Library time

What time or day do people talk about libraries, or visit them?
According to this it is unsurprisingly every day during general opening hours, with a slight preference for the middle of the week rather than later.

Conversely, people talk about or visit archives more frequently at the end of the week and at weekends.

Scott Golder of Cornell University has created a way of determinng what people (on Twitter) are doing or saying at what time.  This is done by running chosen text against a data set of millions of time coded Twitter messages. Go see http://timeu.se

Freedom of Information

Since the changes in Australian Freedom of Information legislation (see below) took effect on 1 November 2010 the number of FOI requests to Australian federal government agencies has grown overall by 48%. Different government agencies have been recording variant figures, with some agencies having requests up by over 70% while others figures are down or stable.

Prior to the change in legislation, FOI requests were on a continuing downward trend from an already low base rate, which is one reason the changes were brought in.
People were not able to access the information they wanted or needed, due to cost, excessive exemptions which limited access rights and a general culture of non-disclosure by agencies and their FOI staff.

FOI staff traditionally looked at FOI requests not with a view on how to support access and transparency, but to determine how to use the law not to disclose.

The change in legislation reversed this, it instructed FOI staff to assist people seeking information, it made initial requests free and it reduced the exemptions and made them have to be judged against a general public interest test, which determines that “access must generally be given to a conditionally exempt document  unless it would be contrary to the public interest”.

The change in legislation seemingly has worked and more people are able to access government information. Other facets of law or government policy changes are also assisting as agencies are also now directed to publish their corporate documents online, put their data sets up on data.gov.au, and move to open copyright licences.

But is information access being made to everyone?

The number of FOI requests by individuals is stable or declining (depending on who you ask). These individuals represent the “information poor” or the average person who generally does not have the knowledge or expertise to be able to know what information is available or to navigate the FOI process.

Where there is a significant rise in FOI usage is by the “information rich” that is people in the  news media, legal profession and academic arena who know of the legislative changes and are able to benefit from them.

All large media organisations (TV stations and newspapers) now employ staff whose job it is to produce and manage FOI requests. These staff on behalf of journalists, or it can be by the journalist themselves, regularly send requests to government agencies seeking access to information. There have been multiple instances of this source of information in major news stories of the last few months. This is a good and valid use of FOI disclosure in the public interest. However some FOI staff are unhappy due to the workload as many of the FOI requests are what are known as trawling exercises, whereby large amounts of information are requested because the journalist a) may not know exactly what they are looking for or, b) want to hide exactly what they are looking for within a greater information set.

Another user group is academics who know what information the government holds and now have a chance to access it to support their research.

The other large scale use is by lawyers. The ‘discovery process’ whereby information and documents are gathered for a case, used to be an expensive and long process. Now however, an FOI request to an agency which may have nothing to do with a case except via some regulatory action, or may actually be a party to a dispute can be used to find and organise and deliver large amounts of information. Some FOI staff are unhappy about this as they feel they are doing work for a commercial entity, which that entity should be paying for.

It is possible for government agencies to charge for handling some FOI requests and for providing some information, however this is set at a rate that would not actually cover costs. This low rate was designed so as not to put off potential applications from poorer individuals. In some cases also the fees can be waived outright. There is a growing demand from some FOI staff in Commonwealth agencies for changes to the legislation. They wish to be able to charge enhanced fees to commercial entities such as media and legal organisations. There are also some staff who do not agree with the new policy of disclosure and some government agencies that are also uncomfortable, for example, The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet released in July its FOI Guidance Notes which although seemingly endorsing access, could also be seen as existing to show staff how best not to disclose.

What we are seeing therefore as we come to the end of the first full year of the new legislation is that those who know how to use the system and have prior knowledge are able to better access information.

These people and organisations, whether commercial or not, have every right to use the legislation and receive the services of the agency and their staff (as public servants) to meet their information needs. It would be a serious mistake to change the legislation due to the complaints of some staff who are being asked to work harder (it would be better to instruct agencies to employ more staff).

The major problem therefore is not that some people or organisations are using the system too liberally, but that information poor individuals are not using the system enough.

It is to be hoped that in the next year that the Australian Information Commissioner takes upon itself as a priority the education and promotion of the pathways to government information.

It is also hoped that the Commissioner ignores the attempts to to try to shut down the access we now grant, and supports expanding FOI services.

Freedom of Information Act 

Objects

(1)  The objects of this Act are to give the Australian community access to information held by the Government of the Commonwealth or the Government of Norfolk Island, by:

(a)  requiring agencies to publish the information; and

(b)  providing for a right of access to documents.

(2)  The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia’s representative democracy by contributing towards the following:

(a)  increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better‑informed decision‑making;

(b)  increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.

(3)  The Parliament also intends, by these objects, to increase recognition that information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource.

(4)  The Parliament also intends that functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

UPDATE

FoI charges are going to be reviewed, with a view presumably to cut costs and levy fees on applicants: http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/www/ministers/oconnor.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2011_FourthQuarter_7October2011-FOIchargesregimetobereviewed

Hopefully it will be recognised that although transparency may cost more to manage, it is a cost that the information holders should undertake, and not information seekers.

National Library of Australia joins the Commons on Flickr

Well, it’s taken a while but the National Library of Australia has finally started adding material from their collection to the Flickr Commons. Considering how large a collection of material the NLA holds, it seems only logical that they would want to make their holdings even more widely available than they currently are. The NLA is clearly working to continue to increase the exposure of their collection items, especially with the impending opening of their permanent Treasures Gallery.

Cross promotion aside, there NLA’s stream so far highlights a diverse range of images, including images from the Ballets Russes Australian tour 1936-1940, the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, flooding in the Murray Darling region in 1886 and images from Antarctic expeditions between 1911 and 1914.

 

 

 

 

 

As with many of the images in the Commons, there are a fair few in the NLA’s stream which show unidentified people – if you know who they are, don’t be afraid to comment and help clear up the mystery!

Finally!

Book lovers

Free music plays into the hands of the ill informed

ACT Libraries with Library Ideas and Freegal Music now give access to Sony music for library members.

Each library member can download 3 DRM free songs a week.

So free (at point of access) songs, and that’s great. But then we look at the top ten list of what Canberran’s are downloading.

Is there a better sign of the oncoming apocalypse than this selection of music?

Librarians give public access to all sorts of information and media, and yet that same public still manage to make all the wrong choices. And, it’s like they don’t even try to learn.

Thanks to Kathleen for the heads up on the service.

Vale Michael Hart

Hart was best known for his 1971 invention of electronic books, or eBooks. He founded Project Gutenberg, which is recognized as one of the earliest and longest-lasting online literary projects. He often told this story of how he had the idea for eBooks. He had been granted access to significant computing power at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. On July 4 1971, after being inspired by a free printed copy of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, he decided to type the text into a computer, and to transmit it to other users on the computer network. From this beginning, the digitization and distribution of literature was to be Hart’s life’s work, spanning over 40 years.

– read the full obituary at http://www.gutenberg.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_S._Hart

Has the HathiTrust gone too far?

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.

Alex Byrne in the SMH

“As state librarian, Byrne will oversee a $2.2 billion collection of more than 5 million items that ranges from Joseph Banks’s Endeavour journal to a lock of Mary Shelley’s hair. The manuscript collection alone stretches more than 11 kilometres. With so vast a collection, does he envision parting with items, or applying the dust test?

”I wouldn’t see the State Library as getting rid of last copies but there may be situations where material that is not at all relevant should go,” he says. ”But that wouldn’t affect the core collections.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/top-shelf-20110901-1jmlu.html#ixzz1X2IU7eaJ

National Poetry Week

September 5-11 is National Poetry Week. “2011 National Poetry Week features five days of activity including: WRITE, BUY, SHARE, LIVE and CELEBRATE Australian poetry, to raise the awareness, appreciation, and participation with this engaging art form.” A full calendar of poetry events during National Poetry Week from around Australia can be found here on the Australian Poetry website. There’s also more details on Facebook.