Textbook Publishers Sue Open Source Alternative

Textbook publishers Pearson, Cengage Learning, and MacMillan Higher Education are suing open source textbook startup Boundless for copyright infringement.  Boundless offers their texts as a free, open-source alternative to specific textbooks by collecting free information from across the web and organizing them into an approximation of the copyrighted textbooks.  The claims of the publishers focus less on direct quotation or paraphrasing (which Boundless doesn't do), but rather copying the format of the published texts too closely.  This is an interesting case to watch concerning copyright that you can read more about it in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

I can't say for sure that what Boundless is doing constitutes copyright infringement, but as a student I welcome any open source alternative to pricey educational materials.

Copyright Length: How Long is Too Long?

Argument:  While the exact length copyrights should apply is arguable, it should not extend past the life of the author.

In the Unites States the current length copyright applies is 70 years after the death of the author.  This length was established with the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, which extended copyright 20 years longer than the previous extension.

The following video discusses some of the history and issues surrounding copyright extension:

Why it shouldn't extend:

• Shouldn't benefit beyond author: Obviously, authors can no longer benefit from works after they are dead, so why should others benefit from a creators specific work?   There is a strong individualistic bent in America that would suggest that you should earn money off of your own work. That is part of the justification of the 50% estate tax.

• Main beneficiaries are often companies: Often the primary beneficiary of copyright after the death of creators is their company.  It's one thing if a creators children benefit, but does everybody that now works at the Walt Disney company really have a right to profit from and control a cartoon Walt Disney made in 1928?  

• It would encourage new works: When works go into public domain, others are able to use those works to create new works and derivatives.

• Follow Constitution: The U.S. Constitution authorized copyright " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".  Some advocate extending copyright to "forever less a day" in order to technically circumvent the Constitutional requirement of a "limited time".  If you are circumventing constitutional requirements on technicallities, you are probably not following the spirit of the law, in this case the promotion of works.

Why it should extend:

• Economic benefit in foreign markets: The proponents of the most recent extension said one of the primary reasons for the expansion was to promote profitability of American works in foreign markets.

• Encourage creation of new works:  On a basic level, copyright still encourages the creation of new works by ensuring the rights of the creators.

• Preserves the value of works:  Some said that the extension preserved the value of works by ensuring that creators could controlling the distribution of works ( the supply) and keep the market from become oversaturated and the value of the work dropping.

• Copyright doesn't discourage creation:  Proponents of copyright extension point out that only certain expressions can be copyrighted, but not the ideas therein.  So potential creators can still draw inspiration from copyrighted works.

Discussion:

Essentially, those that make money off of specific works want to keep making money. As it turns out it's often corporations and companies that can spend a great deal of resources to lobby for the extension of copyright.  On the flip side, people that could potentially benefit from works becoming public domain either a.) don't know they could benefit and/or b) don't have the resources to lobby congress.  So it's a safe bet that copyright will keep being extended like it always has.

But there is a line somewhere.  People and corporations don't have the right to benefit of of specific works in perpetuity.  If they did, either the Constitution would have ensure that or and of the congresses since then would have.  I feel we have already crossed the line between encouraging the creation of new works by allowing the profitability of the author through control of their works and grarifying those who unjustly profit off of the work of others, to the detriment of society.

Reflection: Copyright

March 29th class

What I liked:  Our march 15th class very briefly touched on disruptive technology and copyright infringement.  I'm interested in issues surrounding copyrights so I used that as a basis for last weeks argument.  Needless to say, I was excited to see that copyright was the main focus for this weeks class.  As an information professional and a consumer of entertainment, I'm interested in how the digital age is affecting copyright and copyright infringement.  It's important for those of us in the information profession to understand the somewhat complex, sometimes ambiguous subjects of copyright and fair use, not only for ourselves, but for those that we serve.

What I agree with:  I agree that we need copyrights.  I've encountered some who argue that we don't need copyright protections, that they only serve corporate interests, and even go so far as to say copyright is evil.  That's certainly an extreme position, but it is an indicator of the growing dissatisfaction with current copyright laws.  Copyright originated as a way to promote the creation of new works by allowing creators to profit from creating.  I believe it still serves this purpose.

What I disagree with:  I don't necessarily think copyright law is perfect.  It should adjust to meet the needs of society.  That happens for the most part.  Copyright laws are created and amended on a somewhat regular basis.  One trend that I'm cautious of, however, is the extension of the life of copyrights.  The original length of copyright was 14 years in 1787, but it been extended several times throughout history to its current length of 70 years after the death of the author.  If the trend continues, it's not hard to believe that eventually copyright will be extended indefinitely.  I think there is a point in which extending the life of copyright no longer serves the purpose of encouraging the creation of new works.

What I'm still curious about: The future is a mystery to me.  We are at the beginning of the digital age, and no doubt there will be sweeping changes in the future.  Will we still need copyright in the future? Will it continue to be extended?  Can/will copyright be reformed or will we have some other mechanism to encourage creation?  I don't know.  It seems that so much of the future relies on the technologies that will be available.

Google's Project Glass

In an earlier post I mentioned that Google was developing augmented reality glasses that may release this year.  Well, today they have released a teaser trailer showing how the glasses might work and affect how an individual receives and shares information.  All in all it's pretty exciting stuff:

Edit: It didn't take long for internet parodies to start popping up, highlighting the potential downsides of the technology such as mis-sent information, advertisements, privacy, and not looking where you're going:

 

And here are what google glasses wearers will likely see when the inevitable advertisements begin.

The Effect of Piracy

Argument: Like previous studies concerning disruptive technologies, we may find that pirating of movies, books, and games through the internet may not have an adverse affect of the profits of the producers.

Evidence in support:

• In 1999 researchers Shapiro and Varian, authors of Information Rules, concluded that book publishered made more money because of book lending and also movie production companies make more money because of rentals.

• In 1985 S.J. Leibowitz found that "the unauthorized copying of intellectual properties need not be harmful and may actually be beneficial" after studying the copying of journal articles.

•  Many content producers claim a severe loss of revenue due to piracy (a total of 250 billion); however, many claim those statistics are non accurate and often exaggerated.

Evidence against:

• Content producers and organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America claim substantial loss due to piracy.

• The think tank Institute for Policy Innovation claims that copyright infringement not only causes substantial loss for producers but for the entire U.S. economy in terms of lost economic output, jobs, earnings, and tax revenue.

 

 Balanced discussion: Pirating happens.  However, whether it is too extensive or morally wrong is a different issue. The question is does it effect the profits of those who produce the content (which is generally their largest complaint).  As a producer it's an easy conclusion to come to that unauthorized access to your content is losing you money.  However, there is historical evidence that that is not always the case.  "Free" access to content can generate interest in that content which can lead to future sales not only by the the original infringer but by others that the infringer introduces the content to.

However, the digital world is a different beast.  It's much easier now to avoid paying for content.  In the past, getting illegal copies often included a trip somewhere and then making an imperfect copy.  Now we can have near-instant, perfect copies.  So it would make sense that it would happen more often.

There are extreme arguments on both sides: either piracy is killing the economy or piracy is good both economically and ethically.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and we should keep observing and researching to find the true effect of piracy.  Despite the effects, it's a safe bet that we won't eliminate it completely and it would be wise for companies to learn to cope by changing business models to thrive in the new digital information age.

Reflection: Information Economy

March 15th class

What I liked most: I enjoyed starting the class off by exploring the current technological context of rapid change.  It's exciting and concerning at the same time.  Technology and new media are being used to bring information to people more efficiently and to bring people closer together.  However, as an information professional, (or any worker, really) it also signifies the need to keep up with new technology or have an obsolete set of skills.

A lot of economics goes over my head most of the time, but I found it interesting that Google has developed its own price index to measure web transactions.  I like the idea that some of the largest and most forward-thinking companies are making efforts to better understand and measure the new information economy.

I also found the discussion of "disruptive technologies" fascinating.  I'm interested in the issue of digital piracy and its effects, and I think it is valuable to see how similar issues played out in the past such as the effect of photocopying on the profits of academic journals.

What I agree with:  I agree that the new and evolving information based economy will neccessitate changes in business models.  Due to the nature of digital information, how its, acquired and emerging consumer expectations businesses will need to adapt or fail.  Newspapers are a prime example of this.

What I disagree with:  I don't think that all information needs to be priced.  I understand that as our economy shifts toward information, people will want to monetize the work that produces information, but I think that at least some information should be free.  I may just be scared of the idea of having to pay a blogger because their post inspired me to some economic benefit.  At some point monetizing information becomes absurd.  I encourage working out how to economically value information, but I don't want that to be put into practice by monetizing ideas or knowledge spillover.

I'm still curious about: A lot, really.  However I'm most interested in how we will decide to handle current disruptive technologies, particularly entertainment piracy.  Is there a way to stop piracy?  Should we? Is piracy ethical?  Will it get worse or plateau? Is DRM worth it?  Does piracy hurt or help producers?  I think these are good question to ask about this issue that could have major effects on the future of the information economy.

Collective Cataloging: the Future of Cataloging?

Argument: Crowdsourcing elements of collective cataloging should be utilized in traditional cataloging environments.

Tim Spalding, creator of LibraryThing, gave a presentation at the 2008 ALA conference explaining LibraryThing and highlighting its collective cataloging elements.  Here is part 1:

In the video, Spalding points out several interesting elements of LibraryThing.  Starting at 4:08 he mentions the "common knowlege" section of a books record that displays information not commonly in a traditional catalog including places, characters, awards the book has won, and unique series information.  This information allows access and collocation of works not previously possible in a catalog.  On LibraryThing, one can retrieve a list of books that have the character Darth Vader, a legitimate and natural choice of access point for Darth Vader fans.

Then at 4:42 we see the series page for Star Wars books that collocates all the books from the Star Wars universe.  Thanks to the collective cataloging of information not found in traditional catalogs, unique series information and relationships between the books are able to be shown.  One section of the Star Wars series page on LibraryThing shows the list of Star Wars books according to when they take place within the Star Wars timeline.  This information is very valuable to an interested reader of Star Wars books, but something that doesn't happen in library catalogs.  Spalding states, "This page encapsulates more accurate information about the Star Wars books and how they relate to each other than...has ever been assembled."

Spalding makes a third point that is perhaps the strongest element of collective cataloging: "Who is the expert when it comes to the Star Wars books? It's these guys."  Experts on the works and their aboutness are those that read the works.  Catalogers cannot read every information item they catalog so they assign subject headings according to supplementary material often provided by publishers.  One example in the video shows subject headings assigned to a book based off the flap copy don't accurately reflect the work.  Cataloging done by those who read the books are much more likely to accurately reflect the subject of the work.

Tags and tagging are also a big part of the collective cataloging model of LibraryThing.  Through tags, users are able to create unique access points to collocate works.  The video shows some of the effects of tagging: unique genres (paranormal romance), more natural language (cooking vs. cookery), "tagmashing" for complex subjects (France+wwII), & built in relevancy due to # of tags.  About some of the more non-traditional genres on LibraryThing, Spalding says, "This is as real as anything in the Library of Congress".


Part 2 of the presentation:

Part two of the video points out some of the shortcomings of current, physical-based cataloging:

• limited subjects (3-6)
• all subjects are equally true
• subject headings never change
• only librarians add subjects: only one interpretation
• classification must be hierarchical
• only items are cataloged (as opposed to works, expressions, or series)
• must be done in a library
• libraries aren't good at sharing metadata (but are good at getting metadata from a central source)

Clearly, traditional cataloging in non-ideal in many ways.  New methods of collective cataloging and tagging can help to overcome many of the short comings and help users to search in more ways and retrieve information objects more effectively.  Libraries would benefit from adopting some collective cataloging practices.  Traditional cataloging has many strengths, so I'm not at all advocating getting rid of MARC and/or AARC2 (soon RDA), but instead we should either change specific cataloging rules integrate crowdsourcing into the current systems.