NAMP’s president David Israelite ended his screed, “The New Enemy,” with a “top ten” list which he calls “the anti-copyright agenda.” I was gonna fisk it, but Mike Masnick beat me to it, and I doubt I could do any better. Have a look. As he points out, Israelite’s repeated choice of “enemy” is telling, and the evidence for the drastic action being proposed very thin. Gigi Sohn’s response to a similar rant in a fundraising letter from ASCAP also hits it right on the head–why are these groups obsessed with punishing file sharers and infringers? Why not focus on helping artists earn a living?

But despite the clear preference for compensation over punishment, groups that claim to represent artists like ASCAP continue, like their big corporate colleagues, to advocate for the latter, and seem completely bereft of ideas for promoting the former.  Why?  Probably because the old business model suits them just fine: they collect millions of dollars of royalties on behalf of captive musicians and (mostly) pay them.  In a digital world, Do It Yourself is the mantra, with Creative Commons being one of the tools that allows artists to do so.  Where does that leave middlemen like ASCAP?  Nowhere.

That Creative Commons would be objectionable dovetails with the compulsory licensing at the heart of ASCAP’s business model: how dare anyone opt out of our state-sponsored monopoly, or suggest that anyone else do so!

*No, this isn’t my typical argumentative approach. But it fits here. If they are going to characterize Creative Commons, EFF, etc. as “radical extremists”–a millimeter away from saying “anti-American terrorist”–then I get to play, too.

Update 7/14: Larry Lessig responds.

Western is fairly open to open source. I say “fairly” because while I can think of several cases where open source software is readily available and used on campus, I can also think of several examples of software procurement where open source was basically eliminated from day one. Overall, I’d say the climate could be better. Folks like me who want to install and support their own software on WIU servers aren’t prevented from doing so by policy. But we do have to contend with a very outdated web server. That’s what drives me to wrecking.org for my WordPress installs; it’s much easier to keep the software up to date there.

Having said that, Clancy Ratliff reminded that many people aren’t so lucky, when she wrote to ask about my use of open source. It’s not unusual for IT staff to object to open source software because of security, privacy, problems obtaining support, a lack of standardization, or all of the above–whether or not such problems exist. So, as Clancy asked:

How should faculty respond when university IT staff members express suspicions about open source software, and refuse to install it and/or support it?

What exactly are they afraid of?

I think Clancy’s second question points to the answer for the first. First and foremost, faculty need to fully understand the grounds for any reluctance to install software. Many (most!) IT staff work with limited resources and have epic demands on their time. They’re not really afraid of anything; rather, they simply don’t need more to deal with. For example, I used to get a single course release (from a standard 3/3 load) in exchange for service as department technology coordinator. That was about half what it should have been. Hell, maybe a third. So I made decisions based on the amount of time involved, refusing most time-intensive projects out of hand. It didn’t really matter what the project was; if it was labor intensive, the answer had to be “No.”

So let’s back up a step: faculty should think carefully about the way they make requests. Obviously, emailing the helpdesk, “Plz install OpenOffice in r computer labs kthxbai” isn’t going to cut it. But it’s often equally ineffective to drop a two- or three-page request email into a system administrator’s inbox with cc: to the department chair. Rather than ask that something be installed, ask to meet to discuss possibilities–and don’t invite the chair. A little dogfooding really helps: when students ask for deadline extensions, alternative assignments, or things which make unexpected demands on our time, how do we react? More favorably, I think, when students make open-ended requests which invite us to help shape them.

I suggest this framework:

1. An initial meeting to discuss the project in general terms;
2. Research which answers questions about the scope of the installation;
3. A proposal which shapes the request as a project with desired outcomes, a schedule, and a primary contact.

Imagining the installation and use as a project shouldn’t unnecessarily complicate things. Rather, a project framework can clarify what’s expected of all parties, for how long, and for what purposes. Above all, that documentation makes it clear faculty will communicate with IT staff about the project, and not expect them to go it alone. And if it turns out that internal or external funding will be needed, turning an initial request into a grant proposal won’t be difficult.

Research should address the following:

• What, specifically, are the software and hardware demands of the installation?
• What support needs will be generated? Who will need help? When? With what expected turnaround time? Who can provide help? When? At what cost?
• Consider support alternatives: should help requests be diverted to faculty, TAs, or others? If so, will additional funding be necessary?
• Clarify the time frame: is the product to be installed and maintained for a single semester? For an academic year? Forever?
• Why is the software needed? For a single class? Multiple classes? An entire program?
• Is similar software is already on campus–maybe not in the building, or even close by, or even on this campus? Is that alternative acceptable? Why or why not?
• Will the software create unnecessary risks to computer security or stability?

Security is last here. It’s first for many. As Clancy continued:

Are they afraid that, say, OpenOffice contains spyware that could compromise the privacy of student records? That hackers can, via the open source application, send worms and such into the university network? Other stuff too?

What’s your advice for faculty who want to get open source software installed in university computer labs but have to deal with this obstacle? Are there sources in particular that you recommend, sources that offer evidence that open source software is generally secure?

I’ve had proposals for installing software shot down because of security risks, real and otherwise. I’ve refused them myself. The risks are real. However, for me, arguments which compare the relative security of open source and proprietary software miss the point completely. All computing is risky. Rather, I suggest that faculty research the security and securability of specific software involved. Have project developers, and third parties, audited the codebase in the past? What mechanisms for reporting bugs exist? How do developers typically respond to bug reports? How often is the software updated? How are updates installed? Can the software be installed on a “sandbox” server, or access-controlled in some way?

Again, asking IT staff what questions they have is a good idea–not in a predatory manner, but with forward thinking in mind. With answers to these questions, staff can better understand the risks involved with a particular software package, and the measures necessary to minimize the chances that risk will develop into actual problems. On the other hand, faculty can point out refusals to install “insecure” software which are unfounded.

Finally, faculty should help establish a means for evaluation of the use of the software over time. Two related parts:

1. Is the software actually being used by the expected population? If not, it should be discontinued, and the reasons for non-adoption investigated. On the other hand, if adoption is enthusiastic, will additional resources be needed? Might others be interested in helping scale up the installation? In that case, evaluation shows good reason for continuing maintenance and upgrade cycles.
2. I wish we (big we: higher education, and little we: geeks who teach writing) had more data on the comparative quality of the software we use to do our jobs. I’ve used WordPress for discussions for a long time, and had varying reactions to it from students. But I’ve never heard a student praise WebCT. As higher education gets more and more data-centric, we need ways to make the arguments I outline here in terms which administrators will be willing to engage.

I’m interested to hear what others think: how would you answer Clancy’s questions? Why? What problems do my answers raise, or ignore? What have you done to get the software you would like to have in your classrooms, on your campuses?

It’s NOT OK to use someone else’s material even if you…

• edit together or “mash-up” other works.
• alter it by 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.
• only use 30 seconds of a song or video clip.
• found it on the internet.
• nobody sent you a copyright notice.
• paid for it.
• give proper attribution (credits).
• are only singing the words of a favorite copyrighted song.

This is copyright infringement and your video will be deleted!

Not much of a surprise here. I give credit to YouTube for trying to convince over-eager copyright holders that they don’t have to nuke every video users post which contains their content. Their ContentID program allows tracking or claiming for ad revenue content like the Chris Brown wedding dance video. But I’m afraid that happy ending is, unfortunately, the exception not the rule, and this partnership program is more about putting Meow Mix ads on top of barfing cats. Unless I’m misreading something, “partner” doesn’t apply to anyone remixing content, and my guess is if that cat video has commercial music in the background, it’s not gonna be eligible for shared revenue.

And I thought I had that new roof all paid for…

Dear cbdilger,

Your video Mr Moreno meets Mr Spikes has become popular on YouTube, and we’d like to invite you to start making money from it by including it in the YouTube Partnership Program

Making money from your video is easy. Here’s how it works: First sign into your YouTube account cbdilger. Then, complete the steps outlined here: [link redacted]. Once you’re finished, we’ll start placing ads next to your video and pay you a share of the revenue.

We look forward to adding your video to the YouTube Partnership Program. Thanks and good luck!

The YouTube Team

The mechanism here is easy to imagine: at a certain number of views, YouTube kicks out this email. Just one of the ways they encourage content providers to “monetize” YouTube (e.g. the recent popularity of a wedding video with a Chris Brown song; instead of shutting it down, the record company involved added a “Buy this song” link. Smart.). However, this isn’t “my” video. It’s a clip I’ve shared assuming that doing so meets fair use criteria:

1. it’s a non-commercial use
2. the work in question is nonfiction
3. amount of work reproduced is very small (0:30 of 2:00 or more), though significance is high (Spikes and Moreno are arguably the best two players on the field, both future NFLers)
4. impact on market value is low, given #3

Now, if I sign up for the program, #1 changes, and the fair use argument is considerably weakened. I wonder if CBS and other rights holders consider these programs when making decisions about shutdowns. Or do they automagically get a cut as well?

I have half a mind to sign up, just to see what happens.

Edit 10/1: Once I started the signup process, I discovered all was not as IP-blissful as I thought.

Today I step back from systematic daily blogging in order to free up time for my new position at the Berkman Center. The blog itself will continue and Gavin will continue at something like his current pace. I will continue my daily crawl for OA-related news. I’ll continue to tag what I find for the OA tracking project (OATP).  I’ll continue to write the monthly SPARC Open Access Newsletter (SOAN). I’ll continue to work full-time for OA.

I’ve been an Open Access News subscriber for about two years. I hope the social tagging approach he envisions as a replacement for his valuable work will bear much fruit.

The fourth circuit’s opinion is fairly short, but given that I haven’t read the original decision, I can’t make heads or tails of it. Anyone?

One thing that bugs me from the summary: “The court said it didn’t need to address the plaintiff’s challenge to the click contract in view of its ruling on the fair use question.” For me, this contract is the most problematic element of Turnitin.

Update 4/20: Some coverage in the Chronicle, though it doesn’t add much. I’ve read the opinion and I agree the ruling is a much-needed boost for fair use, which I enthusiastically advocate–particularly the nods to transformative use via indexing and searching.

One of the most thoughtful pieces comes from Pamela Samuelson, who’s preprinted “Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Booksearch Settlement” on O’Reilly Radar. (The essay will appear in a future CACM.) Not only does Samuelson provide a good summary of the settlement’s implications for several areas of IP, she stakes out a thoughtful critique of the near-monopoly power concentrated in Google by the settlement. Make sure to read the comments; Samuelson is keeping up with them admirably.

For me, the most problematic part of the settlement regards the capture of orphan works. I was hoping to see action from Congress, pushing orphans toward the public domain. Even though a Google-administered program to publish these works on demand would probably work well, I see it as another expansion of copyright. We’ve had enough of those lately, thanks very much.

I’m pleased with this effort, which is sorely needed and which I will quickly put to good use in my courses (with other materials from CSM I’ve used in the past). For me, most of the content isn’t specific to media literacy education, but is widely applicable. I teach fair use in every course–no matter the content–because I believe strongly in it and find the current status of fair use education miserable. I welcome not only the specific content on fair use, but this kind of best practices document, which provides a broad introduction and simultaneously debunks some misguided lore. In particular, the clarifications on “400 words or less” and similar nonsense are very welcome. I have three criticisms, only one major:

1. I wish the authors had put more effort into making the blogged version of the document an actual blog post, as opposed to something just cut and pasted: lighting up the links, adding section links, using proper markup, etc. I suspect most folks will link to this blog post, and it’s too bad the authors of this document didn’t give their good work the best presentation.
2. The shout-out to Creative Commons is welcomed, but how about going a bit further and licensing the document with CC-BY or a similar license? I’d also like to see stronger encouragement of student use of Creative Commons, since that not only allows the kind of attention to IP matters rightly encouraged by this document, but is practical and expedient.
3. Under point four: “students may use copyrighted music for a variety of purposes, but cannot rely on fair use when their goal is simply to establish a mood or convey an emotional tone, or when they employ popular songs simply to exploit their appeal and popularity.” These two uses of “simply” bother me. Mood and emotion aren’t simple goals, but essential to any professionally produced media. Same with the use of popular music; soundtracks for films use it for specific rhetorical goals. I can hear Ulmer saying now, “Mood and celebrity? That’s the stuff of electracy!” Indeed, I think this last caution needs to be rewritten to make clear which uses are likely to be unacceptable. It seems to me the line between incidental or non-essential use should be more clearly drawn.

Just some constructive criticism. I don’t mean to kick the chair out from an otherwise strong and welcome document.

Quick summary and numbers to call/fax, from The Alliance for Taxpayer Access: HR 6845 Call to Action.

As usual, Peter Suber has had lots of good things to say on this. Search his weblog for “Conyers bill” for more.

No, this ain’t $700 billion, but it’s something.

During the summer months we activated some new tools in WesternOnline meant to help prevent plagiarism. They are called SafeAssign and SafeAssign Direct Submit. To learn more about both of these tools and how to use them we highly recommend you view the information available at the SafeAssign website. [...]

More joy. Does anybody have experience with this thing? A quick read of the terms of service isn’t comforting; here’s point four, emphasis mine:

You and your end-users agree that any of your end-users’ papers that are submitted (“User Content”) as part of the Services, is and remains your sole property or the property of such end-user. By uploading or otherwise making available any User Content, you and your end-user automatically warrant that the owner has the right to transmit the User Content to SAFEASSIGN™ and that such User Content may be utilized for the purpose of plagiarism detection and prevention. To the extent that your end-user authorizes the inclusion of the User Content in our Global Database, you agree that Blackboard may maintain a copy of such User Content indefinitely and may use the same for the purpose of plagiarism detection and prevention for other utilizing the Services.

Maybe it’s less bad than Turnitin. Submitting to the global database is opt-in, supposedly. But another section of the site says administrators control the consent statement delivered to students. I haven’t wrapped my head around all this yet. Should I expect to be happy when I do?