit.
c.) Library Reserve Uses

3. CONFU (1991)

Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia is the only one of these three fair use guidelines to actually be formulated with digital works in mind. It is a long set, so better to follow the link.

We specifically discussed the case of Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications vs. individuals at Georgia State University for "systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works." I thought perhaps the library could be protected by claiming the "good faith" defense. However, it seems that their original policy had been out of the mainstream enough to make it a target.
Because there is no clear set of guidelines, libraries devise their own policies regarding fair use and distribution. The trick seems to be to maintain the push/pull balance between academic users (who need to take stands on fair use, because they are the major stakeholders in the survival of fair use practices)and academic publishers (who rightly want to not give away all of their products for free). Giving in too much to publishers could mean erosion of fair use practice, but there are limits that will need to be followed.

Unit 4, Part 2: Licensing

After reading Lesley Ellen Harris' s book Licensing Digital Content, I learned lots of practical new things about licensing. She writes in a lovely, easy-to-read style, and I will make sure to keep this book around in case need should arise.

In order to further simplify the book in my mind, I have little set of bullet points...

If I had to negotiate a license/contract/licensing contract (all the same thing) tomorrow I would remember to:

• get a piece of paper and write down what my library needs
• look up my libraries licensing policy, if one exists
• make sure that I am authorized to sign the license
  
• make sure the person who I am licensing from warranties that he/she is authorized to license the content (shocking! I would never think there were rogue licensors running around)
• know who my Authorized Users (sublicensors) will be, and make sure they are clearly included in the contract.
• remember UCITA and make sure my library can't end up in court in Maryland or Virginia (but what if my library is IN Maryland or Virginia?)
  
• know what I am getting-- what the content will be, what form it will take, how long I will get it for, whether it can be archived, and what rights will be granted to that content--view/print/save/share via ILL etc...
• what my library's obligations will be, and not to promise to prevent unauthorized use, because that is really hard
  
• payment, including currency
• what territory will be covered
• renewal vs. termination
• remember to be nice and ask open-ended questions

I do realize, after looking at examples of licenses in class that my list is sadly oversimplified compared to real life, but I need a basic model that fits the big picture into my mind. A diagram would be nice too, but that is a future project.

One more note--this book was written pre-SERU. I wonder if Harris would have mentioned SERU as a license alternative if it had existed when she was writing this book?

*I wanted to use the image of the book cover of Licensing Digital Content. I want to say this falls under fair use, because this blog is a kind of a review of the book. However, after reading some online material about this, I think it is possible that it would be copyright infringement. The Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives suggests that "fair use statutes may not apply to use of digital images in online publications open to the public."

Reference:
Harris, L. E. (2002). Licensing digital content: A practical guide for librarians. Chicago: American Library Association.

Unit 4, Part 1: Licensing vs. Understanding

House of UCITA vs. House of SERU:
Two opposing philosophies of publisher-library relations.

UCITA: Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act of 1999. Similar to Uniform Commercial code, but intended for software instead of goods. Proposed state contract law that attempts to standardize the way that licensing is done. Libraries and others criticize UCITA as being skewed towards the interests of copyright holders

SERU:Shared Electronic Resource Understanding is a project hosted by NISO that attempts to articulate a set of understandings that libraries and publishers can agree on. The idea is that the costly, time-consuming process of license negotiation can be forgone, if participating libraries and publishers instead choose to operate on a level of trust based on common understandings.

Difference one:
Length and understandability:

UCITA is very long (200 pages) and very complicated. So much so that the American Bar Association said that they needed to set up tutorial groups to help each other understand what exactly UCITA was saying.

SERU is short and sweet (less than 10 pages) and written to be understandable.

Difference two.
Underlying principle/tone:

UCITA assumes that publishers are vulnerable and need to protect themselves from their users via ironclad licensing. The obsession with detail in UCITA sets a tone of combativeness:

UCITA effectively encourages publishers to maximize their short-term profits at the cost of longer term socially beneficial goals such as innovation, research and free speech( Franklin, 2003, p.1)

SERU assumes that publishers and libraries need each other, and want to work together as smoothly as possible. SERU sets a tone of shared understanding between publishers and libraries, where socially beneficial goals get a place at the table.

Difference three:
To license or not to license:

UCITA stands for uniformed standardized licensing, licensing and more licensing.

SERU stands for license-free baby (although license-free is not the same as contract-free).


Difference four.
Popularity...?

After over a decade since its 1999 proposal date, only two states have adopted UCITA. Other states have adopted "bombshelter" legislation to protect consumers from UCITA.

SERU was developed in 2007. In 2008 it was released as as NISO recommended practice RP-7-2008. There are over twenty publishers, forty academic libraries, and four consortia that have signed up to participate (Lamoureux & Bernhardt, 2008, p. 152).

References:

Franklin, J. (2003). The perils of clicking I agree: UCITA and intellectual freedom. Alki, 19(1), 10-12.

Lamoureux, S., & Bernhardt, B. (2009). Innovations: Where are they now? The Serials Librarian, 56(1-4), 146-154.

*image taken from Wikimedia Commons. Drawing of "Romeo and Juliet Act 1, Scene 1" by Sir John Gilbert. In the public domain because it has been more than 70 years since death of creator.

Unit 3: Green Paper, White Paper, Go.

The readings of this week noted the erosion of the first sale doctrine and the doctrine of fair use by the introduction of 'copyright licensing' and its accompanying technological protection. The Green/White Paper Reports put out by the Lehman group to protect the rights of digital content owners circumvented issues of fair use by employing licensing strategies. Licensing combined with technology allows copyright holders to retain control of what is done with their product after it is in the possession of the user. Licensing can even restrict use that would normally be protected by fair use guidelines and/or the first sale doctrine. Sometimes the user owns the product--like buying software; and sometimes the license is similar to a rental agreement--like a license contract between a library and an electronic journal publisher.

One of the fun things about investigating the Lehman Group Papers are the 1990's html-ish blogs that Internet users were using at the time to communicate with the Internet community (I mean, the "National Information Infrastructure") about the Lehman Group findings. One blog, Teleread--still a functioning blog with lots of interesting copyright finds--had an entry from 1995 called Lehman Panel's Report on Net Commerce in Final Phases of Tugs, Pulls and Faxes, which discussed some of the criticisms of the Green and White Papers. A particular quote from this blog illustrates Litman's point that a common strategy to create copyright law was to claim it already was law (Litman, p.95):

Discussion of court cases in the draft also seems filtered through the lenses of a copyright owner rather than users. There was one phrase, in particular, that irked many: "It has long been clear under U.S. law that the placement of a work into a computer's memory amounts to a reproduction of that work." In fact, that is a recent and controversial aspect of U.S. law.

The author of the blog noted that the Green Paper had been drafted with a pro-copyright holder bias, and noted that "One lawyer who knows Lehman says the patent commissioner has an unduly harsh fear of the dangers of technology, such as rampant infringement, without a corresponding appreciation for its upside."

The rational that brought about the Lehman group's embrace of licensing was the old tried-and-true strategy of claiming industry death would result without copyright protection from the voracious industry-consuming public. Another excellent Teleread find was a link to a current paper: Lemley, Mark A., Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries? (August 10, 2010). The author makes some very entertaining points about how industry stakeholders were always sure that the next invention would destroy their product, whether the product was books, radio, television, movies, etc. Lemley makes a great reference (p.7)to a music industry campaign to block audio cassettes, on the ground that recording music at home would destroy radio audience-ship. He also suggests that monks probably objected to the printing press, on the grounds that it would destroy print culture (p. 1). Both Lemley's paper and Litman's book agree on the point that creators keep creating regardless of changes in media. Infringement on the public's usage rights is possibly not as necessary as Lehman and worried industry stakeholders would have Congress, and the public, believe.

One last particular reading of the week, the pro-CD vs Zeidenberg case, is a real-life example of the setting and enforcement of copyright law by litigation. This case provided a precedent for shrink-wrap licensing enforcement. The take-home message of the case seemed to be that companies could use contracts to push past the limits of copyright law. Companies can create contracts whereby users agree to relinquish rights in order to use the product--contracts and licenses can be used to secure restrictions above and beyond copyright law.
A few questions that I had after reading the case were:

1. If a book came in a wrapper with fine print that said if you removed the wrapper you were agreeing to give up your right to use the book within the guidelines of the first sale doctrine, would that be legal?
2. How can a consumer browse products at a store when there are hidden guidelines inside the packaging? What if there had been an equivalent product that did not have the same restrictions that Pro-CD had?

Note: The "Home Taping is Killing Music" image was taken from a Wikipedia reference. It was also used in the Lemley paper (with permission, one would assume). I am using it under the guidance of the four fair use factors:

1. This is a blog for educational purposes, not for profit or of any commercial value, nor likely to be read by more than a very few unlucky people.
2. The copyrighted work is an imaginative work--counts against fair use...
3. But, it is only one small image used once.
4. And, as it is now a defunct campaign of long ago, should have no effect on value of copyrighted work.

References:
Lemley, Mark A., Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries? (August 10, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1656485

Litman, J. (2001). Digital copyright: Protecting intellectual property on the Internet. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.

ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir.1996)

Unit 2: Copyright Basics and History

The Sleeping Beauty Model of Copyright Law History:
or "Invite all the Fairies."
(Based on readings by Jessica Litman)
Litman, J. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst (N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

According to Litman, early American copyright law was formed on the principle of idea sharing--striking a balance between author and audience in terms of who will benefit from a new work. Congress set the law based on this principle. However, as 19th and 20th century American copyright concerns moved beyond the simplicity of print media, a tradition of heavy stakeholder influence on copyright law has emerged. Inventions that provided new ways to create and present works, such as the piano roll, photography, movies, broadcast radio, television, cable and the Internet, among others, created vacuums of copyright ambiguity. Prospective copyright holders hurried to ensure all vacuums would be filled with laws that would best protect their individual interests. Stakeholders gathered and agreed amongst themselves how to divide up copyrights to the mutual benefit of all attendees, and of no benefit at all to missing parties. One of the many drawbacks that can be found in this tradition is the damage that exclusion of interested stakeholders does to the cohesive formation of the law.

I like to think of this as the Sleeping Beauty Model. This is because I find Sleeping Beauty bright and colorful and familiar, as opposed to the confusing murkiness of copyright law history. Not because the model fits perfectly. But, let's try.

So, if all the industry faeries are not invited to give gifts to the copyright law baby before proceeding to congress, excluded faeries will be vengeful, angry, and combative, and will try to alter or block the agreed-upon set of conditions. Fairies include: Broadcasters, radio and phonograph manufacturers and motion picture theater owners, map publishers, writers, composers, sheet music publishers, print publishers, organized labor, photographers, movie studios, software companies, and many many more varieties. (Note -the public is not a fairy, and will not be invited. Actually, the public just falls asleep). Congress is the little ineffective fairy who might try to moderate end products before they become law. And the copyright law baby continues to get gift after gift from an endless sequence of fairies, until she turns into a 200 page Frankenstein--which is a whole different metaphor.

On p.46 Litman notes that "The battles that preceded the enactment of the 1909 act should have demonstrated to the participants that interests excluded from negotiations could effectively block legislation." However, despite past examples its flaws, the Sleeping Beauty Model of getting things done has extended throughout the 20th century, and into the 21st century. Litman discusses how this has caused the Balance principle envisioned by Congress to be co-opted by the Bargain metaphor, and then by the Incentive metaphor, and now moving into an Property Ownership metaphor (Litman, p.81) as corporate interests guide copyright law.

Note: I was able to use the 1899 drawing Sleeping Beauty by Henry Maynell Rheam because it is in the public domain, due to Mr. Reams's death over 70 years ago. Accessed from Wikimedia Commons

Some additional notes:
1717: U.S. Passes first copyright law(p.15)
1790: U.S. Passes first copyright statue (p.15)
Original principle: neither creator nor general public should get all the benefits coming from a new work. U.S. Copyright law based on model devised for print media
1909 Copyright Act (p.36) Exclusive performance rights for copyright holders of performance art works, like lectures, plays, music. Performance rights do not apply to books.
1912 Townsend Amendment (p. 41) to protect motion picture industry from the 1909 copyright act.
1910's Motion picture industry
1920's commercial radio broadcasting
1976 Copyright Act (p.36) Initiated in 1956. p.51
1992 Audio Home Recording Act (p.36)
1998: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (p.27). Shift towards paying on a per consumption basis

Copyright law vs. Information Policy. Copyright law attempts to restrict access to information, which is detrimental to information policies issues such as expanding affordable access.

Present: copyright protection is automatic and kicks in as soon as work is fixed in permanent tangible object. Can reproduce work in fixed copies, create adaptations, perform.

Quiz:
Which doctrine says that owner has no right to control distribution of a copy of a work after it is sold? Why are copyright owners of electronic material trying to find loopholes in this doctrine?
What loophole do the Lehman group green and white papers find to work around this doctrine?

Unit 1: The Beginning.

The Electronic Publishing Industry
We started class with a discussion of the history of electronic publishing and a look at the current landscape.

Current facts:
An large, and increasing, amount of a library's budget is spent on electronic resources (including eJournals, citation/abstract databases, eBooks, collections of data, visual and music resources, and software collections). In academic libraries, a large percentage of budget goes to electronic serial subscriptions. The prices for serials subscriptions is going up, while library budgets are not keeping pace. Paid access to electronic resources has a variety of business models--for example paying an annual fee, a per-use charge, or paying for connection time (old model). Some resources are "free" but ask for donations. Some resources are supported by author pay, where contributing authors support the publication.

History:
Databases were the first electronic resource. Dialog was an early database that users could submit queries to (through a trained human intermediary). According the timeline published on Dialog's website, Dialog was created in 1967 and became available as the first commerical online service in 1972. Intermediary users of Dialog were trained in query formulation, because there was a charge for queries/time used. Queries returned citations, not full-text.
In the 1970's and 1980's more databases came online, including business and legal databases. Magnetic tape became a popular, searchable, storage format. Connect time billing was a common business model. End users continued to go through libraries or businesses to get access to commercial online services, which searched databases.
1980's to 1990's Personal computers changed the way users interacted with computers. Emergence of Internet led to wider access to electronic resources. CD roms introduce the era of end-user searching, as opposed to intermediary searching. The 'serials crisis' evolved, as prices for serials went up, and library budgets could not keep up. The cyclical relationship between libraries, users and publishers is threatened by the serials crisis. Publishers have very high profit margins, and have a sort of monopoly on information.
2000's: Steady rise in use of electronic resources. Libraries start licensing electronic resources. Serials crisis continues.

Landscape;
In this first unit we discussed various players in the electronic publishing industry and what their historical and current roles were.

• Library (example: UW)
• Library Consortia (example: WiLS, OhioLink). Groups of libraries that get together to leverage buying power.
  
• Scholarly Publisher (example: ACS, Nature)
• Commercial Publisher (example: Elsevier, Emerald, Wiley/Blackwell, Wilson, Springer). Large companies that publish academic journals in a for-profit model.
  
• Intermediary/Aggregator (example: Ebscohost, Gale, Proquest, Ovid, Ingenta, Highwire, InfoTrac, Engineering Village) Brings together collections of databases, hosts content, allows cross-database searching, assists with intermediary tasks.
  
• Intermediary (example: SWETS). Services: help with resource acquisition and maintenance, including licensing, statistics, link-resolve access, etc. Directory of intermediaries.
  
• Online Provider (example: JSTOR, Ebsco, Dialog, Project Muse, WestLaw, Proquest)
• Software Vendor (example: CrossRef)
• Information Vendor (example: LexisNexis, Dialog)
  

All of these companies have just been a blur of background scenery and logos in all my database searching. It is nice to start to separate them out into distinct entities, with (sort of) distinct roles. There seems to be overlap in the companies and their roles. Ebsco, for example is an online provider, an intermediary, and an aggregator.
The general idea that I take away is that there are several providers. Some provide just one service, some provide a "buffet" of services that libraries can choose from. Each provider has its own business model, and often interacts with other providers in an information supply chain.

References:
In addition to the class reading, I also read this article in an open access journal about the serials crisis, and found it useful and interesting:

McGuigan, Glenn S., and Robert D. Russell. "The
Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic
Journal Publishing Industry and its Impact on the Future of Scholarly
Publishing." E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special
Librarianship (2008)Print.

Class readings:

1. Miller, Ruth H. (2000). "Electronic Resources and Academic Libraries, 1980-2000: A Historical Perspective." Library Trends, 48(4), 645-670.
2. Tenopir, C. and D.W. King (2000) Toward Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians and Publishers. Special Libraries Association: Washington DC. Chapter 2 and 15 "History of Traditional and Electronic Scientific Journal Publishing" and "Transformation to Electronic Publishing" .
3. Roger C. Schonfeld, (2005) "JSTOR: a case study in the recent history of scholarly communications", Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 39 Iss: 4, pp.337 - 344
4. Armstrong, Chris & Lonsdale, Ray. (2006). “A general overview of the e-resource industry.” The E-Resources Management Handbook. UKSG Publishing. http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.1.1
5. Turner, Rollo. (2006). “The vital link: the role of the intermediary in e-resources.” The E-Resources Management Handbook. UKSG Publishing http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.3.1
6. Chambers, M. B. & So, S. Y. (2004). "Full-text Aggregator Database Vendors and Journal Publishers: A Study of a Complex Relationship." Serials Review, 30 (3), 183-193.
7. Mabe, Michael. (2006). “(Electronic) Journal Publishing” The E-Resources Management Handbook. UKSG Publishing. http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.6.1
8. Pentz (2001) “CrossRef : a collaborative linking network” Issues in science and technology librarianship iss:29 http://www.istl.org/01-winter/article1