Cites & insights Crawford at large.

              Cites & Insights Spring 2003 1
Cites & Insights
Crawford at Large
Volume 3, Number 5: Spring 2003 ISSN 1534- 0937 Walt Crawford
Bibs & Blather
Why is this issue Spring 2003 and not May 2003?
Several reasons:
􀂾 Some spring cleaning is in order. There’s a lot
here, including 4,000 words of interesting
Feedback, a new copyright end- run and other
copyright material. ( That doesn’t include the
new MPAA move for “ state DMCA” laws. It’s
important, but right now there’s not enough
information for me to be of any use. Go to
Edward Felten’s “ Freedom to Tinker” weblog
for excellent coverage.)
􀂾 One perspective started small and blossomed,
thanks largely to more than 7,000 words of
correspondence between Jenny Levine and me
beginning with my comment in April. No, I
won’t burden you with the whole 7,000 words.
􀂾 In conjunction with that perspective, I need to
clean up any suggestion that, because I believe
A ( or disbelieve B), that I think those who be-lieve
B ( or disbelieve A) should shut up. Go
back to the very first “ Crawford Files” I wrote,
the third one published, in March 2002: “ Who
are you to doubt a library legend?” ( You can
get it at ALOnline.) If I can take issue with li-brary
legends, I can’t imagine why any of you
would be dissuaded from taking issue with an
aging pseudo- librarian who has his own zine.
( Similarly, to a nameless colleague who sug-gested
that my thoughts on a specific topic
were more important than his: That’s nonsense—
even if I’m as well informed on a particular
topic as he is, which was not the case.)
􀂾 The schedule’s gotten out of whack. This extra
issue should put things back in order— it’s even
possible that the May issue will appear in May
( but don’t count on it).
􀂾 I’m committed to a fairly long piece in the May
issue, in conjunction with “ disContent” in the
May 2003 EContent. I hope you’ll find it inter-esting,
but first I need room.
􀂾 Finally, in April’s “ Bibs & Blather” I said that
I’d remark on the Alaska Library Conference
“ next month.” My intention was ( and is) to do
a piece on that conference and the Washington
Library Conference. This issue is not “ next
month.” The May 2003 issue will be.
“ Good Stuff” and “ Library Stuff” should both re-turn
in May, along with either ebook or access dis-cussions
( possibly under a different name), maybe
both, based on the thickest folders on my desk.
Inside This Issue
Interesting and Peculiar Products....................................... 6
Perspective: The Shifting Commons….............................. 7
Copyright Currents .......................................................... 13
Trends & Quick Takes ...................................................... 15
Feedback: Your Insights.................................................... 16
Copyright Special
The Broadcast Flag:
Hollings Lite?
What’s the broadcast flag? If you’re a conspiracy
theorist, it’s an end run around heightened aware-ness
of abusive copyright legislation— a way of “ pass-ing
Hollings,” at least in part, without legislation.
Specifically, it’s an FCC proposal that would, if
adopted, mandate that televisions and all related
equipment sold after a certain date recognize and
obey a “ flag” that could limit your right to record or
preserve a broadcast ( under the assumed interest of
preventing distribution of such a recording).
Movie studios demand the broadcast flag. Oddly
enough, Howard Berman worries that the FCC
might not be tough enough— that the rulemaking
might recognize some fair use rights. “ I’m opposed
to the FCC attempting to… limit the exclusive rights of
copyright holders in its broadcast flag rule making.”
You thought there were other rights? You don’t rep-resent
Hollywood. MPAA’s lobbyist admits that the
broadcast flag is just the beginning, a “ necessary, but
by no means complete, solution”:
Another key component of this problem is analog
reconversion, which refers to the conversion of pro-tected
digital content to analog, and its reconversion
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 2
to digital, which wipes out all known digital rights
management technologies.”
You think I’m being paranoid about grotesquely
overreaching solutions in the future? Of course, as
Public Knowledge points out, there’s no evidence
that there are current or imminent problems for
high- quality digital video. “ We have always believed
the case for the broadcast flag was thin, but have
been amazed to discover that the evidence comes
close to being nonexistent.”
The Case for FCC Action
I printed the MPAA brief to the FCC ( a bunch of
other Big Media parties have their names on it as
well) and three of many responses. I trust readers
can find these documents if they wish to, which is to
say they’re all PDFs that don’t carry URLs on the
printouts.
The MPAA et al brief is huge, technical, and be-yond
my limited abilities to summarize. Much of it
consists of details of the proposed flag and which
devices would need controls for it to work. Of
course, the brief says, “ Oh, no, you don’t need to
change any other devices”— but such devices must
be prevented from receiving digital video. As noted
above, of course, the MPAA already plans to push
for more restrictions on us pirates, er, consumers.
Why should the FCC act, particularly when no
legislation is pending? According to MPAA, because
broadcast high- resolution digital TV represents more
of a piracy threat than existing ( analog and low-resolution
digital) broadcast TV. In other words, it
would be easier, faster, and cheaper to capture and
distribute a movie broadcast over high- res digital TV
than it is to capture and distribute a current broad-cast
movie. As the MPAA puts it,
[ DTV signals are] subject to an extraordinarily high
risk of unauthorized redistribution. Once received in
the home, digital broadcast television content can
easily be redistributed via retransmission over net-works
like the Internet by such means as rebroad-casting,
hosting files on a web server, or peer- to- peer
file trafficking. Such unauthorized redistribution can
be accomplished without downloading any special
software…[ and] without any complex technical skills
whatsoever. For example, all a person has to do is to
select “ Record” while watching TV on his or her
computer using a TV tuner card, and then save the
file to a publicly accessible folder on his or her hard
drive, where it can be illegally redistributed to
anonymous users via peer- to- peer file trafficking. Or
that person can easily e- mail the file as an attach-ment
to an unlimited number of people. Or he or
she can simply place the recorded file on a personal
webpage for unauthorized redistribution to others
on the Internet. [ Emphasis added]
Later, the MPAA characterizes redistribution as “ in-stantaneous,
effortless, and costless,” as having “ no
delay… [ and ] no significant transaction costs,” and
as allowing a pirate to “ redistribute… works to the
entire planet instantaneously.” [ I’ve used excerpts
from the brief and MPAA’s further reply as cited by
Edward Felten in his reply, rather than choosing my
own. Thanks, Dr. Felten!]
I suggest that you read through the quoted para-graph
again. If you know a little about the size of
high- def digital video files ( or even standard-resolution
digital video) and the nature of the Inter-net,
your eyebrows may already be rising.
Naïve Personal Commentary
While I’ll go on to provide excerpts from and com-ments
on three reply comments that I’ve looked at, a
naïve ( but reasonably knowledgeable) personal
commentary may be in order first. [ This commen-tary
draws from Edward Felten and his expertise as a
computer science professor and Raffi Krikorian, a
grad student at MIT’s Media Lab, and his actual
experiments.] Remember the thesis that’s the only
plausible basis for immediate FCC action: That
broadcast digital TV offers a higher risk of redistribu-tion
than existing TV and that it’s easier and cheaper
to do it— not, say, 20 years from now, but now.
Let’s use a two- hour movie as an example— say
Spiderman, since that’s what we watched the night
before I wrote this. ( Two hours and one minute:
Close enough.) For $ 20, you can buy the DVD,
which not only includes the full movie but your
choice of two commentary tracks, your choice of
two “ special viewing” modes with “ Spider Sense” or
“ factoid” popups, your choice of two languages and
three different subtitle languages— and another disc
( which we haven’t seen), with all this stuff ( accord-ing
to Netflix):
The bonus disc for this exciting, Web- slinging ad-venture
is packed with goodies, including two mak-ing-
of featurettes, a profile of director Sam Raimi,
screen test footage for star Tobey Maguire and oth-ers,
costume and makeup tests, a gag reel of out-takes,
a production gallery, a retrospective " History
of Spider- Man" documentary, a rogues gallery, a
comic book art gallery, video game hints, DVD-ROM
features, and more.
If someone cares about the movie enough to want to
pirate it, chances are they’d like some of the extra
goodies. Let’s assign a nominal value of $ 2 to the
bonus disc and $ 18 to the movie itself. Why? Be-cause
there’s a point at which no sensible person
would bother with piracy— and that point must be
at or below $ 18 ( or $ 4 if you want to see it once).
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 3
Edward Felten’s example adds another, abso-lutely
legitimate, twist: We’re talking broadcast TV,
which means the movie’s being shown on commer-cial
TV. Thus, the two- hour movie will either be cut
to shreds or will take three hours including commer-cials.
Since my long- standing preference is to use the
scenario most favorable to arguments I disagree
with, at least to begin, I’ll ignore that: We’ll say that
NBC’s decided to show Spiderman uncut, uninter-rupted,
because they love us so much. I’m a “ pirate”
who knows that friends and strangers would love to
get their hands on Spidey, won’t cough up $ 20 for
the DVD or $ 4 to rent it, and are willing to wait.
Current Scenarios
Two years ago, I would have put a videocassette in
my VCR, programmed it to record the movie, and
mailed the copy to my friend. About three minutes’
effort on my part, $ 1 or $ 2 ( for S- VHS, “ near- DVD”
quality) materials, a buck or so postage. If I wanted
to distribute it to several people, I’d need two VCRs
or a two- bay unit and a lot more time.
Now? I could do that. Or I could record it di-rectly
to DVD- R on a DVD recorder; figure about
$ 1.50 for the blank. Direct DVD recording may not
quite yield broadcast quality on a two- hour movie
( real- time MPEG2 compression can’t be as effective
as two- pass MPEG2, which is why the highest-quality
recordings on PVRs use 3GB or more per
hour of recording), but may be good enough. Same
effort, same materials cost, $ 0.37 postage.
Or I use a PVR and make DVD or VHS copies
for several people.
Better yet, I do use a TV tuner and PC, record
the movie to disc at a high bitrate, then encode it to
MPEG2 and burn as many DVD- Rs as I want. If I
have really cheap friends who don’t care how bad the
picture looks, I can burn Video CDs at $ 0.20 per
disc and the same $ 0.37 postage. I could even en-code
the movie in DivX:) format and play Internet
pirate, although even there we’re talking about
transmission of hundreds of megabytes and even
lower video quality.
None of these takes much time or money. None
allows “ instantaneous, effortless, and costless” copy-ing
or lets me “ redistribute [ Spiderman] to the whole
planet instantaneously.”
So maybe broadcast digital TV is different?
The Reality of Digital Video Piracy
True piracy— illegal redistribution of copyright goods
in commercial quantities and for sale, not for free—
currently works either by having a studio insider
grab a copy of the movie before it’s even released, or
by sneaking a camcorder into a theater and taping it
from the screen. True pirates aren’t going to wait for
broadcast movies and certainly aren’t concerned with
the niceties of video fidelity and high resolution.
But let’s set aside the fact that we’re talking
about casual copying, not true piracy. It’s a distinc-tion
Big Media studiously refuses to make.
The casual pirate records the broadcast digital
signal to their hard disk. ATSC broadcast format
uses roughly 8GB per hour. So that’s 16GB. Well,
OK, modern hard disks have room to spare; that’s
only about $ 25 worth of hard disk space. Now
what? The MPAA offers several scenarios:
􀂾 Rebroadcast: There’s no such thing on the
Internet— it’s not a broadcast medium. If there
was such a thing, a typical home broadband
connection offers no more than 200kbps up-load
rate. Which means it would take 48 hours
to rebroadcast that 2- hour movie. In other
words, ( a) It’s impossible, ( b) No sane user
would tie up their connection— inbound or
outbound— for 48 hours to save $ 4 or $ 20.
Strike one.
􀂾 Web server: 48 hours to upload it to your
friendly host. Enough host space for 16GB for
each two- hour movie and enough transfer
bandwidth for 16GB plus another 16GB each
time someone wants to download it.
( Downloading’s faster; figure as little as six or
eight hours under ideal conditions.) Any guess
as to what a host will charge for that kind of
capacity? ( Any guess as to what the user’s
broadband provider will do with repeated
16GB downloads?) A little checking suggests
that a reputable provider would handle 40GB
space and 100GB data transfer for around
$ 200 a month. So you could offer a movie to
five people a month. That comes to $ 40 per
copy— twice as much as for the DVD, ten times
as much as for a rental. Strike two.
􀂾 Peer- to- peer: Unlike the “ rebroadcast” sce-nario,
it’s theoretically possible, but would take
five days if nobody else wanted the movie at
the same time and if nothing interfered with
the bandwidth. Strike three.
􀂾 E- mail: “ The person can easily email the file as
an attachment to an unlimited number of peo-ple.”
Here it starts to get scary. Attachments
are MIME- encoded, which increases their size
by 33%, so the attachment size is 24GB, not
16GB. Attachments don’t move any faster over
the Internet than any other data, so we’re talk-ing
three full days to send each email, and a day
or so to receive it. But, of course, email systems
won’t handle 24GB attachments. Most limit
attachments to 10MB per message— and most
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 4
commercial email systems only provide 10MB
to 100MB total storage per recipient. So, as
Felten points out with some charm, the would-be
pirate has to break the video down into sev-eral
thousand individual portions ( and doing
that without first downloading highly special-ized
software just isn’t possible), send a few
pieces, get confirmation that the pieces have
been moved out of the mail file, send a few
more… and, of course, the recipient needs to
load new software that can properly reassemble
the whole mess. Anybody who would do this to
save $ 20 is probably certifiable. Strike four.
􀂾 Personal web page: Same problems as with
Web server. Services don’t sell “ personal” web
pages with 16GB storage space and essentially
unlimited data transfer, and if they do, they’ll
cost a lot. Strike five.
In other words, there is no known scenario in which
MPAA’s assertions make sense. Illegal copying of
current TV is vastly easier and cheaper than any of
these scenarios.
While the commentary above was personal in
terms of arrangement and nasty comments, the
technical aspects are based directly on the Felten
and Krikorian replies— but if I got something wrong,
it’s my fault, not theirs.
Knowledgeable Responses
Edward Felten offers an excellent commentary at
Freedom to Tinker ( www. freedom- to- tinker. com on
March 3, “ Broadcast flag blues.” He notes that
MPAA claims are “ ridiculously wrong.” He closes:
Call me naïve if you want, but I still find this sort of
thing depressing. Either the MPAA doesn’t know that
its assertions are technically ridiculous, or it doesn’t
care. I’m not sure which is worse.
Felten’s FCC communication spells out the problems
involved. I’ve adapted much of it in the commentary
above. He includes the cost of new disk drives at
both ends and uses a three- hour TV movie ( with
commercials) as an example; I chose not to do so, in
order to give the MPAA the benefit of the doubt.
Felten also notes that both firewalls and ISP
terms of service are likely to prevent the MPAA’s
casual file- sharing case.
His seven- page comment is clear, pointed, and
technologically knowledgeable. He concludes that
“ DTV content is currently much harder and more ex-pensive
to pirate than analog TV content.” [ Emphasis
in original.] He also explains why it’s unlikely that
technological change will make casual DTV piracy
practical in the medium term— and, offhand, why
such changes would continue to make low- res video
piracy easier and cheaper.
Raffi Krikorian’s comment is much longer—
twice as many pages and single- rather than double-spaced—
and offers a fascinating set of expert notes.
To wit, he tried it— using all the means at his facili-ties,
both at home and at the Media Lab, to try to
transmit a Super Bowl broadcast recorded to hard
disk from a 720p ABC broadcast. ( 720p, 720 verti-cal
lines progressively scanned, is one of the lowest-density
“ high resolution” alternatives.)
Since the Super Bowl ran roughly five hours, the
file was 43GB ( again, roughly 8GB per hour). He
spent considerable time and ingenuity seeing what
he could do with the file locally and whether he
could send it anywhere else. A few notes from a
long, fascinating, perceptive discussion:
􀂾 Once converted from ATSC to regular MPEG2
form, he could stream the video over his high-speed
Ethernet connection. No luck with a
wireless network, however, and that’s not sur-prising:
IEEE 80211. b tops out at 11mb/ s and
high- definition MPEG2 requires 19.4mb/ s.
( IEEE 802.11g or 802.11a could handle it.)
􀂾 He tried to send “ SuperBowl. mpg” as an email
attachment. He has an unusually fast upload
connection ( 800kb/ s), but nothing much hap-pened.
His best estimate was that it would take
6.5 days to send the email if he could monopo-lize
the cable path and the nine jumps between
his PC and his mail server— which is effectively
impossible thanks to TCP/ IP. ( This ignores
other email issues.)
􀂾 He put the MPEG- 2 file into a shared directory
and posted a little web page with a link, then
told a few friends about it. At which point his
Internet connection became entirely unusable,
as four friends were using all available band-width
in futile attempts to share. He didn’t try
P2P for various reasons, but— as he notes— his
own web server offers much the same situation.
􀂾 How about moving the file physically? Not
easy: Ignoring silly stuff such as 30,500 disk-ettes
or 175 Zip drives, or even 70 CD- Rs, it
would take some 10 DVD- Rs to record the file.
But he has a big external hard disk, so he could
copy the monster and take it to MIT. ( A won-derful
footnote harks back to Clifford Lynch’s
classic statement, “ Never underestimate the
bandwidth of a plane full of CDs.” He con-cluded
that his effective bandwidth in going to
work with the portable drive in his backpack
was 240mb/ s to 500mb/ s, 300 to 500 times as
fast as his cable modem.)
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 5
􀂾 At work— and MIT has campus networking
and Internet connections that are probably as
fast as any university, faster than most corpora-tions—
he tried to send the email again. It just
disappeared. He asked knowledgeable people.
“ They looked at me, puzzled at first ( as if
questioning my quixotic desire to send a 43GB
file through e- mail), and then they politely in-formed
me that the mail service was pro-grammed
to reject any mail larger than a few
megabytes.”
􀂾 He tried the other methods over MIT’s robust
services. And, indeed, a colleague was able to
watch the video in real time, sort of, after let-ting
it download for about an hour first. Even
then, the stuttering was irritating— and most
intranets don’t offer a minimum 100 Base- TX
connection, moving up to gigabit Ethernet. Set
aside the likelihood that a pirate using com-pany
or university facilities would attempt such
an egregious violation.
􀂾 Under ideal conditions— MIT’s high- speed
Internet connection, no congestion, etc., he
concluded that the fastest of several trial Inter-net
downloaders might be able to download the
file in as little as two full days. Maybe.
He concludes, at the end of an entertaining voyage,
“ It is just not possible” to send a high- resolution
video file to any other computer at any decent
physical distance in a reasonable amount of time.
The “ last mile” problem isn’t going away any time
soon ( if ever). He calls MPAA’s view “ misinformed”
and says, “ There is no practical evidence that an
ATSC broadcast flag would address a real problem.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a long
and wide- ranging commentary ( 32 single- spaced
pages), addressing not only the lack of necessity for
a broadcast flag but also its harm to consumers. A
key statement appears early on: “ Facts… are in nota-bly
short supply in the comments submitted by
those who support the MPAA Proposal or broadcast
flag mandates like it.” Some ( by no means all) of the
key points ( and, if it isn’t clear, I recommend that
interested readers go directly to this comment and to
those of Felten and Krikorian):
􀂾 Internet redistribution of DTV content is not a
realistic threat today or in the foreseeable fu-ture.
Does this need further demonstration?
( EFF uses the term “ outlandish” in describing
MPAA’s email scenario.)
􀂾 There’s no evidence that content is being with-held
from DTV in the absence of the Broadcast
Flag, or that it will be withheld tomorrow. Ad-ditionally,
there’s no promise of new content if
the Broadcast Flag is mandated.
􀂾 If Internet redistribution was feasible, the
Broadcast Flag wouldn’t work because it’s a
“ break once, break everywhere” system. That
is: It would be legal to have broadcasts that
don’t have the flag; once hacked, a flagged
broadcast would be treated as legitimately un-flagged.
There’s also the analog hole, of course,
and several other holes.
􀂾 Experience with DVDs should show three
things: 1. That content protection will be de-feated
almost immediately; 2. That appropri-ately-
priced, high- quality commercial offerings
will sell very well even if “ pirated” counterparts
are available; 3. That restrictions imposed to
support content protection will burden techno-logical
development.
􀂾 The Broadcast Flag would derail convergence—
an argument that would be more interesting if
convergence made sense otherwise.
􀂾 The proposal would undermine legitimate fair
use activities.
􀂾 The proposal is anti- competitive and threatens
various constitutional rights.
􀂾 The Broadcast Flag is a bad proposal partly be-cause
it was developed badly.
Conclusion
Will the FCC take the proper course and laugh the
Broadcast Flag proposal out of existence? Only time
will tell. For all I know, that could have happened by
the time this appears.
Even if it does, the experience is worth remem-bering.
Elements of Big Media appear determined to
assert absolute, total control over every use of
“ their” products, overriding first sale, fair use, and
any other doctrines and without regard to secondary
damage to consumers, the consumer electronics in-dustry,
the computer industry, or others.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the MPAA
and RIAA don’t think current copyright law is un-balanced
enough. Given the history of prerecorded
video and DVD, this attitude doesn’t appear to
make commercial or financial sense.
The Broadcast Flag debate has no immediate ef-fect
on libraries, but the indirect effects could be
considerable— particularly if this end- run or congres-sional
action eventually crippled general- purpose
computing devices, eliminated the possibility of ar-chival
copying, and possibly even eliminated free
circulation. Would Big Media ever do something
that would make it impossible for libraries to pur-chase
and circulate music, movies, or books as they
do now?
Do you need to ask?
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 6
Interesting and
Peculiar Products
True Desktop Replacements?
The December 2002 Computer Shopper includes a
full- page review of Toshiba’s Satellite 1900: “ a brash
statement on portable power.” The $ 2,499 configu-ration
tested includes a 16" screen, Pentium4-
2.2GHz, 512MB SDRAM, 40GB hard disk, and a
DVD/ CD- RW drive, with nVidia GeForce4 440 Go
graphics backed up with 32MB display RAM.
The neat thing here is the true “ desktop” nature.
The keyboard pops out of the case and becomes a
wireless desktop keyboard; while there’s a touchpad
on the keyboard, Toshiba also includes a wireless
optical mouse ( not a very good one, apparently).
Given the screen size, that really does make for
desktop equivalence— although the disk is small by
today’s standards.
The downside, of course, is that it’s a terrible
“ portable” computer: 2.2x13.6x12.9" and 10.7
pounds travel weight. It “ won’t comfortably fit on
an economy- class tray table.” It’s also surprisingly
slow for the CPU class, but probably more than fast
enough for most purposes.
How Do You Use Your PDA?
That same December 2002 Computer Shopper reviews
the new Razor Zayo A600, a $ 550 PocketPC that’s
“ sleek and light” ( 4.9x2.9x0.5", 4.9oz.) and has a
reasonably fast processor and 64MB RAM. It’s fast
enough that you could view “ PocketTV” movies.
What struck me as interesting was the technique
used to test battery life: Playing MP3s. “ In our real-world
tests, we listened to MP3s with the screen at
half brightness for 3 hours and 2 minutes before the
battery died.” Now that’s an expensive ( and bulky!)
MP3 player! And an absurd test of battery life.
The February 2003 PC World includes a group
review of three early camera- enabled wireless
phones. Sure, the Sprint ads are cute— and from the
looks of things, these phones would be just about
good enough to let you distinguish between oxen
and dachshunds. The review’s upbeat— two phones
took pictures that “ looked reasonably bright but a
little grainy”— but the actual sample prints aren’t
quite so wonderful. Some folks will love them.
Bruce and Margie Brown review Sony’s $ 800
Clié PEG- NZ90 in the March 11, 2003 PC Maga-zine.
It pushes convergence hard— a Palm OS PDA
with Sony’s oversize screen, two megapixel camera,
Bluetooth, USB docking cradle, Wi- Fi card slot,
voice recorder, thumb keyboard. The display is
hinged; in essence, this is a miniature equivalent to a
Tablet PC. Of course, it’s also big and heavy for a
PDA ( 10.4oz, 5.5x3.0x1.3") and absurdly expensive.
You get 16MB RAM. The reviewers love it, giving it
five dots.
Smart Displays
Bill Howard reviews the first Microsoft Smart Dis-play
in PC Magazine 22: 2 ( February 4, 2003)— the
$ 1,000 ViewSonic Airpanel V110. It’s a 10" SVGA
LCD panel with slate capabilities; the “ Smart Dis-play”
concept is that the AirPanel acts as a remote
tablet wirelessly interfacing with your desktop PC.
The panel weighs 2.7 pounds, measures 11.5x8.4
x1.0", and runs silently. It only works with Windows
XP Pro, but Viewsonic includes an upgrade copy as
part of the package.
It’s a geek’s dream. That’s about it. Battery life
is less than four hours. The screen is too small to use
as your primary screen ( and a stand costs another
$ 150); Wi- Fi isn’t fast enough to view video on the
display ( but you can listen to MP3s); and you can’t
have one person using the desktop PC while another
is using the tablet— once someone logs onto the
desktop, the Airpanel is disabled. $ 1,000 will buy a
pretty decent notebook. The two- dot rating seems
about right.
Not the Gateway Destination
Seven years ago, Gateway 2000 offered the Destina-tion—
a 36" TV/ monitor with a fairly powerful sepa-rate
PC in a component- style case, equipped with
wireless keyboard. It cost $ 4,000 or so, too much for
a fancy TV but not bad for an office training system.
RLG has one, and it gave good service for years.
Now, Gateway offers what Bill Howard calls a
“ spiritual descendent” of the old Destination ( in a
reasonably favorable PC Magazine review): the
Gateway Media Center PC with Plasma TV. It’s two
separate products in a bundle. The more interesting
of the two may be the Gateway 42" plasma dis-play/
TV ( it includes a tuner), which at $ 3,000 is one
of the least- expensive plasma displays on the market.
Plasma means it’s thin and bright; it’s wide- screen—
but not high- definition ( resolution is 852x480).
The PC is basically a midrange Gateway, in the
same snazzy black- and- silver midtower case as my
home PC, but with Windows XP Media Center Edi-tion,
a TV tuner card, and a remote control. Other
than those media extras, this is nearly the same con-figuration
I bought last summer, and $ 1,000 isn’t a
bad price. Oddly, the keyboard and mouse aren’t
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 7
wireless, and there are two remote controls, one for
the TV/ display, one for the PC.
Five Megapixels for $ 600
More to the point, five megapixel resolution in an
Olympus Camedia all- metal body with an f2.8 3x
optical zoom lens. If you’re in the market for a small
digital camera, this is a strong price/ performance
point— but, of course, it’s still $ 600. Sally Wiener
Grotta’s February 25, 2003 PC Magazine review— a
four- dot review— says battery life was very good at
330 shots; the battery is rechargeable. Like Olym-pus’
Stylus film cameras, the Camedia has a sliding
metal shutter to protect the lens— and act as a power
switch. Grotta’s only complaint is that there are too
many choices, resulting in a complex menu structure
if you go beyond default mode.
Primera Bravo: A Quick Update
The February Cites & Insights mentioned the Primera
Bravo Disc Publisher, a reasonably- priced all- in- one
CD- R production system ( burner, robotic arm to
handle a stack of blanks, and integrated inkjet
printer). A three- page review of the DVD version by
the knowledgeable Hugh Bennett appears in the
February 2003 EMedia ( pp. 63- 65), and it’s fair to
call it a rave. The DVD version costs $ 2,495, $ 500
more than the CD version; it handles 25 discs at a
time, weighs 18 pounds, measures 7.25x17.25x16"
( height first, depth last) and runs like a champ. An
interesting device for in- house publication, some-thing
some of you might be doing one of these days.
Perspective
The Shifting Commons:
Musings on Generalization
The title above is to some extent a red herring, re-flecting
two of several themes that come together in
this perspective. The overall theme isn’t a new one,
but there’s a touch of mea culpa this time around:
􀂾 People tend to generalize from their own situa-tion,
and that’s usually a mistake— even in this
sentence.
While it’s reasonable to criticize positive generaliza-tions—“
Everybody will or should do x”— it’s too
easy to fall into negative generalizations in the proc-ess:
“ Nobody should do y.” That’s the mea culpa.
Creative Commons
Just over a page of Cites & Insights 3: 3 was devoted
to developments in Creative Commons’ “ Some
Rights Reserved” projects. A chunk of that was Ar-nold
Kling’s odd essay asserting that the Creative
Commons licenses were pointless because any con-tent
that hasn’t gone through the editorial process is
crap, and reactions to that essay.
Since then, there have been more developments
and more discussion. The discussion first:
Gary Stix: “ Some rights reserved”
Stix posted this essay at ScientificAmerican. com on
February 10. He offers a little background, describes
the CC licenses, and notes $ 2 million in funding for
Creative Commons ($ 850,000 from the Center for
the Public Domain and $ 1.2 million over three years
from the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foun-dation).
The final paragraph is the only real com-mentary
and worth quoting in its entirety:
Some legal pundits will question whether an idea
that downplays the profit motive will ever be widely
embraced. Creative Commons, however, could help
ensure that the Internet remains more than a shop-ping
mall. For his part, Lessig, who last year argued
futilely before the U. S. Supreme Court against an
extension of the term of existing copyrights, has
translated words into action. Now it will be up to
scholars, scientists, independent filmmakers and
others to show that at least part of their work can be
shared and that a commons for creative exchange
can become a reality in cyberspace.
I would argue with part of the first sentence. “ Some
rights reserved” doesn’t so much downplay the profit
motive as provide for fine- tuning. The license for
Cites & Insights retains my sole right to make money
from the original content in this zine, whether
through licensing to commercial publications or
through reusing portions of essays in paid columns
or eventual collections. The rights I’m yielding are
for nonprofit— indeed, not- for- sale reuse with credit
or for derivation. If a library association wants to
republish one of these sections in its newsletter, the
association doesn’t need to ask for permission. But
the rest of the comment is on the money— and many
of us are happy to share part of our work, without
endangering profits from the rest of it.
Tim Hadley: Math class for poets weblog
This weblog ( blog. tph- lex. com) for February 23 in-cludes
a long and thoughtful essay on CC licensing,
particularly as offered in Movable Type weblog soft-ware.
It’s the longest weblog “ entry” I’ve ever seen—
nine single- spaced pages when printed out, probably
more than 4,000 words— and well worth reading for
those worried about consequences of CC licenses.
Apparently, some Movable Type users find that
it’s hard to remove the default CC license currently
provided as part of MT and are concerned about the
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 8
consequences of beginning a weblog with the license
attached and removing it later. I won’t attempt to
summarize this lengthy discussion.
I believe the summary of the facts and implica-tions
is correct, namely that a CC license is irrevo-cable
for material posted while the license was on the
site, and that removing the license means that new
material on the site is not covered by the license—
but old material continues to be, at least when it’s
been passed on with the license attached.
Elizabeth Lane Lawley: mamamusings
weblog
Lawley’s weblog ( www. it. rit. edu/~ ell/ mamamusings)
for February 25 includes a moderately long posting
on this issue (“ creative commons angst”) followed by
a very long set of thoughtful dialogue among Lawley
and her readers— the printout was 15 pages of very
small type. The topic is once again Movable Type’s
implementation of CC licenses and the “ anger and
angst” that some bloggers have found in them.
Lawley doesn’t understand “ why allowing your
words to be distributed freely is such a frightening
concept, particularly in the context of weblogs.” She
believes in copyright— she has published books to
her credit— and understands the nuances of CC li-censing.
She also understands that webloggers
should want their content as widely distributed ( with
attribution) as possible. Otherwise, why weblog?
The many comments that follow expose a range
of opinions, as you’d expect, but with the clarity and
thoughtfulness common to Lawley’s own writing.
( This isn’t ./, in other words.) The first response ar-gues
against CC licenses because this particular
writer wants to be able to choose which sites can
reuse material— to which Lawley appropriately re-sponds
that she isn’t arguing that everyone should use
CC licenses, only that she doesn’t understand the
argument that using CC as the default for a weblog
is a bad thing.
A couple of those who argue against CC are part
of the discussion, although they quickly take an
“ I’ve said all there is to say” stance. ( In one post,
one of the anti- CC folk labels a pro- CC note “ de-fending
the old guard,” which means that it now
takes four months to become the old guard!)
It’s a fascinating “ discussion” that has probably
continued since I printed the pages. There’s more
passion than I’d expect among those who don’t like
CC— and a strong sense that they believe they’re
being shouted down by CC proponents. I have more
trouble finding that shouting down.
Incidentally, after reading this stuff, I’ve revised
the wording on the home page: All of my writing in
Cites & Insights is covered by the CC by attribu-tion/
noncommercial license, but I make no claim on
Feedback.
Creative Commons developments
This is a snapshot early in an ongoing process, but
for what it’s worth, CC is rolling out more sophisti-cated
versions of their licenses to cover special situa-tions.
For example:
􀂾 On March 11, they offered a draft provision to
explicitly allow “ sampling” or other commercial
transformations, while prohibiting commercial
verbatim copying. This is mostly, I believe, an
issue for nontext media, but I suppose text col-lages
are possible. The ability to sample and
reuse for transformations is fundamental to
new music and some other creative media, so
this provision appears to be a key offering.
􀂾 On March 14, they offered two possible
clauses. The first would add to the Attribution
license a clause that a web- based copy of the
work must include a hyperlink to a specified
URI— a more detailed form of “ attribution.”
The second would add a clause to the Non-commercial
license that explicitly allows search
engines to “ index” pages, as long as the engines
don’t derive direct revenue from that indexing.
The weblog that announced these changes
( creativecommons. org/ weblog/) now has a
comments feature, and the proposed clauses
are gaining comments.
The Moral, Part 1
This is all really another subtrack of copyright— but
with a difference, at least for the first part. Most of
the brouhaha reflected in the two personal weblogs
has to do with generalization, as does Arnold Kling’s
essay. That is:
􀂾 One group is asserting that others believe that
everything ( at least within a category of work)
should use CC licenses, and that such generali-zation
is a bad idea.
􀂾 Another group is asserting that, because they
personally don’t find CC licenses worthwhile,
nobody should use them.
So far, I haven’t seen explicit evidence that the first
assertion is real. Creative Commons most certainly
does not suggest that everyone should use a CC li-cense.
I suppose there’s an “ intellectual property is
theft” crowd that might make such an argument, but
neither Lessig nor Creative Commons are in that
group. I would sharply disagree with such an asser-tion:
CC licenses don’t make sense for everybody.
You won’t see them on “ disContent” or “ Crawford
Files” or on my recent books. ( If CC and, perhaps,
the Internet Archive do put together a workable reg-
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 9
istry for assigning existing material to the public
domain, I might do that with some of my older
books. Or I might not.)
Neither general adoption nor general shunning
makes much sense.
The Shifted Librarian
I took a small swipe at Jenny Levine in “ A Zine is
Not a Weblog” ( Cites & Insights 3: 4). To my surprise
( since I assumed Levine didn’t read this zine, given
that I’m “ unshifted” and it’s distinctly not a weblog
with an RSS feed), she responded.
Her response, my comments on her response,
her comments on my comments, and my… well,
anyway, it went on for several exchanges. As I put
this piece together— and later, as Levine provided
even more commentary— I found that it ran to
7,000 words ( more than 9 pages), more than half of
it her selected comments and my responses. That’s
too much to deal with, so I’m going to summarize
down to 2,000 words— which may be unfair to both
of us.
Jenny Levine 1 ( partial)
I’m glad to see you talking about blogging, but I
have a couple of questions…. I’ve been scanning my
blog and I can’t find anywhere that I said everybody
“ must” do something. I’m 90% sure I’ve never said
everybody * must* do something, and I’m 100% sure
I’ve never said everybody must do something. Well,
maybe I’ve said that about supporting libraries, but
can you provide a cite for that as you reference it?
Also, can you share the scientific algorithm you used
to determine that reading 200 sites in an aggregator
is 170 too many? I realize that 200 is too many for
most folks but it’s heaven for me, so I’m curious to
learn how I figure out Walt’s Recommended Daily
Allowance of information flow?...
I responded, in part, that I interpreted “ must” from
her writing, perhaps unfairly; that Cites & Insights is
a zine, not a journal, and I was stating an opinion
with which she was free to disagree; and that I
thought tracking 200 sites would lead to informa-tion
overload— but that this could be my failing.
Some of what follows is based on my full response.
Jenny Levine 2 ( partial)
I do believe that librarians need to start preparing
for certain technologies ( such as circulation of digital
materials, wireless access, and new forms of refer-ence
service), but I’m most interested in your con-tention
that your curmudgeonly view is at odds with
my shifted view… While I am worried about librar-ies
being “ left behind” ( particularly public libraries),
my bigger fear is that we will miss out on providing
important services to people that want and need
them. Ultimately, that’s bad for the library, but it’s
far worse for our existing and potential patrons.
I concentrate my information tracking in my news
aggregator for efficiency and convenience. My guess
is that you read a lot more paper and email than I
do, which may very well concentrate the same
amount of information, just in different places
( ways?)…
I try to highlight what I think will be happening in
the near future, maybe 2- 5 years out. I like to think
of this as a golden age in which libraries can proac-tively
prepare for some of what’s coming, as opposed
to just reacting after- the- fact. It took so many li-brarians
too long to realize the power, implications,
and effects the internet would have on our profes-sion,
and while skepticism ( and even cynicism)
should be valued, we could have done much better
at adapting more quickly. The web would be a better
place if we had. The fact that it’s taken this long to
get live, online reference to the point it’s at is proof
of that. I guess my question is still the disconnect
that my version of the future has with what you re-gard
as the fading past…
I responded, in part: Maybe my problem with
Shifted Librarian is one of tone and frequency— and
that’s my problem, not yours. I seem to see both a
level of urgency and a suggestion that other librari-ans
are ignoring this stuff— and, in “ Shifted,” a sense
that this means shifting abruptly away from some-thing.
Which, given limited resources, is almost cer-tainly
the case. [ On rereading this, I realize that I’m
at least partly wrong here. Mea culpa yet again.]
( I took issue with the suggestion that librarians
have just reacted until this “ golden age,” naming a
few of many librarians who have been “ proactive”
for decades. I’m not fond of the word “ proactive.”)
To me, crucial parts of considering new tech-nologies
are skepticism and balance— and one part
of balance is “ What do we jettison to take on X, and
what’s the proper time to do that?” And— again to
me, perhaps incorrectly— what I’ve picked up from
your writing is not “ librarians need to start preparing
for” but “ libraries need to ADOPT RIGHT NOW!”
which is a quite different message. Restating the first
as “ librarians should be certain that they’re main-taining
awareness of new possibilities,” that’s much
of what all of my writing has been about. As for new
services, I guess one issue is deciding what’s impor-tant
and how it relates to the patrons of this com-munity
at this time. I read your ��� Movers & Shakers”
profile yesterday… and I quote:
Many people who know Levine from her web site
and her presentations think of her as a gadget per-son,
but that’s a comparatively recent development.
The “ shifted librarian” concept came to her when
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 10
she discovered Napster a few years ago. “ Everything
clicked into place,” she says. “ PDAs, my MP3 player,
portable digital music on my various PCs, and there
wasn’t a single library that could interact with any of
them.” That’s how she became an information tech-nology
evangelist. Whenever she sees new gadgets—
Bluetooth- equipped pens, or digital wi- fi cameras, or
software that shows you how a web page displays on
different kinds of platforms— Levine immediately
sees ways librarians can use them. Her web log has
convinced many librarians to consider how new
technologies might extend services beyond the nor-mal
boundaries of place and time.
I don’t believe that libraries should interact with
Napster, nor do I believe that most librarians should
be spending significant amounts of time finding
ways to use “ Bluetooth- equipped pens” or every
other new gadget that comes down to the road. That
way lies madness— and a library that spends 10% of
its time or money serving the most technophilic 1%
of its population is doing the rest of its users a sub-stantial
disservice.
In fact, I strongly believe that public libraries
should be behind the most advanced users techno-logically.
Not in terms of ability to use technology to
improve operations— and there I will claim that li-braries
have generally been ahead of the curve…. I
don’t believe it made sense for public libraries to
invest heavily in Internet- based reference when 10%
of the public had the equipment and connections to
use it effectively, just as I don’t believe that video
reference makes much sense today….
[ And, after looking at the PowerPoint presenta-tion
at her website:] Now I see what makes me
grumpy, I think: Universality. Projection. “ We all
know.” And “ Generation Y” as the answer to all
questions. We don’t all know. Anything. We don’t all
live or plan to live in an everpresent web of ubiqui-tous
computing. And, though you were quoting, we
don’t all get “ computing as we know it is over” mo-ments.
I don’t even believe that. But I’m not sug-gesting
you should change…
Jenny Levine 3 [ partial, more than a week
later]
I have to tell you that from where I sit, that’s a
pretty big chip on your shoulder.... I’ll admit to a
tone of urgency, but the intent is awareness, which I
never think is a bad thing. You’re bringing a personal
bias to the word “ shift” that isn’t found anywhere in
the definitions on my site. In fact, that’s part of the
problem that I note, that we need to prepare for
some of what’s coming without giving up our cur-rent
services— a major problem to be sure. And I’ve
never advocated doing any of it abruptly. I’m not
sure where you’re getting that from…
… I’ve never claimed to be first with these ideas, and
I’ve certainly never claimed exclusivity of these con-cepts
( the whole Shifted Reading List gives other
non- library influences)…
The main thrusts of my blog are how wireless, pres-ence,
and pervasive computing will affect society in
general and libraries in particular. Do you truly
doubt the coming of any of those three things, even
if they are 5- 10 years away?
Can you point out to me where I said libraries should
interact with Napster or Bluetooth- equipped pens?
My point in the LJ profile was that the method of
digital delivery to my personal device was finally real
and that libraries need to recognize the implications
of the coming shift in media delivery. I never said a
library needed to join a P2P network or buy wireless
pens, but they’re indicative of how people will inter-act
with entertainment and everyday objects over
the next decade. If you don’t understand what that
means for libraries, you won’t be ready when your
patrons do want those services. My kids see a laptop
and expect it to have wireless internet access. Every-thing
is wireless to them— cell phones, video in the
car, printing, etc. Sure they’re ahead of the curve,
but by the time they’re teenagers, society will have
caught up with them….
… Should I not provide information to my libraries
that this may become more important in the future?
Why would you want to shut down discussion like
that? I’m really having trouble with that side of your
argument.
[ Responding to my comments on the PowerPoint
stuff:] Well, again, that chip is weighing you down
because I’ve never said we all know anything. That’s
quite a bias you’re bringing in. I don’t pull my pre-dictions
totally out of thin air; a great many of them
are based on observations of my kids. Kids older
than them are already having an impact, and as they
grow up with location- based, presence- based, digital
services, it’s going to affect our society as a whole
( much the same way Baby Boomers and television
did). Look at chat, which I used to think was for
teens at best. Now I love it, and not just for personal
interactions.
And maybe you haven’t had a “ computing as we
know it is over” moment lately, but I have a hard
time believing that you didn’t have one when you
got your first PC or when you first saw a web
browser. If you didn’t, don’t tell me because that
would totally blow my image of you! I think it’s sad
that you don’t believe that most people can have
those moments. Every person I know that has a
wireless network had one of those moments...
And isn’t the point that no one plans to live in an
everpresent web of ubiquitous computing? Isn’t the
point to try and identify the stuff that’s going to
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 11
happen and ingratiate its way into our lives without
us realizing it? Trains, the telegraph, telephone, ra-dio,
television, the internet— do you think we un-washed
masses all planned those and how they
changed our lives?
To which I responded, in part: I would take issue
with “ chip on my shoulder,” but will admit that my
reading of the urgency and claims of universality
expressed in your writing may be a misunderstand-ing
of style, and is to some extent based on how I
see your writing interpreted by others. I think my
own writing should make it fairly clear that I do not,
ever, under any circumstances, oppose discussion of any
topic, and surely would never suggest to you how
you should run your own weblog.
I looked at your “ Shifted Librarian” PPT presen-tation
and got a pretty strong whiff of “ You MUST,”
but maybe that’s me… I may be reading way too
much into some of your stuff. It’s not your responsi-bility
to write in such a way as to prevent that from
happening. As I know from responses to my own
articles, that’s impossible without neutering your
style, which would be a terrible thing to do.
As for “ computing as we know it is dead,” I will
say that I don’t believe I’ve ever had such an epiph-any.
There have been several cases where I’ve said,
“ Now, this is another tool that has enormous useful-ness
and really interesting implications”— but that’s
quite a different thing. I’ve done my part to help
explain some tools and why they’re important.
Maybe it’s the “ as we know it,” in which case the
phrase is meaningless: Every time you upgrade a PC,
add a peripheral, start a new program, or whatever,
computing “ as you knew it” has changed. But the
Web didn’t suddenly replace other major ways of
distributing info— email is still the biggest use of the
Internet— and WiFi won’t suddenly replace other
methods of networking.
( I did not respond to “ Do you truly doubt the
coming of [ wireless, presence, and pervasive comput-ing],
even if they are 5- 10 years away?” In terms of
general societal impact and the need for us all to
change, yes, I do doubt— perhaps less for “ wireless”
in its broadest sense than for the other two. I have
considerable explicit disinterest in pervasive comput-ing.
As always, I may be wrong.)
The Moral, Part 2
I was clearly wrong to put Jenny Levine down for
tracking hundreds of websites— although not, per-haps,
entirely wrong for criticizing a certain “ RSS or
nothing” attitude. She finds it useful to track that
many sites, and there’s no doubt that she comes up
with worthwhile notes on what she tracks. It’s an
approach that I would find maddening. Which
means that I can reasonably object to claims that eve-ryone
should use RSS feeds to track hundreds of
websites, but not that I should object to someone
else choosing to do so.
In other words, I was adopting a negative gener-alization—“
Nobody should be tracking 200+
sources.” That’s wrong. I shouldn’t track 200+
sources except through other weblogs as filtering
mechanism. For me— for the way I work— context,
time, and perspective are critical. For her— for the
way she works— a vast, if sometimes decontextual-ized,
array of selected sources works best. By now, I
should remember one of my usual mantras: The an-swer
to many multiple- choice questions is “ Yes.” In
other words, we’re probably both right.
If you don’t read that as an apology and mea
culpa, read it again.
But Wait, There’s More���
I’ve now read over the full comments several times. I
cannot find anything I’ve ever written, before or dur-ing
this lengthy interchange, that suggests Jenny Le-vine
should stop doing what she’s doing, that
discussion should be shut down, or anything of the
sort. I don’t claim consistency in general, but I do
claim to be consistently on the side of open expres-sion
and debate, whether within librarianship or
elsewhere. I didn’t have a chip on my shoulder when
this all started. I hope I don’t have one now.
If I’m not allowed to disagree with someone
without that being interpreted as an attempt to shut
them up, I’d have to stop writing. I have no inten-tion
of doing that, any more than I have any inten-tion
of preventing or discouraging anyone else from
saying or writing what they believe. For that matter,
I refuse to be put in a position where I can’t inter-pret
and extrapolate. I see “ Everyone Loves Portabil-ity”
( from the PPT presentation) as a generalization;
the same for “ Information will come to you, not the
other way around” [ emphasis added]. If that’s inter-pretation,
so be it.
One other aspect of the Shifted Librarian weblog
that used to bother me ( or make me jealous; I’m not
sure which) seems to have declined— the sheer vol-ume
of postings. Finally, since this whole subsection
belongs in “ Bibs & Blather” rather than this particu-lar
perspective, I applaud Levine’s aggressive atti-tude
toward fair use: She’s willing to quote most or
all of a newspaper column within her weblog, even
though the column is under copyright ( and pre-sumably
open to syndication or republication for a
fee) and does not appear with a “ Some Rights Re-served”
license. I lack that courage.
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 12
Contemplation, Introverts and
Extroverts
The following was slated for “ Library Stuff”:
Crawford, Walt, “ The century’s most vital
technological device,” American Libraries 34: 3
( March 2003): 84.
I mention this mostly because I’ve received con-siderably
more feedback than I do for most “ Craw-ford
Files”— all of it positive. The column’s about
contemplation. The device, for those of you who
can’t be bothered to go get AL or go to ALOnline, is
the off switch— a vital aid to contemplation.
As an addendum to the column, right around
the time it appeared I encountered an interesting
commentary on a non- library weblog run by a
friend. This person, an admitted extreme extrovert,
was noting that ( in this person’s experience) extreme
extroverts need to be around people— and that they
think things through by talking about them, some-times
starting talking before they’ve really started
thinking. I’m an introvert; that never really occurred
to me, but it does match some experiences I’ve had.
So perhaps contemplation in the sense of “ deep
thinking” is a pleasure reserved for introverts. Per-haps
not.
That’s what I originally wrote. The friend is
Elizabeth Lane Lawley ( noted above). She was
commenting, in part, on “ Caring for your introvert”
by Jonathan Rauch, in the March 2003 Atlantic
Monthly. ( www. theatlantic. com) Consider the first
paragraph of that article:
Do you know someone who needs hours alone every
day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings
or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a
big audience, but seems awkward in groups and
maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to
parties and then needs the rest of the day to recu-perate?
Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces
when accosted with pleasantries by people who are
just trying to be nice?
Rauch cites these as the signs of an introvert and
calls them “ among the most misunderstood and ag-grieved
groups in America, possibly the world.” He
also calls himself an introvert. The article goes on as
a kind of FAQ for dealing with introverts.
While it’s an interesting article, I believe it’s full
of generalizations from Rauch’s own form of intro-version—
or maybe he’s talking about extreme intro-verts.
As already noted, I’m an introvert ( yes, I test
that way on Myers- Briggs, for what that’s worth),
but not an extreme one. I don’t know that I consider
myself “ misunderstood,” as Rauch claims “ we” all
are. I take considerable objection to one sentence,
answering the question “ Are introverts arrogant?”:
I suppose this common misconception has to do
with our being more intelligent, more reflective,
more level- headed, more refined, and more sensitive
than extroverts.
Give me a break. More reflective? Yes, in the sense of
contemplation vs. talking things through. More in-telligent,
level- headed, refined, sensitive? I think he’s
answered “ Are introverts arrogant?” at least in his
own case, and his “ Hardly” answer is clearly wrong
for him. If that sentence isn’t arrogant, I don’t know
what is.
Maybe it’s a matter of degree. Maybe I can’t
claim to be more intelligent, level- headed, refined,
and sensitive than the extroverts I know [ claiming to
be more intelligent or level- headed than Lawley
would be a stretch I’m unwilling to make, just for
starters] because I’m insufficiently introverted? I
don’t “ need the rest of the day” to recuperate from a
party— but I’m not really “ party people” either. I call
it “ asocial”— I enjoy social events in small doses but
don’t need them. I don’t need “ hours alone every
day” ( but an hour is nice).
The Moral, Part 3
When you generalize by saying that nobody has
time to contemplate, you’re wrong. ( See the original
column: Such a generalization was the trigger.)
When I generalize by saying that everybody
needs to spend time in quiet contemplation, I’m also
wrong.
I don’t see any need to retract or even modify
the “ Crawford Files” cited above. I believe we all
need to spend time thinking deeply. I believe we can
all make such time.
If your style is such that thinking deeply is a
talkative, social activity rather than a quiet, solitary
activity, that’s a difference between your mind and
mine.
And here’s the final bit of another too- long per-spective
( for an introvert, I sure do go on, and on,
and on…):
I’ve probably erred in making fun of some gadg-ets,
technologies, and services just because I don’t
find them useful. If so, I apologize— and I have rea-son
to believe that y’all will accept my standing invi-tation
to call me on such erroneous negative
generalizations in the future. By now, you should
know that I love ( and use) thoughtful feedback, par-ticularly
when it expands my understanding by offer-ing
another viewpoint.
I will continue to be critical on at least the fol-lowing
grounds:
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 13
􀂾 Too many gadgets and technologies are touted
as something everyone needs or will want. That’s
automatically grounds for skepticism on the
basis of false positive generalization. Other
than food and water, there’s precious little that
“ we” all want or need.
􀂾 If I believe that a gadget is a solution to no
need ( that I can perceive), or is an absurd way
to do something that something else does bet-ter,
I’ll feel free to call it pointless. If I’m
wrong, let me know. ( I do not regard “ It’s kewl”
as plausible justification for a gadget, or at least
as a good reason for librarians to think about
the gadget.)
􀂾 It’s reasonable to say why I would find a sys-tem,
technology, or gadget more problematic
than promising; once in a while, I’ll try to note
that others might find them wonderful. Maybe
you really love the idea of “ pervasive comput-ing.”
My sense that it’s a thoroughly dystopian
notion is just that: My sense.
􀂾 And, at least to my mind, there are many de-vices
that make reasonably good sense for
thousands, millions, or tens of millions of users
but that don’t necessarily work well within my
conception of a library environment. My con-ception:
Maybe not yours.
And now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to go watch
some mindless TV for a few minutes while I match
socks from this week’s laundry.
Copyright Currents
A melange of stuff lately— plus the Broadcast Flag
( see separate essay) and developments with Creative
Commons, discussed above.
Eldred v Ashcroft
Reactions and “ next steps” continue, in addition to
Creative Commons. Among them:
􀂾 Marci Hamilton discussed “ other options, in-cluding
constitution amendment” at FindLaw
on February 13 ( writ. news. findlaw. com/ hamil-ton/
20030213. html). I’d quote the full title,
but it’s long. She asserts, “ It’s time to take the
issue back to Congress, and fight for a rollback
of the duration of the copyright term.” Noting
the anti- copyright group on the Internet, she
calls that stance “ sheer folly” and looks for bal-ance,
saying of “ three- generation copyright,”
“ From any objective perspective, it is simply
too long.” She offers three “ uphill battle”
alternatives:
1. Persuade Congress to “ take responsibility for
copyright law”;
2. Go straight to the copyright industries, pos-sibly
boycotting companies that won’t endorse
shorter terms;
3. Demand a constitutional amendment forever
capping copyright duration. She suggests 50
years and notes that this term would also have
to be pushed in the EU.
􀂾 Peter K. Yu posted “ Four remaining questions
about copyright law after Eldred” at Gi-gaLaw.
com in February 2003 ( www. gigalaw.
com). He did not find the decision “ ground-breaking
or different” from prior Supreme
Court precedents. He suggests that the decision
opens at least one possible challenge of DMCA
( as opposed to CTEA), that “ harmonization” of
copyright is nowhere near as simple as it might
seem— and that, while this decision would
probably not be the “ Dred Scott case for cul-ture���
( that is, it would likely not lead to a con-stitutional
amendment), increased awareness of
copyright issues could lead to consumer-friendly
legislation.
􀂾 Lawrence Lessig filed a petition for rehearing to
the Supreme Court. It’s a brief brief ( six book-size
pages) and raises questions of principle
and conflict with other decisions. The brief ar-gues
that the real harm in CTEA is not that
prices are higher, but is “ the removal of a vast
amount of our recent past from a domain
where it might be usefully or easily cultivated.”
It notes that a key problem is tracing rights
holders, not merely the cost of rights. The
court dismissed the petition— as Lessig proba-bly
knew it would, since such petitions are al-most
never granted.
Lofgren’s BALANCE
Congressperson Zoe Lofgren— from the heart of
“ Silicon Valley”— has introduced an act entitled
“ Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or
Net Consumer Expectations ( BALANCE) Act of
2003.” You can find the act itself at Lofgren’s web-site,
www. house. gov/ lofgren/
Findings in the act assert that authors of the
DMCA did not intend a dramatic shift in the bal-ance
of copyright rights, noting that the House Judi-ciary
Committee report included the following key
clause ( emphasis in the original):
[ A] n individual [ should] not be able to circumvent
in order to gain unauthorized access to a work, but
[ should] be able to do so in order to make fair use of a work
which he or she has acquired lawfully.
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 14
The changes in copyright would add a new Section
123 to Title 17 of the U. S. Code. Primary provisions
would exempt acts taken for archival purposes and
for non- public performance or display, and would
rule out enforcement of “ nonnegotiable license
terms” that restrict those rights. It would also explic-itly
recognize “ digital first sale,” providing that the
owner of a copy of a work could legitimately transfer
their privileges to someone else through sale or other
disposal as long as the copy retains its original for-mat
and the first owner does not retain a copy in
retrievable form. In other words, if you buy a digital
work, you should be able to sell it or give it away—
as long as you don’t keep a copy. Finally, circumven-tion
of technological measures would be legal to
make a non- infringing use where the copyright
owner hasn’t made such use possible without addi-tional
cost or burden— and it would be legal to
manufacture, import, and offer such circumventions.
The brief analysis adds some livelier language
and clarifies the bill. It asserts:
Ultimately, this proposal will help content owners.
The bill does not let consumers take their digital
content and share it with a million of their best
friends. It simply seeks to encourage a legitimate al-ternative
to piracy that respects consumer rights and
expectations, which is the only lasting cure for digi-tal
piracy.
Lofgren’s site also lists early supporters of the act—
including the Consumer Electronics Association,
Lessig, ARL, AALL, ALA, Public Knowledge, the
Home Recording Rights Coalition, and others.
Worth following as a modest attempt to restore a
little balance. She may not be my representative, but
she’s doing good work here.
Digital Rights Management
A lot has been said about DRM lately, but in confer-ences
I didn’t attend. It strikes me as a little too
wifty to comment on commentaries on comments
made in such conferences; that’s a bit meta for my
tastes. ( See Cites & Insights 2: 13, p. 6, for an earlier
take on getting too meta.)
I was astonished by an offhand statement in a
sidebar to a February 2003 Computer Shopper writeup
on CD- RW burners. The sidebar discussed the first
copy- protected “ CDs” ( they are not CDs according
to Philips) and the resulting massive returns and
successful lawsuit. It goes on to note “ increasingly
sophisticated copy- protection methodologies” and
the defeat of one “ sophisticated” methodology with
felt- tip pens, and concludes with this paragraph:
Despite this latest humiliation, the labels are hardly
ready to admit defeat. One way or the other— even if
it means terminating the production of all audio
CDs— copyrighted music will eventually be distrib-uted
only on rip- proof media. But until that hap-pens,
the current failure of copy- protected CDs will
help ensure CD burners’ popularity far longer than
anyone thought possible.
Read that middle sentence again. Of course, some-one
technologically knowledgeable enough to be
writing for Computer Shopper when it had editorial
standards might recognize that “ rip- proof media” is
an empty phrase as long as it’s possible to do a digi-tal:
analog: digital cycle, the “ analog hole” in all copy
protection schemes. Setting that aside, the assertion
here is that RIAA members are so pigheaded that
they’d willingly lose every knowledgeable customer,
forever, than let people make mix CDs.
Here’s the thing, maybe more disturbing than
the assertion itself: I can’t honestly say that I find
this unbelievable. I can honestly say, after going into
Tower a couple of times with the thought of adding
to my CD collection— and after seeing CD Now be-come
part of the Amazon colossus— that some of us
may own all the recorded music we ever need.
I hope that’s not true—“ that” being both that
record companies are absurdly pigheaded and that I
never buy any more music. I know that I do not
plan to buy collections of music that I can’t enjoy
the ways I want to enjoy it, which include playing
on my computer’s drive and mixing individual pieces
with other pieces on CD- Rs, entirely for my own
family’s use. If record companies find that intoler-able,
then I find them intolerable… and, so far at
least, they can’t force me to buy or rent more music.
Derek Slater mused over some of these issues in
“ A Copyfighter’s Musings,” his weblog at blogs. law.
harvard. edu/ cmusings/ At one point, he assumed
that an MP3 file that’s been expanded to audio form
for a CD- R can’t be ripped from that CD- R without
becoming “ an even more compressed version of poor
quality.” That’s not clear. It is clear that recompress-ing
a compressed file, particularly using a different
system, will lead to poor quality results— we already
see some of those results on badly- done recordings.
But a high- rate MP3 ( 192K or better) is likely to
expand back to audio ( or . WAV) form with so little
damage, at least for anything but classical music,
that re- ripping would work fairly well.
One response is that the “ analog loophole can-not
be plugged,” which isn’t quite right either: It can,
but only by methods so drastic that they eliminate
general- purpose computers.
As part of that discussion, Slater wonders
whether many people know how to redigitize or how
to capture an audio stream as it’s fed from “ pro-tected”
sources. As for the latter, I can’t say— but
redigitizing is no big deal: It���s the same as ripping, if
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 15
you’re looking at a CD, and it’s already supported
by tools such as the latest Easy CD Creator for ana-log:
digital recapture ( where the CD, for some reason,
can’t be used on the PC, so you plug a CD player’s
audio output into your sound card input).
Articles & Items
Fairlie, Rik, “ Want to copy content? Then back
the bill,” Computer Shopper 23: 3 ( March 2003):
30.
This one- page column offers a plausible intro-duction
to DMCRA and groups on both sides. The
only reason to mention it is this surprising claim:
Despite opposition, Boucher is confident the
DMCRA will pass during this session of Congress.
That’s the first suggestion I’ve heard that any copy-right-
related legislation, much less pro- consumer
legislation, might pass in 2003.
Gassaway, Lolly, “ When works pass into the
public domain,” www. unc. edu/~ unclng/ public-d.
htm
I mention this— and apologize for the informal
“ Lolly” but that’s the form she uses on this page—
because I’ve been getting it wrong. In one concise
table, Gassaway summarizes the dates of works and
how they’re protected under current law. The key
element here: material published with a copyright
notice between 1923 and 1963 may be in the public
domain— if that copyright was not renewed. While
CTEA automatically granted an extra 20 years to
most everything, that was only true for material still
in copyright. ( Everything published before 1923 is in
the public domain. Items created before 1923 but not
published until later might or might not be.)
One problem is finding out which items were re-newed
and which weren’t. Work may be afoot to
build a workable, accessible database providing this
information. The other problem would remain:
Tracking down copyright holders who automatically
renewed at some point between 1951 and 1991
( when their first 28- year term expired) but who have
since died, disappeared, or just lost interest.
Soules, Aline, “ Copyright for writers, readers,
and researchers,” Parts 2 and 3, eBookWeb.
I mentioned part one of this brief series in
March. Part 2 discusses copyright registration and its
changing role and the shrinking public domain—
including the irony that Disney, after creating works
based on public domain material, wishes to deny
others that ability. Part 3 deals with DMCA, fair use,
first sale rights, and educational use. Soules closes
with the concept of balance and a plea for readers to
“ Be ethical and operate with integrity, not greed.”
The trio of pieces form a good, down- to- earth, brief
discussion of current copyright issues, offered in
chunks appropriate for online reading ( but better
read in print).
Trends & Quick Takes
Changing Times
It’s worth noting changes in weblogs and print me-dia
that I follow, in no particular order:
􀂾 LLRX. com is “ on hiatus” and the weblog por-tion
appears to be gone— and Sabrina Pacifici,
co- editor of LLRX, has begun a new weblog,
beSpacific. The new weblog deals with law, li-braries,
and technology, similarly to the LLRX
weblog, and is off to a good start. Most links
offer neutral descriptions rather than opinion-ated
commentary. Worth checking for a wide
range of well- selected law and library links.
􀂾 Charles W. Bailey, Jr., has put the essential
Scholarly Electronic Publishing weblog on a
weekly schedule, at least for now— in a clever
way that serves readers and gives him flexibil-ity.
The top of the log shows when the next
update can be expected. Recently, that’s always
been the following Monday. Bailey’s content
continues to be wide- ranging ( within his cho-sen
scope), carefully described, and solid
enough to make this a key resource.
􀂾 Steven Cohen has completely redone Library
Stuff— and, for now, it seems to be heavily re-cursive:
Many entries are about other blogs and
aspects of blogging and related software.
Cohen’s also active as a LISNews contributor,
and is trying to avoid duplication. I suspect
further refinements of Library Stuff will take
place.
􀂾 Last July, I accepted Delta Airlines’ offer to use
some of my stranded miles— gained on a cruise-related
flight, about the only time I’d be flying
Delta— for one- year subscriptions to a few
magazines. I thought I’d signed up for Business
2.0, Red Herring, Technology Review, and Wired—
but Wired never showed, and I may have imag-ined
that one. I grew to dislike Technology Review
fairly rapidly, and am still deciding whether to
renew Business 2.0 ( but probably won’t). Then
there’s Red Herring, one of the original new-economy
business magazines. I kept trying,
honest I did, but clearly I’m neither sufficiently
investment oriented nor enough of a geek to
get it. Neither, apparently, were enough sub-scribers
and advertisers. As the staff was pre-
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 16
paring a blowout 10th anniversary special issue,
Red Herring blew out: The March 2003 issue, a
little short of 10 years, is also the final issue. It
took me less than an hour to read and I can’t
think of a thing to say about it. Except this: I
miss the Industry Standard, all the more so as I
try its so- called competitors. I won’t miss Red
Herring or the others.
􀂾 Here’s a nascent perspective that may or may
not emerge. Is there an unspoken code among
library bloggers and zine people that prevents
criticism of one another? There’s surely no
such code among journalist bloggers or law folk
or the rest. I’m not sure it’s healthy among li-brary
folk either.
Feedback: Your Insights
A variety of feedback, interesting and informative as
always. I encourage feedback. I don’t promise to use
it. And, as the first three items show, I can’t always
use it in the issue after I receive it. Please indicate in
the feedback that it’s intended for publication. If I
have no comments following a letter, it’s because I
didn’t see any reason to comment— the feedback
said what needed to be said.
If you wonder why I sometimes use first names
in responses, sometimes last, I do have a rule ( al-though
I may not always follow it properly, as in
showing proper respect to Elizabeth Lane Lawley’s
Ph. D. by not calling her “ Liz”):
􀂾 If I’ve met the person face- to- face at some
point, I typically use their first name.
􀂾 If I’ve never met the person, I try to use their
last name.
Gilles Caron, Université du Québec à
Chicoutimi, re: Copyright Currents
I regularly read Cites & Insights. I was particularly in-terested
by your last issue ( March 2003) and the
saga about the recent decision of the US Supreme
Court not to overturn the Copyright Term Extension
Act.
We support here at Chicoutimi the edification of a
collection called “ Les classiques des sciences socia-les”
( http:// www. uqac. uquebec. ca/ zone30/ Classiques_
des_ sciences_ sociales/ index. html), a collection of
ebooks in French. This collection is born on the ini-tiative
of one person, Jean- Marie Tremblay, dedi-cated
to the task of making available knowledge
freely to everybody.
An aspect I didn’t read in your comments is: Who
will benefit from this extension of the copyright to
70 and more years ( probably indefinitely)? Surely
not the author... Possibly some of his or her de-scent...
Probably those who will buy the rights from
those who, to their surprise, will own these “ new”
rights and will be happy to sell them. And we could
end with a situation where the rights on Karl Marx
publications will be owned by Bill Gates or some
other of these “ new editors.”
Are we in a situation where the patrimony of hu-manity
will be confiscated by those who have the
money to buy it? Is this what is called “ progress of
civilization”!
Not much to add here, although I could argue that
Bill Gates isn’t the best example of this particular
category of villain.
Steven J. Bell, Philadelphia University, re:
My comments on his American Libraries
article in the March Cites & Insights
Greetings. I hope you are warmer than you were in
Philadelphia during midwinter. Us natives didn’t
think too much of that cold spell either ( though I
thought the Friday— first day of the conference— was
really the worst of them). Fortunately you missed
out on our fun 24- inch snow over this past weekend.
My school is back in session today for the first time
since last Friday. Even though it was quite cold, I
was warmed by the many folks who stopped me at
the conference to say how much they enjoyed read-ing
the article in AL. It was very gratifying to know
that it had struck a chord with many front line li-brarians.
Like you, folks didn’t tend to agree with
quite a few of my points - and I knew when I wrote
it that would be likely. Like you, I’m certainly not
sure I’m convinced I’ve got it right. But let me re-spond
to a few things you mention in C& I.
While I can be relatively ambiguous about this
whole full- text issue on any given day, I remain con-vinced
that what I see in regards to the business
practices of the major aggregators is something that
should be of concern to the profession. The article is
mostly a reaction to what I see as a race to add more
and more full text. I subscribe to an email alert from
one of our aggregators that tells me all the new titles
being added. When I look at these titles I find my-self
asking, “ Do we really need this; will my users
find this of any use?” Yet I’m paying for it and I
have no say in whether it gets added. I find myself
questioning if this practice makes sense to me or my
library users.
You make a good point on retrieval limits— there are
definite dangers in not letting the end- user see what
their search has actually resulted in achieving. From
my perspective this can create many more problems
for the novice undergrad then it will for a grad stu-dent
or librarian. LexisNexis Academic Universe is a
good example. Any search that would retrieve over
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 17
1,000 hits will not be completed. The system gives a
message informing the user of this. Now, that can be
a good thing. If you know how to interpret the mes-sage
it says, “ Wait a minute— this search is way too
broad— you need to narrow it” ( and yes, I realize
there are times when searchers want maximum re-call,
but that is rarely the case with undergrads). The
problem is that LN gives the user absolutely no clue
as to how to improve the search. So most undergrads
will simply give up and walk away ( or maybe ask for
help). In many cases the search is pretty bad. For ex-ample,
search “ terrorism” as the term in “ all papers.”
LN originally came up with this as a self defense
mechanism, to prevent their computers from a melt-down.
They also changed the search mechanism
from defaulting to “ full text” to “ lead paragraph”
which helps some, but not enough. I just saw a pro-totype
of a new interface ProQuest is getting ready
for June. It does have an interesting “ Did this search
work?” feature that will prompt the user to try click-ing
on terms from their controlled vocabulary that
will be recommended based on the user’s search.
This looks like an interesting feature that may help
improve search results.
I think your suggestion about index databases with
Open URL links makes great sense, and I would be
interested in seeing this sort of thing. I think we’re
still a ways away from that though. Many of us are
just beginning to understand products such as SFX
( there was a good article on this in the latest Searcher
magazine), but it looks like the large research uni-versities
with lots of systems support are the only
ones sticking their toes into this water. We’ll have to
see where it heads, but this approach would defi-nitely
help to ease the full- text fixation thing. I have
students ( architecture majors) who will try to get
away with using ProQuest before they even try
Avery in hopes of being able to get full- text online
rather than have to track down articles manually.
That’s just hurting yourself and it makes no sense.
But this is what we’re dealing with here.
I also understand your points about journals where
full- text just doesn’t make sense ( or isn’t appropri-ate).
The art and architecture journals are the per-fect
example, and I find myself explaining to those
students why their journals aren’t available in full
text many times. On the other hand we do a lot of
work in the area of textiles and materials science,
and that field could apply itself well, but it’s not
quite so popular and there just isn’t much full text
out there yet.
I greatly appreciate the time you took to give my ar-ticle
a good read and to comment on it - and I ap-preciate
that you have recommended it to your
readers. While a lot of folks get AL I don’t think
they read it. In fact, I got barely a comment on my
article until I was subsequently interviewed about it
in the Chronicle of Higher Education; then people went
back and read it. I am hoping the next issue of AL
might have a letter or two about it. I would certainly
hope that it got folks thinking. Why else bother?
As I responded to Steven, I don’t know how difficult
or expensive it is to set up an OpenURL resolver. As
lead Eureka analyst, I had the easy task: Making
Eureka an OpenURL sender. ( Any Z39.50- compliant
database is an OpenURL target, so we didn’t have to
do anything.) I expect to see much broader imple-mentation
of OpenURL over the next two or three
years. Other than that comment, I think Steven
raises good points and I regard this as a valuable ad-dition
to the original article. As to feedback, that’s
something I’ve noted as well: I get considerably
more feedback from the 1,400+ readers of Cites &
Insights than I do from the 12,000+ readers of ECon-tent
or the 63,000+ readers of American Libraries.
Eli Edwards, San Jose State, re: February
2003 “ Library Stuff”
In your take on Rachel Mendez’s article on produc-tivity
software in public libraries, you said:
“ Hmm. I was not aware that a neatly- typed letter
was no longer acceptable. I wasn’t even aware that
school papers couldn’t be handwritten ( but it’s been
a long time since I was in school), much less typed. I
would bet money that any magazine that publishes
fiction will favor a brilliant typewritten story over a
mediocre computer- printed story and, frankly, I
can’t imagine an editor saying “ No, I won’t read this,
I can feel the indentations: It must not come from a
computer!” The gap in story acceptance has to do
with literacy and creativity, not with the difference
between a cheap electronic typewriter and a PC.”
Mind you, I haven’t read Ms. Mendez’s paper, so I
don’t know her arguments. As for your observation,
I believe that you are correct: A paper of text pro-duced
on a typewriter ( if done correctly) should be
as acceptable as a paper of text produced via com-puter/
printer. However, there may well be a huge dif-ference
between a typewritten paper of text and an
electronic document/ file. Increasingly, in schools,
editors’ offices and even HR offices, people want
original submissions as electronic files. Having a
typewritten resume or term paper is fine for in-person
distribution. But I find that as a student ( and
scholarship applicant), I am starting to submit more
of my work/ qualifications/ credentials in electronic
format.
This isn’t to argue that we are making our way to
the paperless society hyped in the 70s and 80s. On
the other hand, not being able to upload and email
one’s resume at the behest of employers may be a
small indicator of the Digital Divide that those in
the know should pay attention to.
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 18
My reading of Ms. Mendez’ argument on “ school
papers” was that it related to K12, where I find it
hard to believe that computer submission is gener-ally
expected ( but could be wrong). Otherwise, Mr.
Edwards’ points are very well taken.
Feedback from the April Issue
One followup based on feedback— from an expert in
censorware who provided an informal commentary
and will probably post his own formal explanation
elsewhere.
In discussing censorware, I commented that it
was not only not true that filtering vendors offer
lists of blocked sites, but “ some of them will
threaten DMCA action to prevent you from uncov-ering
the lists.” That’s not quite true— because, in
the first round of LC’s DMCA exemption hearings,
one of two exemptions was for decrypting censor-ware
blacklists. On the other hand, the companies
can threaten legal action based on regular copyright,
trade secrets, shrinkwrap license, and other laws—
and they do. Further, while a censorware expert can
legally write a tool to decrypt the lists, that expert
would violate DMCA by distributing that software to
anybody else— for example, libraries. ( As you might
expect, the censorware companies want this limited-term
exemption removed.)
Peter Suber re: My comments on his FOS
weblog in “ A Zine is not a Weblog”
Thanks for your kind words about my blog writing.
Historical note: I was reluctant to start a blog for
many of the reasons that you seem to be reluctant. I
was a newsletter writer and enjoyed the time that
my newsletter gave me to improve my first draft be-fore
sending it out to the world. The turnaround
time for blogs is a lot faster, which is both a plus and
a minus. In truth, I often publish blog entries that I
wish I had held longer for rumination and polish.
But I started the blog from necessity: I had to slow
down my newsletter in order to return to full- time
teaching, and a blog was the best way to offer a simi-lar
service that would fit my schedule. But now that
I’ve started blogging, I’m very glad that I did. When
I revive my newsletter this summer, I’ll keep my blog
and do the two in tandem. I expect they’ll be
strongly synergistic.
Harry M. Kriz, Virginia Tech, re: “ The End
of Books Déjà vu?”
On page 78 of Thomas Alva Edison’s 1921 Diary
and Sundry Observations there is this paragraph:
“ I believe that the motion picture is destined to
revolutionize our educational system, and that in a
few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the
use of text- books in our schools. Books are clumsy
methods of instruction at best, and often even the
words of explanation in them have to be explained.”
Eli Neeher re: One of my comments in
“ Filtering/ Censorware Follies”
I very much enjoyed your overview of the current
state of CIPA litigation in the April 2003 Cites & In-sights—
it was definitely one of the most comprehen-sive
discussions I’ve seen, and generally on the mark.
That having been said, I’m troubled by your support
for blocking access to minors completely as a means
of making uncensored access available to adults
without enraging too many people. You write…:
“ The [ Hannibal Free Public Library] director says,
‘ We’ve been real conscious of it since we put in pub-lic-
access computers, and the library asks Internet
users to sign an acceptable use agreement. Anyone
under 18 must have parental or guardian permission
to use a computer, and that permission can be re-stricted
to the filtered computers in the children’s
room’ — in other words, the common ‘ partial filter-ing’
solution that the government doesn’t recognize
at all.”
I’m not sure this is as much of a solution as you
maintain. Certainly most kids would prefer filtered
access to no access, and I don’t really see how cen-sorship
based on who is using a terminal is any less
pernicious than censorship based on what is being
accessed.
When I was 16 and living a couple of hundred miles
from my parents, the Saugerties, NY public library
wouldn’t let me online ( would not, in fact, even is-sue
me a library card) without a parental signature;
at the time this was my only e- mail access, and my
only way to stay in touch with a variety of people
that it was impractical ( and expensive) to call. Par-ticularly
important to me was the ability to stay ac-tive
in several political groups I’d become involved
in.
In Orange Park, FL, when I was trying to put to-gether
a resume before I left a job, the public library
maintained the same policy of not allowing com-puter
use without parental permission. This was a
pain when I was trying to get printouts of articles I’d
written as senior correspondent for the short- lived
and ill- fated dot- com startup Ytrybe; since all my
other copies of those articles were in New York or on
a Unix shell account that had been closed, not being
able to get to them on the Web was a serious im-pediment
to compiling any sort of portfolio.
In both these cases the policies were easily circum-vented
by having a friend forge a parental signature
on the permission form. But I resent that I had to
perjure myself to gain access to computers that my
tax money — the absence of which I felt acutely in
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 19
every paycheck — had helped pay for. In both these
cases I had no alternative net access ( there were not
even Internet cafes in these towns) and had a real
need for information that couldn’t be acquired in
any other way. And what if I hadn’t had personal
Internet access when I was 14 and needed to look
up legalities when I was trying to decide whether
and to whom to report the sexual and physical abuse
of a close friend? Being a socially inept 14- year- old
kid in that situation is bad enough without having
to deal with self- appointed guardians of morality.
I guess my point is that minors have valid reasons
beyond IM and flirty e- mails to be using public
Internet terminals; that, while I dislike censorware
as much as the next guy ( years ago I did some test-ing
for Peacefire of a filter whose name escapes me
which, I found, blocked copies of the Iliad and the
Odyssey for no reason I could see — maybe it was
all those spears through the eyeball), I don’t think
that cutting off the access of a large population seg-ment
altogether is any better than limiting every-one’s
access.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, which ended
up being a bit lengthier than I’d expected.
My initial response— in addition to thanking him for
an insightful commentary and asking permission to
use it— was along these lines:
My “ support” for blocking access to minors is, in
fact, extremely uncomforable and, as I think my
bulleted points made clear, an internal conflict. And,
although I didn’t say it in the set of bullets, I think a
distinction needs to be made between children
( which I’d define as pre- teen) and older minors. My
“ support” comes down to the recognition that it’s
politically infeasible to say, “ 6- year- olds should have
unfettered access to everything on the Internet, pe-riod,
and parents can just keep out of it.” Such a
stance is an invitation to shut down the library or its
computers altogether. A compromise is needed, like
it or not.
I don’t believe that I said I supported Hannibal’s
specific policy. The point I was making regarding
Hannibal is that they do not seem to have floods of
pornography washing across their computers despite
having unfiltered access for adults. I quoted their
case as a comment on the apparent epidemic of filth
at the libraries involved in pro- CIPA briefs.
My complex position is saying what I’d probably
find necessary to do if, heaven forbid, I was a public
library director, and also recognizing that no public
library would put Hustler or even the relatively tame
Playboy in its children’s room.
There is a simple legal issue: Minors do not have
the same legal rights and responsibilities as those
over 18. Libraries that require parental signatures to
provide library cards or online access do so for
sound legal reasons. You might not like those rea-sons—
I might not either— but until the age of major-ity
can be changed, there are legitimate liability
issues involved.
Mr. Neeher added this commentary on my first
paragraph, which requires no response:
I can’t disagree with that. My main objection is not
to your ( or any of the the anti- CIPA crowd’s) beliefs
per se— I like to think most of them would, at least
in theory, agree that blocking anyone’s access is
bad— but to the fact that the issue of blocking mi-nors’
access is so often glossed over as secondary, if
it’s considered at all, in this debate. A compromise is
needed, but I think the compromise that’s current in
libraries— the one employed by Hannibal— has
gained currency more by default than as a result of
any real thought.
Peter Graham, Syracuse, re: MovieMask ( in
the Censorware roundup)
You comment that you find it suitable for someone
to choose an edited version of a film, even an edited-on-
the- fly version by some cockamamie software,
because it’s their right to watch what they want. I
suggest a more appropriate response would be to tell
people to go get the art they want instead of modify-ing
the art they don’t like.
The rights of artists to have their work presented as
they intended is another right, and and an impor-tant
one. If an artist ( read: painter, poet, movie pro-ducer,
filmscript writer) provides to the market a
work in a certain form, they have the right to see
that it is perceived in the form they intended; oth-erwise,
in a very real sense, it isn’t their work. In the
UK, and I think further in Europe, the question of
the moral right to a work ( as an extension of intel-lectual
property) may be asserted by an artist. For
painters, e. g., it is my understanding that this pre-vents
a work from being casually destroyed by an
owner for whatever reason. It’s now often seen as-serted
on the verso of title pages of UK books, pre-sumably
with the aim of having recourse against
inappropriate uses of text.
Presumably this is no defense against satire, parody,
etc., but against wanton damage to the artistic prod-uct—
which the software you describe seems to be
defined by.
My initial response: In practice, once a work has
been reproduced, the creator is not in a position to
assure that those using the work use it in exactly the
way presented— only that they will be aware that
they’re not doing so. To the extent that impinges on
the creative moral rights of the artist, it’s a tradeoff
between those rights and the desire to be seen.
That is:
Cites & Insights Spring 2003 20
􀂾 If I buy a copy of a nude sculpture, the artist is
not in a position to prevent me from putting
fig leaves over certain portions— but the artist
should be in a position to prevent companies
from selling copies with those fig leaves preap-plied.
[ There’s a distinction for an original,
unique work of art: There, the artist should be
able to object to modifications, although per-haps
not to prevent them. And while a painter
should have some protection against my wan-tonly
destroying a painting, even though I pur-chased
it, I don’t see that the painter would or
should have any such protection if I buy a print
of that painting.]
􀂾 If I choose to program my CD player so that it
always skips certain songs on an album, or the
“ nasty” movement of a sonata, the artist has
little or no recourse.
􀂾 Oddly enough, DVD controls do provide the
possibility that a director could insist that you
always watch the movie from beginning to end,
never fast forwarding or skipping a scene, but
it’s unlikely that any director would be so con-trolling
( or would sell many copies). For 99.9%
of movies, I’m perfectly free to fast- forward or
skip certain scenes entirely. Similarly, I can skip
pages or chapters of a book.
In all these cases, the keys are ( a) that it’s a repro-duction/
publication, not a unique work, ( b) that the
work itself has not been modified— only the way I
view it, ( c) that I’m aware that I’m modifying the
original work.
So, my comment— made badly, no doubt— was
that software that modifies a DVD as it’s being
viewed, with the awareness of the owner that this is
happening and with no modifications to the DVD
itself, is far less objectionable than are modified cop-ies
of the DVD.
Along with permission to use, Peter added these
notes:
The moral right in Europe, as I understand it, in-deed
forbids you from publicly displaying the nude
sculpture that way. I don’t know how it would apply
in your own home, but if you’re a museum, you
couldn’t do that. ( If it isn’t otherwise clear, I support
that moral right and not very hopefully think it
should be available to USA artists as well.)
I’m not sure your distinction [ between original and
reproduction] holds about an original work of art
and a copy in say the music environment. Where’s
the original? The studio performance? ( Which
dubbed track?)
The controls [ over DVD playback] certainly do exist
and as a brand- new DVD owner… I find myself frus-trated
that I indeed can not fast forward through the
FBI notice or the production company’s irritating
initial 20- second splash screen on several of my new
BBC DVDs. I suspect if the software you talk about
takes any hold at all directors/ producers will do ex-actly
what you say, and why not.
It’s clearly complex, more so than we’re dealing with
here. Like most intellectual property discussions.
Following Up: The CIPA Hearing
Transcript
April’s “ Filtering/ Censorware Follies” included notes
from Skip Auld’s extensive informal transcription of
the CIPA oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
A few days after Cites & Insights was posted, the offi-cial
transcription appeared— which you can find
through the usual sources.
After reading the entire official transcript, I’ll re-peat
something I said last month: “ Auld seems to
have done a remarkable job.” Change “ seems to have
done” to “ did.” He did such a good job that I’ll only
add one nugget, cited directly from Theodore Ol-son’s
closing statement:
What this statute [ CIPA] does is gives the libraries
the right, if they choose to accept Federal funds, to
make what kinds of decisions, to exclude pornogra-phy
which there’s no dispute in the record libraries
have, from time immemorial, chosen not to put in
their libraries. So the decision that they’re making is
the same one they have already voluntarily made
over the years.
Amazing. Our government at work.
The Details
Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Volume 3, Num-ber
5, Whole Issue 33, ISSN 1534- 0937, is written
and produced at least monthly by Walt Crawford, a
senior analyst at RLG. Opinions herein do not re-flect
those of RLG. Comments should be sent to
wcc@ notes. rlg. org. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large
is copyright © 2003 by Walt Crawford: Some rights
reserved.
Except for letters and quoted material, this work
is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribu-tion-
NonCommercial License. To view a copy of this
license, visit http:// creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-nc/
1.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305,
USA.
URL: cites. boisestate. edu/ civ3i5. pdf