Comments on: There's a war goin' on here, donchaknow?

By: Lanny Arvan

Lanny Arvan — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:31:27 +0000

From an economics perspective, I believe the Librarian behavior can be explained by two things. Most of us tend to be more cautious than is rational.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/sports/caution-is-costly-scholars-say.html?scp=1&sq=Caution%20Is%20Costly,%20Scholars%20Say&st=cse
And then there is the old Free Rider Problem – let Campus X fight the good fight. We can play it safe and get the best of both worlds.

I agree that it does seem rather myopic. A few years ago I wrote a rather long tirade
http://lanny-on-learn-tech.blogspot.com/2007/04/ly-berry-20.html
after reading a report from ACRL that I thought was way too timid. I got a few comments at the time, but I doubt it moved the conversation at all.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:25:36 +0000

@lanny it’s funny you should mention that, as I have been giving the gears to librarians on twitter for the past few weeks. What triggered me as a number of interactions where they’d clearly bent over for the publishers (ridiculous things like “queues” for digital ebooks, self-destructing DRM’d ‘copies’ of materials, to name few). The answer I always get back is “We need to do this to provide service to our customers but once we ‘get our foot in the door’ we can start to lobby the publishers.”

Maybe. I want to be sympathetic, I get that, especially in the case of public institutions, there is real risk aversion to directly confronting/provoking the publishers. And maybe that’s not theirs to do. But increasingly I find myself routing around the libraries as much as I route around the publishers.

It’s too easy to be simplistic and polarized about all of this, something I know I am guilty of in an effort to move the debate a few degrees back towards the commons and public good. But I can’t help but feel that many of the efforts I’ve seen by libraries so far feel more Vichy Government than Resistance.

By: Lanny Arvan

Lanny Arvan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:59:28 +0000

I’m in the middle of watching the Lawrence Lessig at Educause General Session talk
http://educause.mediasite.com/mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=b84be1d5613841aaae441aac8272e2e7
and I’m really wishing he had used Bob Dylan or some other Artist instead of Britney Spears as his canonical example of the commercial paradigm for copyright, because I can not imagine creating a montage that includes stuff from Britney Spears that would have learning value to a community that wishes to communicate freely. So I don’t think he goes far enough. But he does make a rather forceful point that our community should be talking about these issues the way your post (and ensuing thread) does. So I would encourage further posting on this topic in the near future.

I also wonder why it isn’t Librarians who are leading the charge on this topic. Any insight on that?

By: Copyright Posters – WWII Style «

[...] 8, 2010 · Leave a Comment Scott Leslie has a new post presenting several posters protesting copyright restrictions in the style of WWII [...]

By: dave cormier

dave cormier — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:37:55 +0000

and ditto on the posters.

By: dave cormier

dave cormier — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:37:25 +0000

When you look at the initial berne convention…it was trying to protect the wholesale theft and reselling of books. It is neither necessary in the ‘incountry’ sense as that would conflict with other laws now anyway… and it does not serve to stem copyright on the black market.

I can understand why they needed it in the 19th century… but we obviously need new ways to support artists in their work.

By: Harold Jarche

Harold Jarche — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:43:27 +0000

Our culture belongs to all of us and the public domain is (should be) the default for “intellectual property”. No one creates in vacuum. We all draw upon the past in our creative works. Copyright is a “temporary” monopoly granted by the state to promote economic growth. In the early days it was the monarch giving economic power to friends of the regime. This temporary aspect is seldom discussed by those holding the current legislative or economic power.

“The fundamental problem with intellectual property as an ethical category is that it is purely individualistic. It focuses on the creator/developer of the intellectual work and what he or she is entitled to. There is truth in this, but not the whole truth. It ignores the social role of the creator and of the work itself, thus overlooking their ethically significant relationships with the rest of society. The balance is lost.”
Source: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060503.html

Artists have had to change their models over the years. Renaissance artists needed wealthy patrons. Before the advent of the phonograph, local musicians could make a living playing live concerts. Things change and artists are usually the first ones to figure out new business models. For example, Hugh Macleod @gapingvoid has shown how it’s possible to be successful by giving art away.

Supreme Court of Canada (2002):
“Excessive control by holders of copyrights and other forms of intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public domain to incorporate and embellish creative innovation in the long-term interests of society as a whole, or create practical obstacles to proper utilization.”
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc34/2002scc34.html

“Up yours, DRM”

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:15:59 +0000

I realluy do want to print them out, so bigger versions please

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:11:15 +0000

@lanny I do take your point that the issue is *slightly* different for people who have a revenue stream that does not depend on the *actual selling* of the content, and that artists have a right to make a living. I often take a stance far more extreme than what I actually believe simply to counter the radical copyright conservatism and extreme bias I feel like we are facing. It is not a simplistic issue, but I don’t shed a lot of tears for the *record company’s* fates (much more for the artist themselves).

It is also why, though, you can’t and shouldn’t separate out the issues around copyrights from those of net neutrality, from those of culture, of participatory culture, of economics, relationships and scale. Digital technologies and the internet ARE disruptive, but in my books much of what they are disrupting NEEDED to be disrupted. To cast this as only being about an artist’s livelihood is to be misdirected by powerful, interested forces of the status quo.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:02:52 +0000

Stop it you guys, you are getting me all verklempt. If you really want to print them out I can try to make bigger versions though the source images I was working on were all pretty small, sort of 300-500px range.