The AALL Spectrum
® blog is published by the American Association of Law Libraries. Submissions from AALL members and other members of the legal community are highly encouraged. Opinions and editorial views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AALL. AALL does not assume any responsibility for statements advanced by contributors. Previously, the AALL Spectrum
Blog was located at aallspectrum.wordpress.com
The AALL Spectrum blog is no longer published. Previous posts are archived on this page.
2/6/2013 3:17:48 PM
Book Review: Copyright Questions and Answers for Information Professionals
Copyright Questions and Answers for Information Professionals, by Laura N. Gasaway. Purdue University Press, 2013, 284 pages. Paperback, $24.95
You may be thinking, “My library already owns half-a-dozen books on copyright issues in libraries. Do we really need another?” Absolutely. Copyright Questions and Answers for Information Professionals should be part of all academic law library reference collections for those specific questions for which you need a quick answer. It is accessible to all readers, regardless of whether or not one has any copyright law knowledge. Similar books tend toward in-depth summaries and explanations of copyright law that may still leave the reader at a loss as to how to address specific questions. Professor Gasaway’s book is quite the opposite, clearly and succinctly providing just enough explanation to enable the librarian to make an informed decision and move on.
The book is comprised of questions and answers compiled from Professor Gasaway’s column in the journal Against the Grain. Each chapter begins with a few paragraphs summarizing the legal issues addressed therein (e.g., library reserves, movies and music, photos, archives), then presents 25–30 copyright-related questions and answers. Because the questions are genuine rather than hypotheticals conceived of by the author, the scenarios presented will undoubtedly sound familiar. Question 148 in the book, for example, parallels a recent inquiry I had at the reference desk: “Two faculty members at the university teach film courses. They run evening showings of the films, followed by discussions, which are widely advertised to the public. Although this provides an opportunity for students to see the films, many people from the general public also attend. No public performance rights are obtained because the faculty members claim that the performances are a fair use. They use copies of the DVDs from the library’s collection for the performances, and many are recently released films. Should the university be concerned about liability for copyright infringement?” Professor Gasaway’s answer is decisive: “Absolutely!” While she does give a brief explanation as to why this is the case (including what factors might change her answer), the reader is left with a definitive answer regarding whether someone in the university should obtain public performance rights for the films or the films should no longer be shown to the public at large. Professor Gasaway’s style throughout the book is the same—in no case are you left to parse out various applications of the law. Instead, the reader’s task is simply to assess whether his or her facts are more or less like those presented in the book.
Unfortunately, this raises one of the drawbacks of the book. If the question hasn’t been raised by Against the Grain readers, Professor Gasaway hasn’t addressed it. Thus, if you do not think your fact pattern sufficiently matches any scenarios presented in the book, you may need to turn to a book with more in-depth copyright analysis, such as The Librarian’s Copyright Companion.
Second, the book is not one to which you’d turn to develop copyright policies for your library because it does not offer a particularly nuanced assessment of issues such as liability and risk. For example, in the scenario described above (faculty showing films acquired by the library), no guidance is offered concerning whether the library or faculty member would also be subject to liability. If the librarian responsible for setting copyright policies for the library has a more comprehensive understanding of the actual risk to the library in these circumstances, he or she could set library copyright policies accordingly. For example, library policy may explicitly state no faculty can borrow films that may be shown to the public—or may simply continue to loan films to all faculty members without inquiring further. For better or worse, the librarian in this situation would still need to turn to university legal counsel and other copyright texts for guidance in this area.
Despite the fact that Copyright Questions and Answers for Information Professionals may not address the big, deep copyright issues that arise in your library, the breadth of information covered makes this book worthwhile. Sometimes you just want a “yes” or “no” answer to the question, “Can we do X in the library?”
Ingrid Mattson is a Reference Librarian at Moritz Law Library, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University.
Posted By 2/6/2013 3:17:48 PM
1/28/2013 1:52:07 AM
What Law Librarians Should Know About Aaron Swartz
On January 11, 2013, Aaron Swartz, 26, died in an apparent suicide. Swartz was described in news reports as a programmer, a hacker, an internet activist, and an information activist. As far as I know, there is no indication that Swartz suggested why he was committing suicide; but members of Swartz's family assert that a federal prosecution for alleged computer crimes contributed to Swartz's death. It's conceivable that chronic illnesses played a role.
At the funeral for Swartz on January 15, speakers included Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, and Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor known for writings on copyright and internet freedom. Many people who knew Swartz or knew about him have commented on his life and death; several organizations related to Swartz have issued statements. WikiLeaks has claimed a connection to Swartz, while Anonymous has hacked websites in retaliation to the prosecution against him. Some commentators are concerned that a "canonization" of Swartz is occurring, with potential for misuse of what he did and stood for.
It's tricky to summarize Aaron Swartz and his significance. Swartz was involved in an extraordinary number of technical and activist projects; an account of his life could easily fill a long book. This article is a brief overview of the projects and controversies that, in my view, are most relevant to the work of law librarians or people involved in law or libraries generally. (If you're interested in learning more, I will be creating a collection of links to materials by and about Swartz.)
* * *
In 2000, at age 14, Swartz co-authored the RSS 1.0 specification, one of three RSS versions in common use today. RSS is a way for blogs and other websites to syndicate content. Sites can provide links to RSS -- or, alternatively, Atom -- feeds, to which users may subscribe. Subscribers can review feeds in a news reader such as Google Reader or Pulse News. If you don't already subscribe to feeds from legal, library, or other websites, you might want to try it for a quick view of the day's news and commentary.
Swartz was an early advisor to Creative Commons, helping to design the code for its licenses and to promote its goals. Creative Commons provides licenses that allow sharing and use of creative work, whether in the public domain or with some rights reserved. Several websites, including Google and Wikimedia, offer Creative Commons search engines, which you can use to find materials to reuse on your own site.
In 2005, Swartz created a wiki site, Infogami, which soon merged with another startup, Reddit. Swartz was a programmer for Reddit and left (as a rich man) soon after Conde Nast bought the company. Reddit calls itself the "front page of the internet." It allows users to post links and comments in various areas of interest (known as "subreddits") and to vote up or down for any story or comment. Reddit also lets anyone hold an "IAmA" ("I am a ...") aka "AMA" in which users can "ask me anything." Law librarians may want to look at the subreddits on law, libraries, and technology, and also search for interesting AMAs.
Swartz was an active editor on Wikipedia. In 2006, he was a candidate for the Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees and wrote several pieces about Wikipedia. One piece was "Who Writes Wikipedia," which challenged the view that only a small set of people wrote most of Wikipedia's content. I presume that most librarians are familiar with Wikipedia, whether as a research tool or as a frequently -- whether appropriately or otherwise -- cited resource in student papers, judicial opinions, and other documents.
Swartz was the architect of Open Library, a project of the Internet Archive. The goal of Open Library is to create a web page for every book ever published. The site now has millions of records, some accompanied by ebooks for download or borrowing. Swartz apparently obtained all of the Library of Congress's bibliographic data in 2006, and posted this data -- for which the Library of Congress normally charged fees -- in Open Library.
In 2008, computers at the Library for the U.S. Courts of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago provided free access to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), which normally cost eight cents per page. Swartz loaded a script onto a library computer, which automatically downloaded PACER records every three seconds and uploaded them to a cloud server. Over a couple of weeks, he downloaded about 20% of the PACER database. Swartz provided the PACER documents to Public.Resource.Org. The FBI's investigation of this incident eventually ended without charges. Swartz continued to promote free public access to PACER documents by working with RECAP and PlainSite.
As a research fellow at Harvard in 2010 and early 2011, Swartz had access to JSTOR, a repository of academic materials. According to a federal indictment in July 2011, Swartz downloaded a large number of articles on MIT's computer network. When MIT blocked Swartz's computer from accessing the network, he put a laptop in a closet at MIT and continued downloading articles. Soon after the source of the downloading was discovered, Swartz was arrested. Swartz gave the downloaded documents back to JSTOR, which decided not to press legal claims against Swartz. (A few days before Swartz's death, JSTOR made many articles more open to non-subscribers through its "Register & Read" program.) MIT settled its civil claims but also turned over evidence to the U.S. Secret Service. Swartz was indicted for wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. Swartz faced up to 35 years in prison -- or perhaps more under a September 2012 superseding indictment -- though U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz stated that her office offered a plea deal in which the prosecution would recommend 6 months in prison. Some friends of Swartz say that he didn't want to plead guilty and then be known as a "felon." Following Swartz's suicide, some members of Congress criticized the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department for their handling of the case. Rep. Zoe Lofgren has introduced "Aaron's Law" to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Whatever the results of congressional or other governmental action, the Swartz prosecution will likely be a subject of law journal articles and other legal commentary for years to come, on issues such as prosecutorial discretion and the definition of computer crimes.
Swartz founded Demand Progress, which opposed the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) bills. The legislation would have given the U.S. government and copyright holders ways to stop websites from dealing in infringing materials. There was debate about what exactly the legislation would do; but groups such as Demand Progress as well as corporations and websites such as Google were successful in contending that these laws would cause entire websites to be taken down for minor alleged infringements of copyright. (You may recall that Wikipedia and other sites went dark for a day of protest against the legislation.) Congressional action on the bills was postponed in early 2012. But with the U.S. government and other governments still grappling with how to deal with copyright infringement and other perceived problems of the internet, one can be sure that the debate over SOPA and PIPA will echo in future policy and legal arguments.
Swartz contributed to the development of Markdown, which is a way to write readable plain text that can be converted to HTML. Swartz also developed HTML2Text, which works in the opposite direction, converting HTML web pages to Markdown text. You might find these tools handy in creating your own web pages. Also, if you use Twitter and want to view tweets in context, you might try the Twitter Viewer created by Swartz.
* * *
As you can see, Aaron Swartz was very interested in information and how people can access and use it. He worked to make books, academic articles, and legal documents more available, and to foster freedom on the internet. I think that these interests gave him much in common with law librarians. Of course, some librarians would disagree with particular positions or actions that Swartz took. Few would go as far as Swartz did to further access to information, which led to federal investigation and prosecution. A librarian might reasonably be nervous about allowing someone like Swartz to use the library's computers! Nevertheless, I think that law librarians can take inspiration from Swartz's goals of information access and internet freedom, and his willingness to work for them.
Western State College of Law
Posted By 1/28/2013 1:52:07 AM
1/25/2013 1:07:49 PM
Highlights of Winter 2013 LLAW Briefs
The Winter 2013 issue of LLAW Briefs has been posted. It contains organizational annoucements and a list of recommended readings by Cindy May of the University of Wisconsin Law Library.
Posted By 1/25/2013 1:07:49 PM