Posted by Kevin Smith in : Copyright Information Notes ,
Copyright, like most other “property” rights, can be sold, inherited through a will, given away or otherwise passed to other people (or corporate bodies). Since copyright is really a bundle of rights – reproduction, distribution, public performance, etc. – it can also be divided up and the different pieces transferred to different people under all kinds of different terms. Thus I can sell my right to reproduce and distribute a song I write to a music publishers, give my right to authorize public performances of that song to my sister (a singer), and will my right to allow translations of the song into other languages to my children.
When I transfer an entire right or my whole copyright (i.e., I keep nothing for myself), that is called an assignment or transfer of the right. Most transfers of copyright must be in writing. In the past, most publication agreements required that an author assign his or her copyright to the publisher; authors rarely retained any of their rights. Today many publication contracts still require a copyright transfer, but they allow authors to retain certain rights like the right to post an article on a personal web page or use it for a conference presentation. Essentially, the publisher who receives the assignment grants these rights back to the author. But increasingly we are seeing another method for sharing the rights in intellectual property being used – the license. As we shall see, a license can be used to make it either much easier or much harder to use a work of intellectual property.
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Digital Rights Management, Technologies ,
It seems we have been waiting for years for the e-book to “arrive.” The promise of having a whole library in a hand-held device has been made for a long time, but the technology has seldom lived up to expectation. The early readers were awkward to use and difficult to read. The latest generation of e-book readers seems to have improved a great deal, but problems still remain.
I participated in a trial of the Sony reader last year, and was very pleased with the visual display and the ease of use. But I was disappointed by the range of books available, which is probably the fault of my quirky and eclectic reading habits, and with the awkward way the reader displayed PDF files. Now the Amazon Kindle is getting a lot of attention. Several people have noted the limited selection (and Kindle does not allow reading of PDF files at all), but the debate about e-books has now begun to recognize another issue that reduces the value of e-books, digital rights management. UPDATE — Comment by Kim Knoch (click on comments above) explains that there is a way to read PDF files on Kindle for a small fee.
DRM is used, of course, to protect the value of a proprietary e-book by preventing copying and display in other devices. But the e-book vendors seem to have missed the obvious fact the DRM reduces the value of the e-book for consumers. By definition, DRM limits the options for readers, and in a our world of constant innovation and a plethora of devices that compete for our dollars, options are value.
A blog from the Free Software Foundation dedicated to a campaign against DRM – Defective by Design – makes this point in a post called “Don’t let DRM get between you and a good book.” The defective by design campaign is primarily a consumer movement, focused on electronic freedom and privacy (the threat DRM may sometimes pose to privacy is another important issue). They make the point that, with DRM limited e-books, every time an updated device is released it could require that consumers buy a new version of their favorite books. They also argue that DRM is bad for authors and publishers as well, supporting a form of “digital censorship.”
The same concern about DRM in e-books is also raised on a recent post on the if:book blog from the folks at the Institute for the Future of the Book. “The future of the sustainable book” is part of a much larger discussion, all of which is worth attention. Regarding all sorts of electronic texts, this telling remark clearly places DRM protected proprietary e-books low on the scale of sustainability: “since I work in book publishing, job one is to figure out what it means to create a sustainable book. Lots of models come to mind. Good ones like Wikipedia (device-neutral and always in the latest, free, edition) and bad ones like the Kindle, (which tries to create a market for an ebook reader with designed obsolescence).”
Today a e-mail appeared in my inbox that proclaimed that the era of DRM is over. The author was referring to a recent announcement by Sony BMG that they were finally considering following the lead of much of the rest of the music industry and selling music in an open MP3 format. This is good news, but it is not the end of DRM by any means. Many other issues regarding electronic protection measures remain, and we are still waiting for a truly usable, portable e-book and reader.
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Copyright Information Notes ,
Congress recognized that fair use is hard to apply, since one is only certain that a use was fair after a judge decides that it was. So Congress added a provision to encourage teachers and librarians to use fair use where it reasonably can apply. Section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law, part of the section about remedies for infringement, says that “statutory damages,” which are the largest liability in most infringement cases, must be remitted to $0 if the person found to be infringing is BOTH an employee of a non-profit educational institution acting within the scope of his or her employment AND had a good faith belief that the use they made of the copyrighted material was fair use.
This provision greatly reduces the risk when academics think about fair use, since it eliminates most of the money that can be awarded if it is found that the user was mistaken in their fair use analysis. But it is important to note that the belief that a use is fair must be in good faith, which means it has to be both subjectively honest (I really did believe it was fair use) and objectively reasonable (a reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion). In those circumstances, Congress has created an incentive (by reducing what one has to lose) to make reasonable fair uses of protected material. If after carefully considering the fair use factors (this checklist can help), one reasonably believes the use is fair, it is often possible that the educational value of going forward will outweigh this reduced risk of getting it wrong.
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Open Access and Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing ,
Inside Higher Ed recently published an article about a “New Collaboration for Scholarly Publishing” that describes how five university presses hope to alter the discouraging economic situation for publishing scholarly books. NYU, Fordham, Temple, Rutgers and UVA presses are collaborating to create a joint system for copy editing, design, layout and typesetting a series of books about American literatures. The project, funding by a grant from the Mellon Foundation, aims to produce over 100 new books that otherwise might not have been published due to cost constraints. By reducing the expenses that are common to all publishing operations, the project expects to allow each press to issue 5 additional books each year over the 5 years of the project.
Two aspects of this project make it significant beyond its own goals. First, it is only the initial such project that Mellon plans to finance; similar projects in Slavic studies and ethnomusicology are already in the works. Second, and most important, this project will help demonstrate that cooperation between academic presses is possible without surrendering the unique features of which many university presses are justly proud. Each of the publishers in this first project will be responsible for selecting its own titles and will continue to select in the specific area within the broad topic that is their own specialty.
It is no secret that publishers routinely have to reject quality manuscripts because the costs of production make them poor financial risks, however good the scholarship may be, and that many young scholars therefore can not get their work published. The hope for this experiment is that the value of collaboration, in terms of significant cost savings so that more worthy monographs will see print, can be realized without losing distinctive reputations or sacrificing quality.
A far more radical push to change the economics of scholarly publishing is expressed in this post on “Digital Media, Games and Open Access” from the blog “Grand Text Auto.” It is written by Nick Montfort, an assistant professor of digital media at MIT, ostensibly to explain his reasons for refusing to review for traditional journals anymore, saving his efforts for open access publications. As Montfort says, “there must be a few things that those of us who are part of the scholarly publishing process can do to foster an open-access future. The easiest thing that I’m able to think of is simply not volunteering our labor to lock academic writing away from the public.” His explanation of the current inequitable system of journal publishing is both clear and scathing, leading to his conclusion that that system, based on restricting access to scholarship rather than encouraging it, should be called “anti-publishing.”
These two very different approaches to the economic problems of scholarly communication may seem poles apart, but each is founded on the recognition that our current systems do not serve scholarship very well and are likely unsustainable. Whether changes come through carefully planned collaboration or through the radical disruption of open access (or both), change is certainly in our future.
