“Every Library's Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources” -Kristin R. Eschenfelder

Article Review

In her article, “Every Library's Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources,” Kristin Eschenfelder discusses her findings from a study done on the technological protection measures (TPMs) found in digital scholarly sources, specifically the nature of use restrictions. Within licensed scholarly databases from the subsections of history/art history, engineering, and health sciences, Eschenfelder identifies two types of use restrictions: “soft restrictions”, which she defines as interface or server “restrictions that [make] certain uses [like saving, printing, or emailing] inconvenient, and “hard restrictions”, or “restrictions that strictly [prevent] certain uses.” Of the former, Eschenfelder found six types of soft restrictions in use by electronic vendors: extent of use, obfuscation, omission, decomposition, frustration, and warning. Of the latter, only one was found in use.

It is Eschenfelder’s belief that while librarians have taken an active stance against “hard restrictions” by cancelling subscriptions or forgoing purchasing altogether, they are less aware and therefore more willing to accept “soft restrictions”; and in fact are accepting them as commonplace in many of the electronic resources they utilize every day. It is this insidious encroachment by vendors to limit user access that Eschenfelder believes librarians need to be aware of and fight against. 

Remember, in 2008, when this article was published, the country had just been thrust into one of the worst recessions since the early 1980s, so libraries would have been looking for ways to save money while venders would have been searching for ways to make more. Couple this with the advent of cloud computing, which made sharing, accessing, and saving large amounts of data more accessible, and librarians and vendors – the record-keepers and the market – have found themselves locked in this growing battle over the digital dissemination of information.

According to her blog, Terms of Disagreement, Eschenfelder’s research interests focus on access and use regimes. Indeed, in a Movers and Shakers 2005 edition of the “Library Journal”, then Director of the School of Library and Information Studies, Louise Robbins said of Assistant Professor Kristin Eschenfelder, ‘" [she] is not yet well known, but she will be. She uses a social informatics framework to look at web-based information and information policies, particularly in state and federal government. She is beginning to draw the interest of the American Library Association Washington office for her research."’ Now, as a Professor and current Director of the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Eschenfelder still displays a vested interest in this topic, both in her role as an academic library administrator and as an instructor training up future professionals in the library field. 

And despite the lack of chatter online, it is apparent that Eschenfelder’s research has been well received by her contemporaries and those in the field of digital scholarship. A title search on Google reveals numerous citations in bibliography after bibliography, on academic research guides, and on course syllabi.  

Though this article is six-years-old, it is more relevant than ever before. And like Gloria Leckie’s “Technologies of Social Regulation: An Examination of Library OPACs and Web Portals”, Eschenfelder is also sounding the call for librarians and other information specialist to seize control of how and what electronic information is disseminated before vendors and the market destroy user access to it.  

Report on Paul Conway's "Preservation in the Age of Google: Digitization, Digital Preservation, and Dilemmas"

Although Preservation in the Age of Google started out as a keynote address for the “Persistence of Memory: Stewardship of Digital Assets” conference, held by the Northeast Document Conservation Center in 2006, it was then edited and published in its current format in 2010 for the Library Quarterly journal. The journal is published by the University of Chicago and has a primarily scholarly audience.[1]

The author, Paul Conway, is certainly an outspoken member of his field, if not one of its experts. He is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information and has been publishing reviews, articles, and book chapters on preservation, archives, and digital preservation since 1985[2] and presenting at conferences on archives and preservation since 1982[3]. Conway has been honored multiple times for his work in preservation[4], and currently teaches also multiple courses on digital preservation and archives at multiple university’s information science programs[5].

If Preservation in the Age of Google has one main topic, it would be that the profession and culture of preservation is at a pivotal moment, and that choices made now will shape the future, not just for the digital items begin created every day, but also for the countless “traditional” items that are currently archived, especially those that may be decaying outside the safety of environmentally controlled collections.  The article begins by distinguishing between digitization for preservation, which creates a new digital version of an existing item, and digital preservation, or the actions taken to preserve digital items regardless of whether they were created via digitization of a tangible object or born digital. This distinction helps with the dilemmas and recommendations Conway lists later in the article.

Conway also discusses a few other sources and some of the history of digital preservation, but spends most of the article discussing current issues in preservation and outlining his recommendations for the future. He says that the preservation community is facing dilemmas of four species, outlined here.

Environmental: deals with the prioritization of environmentally controlled storage for tangible preservation items over digitization of these same items, even when concurrent digitization efforts could create digital versions of items that are decaying while they wait for slots in storage facilities.

Quality: centers on the issue of digital preservation repositories accepting too many low-quality items in an attempt to save time (and due to a lack of qualified specialists and strict standards for them to follow).

Non-book: focuses on media (such as magnetic tapes and acetate-based films) which face unique preservation concerns and are generally being neglected in favor of books when it comes to the allocation of time and money in archival budgets.

Expertise: points out the current lack of highly qualified specialists in digital preservation today and the need for new programs and aggressive recruitment to increase their numbers quickly.

Conway’s suggestions to combat these dilemmas are generally to walk the middle road; keep environmental control as a top priority so we don’t abandon our tangible collections, but shake things up by moving money from preservation of individual items to large-scale digitization of those non-book items in greatest danger of immediate decay. He also calls for a revamp of digital collection building standards and practices and, most importantly, the building of “digital conversion factories” and the collaboration of these institutions with the cultural heritage community to build digital collections that complement each other without overlapping.

The reviews that I encountered for the article were generally positive. However, I agree with this blogger’s comment that, although Google is mentioned in the article, it doesn’t really have enough of the spotlight to pull a title slot; the focus is really on moving preservation culture, standards, and practices into step with the new developments in digitization and digital preservation.

The moment in the article that most caught my attention was in the section discussing the Preserving Digital Information report; Conway mentions that the report suggests that digital archives should deliberately “rescue” abandoned data, but says that that suggestion has never been taken (as of 2011). I checked around and found some things (mainly on Wikipedia, but that led me to other sources as well) about orphan works and the Internet Archive; to anyone else who is interested, I would recommend starting with the Wikipedia page for Abandonware and branching out from there.

---

[1] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/lq.html

[2] http://pconway.people.si.umich.edu/publications.htm#Books

[3] http://pconway.people.si.umich.edu/presentations.htm

[4] http://pconway.people.si.umich.edu/honors.htm

[5] http://pconway.people.si.umich.edu/teaching.htm

Lessig's "For the Love of Culture"

Article Report:

Lawrence Lessig, “For the love of culture,” The New Republic (26 Jan. 2010). Source URL: http://www.tnr.com/article/the-love-culture.

Topic: Digital technology, the direction of copyright law after Google Books, and what this means for the future of cultural production and access to our cultural heritage. An underlying question or theme is: what’s the purpose of copyright law and what (whose) rights does it balance?

Thesis/summary: Lessig is arguing that in the current era (post-Google Books settlement) the nature of digital technology in conjunction with outmoded copyright law is threatening to “asphyxiate” our access to and creative use of our cultural heritage. He begins by outlining a really bad copyright model based on one that evolved for documentary films, which essentially requires securing licensed permission for “quoting” any of the various elements that make up the film (e.g. music, news footage, televised interviews clips, or other “quotations”). Unlike the copyright model that evolved for print books, the documentary model provides no room for fair use or unencumbered “quoting,” and creates major (often impossible) hurdles (i.e. money and locating rights owners) for those who wish to revive, reprint or digitize works with licenses that have expired.

Lessig argues that every use of digital technology involves making “copies.” Because of this simple fact, copyright law (licensing negotiations, permissions, use restrictions, fees, etc.) could encumber our use of and access to culture to a degree that is unlike anything in the past. Lessig outlines 3 steps toward a solution (a voluntary registry; laws that address preservation and “quotation” problems for works like documentary films; and laws that deal with social consensus about how much free access is a good thing). The goal would be to move us toward a model that balances compensating creators/producers/owners of creative works and allowing liberal fair use, while gradually pushing works into the public domain, with the ultimate aim of having a society that produces a rich culture and provides democratic access to that culture.

Audience /background information: Lessig is writing for a general audience or, what some might call, the educated twenty percent.  In terms of its politics, the magazine TNR that published his piece, straddles neoliberal and neoconservative positions, but I’d guess that Lessig, a Harvard law and ethics professor and an important public intellectual, is more to the left of that limited spectrum and like Robert Reich or Elizabeth Warren, tries to serve as an "angel" speaking into the ear of neoliberal Obama and Clinton Administration types, even as officialdom turns its one good ear to the "devil" perched on its other shoulder, corporate funders. Lessig is an authority on Internet freedom, both as a scholar and as a public advocate of greater openness and democratic access. A quick look at a Wikipedia entry on Lessig will show that he’s been a founder or board member of some of the foremost public interest organizations promoting and defending the Internet’s democratic potential, as well as an opponent of the corporate domination of our political and electoral systems.

Reception: It was difficult for me to find a trail that suggests the article touched off a firestorm of debate. I didn’t find any TNR correspondence (letters to the editor), but I did see repostings and mentions (all positive) on Boingboing by Jessamyn West; an educational news posting on Harvard Law's Website; Brainpickings (“2010 Best Long Reads: Science and Technology”); a University of Iowa Libraries blog; ALAConnect; and Everybody’s Libraries (which shed some additional light on the issue of images and public domain).

UW Digital Collections

In relation to the idea of digital preservation, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the ways libraries at UW are ensuring their materials are transitioning into the digital realm.

One of my favorite examples of what Paul Conway would consider "digitization for preservation" (if I'm understanding the distinction correctly) is the UW Digital Collections Twitter feed, which can be found at https://twitter.com/UWDigiCollec. Surprisingly hilarious, the feed often connects resources from UW's past to current topical issues. Case in point, this tweet:

Professor Cool had a tiny mustache and a great name: http://t.co/3zyEqHAPpR
— UWDigitalCollections (@UWDigiCollec) January 24, 2014

Which leads you to this picture:

While some may argue the usefulness of such resources, I recognize that I have a much clearer picture of the scope of the UW collection, just based on the few humorous tweets they post everyday. And for those of you who may not prefer Twitter, there is a UW digital collections Facebook page as well: https://www.facebook.com/UWDigiCollec 

Along with the Twitter feed, I came across this article from UW-News about the Robinson Map Library, which is housed in the Science Hall on UW-Madison's campus. 

The article profiles Jaime Stoltenberg, and her library's collection of aerial photos, maps, and data from various governmental surveys. What I found refreshing about Stoltenberg's attitude towards digitization of materials was a quote near the end of the article: 

"Going forward, Stoltenberg is working on a project to make the library’s data collections downloadable so students can more easily access the information, such as assessment data and tax parcels. “(It) kind of defeats the purpose of born-digital data when you really think about it, someone having to be a gatekeeper,” she says."

There are many more examples of libraries at UW-Madison digitizing materials, which just goes to support the shifting nature of digital preservation.

Copyright Tools for Librarians

As mentioned in our assigned readings this week, copyright law is an pressing issue for today's (and tomorrow's) librarians. I was interested in finding out if there were professional resources available to help librarians muddle through the complex restrictions. The American Library Association provides tools for information professionals about many issues, including copyright. ALA's "Copyright Tools" webpage provides easy-to-interpret online tools to help determine whether a work is protected under copyright, and whether the results of digital preservation is covered by section 108. Resources include a "slider" to help you determine if a work is covered by copyright and an spinning wheel to help interpret section 108 (the part of copyright law that allows libraries and archives to reproduce works for preservation.) These tools were created by Michael Brewer and the Copyright Advisory Subcommittee of the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy. As LIS professionals, we will be active participants in many of the "digital debates" we are reading about and discussing in this class. Luckily, we have a professional organization ready to provide the resources we need to be knowledgeable and capable information professionals.    

"Copyright Tools." ALA. American Library Association, n.d. Web. 7 February 2014.

TPM Around the Globe

The Eschenfelder article brought up concerns and problems with Technological Protection Measures and "explored use restrictions...of history/art history, engineering, and health sciences." I was interested in how other countries handled TPM, and if they were more or less stringent with their measures. I found a few different websites regarding this in various countries:

India, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Brazil

Copyright laws in digital Europe

South Africa

Another Ted Talk

We have already read a few of Lawrence Lessig's articles and from the looks of it, some of his other resources have been shared as well. I really enjoyed his article for this week about copyright and its effect on culture. Here is a Ted Talk I found that he does, regarding copyright and its destruction of creativity. This talk fits in with the articles for this week, particularly the one by Lessig. It goes into a little more depth than his writing, with a lot of examples of past cases of copyright issues.

Lessig, L. (March, 2007). Lawrence Lessig: Laws that choke creativity. [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html

Google Books Court Case

I was weirdly interested with the court case going on around Google Books. Usually my eyes skim over and do not process any information when I am reading about laws, but I have used Google Books before and the case genuinely interests me. Our readings are about access to all sorts of resources and the Lessig piece specifically mentioned Google Books and the court case. All three authors of the piece are involved with laws surrounding technology and fair use. The article lays out what has been happening fairly recently with the court case. In the article, it gives a bit of the history of the court case and then lays out the terms of "fair use" with in the law. My favorite part of the article is the end. The last part of the article explains Google Books from Judge Chin in the terms of "fair use." The last part of the article was really great. It explains the law and where a judge sees Google Books falling into each part.  

Werbin, Bary and Meltzer, Bryan. "Google Books is (Legally) "Transformative."" The Entertainment, Arts and Sports Blog. New York State Bar Association. Nov. 22, 2013. Web. Feb. 6, 2014.

http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2013/11/google_books_is_legally_transf.html

NPR: Record Label Picks Copyright Fight--With The Wrong Guy

     Record Label Picks Copyright Fight — With The Wrong Guy 

      This article explains how Lawrence Lessig, a famous copyright attorney and a Harvard Law School professor, had his video taken down from YouTube.  It explains that he was threatened by Liberation Music that if he didn’t take the video down that they would sue him. However Mr. Lessig knew his rights and Liberation Music backed down. “But Lessig decided to invoke another part of the copyright law, "which basically polices bad-faith lawsuits," he says — threats made fraudulently or without proper basis.”(NPR) He decided to sue the company back.

     I loved this article. I wasn’t aware until this article that there was a clause in copyright law that fights against bad-faith lawsuits. I think it is important that we are always aware of our rights as librarians and as citizens.  I picked this article due to the fact that we discuss Copyright Law and Fair Use in some of our articles this week.

Sydell, L. (2013, September 27). Record Label Picks Copyright Fight - With The Wrong Guy. NPR. Retrieved February 5, 2014, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/27/226834651/record-label-picks-a-fight-over-copyright-with-the-wrong-guy

Digital Disconnect - Robert W. McChesney

The subtitle for McChesney's book is How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy, so if we did want to look for "villains," this book might be something you'd consider. I looked at his chapter 4, one of two historical chapters, focused on how “capitalism has conquered the internet” (and what this means for the democratic potential and openness of the Internet).  Dinosaurs (in the chapter subtitle) refers to the giant telecommunications and media corporations for which the Internet was thought to be an existential threat. His focus is more on “private forces of coercion” (Lessig) and corporate-dominated government policy than on issues of “code,” design, or infrastructure, but he still focuses on how these “forces” (market and legal/policy influence) constrain access to information and genuine democratic participation. McChesney’s work would be a fine complement to Martin Campbell-Kelley’s chapter on the history of the Internet. Digital Disconnect provides a "macro" perspective and is intended for a wider audience, but he treats issues of Net neutrality, copyright enforcement, digital rights management, publishing and e-books, and the digital divide, all of which are relevant to democratic access to information and thus to librarians. (See also 4/5/2013 this Democracy Now! interview with McChesney. Note on "code" and black boxes: when posting I couldn't connect  to DemNow! to embed the full interview, and the blog's YouTube search box couldn't seem to locate its own DemNow! segment. Still you should be able to link to that same video above.)

Robert W. McChesney, “The Internet and capitalism I: Where the dinosaurs roam?” in Digital Disconnect: How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy (New York: The New Press, 2013), pp. 96- 129.