Emilio Estevez Uses Some Public Domain Footage In Film, So Universal Studios Forces Original Public Domain Footage Offline

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Yet another example of the awfulness of copyright filters. Back in 2006, librarian Michael Sauers posted a public domain film (a US government production) called "Your Life Work: The Librarian" to YouTube. If you don't know, "Your Life Work" was a series of educational shorts that, according to the Internet Archive, were "meant to inspire young post-depression workers into specific new careers." One of those careers? Librarian. Sauers' upload of the video has lived happily on YouTube for over 12 years until a few days ago when, if you visited it, you saw this instead:

If you can't see that, it says that the video is unavailable, stating: "This video contains content from NBC Universal, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

Now, that's obviously bullshit, because the video is in the public domain. So, what happened? Well, the takedown notice that Sauers received reveals what almost certainly happened:

If you can't see that, it shows that the video taken down is entitled "Your Life Work: The Librarian." But the "copyrighted content" is listed as "The Public." If you don't know, "The Public" is a new movie written, directed and starring Emilio Estevez. The plot of the movie -- involving a group of homeless library patrons who refuse to leave a public library in Ohio during a bitter cold winter -- sounds interesting, and it appears this was a labor of love for Estevez, who worked on the film for the better part of a decade. He must have been thrilled back in January when Universal Pictures acquired the rights to the film.

Earlier this month, the film got an actual theatrical release, and apparently Universal Pictures does what all the big Hollywood Studios do: upload all the content to YouTube's ContentID tool to make sure no one has offered up a pirated copy.

There was just one problem. It appears that Estevez included a clip of "Your Life Work: The Librarian" within the movie (in which he, himself, plays a librarian). He, of course, is free to do so (thanks to the public domain), and having put that clip into his movie doesn't magically make that clip covered by copyright. But what the fuck does Universal Pictures care about pesky little things like the public domain and librarians' YouTube accounts? It's a big important Hollywood studio, and if it stomps out public domain material and ends up giving strikes to actual librarians, well, it's all good because it must "stop piracy."

So, Universal doesn't bother making sure that the public domain parts are excised from what it gives ContentID, and ContentID identifies a match... and bye bye public domain material, and Sauers now faces having a copyright strike on his account. Sauers has said he's disputed the claim, but now he has to wait around and see if Universal comes to its senses and withdraws the claim, or decides to double down.

Once again, this is why expecting automated filters to work is a real problem -- and it's doubly obnoxious that companies like Universal Pictures (and the MPAA that represents it) have been among the leading voices calling for more internet filters and things like "notice and staydown" which would effectively be used to block even more such content. Hopefully, Universal/YouTube restore Sauer's video soon, but it's just another example of how copyright is frequently used to take down perfectly legitimate speech.

In the meantime, though, you can still see Your Life Work: The Librarian at the Internet Archive... at least until Universal Pictures goes after it as well.

Filed Under: copyright, emilio estevez, librarians, michael sauers, public domain, takedowns, the public, your life work
Companies: nbc universal, universal, universal pictures, youtube

Think Tank: The Library Of Congress Has Too Many Librarians, So We Should Reject New Nominee To Run It

from the are-you-fucking-crazy? dept

We were both surprised and happy when President Obama nominated the obviously well qualified Carla Hayden to be the new Librarian of Congress to succeed James Billington, whose tenure was considered such a disaster that staffers literally celebrated when he left:

The reaction inside the library was almost gleeful, as one employee joked that some workers were thinking of organizing a conga line down Pennsylvania Avenue. Another said it felt like someone opened a window.

“There is a general sense of relief, hope and renewal, all rolled into one feeling,” said one staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “Like a great weight has been lifted from our shoulders.”

Maureen Moore, who retired in 2005 but volunteers at the library, said she and her friends were thrilled.

“It’s a great day for the library. The man has had 27 years to do good things, and he hasn’t,” she said.

When you get quotes like that -- especially on the record -- for someone retiring from a longstanding job, you know things were bad. And Hayden appears by almost any measure to be perfect for the job. She's run large libraries, showing that she has the knowledge and administrative skills to run the Library of Congress. She's also got experience dealing with a variety of policy issues, including ones around surveillance and access to information. I've spoken to many people who either know or have worked with Hayden, and I can't recall ever hearing such levels of praise about anyone.

But, of course, some are unhappy about this. But with such a supremely qualified nominee, the attacks have been weird and getting weirder. We recently wrote about a laughable complaint that Hayden was "pro-obscenity" because she fought against mandatory porn filters on all computers in libraries. And now someone has pointed out a complaint from Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation, claiming that Hayden is unqualified for the position... because she's a librarian. Really.

But the library’s enormous staff (3,244) already numbers countless credentialed librarians -- the institution is hardly in need of another. That’s why the post of librarian of Congress has long been filled not by librarians, but by first-rank scholars and historians of national reputation. The librarian of Congress is in effect the nation’s “scholar-in-chief.”

First of all, for someone advocating for a "scholar in chief" -- it seems rather ironic that they insist the number of librarians in the Library of Congress is "countless" when he's already given us the upper bound of employees at the Library (3,244). Now I'm no math expert, but surely this means that the number of librarians must be somewhat less than 3,244? And, last I checked, a number less than 3,244 remains... well... countable.

But, more to the point: WTF? To argue that a librarian shouldn't lead the Library of Congress seems... ridiculous. And it's not as if Hayden is being shifted from the checkout desk of a small regional library to the Librarian of Congress position. She's been running the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore as its CEO and helped modernize and totally refresh that library. Meanwhile, von Spakovsky goes on to praise Billington as a scholar, despite the fact that basically everyone at the library despised him, and multiple reports had found that he basically ignored his job to focus on hobnobbing with the rich and famous. The Government Accountability Office put out a report noting that there was a massive leadership vacuum at the Library of Congress under Billington. And this is the guy that von Spakovsky praises as "a scholar"? If that's what a scholar does, give me the librarian with actual administrative experience any day.

Of course, the real whining from von Spakovsky is what's pretty blatantly stated in his post: he's upset that President Obama pointed out the fact that Hayden would be the first woman or first African American to hold the post of Librarian of Congress. From that, he twists that statement into pretending it means those details are a part of her qualifications, or perhaps, her only qualifications.

Yet according to the president, among the chief qualifications for the office of Librarian of Congress -- the chief administrator of the world’s largest library -- are color and gender.

Except that's bullshit. Nowhere did the President suggest any such thing. This is blatant dog whistle politics where the Heritage Foundation wants to pretend that this nomination is somehow an act of "affirmative action," rather than an eminently qualified individual, who also happens to be female and black. The fact that the President pointed this out was not because it spoke to her qualifications, but because it's a fact that the Librarian has always been a white male. It's a noteworthy point, not a qualification.

Really, if these are the best "attacks" that anyone can come up with regarding Hayden, I'm fairly confident that she's clearly ready for the job. No one can find anything legitimate against her, so they go with this kind of crap.

Filed Under: carla hayden, hans von spakovsky, james billington, librarian of congress, librarians, scholars
Companies: heritage foundation

Desperation Shows As Critics Argue That Nominated Librarian Of Congress Is 'Pro Obscenity'

from the that's-the-best-you've-got? dept

Last week, we wrote about the exciting decision by President Obama to nominate Dr. Carla Hayden to be the next Librarian of Congress. As we noted at the time, she seemed immensely qualified for the position, having successfully run and modernized the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. She also clearly recognized the importance of open access and access to culture. Given the job, there's really no honest reason that people can find to criticize the choice. She seems almost perfectly qualified for the position.

But, of course, there are some critics, and boy, are they reaching deep in the depths of inanity to attack this choice. A key issue, of course, is that the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress, so Hayden would run the Copyright Office as well. In our original post, we already noted the rather snide statement put out by the RIAA, which basically says "Hayden's fine for the library, but she better keep her filthy hands off of the Copyright Office":

“We are gratified that President Obama has chosen a qualified and capable nominee to be the next Librarian of Congress. We look forward to working with Dr. Hayden.

“It is worth noting that the Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office have been mutually respectful of each other’s areas of expertise. We would hope that the new Librarian would continue to demonstrate that respect for the Copyright Office’s expertise in copyright policy and recommendations to Congress.”

This is bullshit, of course. Basically, the Copyright Office has been ignored by the Librarian of Congress, because the last Librarian basically ignored his job, focusing on hobnobbing with rich people in fancy locations, asking them for money. The MPAA's statement wasn't quite as bad, but did laughably claim that they hope she'll honor "the role of copyright as a driver of knowledge and creativity" which is not a particularly accurate statement:

“We congratulate Dr. Carla Hayden on her nomination. The Librarian of Congress plays a pivotal role for the copyright industries and the nation as a whole as the custodian of our intellectual and cultural heritage. We look forward to learning more during the confirmation process about Dr. Hayden’s vision for leading the Library and honoring the role of copyright as a driver of knowledge and creativity, as well as an engine of our nation’s economic growth and positive trade balance.”

The sketchy lobbying group, the Copyright Alliance did something similar to the RIAA, saying "keep your hands off the Copyright Office."

“We in the Copyright Community hope that Dr. Hayden will demonstrate a deep respect for the value of copyright; appreciate and support the value of authorship to our culture and the laws that protect that authorship; cultivate a direct relationship with the Register of the Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, and continue the deference that the Librarian of Congress has historically demonstrated to the Register of Copyrights.”

But from there, the complaints really stretch the bounds of reality. First up, there's old friend of the blog, perpetually angrily confused musician David Lowery, who breathlessly announced his horror at the fact that the "former director of [a] P2P Piracy Alliance" had endorsed Hayden. Of course, what Lowery leaves out entirely, is the fact that the individual in question, Adam Eisgrau, works for the American Library Association, the exceptionally well respected organization that represents library interests, and of which Dr. Hayden was once President. So it should hardly be a surprise that the ALA supports Hayden's nomination.

But, in Lowery's telling, this is all really about piracy, because well over a decade ago, Eisgrau happened to run the group P2P United, which represented a bunch of P2P applications in lobbying Congress to teach them about the technology and the fact that it had plenty of non-infringing uses. The group once helped raise money to pay off the $2,000 fine that the RIAA forced upon a 12-year-old honor student who downloaded some music. And, as Eisgrau noted at the time, contrary to Lowery's claim that his group was about supporting piracy, the group had always spoken out against piracy, but warned about the harm of throwing out the baby (P2P technology) with the bathwater of infringement by some users.

But, really, Lowery's statement is not the craziest one we've seen. That award goes to a press release I received yesterday from a group called The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) trumpeting that "Obama nominee to Library of Congress led a pro-obscenity group!" Oh really? Of course, it turns out that the "pro-obscenity group" is also the famous and well respected... American Library Association. NCOSE insists they're "pro-obscenity" and "pro-porn" because the ALA has long fought against mandatory internet filters in libraries.

President Obama has announced his intention to nominate Dr. Carla Hayden, former president of the American Library Association, to the post of Librarian of Congress. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) believes that the pro-pornography agenda of the ALA raises concerns about Dr. Hayden’s nomination.

"The American Library Association (ALA) has been on a campaign to prevent the use of pornography-blocking Internet filtering systems on public library computers since the 1990s," said Patrick Trueman, president and CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. "The ALA even filed suit in 2001 against the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), written by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The act was designed to protect children from pornography by requiring the use of Internet filters on computers at public libraries receiving federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this statute as constitutional. Yet, the ALA during Dr. Hayden’s tenure as president opposed this common sense measure and distorted the Supreme Court’s decision regarding it, as it continues to do to this day."

That, of course, is a massive misstatement of history. The ALA opposed mandatory filters not because it's "pro-obscenity" but because those filters don't work (both in that they block a lot more than porn, including important educational resources, and in that lots of porn still gets through) and because libraries believe in the importance of freedom to access information. That doesn't mean that it's okay for children to surf porn, but that there are better ways to deal with that than mandatory filters on all computers (even ones exclusively used by adults).

To understand the actual positions of the ALA regarding CIPA, why not read the group's actual statements, such as the explanation of why mandatory filters may not be the best solution by former ALA President Nancy Kranich:

Librarians are dedicated and committed to providing an enriching and safe online experience for children and adults alike. We care deeply about children and all of our library users. We have taken numerous steps to help communities develop policies and programs that ensure that their library users have a positive online experience. Based on our extensive experience working with children and their parents everyday throughout the country, we know what works. More than 95 percent of public libraries have Internet-access policies that were created with community input. These policies set forth the community’s rights and responsibilities for conducting productive, safe Internet use. The vast majority of library patrons use the Internet responsibly, as outlined by their communities’ policies....

... Just as every parent is a little different, every local community has its own set of priorities based on its geography, demographics and size - to name just a few of the factors.

This presents a major problem with the Children’s Internet Protection Act. This legislation imposes a one-size-fits-all mechanical solution on libraries that are as diverse as our families and takes away local and parental control, ceding it to unaccountable filtering companies. Blocking technologies come between librarians and their mission - to connect people with a broad range of information to meet their needs.

And another statement by former ALA President John Berry:

The filtering mandate imposed by Congress is unworkable in the context of a public institution because it restricts access to constitutionally protected speech on the users served by libraries. No filtering or blocking technology exists that blocks access only to speech that is obscene, child pornography or harmful to minors. And no filtering technology protects children from all objectionable materials. many of you will have seen the March issue of Consumer Reports evaluating several filtering software products; the best of the products failed to block one objectionable site in five.

We’re concerned that filters give parents a false sense of security that their children are protected when they are not. Not all problems brought on by transformative technological innovation, like the Internet, have technological solutions, at least in the short term. We believe that education is more effective than filters—kids need to make good decisions about what they read and view, no matter where they are. To be sure, this is a collaborative effort between parents, teachers, librarians and many others.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act is a misnomer. The legislation does not strictly limit access for minors, but for adults and all Internet users in a library.

If this is the best that people can come up with, hopefully it means that Hayden's nomination will sail through. But, boy, people are reaching deep to argue that the American Library Association is either "pro-piracy" or "pro-pornography" by misrepresenting events from over a decade ago, and magically tying them to Dr. Hayden.

Filed Under: carla hayden, copyright, copyright office, david lowery, internet filters, librarians, library of congress, patrick trueman
Companies: ncose

President Obama Nominates New Librarian Of Congress Who Supports Open Access, Fights Against Surveillance

from the this-looks-good dept

So here's a pleasant surprise. President Obama has nominated Carla Hayden as the new Librarian of Congress, and at a first glance, she looks perfect for the job. The job is super important for a whole variety of reasons, including that the Librarian of Congress controls the Copyright Office (more on that in a bit...). The former Librarian of Congress, James Billington, was really bad. He apparently was mostly focused on hobnobbing with rich people in fancy places around the globe than doing anything useful. A report by the Government Accountability Office found a massive leadership vacuum with Billington when it came to technology issues, noting that he basically ignored technology entirely. When Billington announced he was retiring, the Washington Post reported that employees were absolutely elated:

The reaction inside the library was almost gleeful, as one employee joked that some workers were thinking of organizing a conga line down Pennsylvania Avenue. Another said it felt like someone opened a window.

“There is a general sense of relief, hope and renewal, all rolled into one feeling,” said one staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “Like a great weight has been lifted from our shoulders.”

Maureen Moore, who retired in 2005 but volunteers at the library, said she and her friends were thrilled.

“It’s a great day for the library. The man has had 27 years to do good things, and he hasn’t,” she said.

That line is great: The man has had 27 years to do good things, and he hasn't. But, right after that, that same Maureen Moore noted what many people feared: what if the replacement was worse and didn't actually understand the key issues of the day: "But the ecstasy is tempered by worry that Obama will appoint someone else who isn’t a librarian, someone who doesn’t have management experience or another megalomaniac."

There had been a lot of speculation about who might be nominated, but it seemed tough to find people with the right qualifications. Someone who actually was a librarian, who had real management experience with a large organization and someone who actually understood the issues.

And at a first glance, Hayden seems perfect. For a while now, she's been CEO of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Balitmore, and by all accounts has done an amazing job modernizing that system. It's also good to see that the President's announcement directly calls out her support of open access to information:

Her understanding of the pivotal role that emerging technologies play in libraries will be essential in leading the Library of Congress as it continues to modernize its infrastructure and promote open access and full participation in today's digital world.

The video that comes with the announcement also focuses quite a bit on free and open access to information and the role of the Library of Congress in encouraging that:

Today, I'm nominating Dr. Carla Hayden to be our 14th Librarian of Congress. Michelle and I have known Carla since her days working at the Chicago Public Library, and her dedication to learning and education is unparalleled. More recently, she's been hard at work revitalizing Baltimore’s struggling library system as the CEO of Enoch Pratt Free Library. Last year, during the unrest in Baltimore, Dr. Hayden kept the doors of the Pratt open as a beacon for the community. Her understanding of the pivotal role that emerging technologies play in libraries will be essential in leading the Library of Congress as it continues to modernize its infrastructure and promote open access and full participation in today's digital world. Finally, Dr. Hayden will be the first woman and the first African-American to hold this position in its 214 year history – both of which are long overdue.I hope you'll take a couple minutes to watch this video and meet Carla for yourself. I have no doubt she'll make a fantastic Librarian of Congress.

Posted by President Obama on Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Beyond that, Hayden was one of the leading voices speaking out against surveillance. As President of the American Library Association at the time when the PATRIOT Act was being debated, she was vocal in opposition, especially to Section 215, which was used to create the phone metadata program that Ed Snowden revealed. What many people forget is that it was the librarians who were most vocal about Section 215 when it was first proposed, as many people thought it would be used to demand things like library records to see what was being checked out -- and librarians are big supporters of privacy.

She's also spoken out for years about the value of free access to information. Here's a 2003 profile of Hayden in Ms. Magazine (where she was named Woman of the Year) in which she notes:

“Libraries are a cornerstone of democracy—where information is free and equally available to everyone. People tend to take that for granted,” says Hayden. “And they don’t realize what is at stake when that is put at risk.”

From that same profile:

Hayden’s stance against the PATRIOT Act is part and parcel of her vision of the library as an integral element of democracy. “We serve the underserved,” Hayden says. “When libraries fight against the PATRIOT Act, or against [mandatory Internet filters], we’re fighting for the public. Most of the people who use public libraries don’t have the opportunity to buy books at a bookstore or on Amazon.com. What the library does is protect the rights of all people to fully and freely access information and to pursue knowledge, without fear of repercussion.”

Of course, the best recommendation may be the fear already coming out of the RIAA, who put out a fairly ridiculous statement in response:

“It is worth noting that the Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office have been mutually respectful of each other’s areas of expertise. We would hope that the new Librarian would continue to demonstrate that respect for the Copyright Office’s expertise in copyright policy and recommendations to Congress.”

In other words "don't mess with the Copyright Office." Of course, what this really is about is the current and ongoing fight over what to do to "modernize" the Copyright Office. There's a big push from the MPAA and the RIAA to move the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress and either merge it into the US Patent and Trademark Office, or make it a stand alone agency. That's all part of the decades-long whitewashing of the history of copyright, to pretend that it's not about benefiting the public with more access to information, but rather about protecting a particular industry. That fight will only take on more prominence as a result of this nomination.

Of course, there's also the question of whether or not the Senate will approve the nomination. Obviously, there are different stakes involved, but everyone lately has been talking about whether or not the Senate will even hold hearings on President Obama's expected Supreme Court nomination. And the (totally bullshit) argument against it is "well, this is an election year, and we should let the public decide who the President will be, and then let that President choose a nominee." That's silly for a whole bunch of reasons, and without the SCOTUS backdrop no one would think twice about considering the LOC nominee. However, given all the statements being made, I could see some in the Senate argue that they can't consider any nominees for anything, just to appear to remain consistent.

And, of course, some are actually wondering if her vocal opposition to the PATRIOT Act will somehow get in the way of her appointment. I guess that's possible, but if so, it would be crazy, because she was absolutely right, and Congress itself has now updated Section 215 after Ed Snowden revealed how it was being abused.

Either way, this appears to be a fantastic nomination and I hope it does go smoothly, and that it leads to not just a modernized Library of Congress, but a modernized Copyright Office as well --and by that I mean one that doesn't just focus on doing the bidding of a few legacy industry players, but actually on serving the public interest.

Filed Under: carla hayden, copyright, copyright office, librarian of congress, librarians, open access, patriot act, privacy, public benefit, section 215, surveillance

Australian Librarians Start 'Cooking For Copyright' Campaign To Change Law For Unpublished Works

from the grilled-fair-use dept

This history of copyright in the United States is long and filled with changes, mostly in the direction of greater and longer protection. There are a few instances that go the opposite way, however, and one of them is the way that unpublished works are protected by copyright restrictions. In the early days of America, a work that an author had not chosen to publicly publish was actually afforded perpetual copyright under common law rights up until the author either published the work or registered it for statutory copyright protection. In fact, the earliest copyright case to go before the Supreme Court in part dealt with unpublished works. Later, in the early 1900s, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled on a case that decided that unpublished works are only afforded the same copyright term and length as registered or published works. It was a good result, in my view, as I believe the entire point of copyright is to grant control in order to spur creation and publication for public consumption. Granting copyrights to unpublished works breaks the give/take nature of copyright law. The 1976 Copyright Act finally made it official that unpublished works do not get perpetual copyright (though, it expanded copyright in almost every other way possible).

In Australia, the law never made the transition regarding unpublished works, and now a group of librarians is pulling an online stunt in order to get the public interested in making that change.

Librarians across Australia are cooking up a campaign to change the country's copyright laws. However, those involved want people to bake biscuits and cakes rather than picket Parliament.

Social media users are being encouraged to cook a vintage recipe and share a photo of the result. The aim is to encourage the Attorney-General to look at changing the law so that unpublished works are treated the same way as published ones. Executive director of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Sue McKerracher said the nation had "some rather strange copyright laws".

Strange may be a bit unfair. Antiquated is probably more accurate. In Australia, unpublished works are offered perpetual copyright, so long as they remain unpublished. Published works get the life-plus-70-years deal that we're familiar with. The librarians goal in this is to be able to offer more educational and historical materials to students.

"All we'd like to do is just change it so that unpublished works come under the same terms as published works," Ms McKerracher told 774 ABC Melbourne's Red Symons. "That way, all of the wonderful materials in libraries, galleries, historical societies and museums could be released to students, researchers and historians."

Ms McKerracher said changing the law would allow historians access to soldiers' diaries from World War I, for example.

Also included under current protections would be historical recipes, hence the cooking awareness campaign. The librarians group went so far as to dig up some recipes from historical figures' diaries and private writings, such as Captain James Cook, and encouraged the public to cook them up and post pictures on social media under the hashtag #CookingForCopyright. It's a cute idea, one which will hopefully encourage Australia to bring its copyright law into line with modernity. If you'd like to join in, there are details over here.

Filed Under: australia, cooking for copyright, copyright, librarians, libraries, unpublished works

Librarians Are Continuing To Defend Open Access To The Web As A Public Service

from the not-all-porn-is-porn dept

Librarians have built up quite a reputation for activism in all the right ways. Whether taking a stand against DRM, expanding libraries' catalogs to include new digital media and art, or embracing indie authors, librarians come off as much more of a hip crowd than you might expect. These stances occasionally put them at odds with some in the community that they serve, perhaps most notably with parents who have pushed for restrictions on internet access within libraries. It gets all the more unfortunate when a subsection of the citizenry sees fit to ramp up the rhetoric against an institution simply attempting to serve the greatest public good. This typically, unfortunately, devolves into the supposed accusation of librarians "defending" the right for visitors to view "pornography."

Take the Orland Park Public Library, a community library in a suburb southwest of Chicago. Last year, self-identified conservative homeschooling mom Megan Fox launched a campaign to get the library to install filters on its computers after she claims to have seen a man looking at pornography in the library’s adult-only computer lab (the library has a separate, filtered computer lab for children). The library board voted on the issue and decided not to install filters, but to require identification for anyone logging on.

Not satisfied, Fox and her supporters continued to hound the board, often resulting in police being called to heated meetings. She filed so many FOIA requests that the library has had to dedicate two full-time employees to respond to them. She accused the library of covering up an incident of someone looking at child pornography, and she forced a re-vote on the issue by having the Public Access Bureau declare a board meeting illegal because it was held on Lincoln’s birthday.

If all of that sounds to you like a big bucket of crazy, you're not alone. Fortunately, the librarians in this case are steadfastly refusing to back down. That isn't always what happens. And, look, there's nothing wrong with being conservative, having a specific set of values, and all the rest. What you can't do, however, is insist that public institutions follow your personal views just because. That isn't how secular government works.

And, of course, the entire point of the stance by librarians in cases like this is that all of this comes down to definitions and scope. Define, they challenge, "pornography," and "I know it when I see it" doesn't work as an answer. Define what should be filtered. Outline a scope of internet filtering on adult only computers that will filter out what we all universally accept to be pornography, but won't block any educational information, keeping in mind that free and open access to information and literature is the entire point of libraries. When you think of it like that, all this porn-blocking doesn't sound so simple. What's porn to a nun may not be to a commercial banker. Whose definition do you use? And why? And what do you tell the person who isn't getting their way? Too bad, but some lady named Megan Fox agrees with us?

We have to be more grown up than that, something librarians have been pushing for a long, long time.

Libraries have been advocates for a right to access information long before the digital age. Book banning and burning has been a national pastime for various sections of the population for decades, and libraries have always stood in the face of that, advocating in the belief that people have a right to read, learn, and access everything the world has to offer.

“There have always been disputes over whether we should have sex manuals or books about creating bombs. There have always been those kinds of conflicts and librarians have tried to put out guidelines to have the most open access possible,” said Michael Zimmer, a privacy and internet ethics expert who runs the Center for Information Policy Rese​arch at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Add to that the burden that a more restrictive blocking policy puts on the less-well-off in this country and we're beginning, again, to lose sight of the entire point of libraries. Let's give an example. Let's say that we have a very poor young woman who has recently found out she's pregnant. Perhaps due to a lack of education, she is unsure of what to expect during her pregnancy and what giving birth will be like, what she should and should not be eating, etc. So she goes to the library computer section, but finds that the pages she's trying to look up have been blocked because they contain medical pictures of naughty-bits or keywords that trigger the filter. So what does she do? I'm not sure, but she may not be able to do what a suburbanite housewife can do and look this stuff up on her own high-speed internet service at home. See the problem?

And it isn't just medically relevant information that can be unfairly blocked.

The ALA published a rep​ort investigating the use of filters and found they were disproportionately blocking out left-leaning views on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. LGBT community websites were often blocked and identified as “sexual” sites.

And whatever your feelings on LGBT issues and communities, you simply can't endorse a system in which a public commodity locks out access to sites of interest to sections of the public based on the sensibilities of other members of that public. That just isn't how this works. So, when somebody cries about seeing someone viewing pornography at a local library, a different image pops up into each one of our minds, and none of them may be remotely close to what she saw.

That's why librarians stand against filtering internet access in this manner. It's for all of us and we really should be standing with them.

Filed Under: free speech, librarians, open internet

Awesome: Entire Editorial Board Of Journal Of Library Administration Resigns In Support Of Open Access

from the take-a-stand dept

With academics increasingly fighting back against ridiculous academic journal publishing rules that lock up information, we've often wondered how academics who work for some of those journals feel. In one case, those academics have just made a very loud statement. The editor and entire editorial board for the Journal of Library Administration have all resigned en masse to protest the journal's closed access provisions, which they claim are "too restrictive and out of step with the expectations of authors." The editor, Damon Jaggers (also an associate university librarian at Columbia University) only became the editor recently, but noted that many authors he approached pushed back about the licensing terms.

Some found the terms too confusing, Mr. Jaggars said, while others felt they were too restrictive. Many requested, instead, a form of Creative Commons license, arguing that the journal’s agreement left them little ownership of their own work.

What may have pushed the editorial board over the edge, it seems, was the Aaron Swartz story. One of the editorial board members, Chris Bourg, who is an assistant university librarian at Stanford, published a blog post in which she directly cites the Swartz situation as making it clear she needed to resign:

Later, Damon asked me to write an article about our Library Concierge project for JLA, and again I said yes. When Damon contacted me later with an actual deadline for the article, I told him I was having second thoughts. It was just days after Aaron Swartz’ death, and I was having a crisis of conscience about publishing in a journal that was not open access. Damon reminded me (gently) that not only had I agreed to write for JLA, but I was on the Editorial Board, so this could be a problem. More importantly, he assured me that he was working with Taylor & Francis to try to get them to adopt less restrictive agreements that would allow for some form of Creative Commons license. He told me his strategy was to work from within to encourage change among publishers. Once again, Damon’s power of persuasion worked.

So, I worked on the article, and just recently submitted it. In the meantime, Damon continued to try to convince Taylor & Francis (on behalf of the entire Editorial Board, and with our full support), that their licensing terms were too confusing and too restrictive. A big part of the argument is that the Taylor & Francis author agreement is a real turn-off for authors and was handicapping the Editorial Board’s ability to attract quality content to the journal. The best Taylor & Francis could come up with was a less restrictive license that would cost authors nearly $3000 per article. The Board agreed that this alternative was simply not tenable, so we collectively resigned. In a sense, the decision was as much a practical one as a political one. Huge kudos to Damon for his persistence, his leadership, and his measured and ethical stance on this issue.

Everyone resigned on Friday. As of the latest updates, the company that publishes the journal, Taylor & Francis had not responded to anyone about the resignations.

Either way, good for this team for taking a stand against such restrictive practices. Hopefully it helps to wake up other journals and publishers that closing off access is no way to run an academic journal.

Filed Under: chris bourg, damon jaggers, journal of library administration, librarians, open access, resignation, terms
Companies: taylor & francis

Canadian Librarians 'Owe Duty Of Loyalty To The Government,' Must Self-Censor Opinions Even In Private

from the maintaining-awareness dept

Librarians can play an important role in any society that depends increasingly on access to information to function. One of their jobs is to help people find what they are looking for, in a neutral, objective way, without imposing their own ideas or values in the process. Sadly, it looks like that won't be possible in Canada any more, now that librarians are expected to sign up to a new Code of Conduct imposed on them by the Canadian government. Here's one problematic section:

Employment in the public service involves certain restrictions. Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada. This duty derives from the essential mission of the public service to help the duly elected government, under law, to serve the public interest and implement government policies and ministerial decisions. The duty of loyalty reflects the importance and necessity of having an impartial and effective public service in order to achieve this mission.

"A duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada": I think Stalin would have approved of that. Although there is a token invocation of "the importance and necessity of having an impartial and effective public service", it's clear that obedience to the ruling powers overrides any misguided desire to be impartial. That imposition of an overtly political line to everything librarians do in their jobs is bad enough, but it gets worse:

As public servants, our duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada and its elected officials extends beyond our workplace to our personal activities. Public servants must therefore use caution when making public comments, expressing personal opinions or taking actions that could potentially damage LAC [Library and Archives Canada]'s reputation and/or public confidence in the public service and the Government of Canada. They must maintain awareness of their surroundings, their audience and how their words or actions could be interpreted (or misinterpreted).

"Maintain awareness of their surroundings" is a particularly fine Orwellian phrase that basically means: watch what you say, or else there will be trouble. Of course, one famously dangerous environment is the online world:

With the current proliferation of social media, public servants need to pay particular attention to their participation in these forums. For example, in a blog with access limited to certain friends, personal opinions about a new departmental or Government of Canada program intended to be expressed to a limited audience can, through no fault of the public servant, become public and the author identified. The public servant could be subject to disciplinary measures, as the simple act of limiting access to the blog does not negate a public servant's duty of loyalty to the elected government. Only authorized spokespersons can issue statements or make comments about LAC's position on a given subject. If you are asked for LAC's position, you must refer the inquiries, through your manager, to the authorized LACspokesperson.

Yes, you see, even that private little blog where you make a witty remark about the stupidity of some of Canada's glorious leaders could cause you to be subject to "disciplinary measures" (and please, do remember that parts of Canada are just as cold as Siberia....)

The attempt to dress up this pompous control-freakery as moderate and reasonable -- "through no fault of the public servant" etc. etc. -- would be rather amusing were it not part of a much larger move by Canada's rulers to stifle dissent. Canadian scientists, for example, have been subject to these kind of humiliating restrictions for some time, as the BBC reported last year:

The allegation of "muzzling" came up at a session of the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008.

The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.

Sources say that requests are often refused and when interviews are granted, government media relations officials can and do ask for written questions to be submitted in advance and elect to sit in on the interview.

Adapting some words penned in a much more serious situation, we might say:

First they censored the scientists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a scientist.

Then they censored the librarians, and I did not speak out, because I was not a librarian.

Then they censored me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Now might be a good time for Canadians to say "enough is enough"....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: canada, censorship, free speech, librarians, loyalty to the government, opinions

When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...

from the damn-pirates,-all-of-them dept

Supporters of SOPA keep trying to pretend that the only people who could possibly be against the bill are those who profit from infringement. That's crazy. The concern here has nothing to do with infringement, but how SOPA is ridiculously overbroad, and will create massive problems and liability for activities that most people consider perfectly reasonable and legal. I'd love to see how the defenders of SOPA try to tar and feather the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College & Research Libraries who have written a letter warning about SOPA, with particular concern on the new "felony streaming" parts of the bill -- the ones that backers don't fully understand themselves.

The libraries highlight two key concerns. The first is how Section 201(c) of SOPA appears to significantly change the definition of "willful" infringement. As you may know, under current Copyright law, if you're found guilty of "willful" infringement, statutory damages can rise from a maximum of $30k (for not willful) all the way up to a maximum of $150k. Plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits often claim every infringement is willful, but there are actual standards. SOPA appears to change the standard for willfulness in a massive way -- such that a lot more infringement would be deemed willful. In fact, it would go all the way to the level of saying nearly every infringement was willful (with the exception of "innocent" infringement, which is almost never allowed by courts).

This rule of construction creates a negative implication that a person is a willful infringer if the person did not have a good faith reasonable basis in law for believing that his conduct was lawful. Thus, if a court finds that the person's belief was unreasonable, the court might consider him a willful infringer, even if the person in good faith believed his actions were legal. Under current law, however, this level of intent constitutes ordinary infringement, not willful infringement. In other words, the rule of construction could have the effect of collapsing the three levels of intent into two: willful infringement and innocent infringement. The willful infringement level would swallow the ordinary infringement level, thereby significantly broadening the range of activities subject to criminal sanctions.

Next up, the libraries point out that SOPA, unlike S.978 (the Senate's streaming bill), takes away the requirement that infringement be for commercial purposes to be declared criminal. For libraries, that's clearly a scary change. The libraries fear that under SOPA, they're hugely liable and at risk of being dragged into court:

In this environment, the criminal prosecution of a library for copyright infringement is no longer beyond the realm of possibility. For this reason, we strongly oppose the amendments described above, which would increase the exposure of libraries to prosecution. The broadening of the definition of willful infringement could result in a criminal prosecution if an Assistant U.S. Attorney believes that a library�s assertion of fair use or one of the Copyright Act�s other privileges is unreasonable. This risk is compounded with streaming, which SOPA would subject to felony penalties even if conducted without purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Those damn "pirate" libraries, huh?

Filed Under: felony streaming, free speech, librarians, sopa, streaming
Companies: american library association

Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]

from the pushing-back dept

HarperCollins recently announced it would limit library e-book checkouts to 26, after which said e-books "bought" and paid for by libraries would self-destruct. Some librarians I know were none too thrilled about this, and asked me to create a graphic to show it:

 

 Update: we've added an Authors Against DRM graphic, again by popular demand (from authors).

 

 

Filed Under: drm, ebooks, librarians