©ollectanea

Judith Thomas does a masterful job of explaining best practices and challenges in creating a digital motion media collection in this article, Digital Video, the Final Frontier - 1/15/2004 - netConnect. I'm studying digitizing video right now at the iSchool, and this was an optional reading. I found it most inspiring because there's not one mention of copyright or rights or permissions in the entire article. It's simply not on the table. Wow. That's like a dream, isn't it?

Several years ago I was invited by the Library of Congress to participate in a 3 day discussion about digital archiving. The setting was in gorgeous Berkeley, CA at a fabulous hotel. The other invitees were a glittering array, including the Register of Copyrights, MaryBeth Peters. I gladly accepted, and I felt honored to be invited. But, a curious thing happened at the very beginning of the gathering. All the participants agreed that they would define the copyright issues out of the discussion. I don't know how the Register felt about this, but it made me feel a little under-utilized, to say the least (useless, puts it more bluntly). I was absolutely amazed at the quantity of ideas entertained, the quality of the solutions proffered, the creativity of the group. If copyright had been on the table, the group might just was well have sat around the pool gossiping. It would have been, in effect, a nonstarter.

Since that meeting, I've begun more and more to believe that for some things libraries need to do for the future, they just need to be done without much concern for what the law says today. The very idea that anyone who's job it is, or I should say who's mission in life it is, to preserve for posterity, simply cannot stand by and watch important pieces of the 20th century just crumble before their eyes because of fear of getting sued, more often than not, by someone who could care less what you're doing, or who's actually dead, or who's descendants could care less, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I noticed earlier today a post at Michael Geist's blog about a remarkable speech by Bruce Lehman, former Commissioner of Patents and architect of the DMCA, notably including the anti-circumvention provisions, in which he suggests that we're entering a post-copyright era. He also admits that the DMCA as an approach has failed...

This idea that copyright is becoming irrelevant is actually one of the things that contributed considerably to my decision to get a degree in information studies and refocus, away from copyright. It's just terribly out of sync right now and as much as I hate to admit it, I truly feel that it just has to be ignored in some of its more egregiously out of sync aspects. (I'm waiting to be struck dead by a lightening bolt... waiting... waiting...) This is like the moral dilemma of our time (for those of us who think about things like this), like civil disobedience. Defiant preservation, organization, indexing, and access. Will wrong-headed and failed laws go quietly into the night at some point, or do we just turn away and embrace new paradigms created on their ruins, such as Creative Commons licenses and new business models that rely on something other than artificial scarcity to motivate creativity? And will libraries just quietly do what has to be done?

The folks at American University's Center for Social Media, who have been doing good and interesting work on the subject of fair use in documentary filmmaking, have lately turned their attention to "participatory media". In a recent study, "The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User-Generated Video Creators on Copyright", they found some disturbing results. College students and recent graduates who create and upload videos to such sites as YouTube "showed themselves universally under-informed and misinformed about" copyright law and fair use, tending to think in "binary, good-bad categories" about what is and is not permitted:

In fact, respondents generally did not understand elementary facts about copyright, even though several noted that they had received both training and warning from professors about copyright use. . . . Although the great majority of survey respondents (76 percent) believed that the fair use doctrine permitted them to use copyrighted materials, none of the interviewees was able to describe this doctrine accurately. Two said that it stipulated a fixed amount of time, e.g., "over 15 seconds of someone else's song," or "less than 10 seconds." Another said that fair use is available "for purposes of public education," still another "if it's for a class project." The majority indicated that fair use would apply if there is no commercial transaction. "I believe in fair use laws," one said. "If I create something as an academic exercise, and never pursue monetary reward, then I believe I should be able to utilize other people's work." None of these beliefs is accurate. . . . [One] distinction on which respondents relied to justify or explain their practices was between an obligation to pay and an obligation to give credit or recognition. While payment was largely unjustified in their opinion, these users were very concerned about attribution as a sign of showing respect for artistry.

Even more disturbing: more than half the participants were studying or working in communications- and media-related fields.

To be sure, copyright law is neither clear-cut nor intuitive, but you'd like to think that all of the copyright education we've been doing in connection with P2P file-sharing would have had at least a little impact, particularly on those students interested in pursuing careers in copyright-intensive industries. But whether they result from simple lack of knowledge about, or self-rationalizing lack of respect for, copyright, it's views like these that fuel industry and Congressional calls for tighter restrictions and increased protections.

I don't often lose sleep over copyright issues anymore. But last night I could not stop thinking about the Copyright Office's new resource for *children.* Please have a look if you haven't already: Taking the Mystery Out of Copyright. There's a text only version if you want to skip the cartoons and the music (assuming you are not 13). This bothers me on so many levels, but I'm only going to address one level here, the most obvious. My experienced, calm, collected voice is telling me to wait a few days before I write this. Ok, at least wait a few days before I publish it. Clearly, I am ignoring that voice. I should at least acknowledge that I'm probably overreacting. I no doubt will feel differently about it after I have thought about it for awhile. Maybe I'll write about it again after a few days.

That said, do children really need to know about copyright? Well, I reluctantly must admit that yes, they do. Should they need to know about copyright registration, copyright history, and the role copyright plays in protecting film, music, art and literature? Well, it's not like they need to be protected from this, like it was senseless death, war violence or something cruel and ugly. So, it is commendable that the Library of Congress offers a well-done, straightforward, and fairly neutral informational piece. What would we expect the Library to talk about, other than what it does, which is, in this case, copyright registration. A narrow slice of the copyright pie, to be sure, but again, that's one of the things the Library does that no one else does.

But on the other hand, remember what it was like to be 13? Was registering your copyrights something you were all that concerned about? Should you have been? Have things changed that much with respect to how likely it is that the metaphorical box of things you created during your 13th or 14th year of life needs protection? From what? From becoming part of the stream of creativity (my metaphors are all over the place) from which you yourself borrowed to create?

If I had one opportunity to tell kids about copyright, I suppose I would mention its role in protecting the commercial interests of creators and distributors like the film, music, art and publishing industries, but in the next breath I would appeal to their own sense of how most things we all create are not meant for commercial exploitation, but instead are meant to be shared, reused, remixed and borrowed from. I'd say, "Look inside that box of things you created last year. Let's look at where all your things came from. Let's see how borrowing and modifying and adding your own ideas works in real life, and what we all need to keep that going."

The lesson I would teach is about the fact that *YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING* if you want your own creativity to be added to and be a part of a flowing, lively stream, rather than be caught up in a little eddy that goes nowhere. Congress (something here about infinite wisdom) has created a set of rules that, without your doing anything beyond the mere act of creating (tangible things, of course), keeps everything you create in that box, locked away, maybe forever, but at least for, let's see, you're 13? Let's say you'll live to 78, your box of stuff stays locked away for the rest of your life (65 years) plus 70 more years. Yes, in 135 years your box of stuff will possibly join the stream of creativity. If the box is still around then. And somebody finds it. And they know you and only you created it, and when you died. And they know about copyrights. If that doesn't fit your idea of what you want, then YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. You have to let people know that you have something else in mind for your box of stuff. Fade to Creative Commons logo/website.

The assumption that everything needs "protection" for 1 1/3 centuries is so out of step with the reality of how we all create and most importantly, *why* we all create (overwhelming, not to make a living from our creations), and the serious consequences of being out of step with reality makes me very sad, and angry. The waste, the untapped creativity, and the criminalizing of creativity cannot be defended in my opinion. One size does not fit all. Given the enormity of the explosion of creativity enabled by the networked environment, to say nothing of creativity in the real world, the lessons we need to teach are about taking responsibility to do individually what Congress cannot seem to do for us as a nation -- create a copyright that fits our widely divergent needs, rather than one that both stifles us creatively and turns us into criminals (or potential civil litigants -- there's another interesting copyright lesson for kids) if we ignore it. We need to tag our creative works with simple statements that express how we feel about their place in the creative stream. I would recommend Creative Commons licenses for many reasons, but any statement about sharing is better than doing nothing and thereby consigning your work to copyright's centuries-long holding bin, or perhaps appropriately named, wastebasket.

As I mentioned in an earlier post ("Shooting Fish In a Barrel"), my university was one of the 25 named bad guys receiving letters about online piracy. My earlier blog was about the College Opportunity and Affordability Act winding its way through the legislative system. Among other things this act speaks to is requiring universities to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent illegal activity.

One such nifty "technology based deterrent is the "University Toolkit"
being offered (FOR FREE, can you imagine?) by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Not being a "techie", I can get left behind fairly easily on these things and I can also get spooked about privacy invasions with almost no effort at all. (My first reaction to things like On-Star was not 'Great - someone somewhere in the ether can unlock my car for me' but rather 'Good grief, someone knows where I am all the time'.)

Anyway, when I read the Washington Post's Security Fix blog by Brian Krebs titled "MPAA University 'Toolkit' Raises Privacy Concerns" where detailed explanations of the Toolkit are discussed, I was horrified. (this is a blog so I figure I can say things like "horrified" and "yikes")

Apparently, installing the Toolkit on your university's network is like letting the fox into the henhouse. Once installed, the software phones home to the MPAA telling them that it is 'in' and checking for a new version (and who knows what's in that). According to Security Fix, "installing and using the MPAA tool in its default configuration could expose to the entire Internet all of the traffic flowing across the school's network" automatically configuring "all of the data and graphs gathered about activity on the local network to be displayed on a Web page complete with ntop generated graphics showing not only bandwidth usage generated by each user on the network, but also the Internet address of every Web site each user has visited."

Does this bother you? Bothers me. Bothers Steve Worona (director of policy and networking programs at EDUCAUSE) who opined that "no university network administrator in their right mind would install this toolkit on their networks."

In response to these criticism, the MPAA, via Craig Winter, deputy director for Internet enforcement (does that sound like web cop to you?) said the toolkit was in the 'beta' phase. Again, no technology expert here, but why would you release and promote something not finished?

Rather than continue to repeat this informative blog entry by Krebs, I would encourage you to read it yourself, as well as some of the follow-up comments.

When I consider how some of these associations are treating their customer base, the saying about killing the goose that lays the golden egg comes to mind. I laughed out loud the other day when I heard someone say on the radio (completely different context; can't remember who or I'd credit) "We don't want to kill the golden goose; we just want to strangle it until it gives us all its eggs."

I have taken nearly a week to mull over this case that has been buzzing around the blogosphere, around email and even in real life, and I'm glad I did. I think I see it more clearly now than I did a week ago when the news first hit. I managed with a little time to connect it up with everything else in my life, well, my copyright life.

I guess it was reading Claire Stewart's post at the Northwestern University Library Blog (NUL Copyright: What does the lawsuit against Georgia State mean?) that pushed the last little piece into place. OA.

Yes. OA.

It all started at an AAUP/ARL Scholarly Publishing Symposium in the early 90's. I was lucky to be invited, and I made a speech about Texaco (the case) or something like that. I don't really have a lot of memories from this event (hearing Jean-Claude Guedon speak is one of them, however), but my memory of a conversation with Ann Okerson, now at Yale University, is still very fresh. The lead in must have been about market failure as the driver for fair use and she contrasted L. Ray Patterson's point of view, as expressed in his book, Copyright: A Law of Users' Rights. She talked about it fondly, but she agreed it wasn't the way things were, rather, it was how they ought to be.

Second piece: That idea of "how things ought to be" contrasting with "how they are" is a constant of fair use discussion because fair use is so open to interpretation. It can mean so many things. But we get our "how it is" meanings about fair use from the courts' interpretations. We have to draw that distinction, if we represent real clients, between how it could be or even should be, and how it is.

And that's what I've been doing for years as copyright counsel for the UT System. I'm grateful to have this task. It keeps me grounded. You have to know what your absolutely best arguments are, the law, and policy, but you also have to be realistic about the likelihood of winning those arguments, so your client can be realistic too, and make his or her risk assessment and go forward.

Which brings me to the third piece. Many people have spoken eloquently about why we as a society need to provide educators with a broader scope of fair use than just the "high transactions cost market failure" approach would allow for the kind of copying at issue in the suit against GSU. I rounded them up in an article I blogged at Lifelong learning a year or so ago. See for example, this section on Market Failure, and this one about market dysfunction. I can add Claire's comments to the list. I cannot believe that these arguments were not made on behalf of educational fair use in the cases about classroom and research copies. And they did not win the day. Maybe it was because of the profit aspect of the defendants in all those cases. Maybe the result would be different today with GSU a nonprofit educational institution as the defendant.

But my money is not on that proposition. And that brings me to my 4th piece. Losing in Congress and losing in courts -- happens all the time. Even when you win, you lose. The so-called compromises hashed out between stakeholders in congressional statutory marathon negotiation sessions read like some of the worst contracts I've ever had to review. And this is law for teachers and students to follow. Uh-huh. Right. All we've managed to effect with Congress is a stalemate. Oh, that's no small accomplishment. Keeping things from passing has become the best we can do. Think about that.

Many are optimistic about the string of fair use cases coming out of the "transformative" field lately, and I am too, but I don't think they offer the life saver to digital course materials distribution that others hope for. I don't think courts will go that far.

So, 5th piece: what's left if you really, really, really believe that educators ought to be able to use whatever they need to and want to use in their classrooms without worrying about what it costs or whether it's fair use?

Consumer resistance, or OA.

I don't have to advocate consumer resistance. We can get there without infringing people's copyrights. The very same arguments that Claire makes on behalf of educators and students being able to just read others works even if they can't afford to pay are turning the corner on OA for scholarly publishing. The battle for OA in journals is far from over, but the outcome is pretty clear. Now read anything about OA for the scholarly literature and substitute educational materials and see if you don't agree. It makes perfect sense. The same struggles the industry is going through to figure out how to make the economics of OA work for journals are going to come to monographs next and then why not educational publishing. If journals can figure out how to charge for other things besides digital copies, so can monographs, and monographs are, well, books with longer names. Books can be freely accessible without authorship, editing, peer review and distribution falling into the gutter. Do we know how right this minute? Maybe not. Is it impossible? Absolutely not. Do we need to figure it out? Absolutely. Will we. Absolutely.