indylibrarian.net

IT Professional v. Librarian

Jacob Cleary — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:01:19 +0000

A cute little series of youtube parodies of PC v. Mac ads.

First video (in case the Youtube embed fails)
Second video
Third video
Fourth video

Librarian Trading Cards

Jacob Cleary — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:40:38 +0000

Apparentlly a flikr pool was setup for some of the images with the flickr tags librarian, librarians, librariantradingcards & tradingcard.

Flickr Librarian Trading Cards Pool

It looks like the flickr pool was setup, according to this post, after being inspired by this blog, Librarian Trading Cards, some of which are included in the flickr pool and also includes a Q & A with the librarian being carded and profiled.

discovered thanks to Anne Bartow over at www.sivacracy.net.

Google Print Library Project ≠ Card Catalog

Jacob Cleary — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:52:07 +0000

Reading this news release from the EFF about the EFF’s amicus brief they submitted in support of Google Image Search in Perfect10 v. Google they say the following.

“Google Image Search helps millions of people locate and learn about information on the web every day,” said Jason Schultz, EFF staff attorney. “We’re concerned that the public will lose out if Perfect 10 succeeds in shutting it down.”

Perfect 10 argues that a preliminary injunction is justified because Google is violating its right to reproduce, distribute, and display its copyrighted work. But there is a long tradition in fair use that certain kinds of copies are socially useful, even without permission of the author. Courts have held that copies are a legal intermediate step to making non-infringing uses of the copyrighted work—for example in teaching, education, and news reporting.

I have to agree with the EFF on this particular case due to nature of the material being copied not only based on the difficulty of conveying information about visual objects in a none visual way. However this release emphasized one fact that the EFF has used in other arguments for Google.

Thumbnails created by Google Image Search allow users to identify information they are looking for online and then access that information—much like an electronic card catalog. As certain information about images can only be conveyed visually, there is no other feasible way to provide image search on the Internet than capturing images, transforming them into thumbnails, and then displaying them on a search results page for users.
Emphasis added.

This argument of an electronic card catalog, in this case for images, is also used by the EFF in it’s
EFF’s position on Google Print Library Project.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) applauds Google’s effort to create the digital equivalent of a library card catalog, and believes the company has a strong case.

“Just as libraries don’t need to pay publishers when they create a card catalog, neither should Google or other search engines be required to when they create an improved digital equivalent,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann.

This is also the argument used by Google itself in a presentation to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

They compared the vast, full-text index of millions of books that Google is building to a library card catalog — a finding tool to locate the right book rather than a library of its own. “It’s a more powerful version of the card catalog,” said Mr. Gerber.

Mr. Gerber said that those search results will mainly serve as a card-catalog entry, except that users can be sure that their search term is in fact included in the book. And, he noted, libraries do not need to seek publishers’ permission to compile card catalogs.

The I have with the card catalog argument in favor of the GPLPs that there is to me a significant difference in the nature of the work being done during it’s operation with the nature of the work necessary for Google’s Image Search. While the nature of various protocols for the Internet require copying to occur for browsing and sharing of information to occur since a copy of the file viewed in the browser needs to be made to the local computer and theISP’s computers. Indeed fact that making local copies for files used on the Internet needs tooccur for search engine services or archiving the web the medium relies on the concept of opting-out of such indexing through the robots.txt protocol. To me if Perfect10 didn’t want it’s images to be indexed in the Google Image Search they should just have either placed the images on their site in directory that was excluded from indexing in their robots.txt file or excluded the indexing of the webpages upon which the images were linked too unindexed through the robots.txt file so that these items would not have been included in Google’s visual card catalog.

The problem I have with card catalog argument for the GPLP, which I’d be suprised if it hasn’t been expressed elsewhere, is that without Google doing this copying these works would not be in electronic format so they are creating electronic versions of these copyrighted materials that don’t already exist. So it’s not similar to Google’s existing operations for it’s various image, text, and other search engines. Additionally, while the card catalog is a decent analogy for the results of GPLP it’s a false one. Where libraries use card catalogs to provide ease of access for material it owns, and indeed the Library of Congress makes money of it’s original cataloging of various works this work is derivative and a representation of the original not a copy.

Additionally, libraries and other entities that have traditionally used card catalogs as well as entities and practices that are protected by the “fair-use” copyright clause the underlying basis of the practices covered by this clause are non-profit where Google is a profit-driven business. So it’s argument for it’s copying under the “fair-use” clause are weakened in my idea. I think that perhaps if the GPLP was done solely for usage by the libraries it was doing the copying at, this argument would hold water. But since Google’s motivation in this digitization project is to gain revenue through both contextual advertising based on the copied works and the Google Print business of print on demand it’s arguments that it’s just a big card catalog doesn’t hold for me.

The fact that Google’s involvement in the GPLP is driven by profit to me might lead to it’s loss in court concerning the various challenges by the Author’s Guild and other copyright owners especially in the context of decision by the Supreme Court in MGM vs. Grokkster where they upheld MGM’s challenge in part due to the fact that Grokkster’s business model relying on selling ads to it’s users so implicitly encouraged copyright infringement since the more traffic the higher revenue it would be able to get from selling ads. Google’s business model for GPLP seems equivalent. To me rather than, in my view incorrectly, argue the GPLP is legal under the “fair-use” copyright clause I would rather see Google say they would not keep any copies made for themselves and push for a revision of the copyright laws to something similar to what is put forth by Lawrence Lessig in his book, Free Culture.

Post-Tracks calls for Student Papers and Peer Reviewers

Jacob Cleary — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:22:32 +0000

MLIS students who are interested in academic librarianship or working in a scholarly environment might be interested in the recent call for student papers and peer reviewers by Post-Tracks. I’ve included the calls in the extended entry below.

Check out what previously published papers by Post-Tracks look like.

I had a very enjoyable time working on getting Post-Tracks started as part of the capstone experience of my MSIS degree.

Jacob

Call for Peer Reviewers

Deadline: October 14, 2005

Post-Tracks, an online peer-reviewed student publication hosted by Webjunction.org, invites interested LIS students to volunteer to serve as peer reviewers. The next issue of Post-Tracks will focus on preservation, digitization and collection development.

Post-Tracks peer reviewers will be invited to review specific manuscripts based on their area(s) of interest and coursework. Once a reviewer accepts an invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewer is expected to complete the review within 14 days of receipt of the manuscript.

Peer reviewer applicants should be actively pursuing a masters or doctoral degree in the field of Library and Information Science. All applications should be submitted by October 14, 2005 to junction@ischool.utexas.edu for editorial review.

For additional information, please contact the Post-Tracks editors.

Carrie Newsom & Ashley Perez
Post-Tracks Editor for Webjunction.org
School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station, D7000, Austin, TX 78712
junction@ischool.utexas.edu

Call for Submissions: Post-Tracks

Deadline: October 21, 2005

Post-Tracks, an online, peer-reviewed student publication hosted by WebJunction at http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=10959, is
seeking articles for inclusion in its third issue scheduled for December 2005. This quarterly publication in the field of library and information science (LIS) provides an opportunity for LIS students to publish their work or review the work of other students.

LIS students are invited to submit original manuscripts of 1,500-3,000 words. Current topics of particular interest include preservation,
digitization and collection development. All articles will be considered for publication. Every paper submitted will be subject to blind review by LIS student reviewers.

Submissions should be sent as an email attachment to the editor at junction@ischool.utexas.edu. Late submissions will be considered, but
may not be reviewed in time for inclusion in this issue. Please visit http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=10980 to view submission guidelines for authors.

For additional information, please contact the Post-Tracks editors.

Carrie Newsom & Ashley Perez
Post-Tracks Editors for WebJunction
School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station, D7000, Austin, TX 78712
junction@ischool.utexas.edu

ABA article on the ALA

kim — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:11:31 +0000

“Out from the Stacks: Librarians Lead Legal Battles Over the Patriot Act, Copyright, Tech Issues,” via Librarian.net

Revolting and Radical Librarians

kim — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:44:47 +0000

I’ve been settling down here in Chicago–and finally yesterday I got my Chicago Public Library card at the downtown Harold Washington Library Center. The downtown Chicago library is great, and I’m looking forward to the newly built Logan Square branch to open as it is only three blocks away from my place. It looks like they are putting shelving up, so it shouldn’t be too long.

I checked out a some summer reading material, including Revolting Librarians Redux. While I don’t know if I’ll agree to all that I read in this volume of essays, anything with some passion is worth checking into. I’ll attempt a review later on.

I was reminded of Revolting Librarians Redux when I attended an unofficial ALA conference event at Quimby’s Bookstore: “The Secret Lives of Librarians Event Feature Jenna Freedman, Travis Fristoe, Jenn Phillips-Bacher, Keith Helt and Celia Perez.” The place was packed, and everyone was having a great time. Each of the librarian/authors read from their zines. Writing wise, I was particularly impressed with Jenn Phillips-Bacher and Travis Fristoe. Jenn’s humorous biographical essay on Dewey (I hope to get ahold of the one existing issue of Riot Librarrrian if there’s a copy around somewhere). Travis’ writing seemed perfect as spoken word performance, with hilarious comments on library work and library patrons.

Jenna Freedman, who also read from her work, is a member of Radical Reference, a “service provided by librarians from over the United States to support the work of activists and independent journalists.” Check it out.

Libraries in the news

kim — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:46:17 +0000

Washington Library Tested by Patriot Act

As part of NPR’s coverage of the Patriot Act (currently up for renewal in Congress), Larry Abramson reports on the ethical tensions placed on librarians to reveal patron’s circulation records.

And speaking of patron privacy, the Naperville public library has made a questionable deal with U.S. Biometrics Corporation to install fingerprint scanners on computers.

Chicago Tribune: Library card? Check. Fingerprint? Really?

Open Source, Information Commons, and Librarianship

Jacob Cleary — Mon, 30 May 2005 06:01:46 +0000

The following column is also published on Webjunction.org as part of the inaugural issue of Post-Tracks which I had the pleasure of establishing with my colleague Vanessa Chavez as our Capstone project for the completion of our MSIS from the School of Information at the University of Texas at Austin. If your involved in the LIS field feel free to leave comments both here and at Webjunction’s discussion forum.

This year there has been significant coverage of mainstream source projects such as the Mozilla Foundation’s Firefox Web browser and Thunderbird email client. The development of these products in utilizing a robust concept of an information commons and collaborative work is vital. Eric Lease Morgan covered the similarities between open source software development and librarianship in 2000. In his article, Morgan summarizes the four similarities between open source and libraries. Resources for open source systems for libraries can be found at oss4lib. However, libraries have yet to implement open source on large scale despite the values that open source and librarianship share.

The concept of information commons is central to both librarianship and open source software. The idea that creative works should shift to the public domain after being legally protected for a reasonable length of time, and the ability to modify and redistribute these public works, builds and strengthens the culture they appear in. The American Library Association’s (ALA) Office of Information Technology Policy (OITP) has an information commons blog that covers recent news on the information commons front. One of the organizations that promotes that provides a legal basis for putting projects into the information commons is Creative Commons (CC). CC allows for creators to select copyright licenses for reuse of their created material while defining in plain language the requirements for attribution and usage rights. However CC is only one of many options out there for the reuse of created works; the Open Source Initiative (OSI) provides a list of approved licenses for open source software projects, all of which provide an information commons of some sort, although particular to the software project under development.

While ALA has pushed for a greater information commons, there is no designated office in the national organization pushing for open source projects and development. There is an Open Source Systems Interest Group associated with the Library & Information Technologies Association (LITA) division of ALA. However, this group is just one of many within LITA and should have a higher priority, this lack of emphasis on open source technology at ALA is an area that could be improved. One reason ALA should address this at a national level is that some of the concerns raised about libraries switching to open source, especially at smaller institutions, have been about the lack of technical support for open source technology. Libraries might not have funding to pay for top-notch technical talent, or if the talent is available, staff would spend too much time providing support for the products. Since open source products are dependent upon what could be a sparsely populated developer base, which is a concern since without a critical mass of developers, a software product might have bug fixes and updates would be few and far between.

One way to work towards a solution for the of lack of talented technical support within libraries and the small developer base would be for programs in the Library and Information Science (LIS) field to adopt open source programs that serve the LIS community. ALA could encourage this by emphasizing technological skills and fostering a collaborative environment in its accreditation standards. By integrating the development and maintenance of open source programs–such as Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) compliant Internet filters and Integrated Library Systems (ILS)–into LIS degree programs, systems will solve several problems at once. This would increase the developer base for relevant programs and ensure regular and rigorous maintenance. Additionally, as LIS students graduate from their programs they will bring with them the technological skills to continue maintenance, technical support and customization at the institution they work for.

By pushing for increased technological skills as part of the standards of accreditation, and LIS schools adopting open source programs as part of the core of an LIS degree, schools will help strengthen ties between open source programs and librarianship. By emphasizing and instructing in collaborative development for an information commons through adopting open source projects, students receiving LIS degrees from these programs will be well placed to spread these values virally through their workplaces. Adopting open source software programs at LIS schools will also provide additional opportunities for LIS students to gain practical experience before they graduate and enter the job market. Implementing open source programs would be great way to provide students with practical experience, keep the institutions on the cutting edge of technological change, and provide service to the LIS community in both the institutional and those served by the institutions.

Comments on this topic? Visit the Discussion Board in the Faculty and Student Lounge

or as mentioned above feel free to leave a comment here.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Tap, tap, …

Jacob Cleary — Sun, 29 May 2005 15:56:22 +0000

Is this thing on? As you might have noticed there has a been a lack of activity on this site, however there should be some changes happening soon such as:

Site redesign
Addition of discussion board
posting of articles (hopefully)

So keep an eye out.

indylibrarian.net manifesto

indylibrarian.net — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:24:45 +0000

Welcome to indylibrarian.net!

indylibrarian.net is a collaborative site established by current students and as of May 2005, alumni of the School of Information at the University of Texas at Austin.

At indylibrarian.net we hope to continue to have an ongoing discussion of the various aspects of the fields of library and information studies from wherever our careers might take us.

If you think you would like to contribute to the site drop a line to indylibr {at} indylibrarian {dot} net about getting posting privileges.