The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) strongly supports the introduction of the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing US Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act of 2007, HR 1201. The FAIR USE Act is co-sponsored by Congressmen Rick Boucher (D-VA), Congresswomen Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Congressman John Doolittle (R-CA).
At the end of 2006, Dr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, approved six exemptions from the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures contained in section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). These exemptions will sunset in three years. The FAIR USE Act makes these six exemptions permanent. “Two of these exemptions are particularly important to the library community,” said Miriam Nisbet of the American Library Association. “During the rulemaking proceeding before the Library of Congress, the library community supported the exemptions for screen readers for the visually impaired and film clip compilations for college media studies classes. The Fair USE Act will ensure that these important activities can continue in the future and the Act will go a long way to eliminate the negative affect the DMCA has had on lawful uses,” Nisbet said. . . . MORE
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Debatepedia is a free, wiki-based encyclopedia where people can collaboratively research and write outlines of arguments on various topics. As a "wiki", it enables anyone to easily present and organize the unique arguments that have been made by third-party sources (ie. by scholars, experts, leaders,...). It also enables you to present the positions of the key players, organizations, countries in major public debates. Debatepedia combines "wiki" technology with an ideal "logic tree" debate methodology.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
What Progress Have Respondents Made on IR Policies?
At least 60% of census respondents with operational IRs report they have implemented policies for (1) acceptable file formats, (2) determining who is authorized to make contributions to the IR, (3) defining collections, (4) restricting access to IR content, (5) identifying metadata formats and authorized metadata creators, and (6) determining what is acceptable content (Figure 6.2). There are many more IR-related activities for which these institutions report drafted policies or no policies at all.
It may be not necessary for all IR policies to be in place at the time of the public launch of an institution’s IR. Taking a wait-and-see attitude, evaluating what transpires after a period of time, then firming up existing policies and implementing new ones as needed may be the most expedient course of action.
Who Contributes to IRs and at What Rate?Authorized contributors to IRs are typically members of the institution’s learning community—faculty, librarians, research scientists, archivists, and graduate and undergraduate students (Table 6.3). Staff who facilitate the research and teaching missions of the institution (e.g., press, news service, academic support staff, central computer staff) are less likely to be authorized to contribute. Asked to identify the major contributor to their IR, only PPT staff are unified in their response, with almost 60% naming faculty (Table 6.4). Percentages drop to 48.1% and 33.3% for PO and IMP respondents, respectively. The unified response of PPT staff probably stems from the fact that they work one-on-one with faculty who are early adopters during the planning and pilot-test phase of the IR effort. In fact, PO, PPT, and IMP respondents choose “IR staff working one-on-one with early adopters” as the most successful method for recruiting IR content (Figure 6.5). Other successful methods are “word of mouth from early adopters to their colleagues” (Figure 6.6), “personal visits to staff and administrators,” and “presentations about the IR at departmental and faculty meetings” (Figure 6.7).
Respondents report that recruiting content for the IR is difficult (Figure 7.3). At institutions with operational IRs, IR staff are willing to entertain institutional mandates that require members of their institution’s learning community to deposit certain document types in the IR (Table 7.3). Asked why they think people will contribute to the IR, respondents give high ratings to reasons that enhance scholarly reputations and offload research-dissemination tasks onto others. Lower-ranked reasons pertain to enhancing the institution’s standing.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Copies of the letters and signers are available here:
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Mr. Wark, a professor of media and cultural studies at New School University, has put the draft of his latest book online in an experimental format inspired by academic blogs and the free-for-all spirit of Wikipedia .... Each paragraph of Mr. Wark's book has its own Web page, and next to each of those paragraphs is a box where anyone can comment — though readers are not permitted to alter the original text. ... More
The article is available at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlbr250digprinciples.pdf. A press release is at http://www.arl.org/bm%7Edoc/googleswakepr.pdf
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
** Cross-Posted **
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:08 +0000
From: Leslie Carr
Reply-To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Subject: The EC Petition and the EC Poll
The European research and academic community has demonstrated overwhelming support for the European Commission's proposed Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate (A1). A petition, launched jointly on January 14th 2007 by research organisations in a number of European countries, has drawn over 20,000 signatures from Europe and worldwide in support of the EC's proposal. The response includes almost 1,000 institutional signatories from National Academies of Sciences, Universities, Rectors' conferences, Learned Societies, national and private research funding councils, and industries that apply research.)
In conjunction with the petition, a separate poll has been conducted of the EC Open Access Mandate's specific target constituency. The administrators of currently active EU FP6 projects were asked to register a vote FOR or AGAINST open access to research results. The result was overwhelming: 85.8% in favour of open access, 14.2% against (based on a healthy 8.22% response rate from 2652 email invitations to vote).
Previous research has demonstrated the increased impact that Open Access to Research Results offers the research industry.
The petition and the poll demonstrate that Open Access now receives broad-based and popular support as a mainstream requirement of the European research industry.
University of Southampton
Monday, February 12, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) has announced its support for free public access to federally-funded research within 6 months of publication. The Society has provided open access to research articles in the journal, Molecular Biology of the Cell, since 2001 and has seen no financial difficulties in this procedure. For the full story see: http://ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=10&id=1968&tcode=nws3.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
. . . . In a move designed to open Princeton's vast resources to a broad international audience, the library will work with Google over the next six years to digitize books that are in the public domain and no longer under copyright. The partnership is part of the Google Books Library Project, which digitizes books from major libraries and makes it possible for Internet users to search the collections through Google Book Search. . . . .
Princeton is the 12th institution to join the Google Books Library Project. Books available in the Google Book Search also include those from collections at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, the University of California, the University of Michigan, the University of Texas-Austin, the University of Virginia, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the New York Public Library, the University Complutense of Madrid and the National Library of Catalonia.
THE FULL PRESS RELEASE.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
1) Universities’ public role and responsibility as “guardians” of research knowledge/results as “public goods” – the preparation of statements and positions addressed to academic authors, and to public funding bodies.
2) The need for well-functioning open access repositories and networking between them (on the basis of common standards) for archiving purposes as a viable alternative to other modes of publication in the digital world.
3) Strengthening of legal rights position (non-exclusive copyright) and related legal requirements through the promotion, advancement or encouragement of model copyright agreements at university/ institutional as well as individual researcher level.
4) The promotion, advancement or encouragement of business models for publishing based upon open access principles.
5) The promotion, advancement or encouragement of peer review and quality control mechanisms by academic researchers for open access journals.
The 26 January, 2007 statement of the EUA Working Group on Open Access is available here.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Thursday, February 1, 2007
“The scanning technology is boring,” Clancy said. “The real challenge is to get somebody something that they are actually interested in, inside a book. Web sites [my emphasis] are part of a network, and that’s a significant part of how we rank sites in our search—how much other sites refer to the others.” But, he added, “Books are not part of a network. There is a huge research challenge, to understand the relationship between books.”Except, of course, that books are part of a network, and the relationship between them, in the sense of one referring to another in the way that Web sites do, is not so hard to understand. It may not be easy to parse those references when they're not in the form of http links, but the challenge should not be, as Clancy puts it, "to understand the relationship between books" but to draw on that relationship to get people to sources they'll find useful.