There is some good news for Libraries who provide online services. Proposed changes to extend the Safe Harbour Scheme to entities beyond Carriage Service Providers (CSPs) will allow them to be admitted to the Scheme. If the change in legislation is made, this will give some legal protection to libraries to prevent them being sued by copyright interests.
The US copyright agencies (and their Australian arms such as Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) who usually harass and prosecute copyright users, are opposed to the change, so it would be worthwhile if libraries/librarians spoke up in support.
That is, indeed, the question being posed in the latest court case to be tabled in New York. Along with the US Authors Guild, the Australian Society of Authors, the Union Des Écrivaines et des Écrivains Québécois (UNEQ) and 8 individual authors have submitted a copyright infringement case against the HathiTrust (a partnership of over 50 predominantly university libraries), the University of Michigan, the University of California, the University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and Cornell University. The case asserts that the partners of the HathiTrust:
… obtained from Google unauthorized scans of an estimated 7 million copyright-protected books, the rights to which are held by authors in dozens of countries. The universities have pooled the unauthorized files in a repository organized by the University of Michigan called HathiTrust.
The plaintiffs further assert that the HathiTrust partners’ intention to make available copies of in-copyright works that they have deemed to be orphan works oversteps the boundaries of copyright law. The plaintiffs seem to be arguing against that the HathiTrust’s understanding and determination of what constitutes an orphan work and, thus, what can be done with such works as a result. (The Association of Research Libraries has responded by compiling a useful run down of some of the issues relating to orphan works which makes things a bit clearer.) At present, copyright law seems to be lagging woefully behind when it comes to dealing with digital, or digitised, works.
“This is an upsetting and outrageous attempt to dismiss authors’ rights,” said Angelo Loukakis, executive director of the Australian Society of Authors. “Maybe it doesn’t seem like it to some, but writing books is an author’s real-life work and livelihood. This group of American universities has no authority to decide whether, when or how authors forfeit their copyright protection. These aren’t orphaned books, they’re abducted books.”
The language used by the plaintiffs involved in the case is very emotional which, I suppose, is understandable given that use of copyright material impacts on an author’s ability to receive appropriate income from their works.
“I was stunned when I learned of this,” said Danièle Simpson, president of UNEQ. “How are authors from Quebec, Italy or Japan to know that their works have been determined to be ‘orphans’ by a group in Ann Arbor, Michigan? If these colleges can make up their own rules, then won’t every college and university, in every country, want to do the same?”
The plaintiffs acknowledge that fair dealing allows some copying and reproduction of in-copyright works, but argue that the systematic digitisation of such a large number of works (approximately 7 million) surpasses the exceptions allowed for in fair dealing.
It will be interesting to see what else emerges in the court case to come.
From an article by Robert Darnton entitled A Library Without Walls
At Harvard, we have conducted a preliminary survey of the projects underway in other nations. We have even located an incipient NDL in Mongolia. The Dutch are now digitizing every Dutch book, pamphlet, and newspaper produced from 1470 to the present. President Sarkozy of France announced last November that he would make €750 million available to digitize the nation’s cultural “patrimony.” And the Japanese Diet voted for a two-year, 12.6 billion yen crash program to digitize their entire national library. If the Netherlands, France, and Japan can do it, why can’t the United States?
I propose that we dismiss the notion that a National Digital Library of America is far-fetched, and that we concentrate on the general goal of providing the American people with the kind of library they deserve, the kind that meets the needs of the twenty-first century. We can equip the smallest junior college in Alabama and the remotest high school in North Dakota with the greatest library the world has ever known. We can open that library to the rest of the world, exercising a kind of “soft power” that will increase respect for the United States worldwide. By creating a National Digital Library, we can make our fellow citizens active members of an international Republic of Letters, and we can strengthen the bonds of citizenship at home.
I think it is interesting that the call is for a national digital library, rather than an international one, as though ideas respected borders and as to requote from the article Thomas Jefferson’s “Knowledge is the common property of mankind.”
Also it seems to me that surely Google (a US company) is already creating an (international) digital library, it has digitised over 12 million books thus far, it has made agreements with a host of international libraries (UK, Spain, Netherlands, Germany etc.), and has committed to digitise every known printed book (all 129 million of them) by the end of this decade.
But aside from Google, there is also The Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg and a host of other smaller ventures by libraries, archives, museums, crowdsourced individuals working in combination and by commercial concerns.
As (nearly) all new books are now being made available in electronic form we will soon be coming to a period where every book is available.
So getting the digitisation done is being handled by both public and private concerns, and remarkably quickly too.
What will however be the issue is the reigning in of the major content producers and their multiple lobbyists and DRM lawyers, so that works are accessible, affordable, and able to be used for (as already gained in paper) fair dealing purposes such as research, criticism and reportage.
The terms in the latest released ACTA draft do not appear to be as bad as expected, so there may be hope yet.
Last week, Liam Wyatt, the British Museum‘s first ever volunteer Wikipedian in residence, gave a presentation at the National Library discussing some of the recommendations from last year’s Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums & Wikimedia conference, held at the Australian War Memorial. Liam raised some very interesting points in regards to ownership, usage, Creative Commons licensing and copyright of digitised materials held in cultural institutions, as well as talking about the ways that volunteers can play a valuable role in contributing to an institution’s projects, something which this blog has previously touched upon. If you couldn’t get to the NLA last week to see the presentation in person, or want to be reminded of the things that Liam covered, check it out here.
Researchers at the University of Toyko have developed a new scanner that operates at a rate of 500 frames per second which means that you can simply flip the pages of a book in front of the scanner for it to work. Overlaying a grid on the pages being scanned means that you can leave it up to the computer to flatten out the curves of the page as it was scanned resulting in an augmented, though still fairly good, scanned image. What’s next? Drive by OCR? The only problem I can see is that the most likely candidates for this kind of scanning would be in copyright material – material that is out of copyright is usually a bit older and more fragile and probably shouldn’t be subjected to the flip treatment … but it’s still an exciting development!
Take a look at how easy the process is in this video.
A landmark decision on the role of ISP’s and their legal responsibilities has been made by the Australian courts today. ISP’s, the court has found are not liable for their users use of the Internet.
See the story in the SMH here
You may wonder why this is of relevance to Libraries, well because as has been shown by the UK Digital Economy Bill, a public institution that gives users Internet access would also have been as liable to fines and disconnections as an ISP. Thus Libraries could have found themselves liable for all the actions of their public users, which would have made providing access impossible.
Of course Libraries already take some responsibility for their users, but in the same way it is impossible to maintain a watch on a photocopier to check that a user doesn’t photocopy more than 10% of a book, it would have been impossible to check the copyright actions of every user on a public Internet terminal. Admittedly it would be impossible for a public user to download a movie (because of the size and time constraints), but there are many copyright works which are smaller and more accessible. There are a large number of brand new books that are in copyright which are available on the Internet, controlling the download of these reasonably small text files would be difficult.
All libraries can do in this matter is to draw attention to copyright law by signage and education, as we have done with photocopiers for many years.
We should be wary of any further legal attempt to find companies and public institutions liable for the uncontrollable actions of their users or customers.
Cory Doctorow (the well known author, blogger, co-editor of Boing-Boing, copyright crusader) recently gave a speech at the National Reading Summit on reading and the way that copyright is currently working (or not, depending on your viewpoint).
While we are on the subject of comment on drafts (see previous post) the draft Government 2.0 Taskforce report Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0. released today (7 Dec. 2009) is seeking your comments. See http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/
There is very much to applaud in the report, most librarians are public servants, and so serious consideration should be given to reports and projects such as this, how we use technology to work better, for us and our users is important. Let’s hope the report gains acceptance. Some of the recommendations if implemented would be very useful, not least the copyright aspects.
Some bits of interest.
Given that government should be inherently collective and collaborative, the potential of a Web 2.0 enabled approach to government – what we call Government 2.0 – is potentially transformative. It offers the opportunity to make representative democracy more responsive, and more participatory. The incorporation of Web 2.0 technology into government engagement offers a unique opportunity to achieve more open, transparent, accountable and responsive government.
To achieve Government 2.0 agencies need to:
Take much greater advantage of tools and practices to capture the expertise and experience of citizens, service users and front-line public service workers to enrich the knowledge from which public policy and service delivery decisions are made
The Taskforce believes that the existing culture of the APS focuses too strongly on online engagement as a risk, and quite inadequately on the huge opportunity it offers to provide greater access to the professional capability of public servants and to advance the mission of public agencies. The recent revision of the online engagement guidelines from the APSC represents an important step towards a culture that focuses on reward and not just risk.
Copyright law can be a major hindrance for archival institutions wishing to make their collections more accessible and useable.
What’s to disagree with
Leading Australian author John Birmingham has weighed in to the copyright debate with an article requesting that the government amend the 1968 copyright act to include digital works under legal deposit see: http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/thegeek/archives/2009/12/get_off_yr_lzy.html
Mr Birmingham would like to see archiving of Twitter pages that currently aren’t being gathered. Some Twitter pages for individuals such as the Australian PM have been archived in Australia with permission, but the archiving of large swathes of Twitter on a theme or tag cannot currently occur as it would entail, as Birmingham says, contacting numerous authors.
Legal deposit is enshrined in most if not all countries laws, and it requires that a nominated National Library (and in some cases also some State or university libraries) recieve a copy, or have rights to recieve a copy of every work published in that country. The legislation in Australia only refers to paper works and so there is no requirement for digital works to be deposited. Given that today a vast amount of material is published online only, there would appear to be a need to amend the legislation, if an adequate record of Australia’s cultural, intellectual and government activity is required.
Facebook recently revised their Terms of Service (TOS) which caused a huge outcry from Facebook users in regards to the use (potential and actual) of the information and images that they had posted. Such was the backlash that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was quick to respond by assuring users that Facebook would be taking into consideration user feedback, rolling back their TOS to the previous version and rewriting the TOS with less legalese language.
Facebook users with concerns are encouraged to take part in the Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities group which will assist Facebook management to draft the new TOS. Full text of Facebook’s current TOS can be viewed here.