Copyright and Digital Media

by jason novetsky

In the field of information policy, there are a number of pressing issues that librarians are forced to consider and contend with on a regular basis. Among those is the changing role of copyright laws. Copyright is a form of protection for creative works offered by the U.S. Constitution that makes it illegal to copy said work without express permission from the creator or publisher. Traditionally, copyright laws have operated in such a way that all three parties involved—the creators, the publishers, and the users—are all able to benefit from the creation of the work. The system operates on the notion that (financial) reward for the creation of a work encourages further exploration and publication. As copyrights eventually expire (and may not necessarily be renewed), the system includes a built-in mechanism for these materials to eventually enter the public domain. Libraries serve an interesting function in the midst of the copyright and sales process, providing access of copyrighted materials to many different users.

Traditionally, this arrangement has worked very well. Libraries purchased copyrighted materials, such as books, magazines or films, and kept them in their collections indefinitely or until they were worn out. In the digital age, however, information is far less frequently stored in a physical format, and the ability to acquire new materials permanently, becomes more difficult. In recent years, libraries have made use of licensing agreements in lieu of outright purchases more frequently. This is generally a less expensive way of obtaining access to online journals, e-books, et cetera. A license is a legal contract that determines how a work can be used and by whom, as well as what both parties—licensor and licensee—are obligated to do. It is said that in licensing “everything is negotiable”. This has caused some to question whether copyright has been made irrelevant. This can be a concern to libraries as the license agreements usually veer toward the advantage of the licensor, restricting the rights that the end user has to the content.

Whereas the concept of “fair use” allows users a certain degree of leeway around the specifics of the copyright, licenses often do not permit such freedom. Moreover, license agreements pertain to only a limited period of time, and acquisitions made through them do not result in the library gaining a permanent resource. During an economic downturn, for example, a library may be forced to reduce its operating budget, and information that had theretofore been available to patrons is suddenly lost. Even if the subscription is kept, the information that the library initially subscribed to may not be the same information that it receives ten years later. When a book is added to the collection, its content never changes. Databases and other online sources are constantly in flux.

Another issue related to copyright is the emergence of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology. DRM is a way of encoding certain digital files that prevents them from being copied. This may be done with music CDs, DVDs, computer programs, et cetera. Publishers of these digital materials contend it is their right to protect the copyrighted works, but this also prevents users from creating a backup copy for personal use, which copyright law has always permitted.

Like all new technologies, digital media has its positive and negative attributes. The advantages, such as the variety and sheer amount of the data that can be collected, cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the information can be unreliable, inaccessible for some users, and may impinge on certain freedoms. Copyright law has existed for over 200 years in this country and only recently is seeing the first serious challenge to its relevance. Libraries are caught in the middle, trying to find the balance between information that is useful but also unrestricted, and affordable as well as enduring and reliable.

Questions
1. If you were an acquisitions librarian and had the freedom to purchase whichever materials you liked, would you focus more on digital resources or print materials?

2. Most e-books are only compatible on PC’s or specialized “e-book readers”, and do not offer support for other computers, like Macs. In effect, this automatically cuts out a portion of the patronage from using the materials. Is the end result a type of de facto discrimination against non-PC owners? Should the library be concerned? Is this any different from offering traditional printed books, which the blind cannot use?

3. Copyright law has always warned against illegal duplication of a work, and left it to the publisher to go after violators. DRM now makes it impossible to violate the law. Is punishing those that break the law different from preventing people from breaking it? Is it a violation of personal freedoms? Do we not have the right to break the law and then risk the consequences?

4. Should librarians be concerned with the issues raised in question 3? Is it their place to make any statement or should they remain neutral? What steps can the library take to offer the most high-quality information it can without limiting the rights of patrons, and without making an overt statement?

Works Sited
US Copyright Office. 3-21-08.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

American Library Association. 3-11-08. http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/copyrightb/copyrightarticle/librariescreatures.cfm

“Is Copyright Dead?” Special Libraries Association. 3-19-08. http://www.sla.org/content/Shop/Information/infoonline/2001/mar01/copyright.cfm

“Imagine No Restrictions: Digital Rights Management”. School Library Journal. 3-20-08.
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6448189.html
on novetsky

The Library Bill of Rights and Information Policy

The mention of information policy in libraries goes hand in hand with the Library Bill of Rights. I know that most of you already have these in your head but just to reiterate here they are:

I. Books and other library resources should provide for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because or partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to providing information and enlightenment.

IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

This might sound like it is more along the lines of intellectual freedom, but that is also under the umbrella when it comes to a library’s information policy. The policy for each and every library should focus and revolve around social, economical, technical, and legal aspects of information technologies and focus on several different issues such as intellectual freedom, intellectual property, privacy, equity of access to information, ethics of information use and service, censorship, etc… The libraries information policy should encompass all of these aspects while following the Library Bill of Rights because that is the foundation of national library information policy as stated by the ALA. The Library Bill of Rights entire purpose is to guide the basic policies of the library. When instituting a policy regarding information you should basically have compiled position statements, shared principles, and statutes.

As librarians following the Library Bill of Rights is a solid basis for information policies. It explains the removal and abridgment of materials, challenging censorship, and has cooperation with all persons who might have something negative or positive to say about the information that is provided to the public in our venues. It is an excellent tool to use even when it comes to collection development, for both children and adult services. The majority of information policies come into play when dealing with youths in libraries. To narrow that down even further, internet policies for children, and how to limit potentially harmful or graphic materials to the children without upsetting both sides of the arguments. Having an information policy that informs librarians how to act when certain materials come in front of them helps prevent expurgation of library materials, which is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights and correctly implemented policies regarding the information in your library.

When implementing information policies in your library you have to be very careful not to upset the gentle balance that is a public library. Appease all that enter those doors as much a humanly possible and stay within the library bill of rights. The policies implemented should support the mission of the library by providing users with additional opportunities for information, education, and recreation.

Sources:

Library Bill of Rights:

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm

Interpretations of Bill of Rights:

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/Default675.cfm

Hayden, Carla. From Outreach to Equity: Innovative Models of Library Policy and Practice. American Library Association. 2004.

Willett, Holly G. Public Library Youth Services: A Public Policy Approach: Contemporary Studies in Information Management, Policies, and Services. Ablex Publishing. 1995.

Wood, Frank W. Hoffman, Richard J. Library Collection Development Policies. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Inc. 2007.

Information and the Patriot Act

“The United States has the most open government in the world, but it also has the most secretive government in the world, if you measure it by the production of new secrets,”—Steven Aftergood.

This paradox exists especially after the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. Passed by Congress to give law enforcement the ability to track terrorists and prevent attacks, it has expanded the ability of the government to track the activities of private citizens. This is being done through access to Internet (including e-mail), phone, and even bank records. This is a large increase in the government’s ability to track residents, and thus a restriction on civil liberties.

This is also true in the case of libraries and their patrons and the potential for these records to be accessed. “The records that can be searched in a library now include any tangible item that could contain information, such as physical or electronic version of books, records, papers, and documents” (Jaeger, 1976). The act essentially increases the scope of the who, what, when, where, and why of government investigation of library records. Also, it limits the knowledge the patrons have that these records are being accessed and that they are being investigated.

The investigations done through the Patriot Act are under the guidelines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), and information can be collected by law enforcement through FISA, including electronic communications, even if it is “only a part of the investigation” (Jaeger, 1976) rather than the old standard of the information being the sole reason for the investigation. This gives the Patriot Act a much greater scope in retrieving information than previously by the government (Jaeger, 1976).

Specifically, Section 215 of the Act (as described above) allows the FBI to gain court orders which are secret (which means the party being investigated does not know) in furthering an investigation related to terrorism or national security (American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2005). Citizens of the U.S. can be investigated, and libraries cannot tell the patron that their records have been sought. And in some cases, the FBI does not even need court orders, but instead gets “National Security Letters.” (ALA, 2005). The government can access library records, and even retrieve computers from libraries, even if the patron’s records are not the reason for the investigation in the first place. In fact, in the year after September 11, 2001, the FBI targeted libraries on 175 occasions at minimum without giving an explanation (Gerdes, 98).

Libraries have become concerned with this large increase in the government’s power, and while Section 215 does not mention libraries directly, libraries have become concerned that the Patriot Act is “a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users” (Doyle, 2005). Even the reauthorized Patriot Act does little to change this large increase in powers by the FBI and law enforcement. In fact some libraries, trying to avoid government intervention and investigation, “have reportedly stopped keeping certain records to avoid law enforcement inquiries” (Regan, 2004).

Although the American Library Association has to abide by the law, they insist that the law infringes upon the rights and freedoms of patrons in libraries. (ALA, 2005). Libraries are an institution that promotes information and expression of free speech, and the law undermines this directly. “Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association; and, in a library, the subject of users’ interests should not be examined or scrutinized by others” (ALA, 2005). ALA passed a resolution addressing the short comings of the Section 215 and recommended changes in order to improve the law to protect the privacy rights of patrons in the library. Specifically, “the American Library Association considers sections of the USA Patriot Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users” (ALA, 2005).

“Librarians need to be tough and to fight for their values. Toleration, respect for truth, appreciation for quality, dedication to the common good, and a concern for the well-being” is what libraries and librarians need to have as their goals (Dalton, 2000). On one side, Congress wants to protect society from threats that may cause harm to us, but on the flip side, libraries and their patrons feel threatened that they are losing freedoms and rights that are given to them by the First Amendment.

Has Congress gone too far to pry into personal records of library patrons? If so, should there be limits on what can be accessed, and also should patrons be notified?

How much freedom should be given up for security and protection from potential terrorism?

Is the library community aware of any monitoring or eavesdropping on networked communications and/or public access terminals in the library?

Sources:

American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom. (April/October 2005). Analysis of the USA

Patriot Act related to Libraries. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/usapatriotactanalysis.htm.

Dalton, M.S. (November 2000). Old Values for the New Information Age, Library Journal, (21), 43-44.

Doyle, C. (2005). Libraries and the USA Patriot Act. Congressional Research Service, The Library of

Congress, (Order Code RS21441), 1-6.

Gerdes, L.I. (2005). The Patriot Act: Opposing Viewpoints, Greenhaven Press, Detroit, 98.

Jaeger, P.T., McClure, C.R., Bertot, J.C., & Snead, J.T. (2004). The USA Patriot Act, the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Information Policy Research in Libraries: Issues, Impacts, and

Questions for Libraries and Researchers. The Library Quarterly, 74(2), 99-121.

Regan, P.M. (2004). Old issues, new context: Privacy, information collection, and homeland security.

Government Information Quarterly, 21, 481-97.

Open Access and Information Commons

by Joshua Rouan

“Information commons” and “open access” are terms that correlate to two problems facing the modern library – the declining relevancy of libraries to the younger generation and the financial cost of information. This post will address both topics separately.

Information commons is a model that seeks to redefine the ways that the younger generation understand and use libraries. It encompasses both libraries as a physical space and the very nature of library service. According to Tucker, an “information commons” could contain the following elements:

· facilities for teamwork and collaborative study;
· state-of-the-art technology for research and coursework including multimedia capabilities and production software;
· library reference and research assistance;
· printed reference works and online databases;
· a writing center serving the intellectual interests of all disciplines offered by the institution;
· faculty development staff and resources;
· tutorial guidance and adaptive services;
· lectures and musical performances;
· art gallery space;
· a café service;
· lounge-type furniture for leisure reading and conversation;
· copy center and binding equipment for printed resources. (Tucker, 2007).

The idea of an information commons developed in response to students staying away from libraries except when absolutely necessary. This trend away from libraries was in turn a response to the growing amount of information available online – in the form of both private web pages, search engines, as well as remote-access databases (Tucker, 2007).

Information commons is not, however, simply a rethinking of physical library space. It also encompasses the way in which librarians interact with their patrons. The “roving reference librarian” is an emerging trend. Here, the reference librarians do not necessarily sit behind a reference desk waiting to be approached for help but, as the name suggests, “rove” around the reference area asking patrons if they need help (Balas, 2007). Not only is this heightened interaction with patrons important to building a more friendly perception of librarians and information professionals, but it is also crucial in helping patrons navigate the increasingly complex world of digital information. Helping patrons navigate the world of digital information is not as easy to do remotely, and providing a comfortable library space with non-traditional reference librarians is a way to both help patrons use electronic resources and attract them to the library’s physical space (Balas, 2007).

Open access is a model for making information available to researchers and students. In the traditional, non-open access model, databases and online journals charge member libraries a fee (often a very high one) for allowing their patrons access to journal articles. This model relies on libraries to pay the cost of publishing and distributing the scientific and scholarly journals. The open access model inverts this traditional pay scheme. Under the new model, users have access to the scholarly journals for “free” – the content is available online to anyone who needs it. Here is it important to note that the information itself is not free. Open access journals charge the authors of the articles a fee for publishing their work. It has been argued that information is inherently costly, and that any move towards open access that denies this reality will not work (Anderson, 2004). In other words, open access policies move the cost of the information from the user to the creator – from libraries and their patrons to the authors of the articles in question (Navin, 2007).

Buy why should the move to open access be made, especially considering that the “cost” of information is not being eliminated, but simply shifted? Aside from the obvious financial reasons, studies have found that open access articles are cited more frequently than traditional subscription based articles (Navin, 2007). Not only is this a positive for libraries (who are no longer saddled with the cost of subscription) but the authors and the journals themselves benefit from becoming more visible in their individual fields of study. New research thus has the possibility of having a greater impact (Navin, 2007). There is a third reason for making the move to open access. Navin and Starrat examined thousands of articles in the disciplines of economics, mathematics, and chemistry. In the field of chemistry and mathematics, a majority of the articles consulted reported funding from public sources (Navin, 2007). In other words, open access would help guarantee that the research that the public funded would be accessible to them for free, while the entities that reap the benefits of publication (authors, in the form of salaries, bonuses, etc.) would be responsible for the costs of publishing and disseminating that information. This last fact, however, remains a point of controversy. Rick Anderson, in his article “Open access in the real world: Confronting economic and legal reality,” notes that publicly funded research remains protected by copyright law.

Open access is not a term free of controversy, nor is it possible to explain the many questions it raises in this post. By and large most libraries do not have the luxury of utilizing only open access journals – most academic journals still charge. Whether or not open access will replace the traditional pay or subscription based model will depend upon the willingness of authors to pay for publication, as well as the legal implications surrounding publicly funded (but privately owned) research.



Sources:

Anderson, R. Open access in the real world: Confronting economic and legal reality. C&RL News Vol. 65, No. 4 (April 2004).

Balas, J. Physical Space and Digital Space-Librarians Belong in Both. Computers in Libraries, 27(5), 26-29. May 2007.

Navin, J. C., et. al., Does Open Access Really Make Sense? A Closer Look at Chemistry, Economics, and Mathematics. College & Research Libraries v. 68 no. 4 (July 2007) p. 323-7

Tucker, J.M. An Emerging Model for the Undergraduate Library. Library Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administration. Vol. 27, No. 5. May 2007

Introduction to Information Policy Blog Session

Information policy is an organization’s set of criteria for what information will be shared willingly with the public, what will remain hidden, and how detailed the information they are willing to divulge will be. Such policies may be formed by laws (The First Amendment, Freedom of Information Act, PATRIOT Act), but are also often a set of policies created by an organization or government. Information Policy is created at every level of government and also by groups that disseminate information such as libraries. Information policy can be used to disclose or hide safety information (toxins in a product) or security information (military details).

For us as future librarians, the federal government’s policies will affect not only what information is available to us and thus our patrons, but also what sort of records we may have to divulge to proper authorities. Our libraries may also have policies as to what information they block from our patrons. We would like the government to divulge as much information as possible so that our patrons can make informed decisions, we also want to protect our patrons from being targeted for what materials they look up. Our goal is to provide information while maintaining individual privacy.

ALA’s Policy on Info Policy

The ALA lists “Government Information” on their “Issues and Advocacy web page, so it is clear the ALA believes this to be a major issue:

“ALA supports equal, ready and equitable access to information collected, compiled, produced, funded and/or disseminated by the government of the United States. ALA also supports the protection of individual privacy in information collected, compiled, produced, funded and/or disseminated by the government of the United States, and the right of individuals to gain anonymous access to government information.”

The ALA website has a few websites and even a round table devoted to this topic, I have linked some of the relevant pages below. You can see the ALA policy handbook here.

From the policy manual:

52.4.1 The Rights of Library Users and the

USA Patriot Act

The American Library Association opposes anyuse

of governmental power to suppress the free and open

exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate

individuals exercising free inquiry. All librarians,

library administrators, library governing bodies,

and library advocates are encouraged to educate their

users, staff, and communities about the process for

compliance with theUSAPatriot Actandotherrelated

measures and about the dangers to individual privacy

and the confidentiality of library records resulting

from those measures. (See “Current Reference File”:

The USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe

on the Rights of Library Users: 2002–2003CD

#20.1.)

52.4.4 Retention of Library Records

ALA urges all libraries to (a) limit the degree to

whichpersonallyidentifiableinformationiscollected,

monitored, disclosed, and distributed; (b) avoid creating

unnecessary records; (c) limit access to personally

identifiable information to staff performing authorized

functions; (d) dispose of library usage

records containing personally identifiable information

unless they are needed for the efficientandlawful

operation of the library…

Links

ALA Key Principles of Public Information

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/governmentinfo/keyprins.cfm

ALA Policy Manual

http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governingdocs/policymanual/policymanual.htm

Open Government: Access, Issues, Legislation http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/governmentinfo/opengov/opengov.cfm

Office for Information Technology Policy http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/oitp/oitpofficeinformation.cfm

Questions for consideration during Information Policy Blog Week:

1) How much personal information should our libraries keep on our patrons? How far do you think we should go to protect their privacy?

2) Information Policy is flexible, depending on who is in office or what party is in power in the federal government. Would you support rules or laws designed to moderate change in information policy?

3) How has the Patriot Act affected us as librarians?

4) How do you think the internet has affected the way people try to find government information? Do you think that makes them more informed or less? Think of examples from the Paul T Jaeger article we read for class.

Social Networking: Resources and Viewpoints

Below are some links to related resources that we stumbled across while assembling our posts for the blog.

ALA – Online Resources for Social Networking – links ahoy!
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/onlinesocialnetworks.htm

ALA – Library and Information Technology Association - LITA
http://www.ala.org/ala/lita/litahome.cfm

ALA’s Wiki on Interactive Web Applications
http://wikis.ala.org/iwa/index.php/Main_Page

Five Weeks to a Social Library – This is a website for a 2006 online class designed to familiarize librarians with the tools of social networking. All of the content is still on the website and can be accessed by anyone interested in walking themselves through the course
http://www.sociallibraries.com/course/
Direct Link to the Course Contents
http://www.sociallibraries.com/course/prelimprogram

Friends: Social Networking Sites for Engaged Library Services
http://onlinesocialnetworks.blogspot.com/

Medical Library Association - Task Force On Social Networking
http://sns.mlanet.org/blog/

Information Wants to Be Free: A Librarian, Writer, and Tech Geek Reflecting on the Profession and the Tools We Use To Serve Our Patrons - blog of Meredith Farkas, author of several of the articles cited by our group in our postings
http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php

Web Junction – An online community for library staff
http://www.webjunction.org/do/Home

Website for the book The Next Gen Librarian’s Survival Guide by Rachel Singer Gordon
http://www.lisjobs.com/nextgen/index.htm

NextGen Librarian Google Group Listserv
http://groups.google.com/group/NEXGENLIB?hl=en&lnk=srg

edited to add: Library Livejournal Group
http://community.livejournal.com/libraries

All websites have been bookmarked at del.icio.us using the tag "2008hunt6010" that Andrew kindly set for the class.

If you know of any other useful, relevant links, please post them in the comments section!

And finally, because we can all use a laugh, check out Over the Hedge's comic from Sunday March 2nd: Wheel 2.0.

NextGen Librarian and The Digital Divide - In Brief

NextGen Librarian by Robin Lang

A new breed of librarians are graduating from school and looking to make their place in the world of libraries and information technology. These former students are now being called Next Generation Librarians. So what is a Next Generation Librarian and how is he or she changing the perception of libraries? According to Stephen Abram and Judy Luther, in "Born with the Chip", NextGens are born between 1982 and 2002. They have grown up surrounded by technology, using computers on a daily basis, so much so that has become part of our DNA. It is about 81 million strong (34). However, another author, Rachel Singer Gordon, disagrees. In her article, "Generational Journeys", she makes the point that all NEW librarians are not necessarily YOUNG librarians. Many current LIS graduates are older adults beginning a second or third career. She says, "NextGens do, though tend to share age-related commonalities in outlook and experience that are not necessarily common to all new librarians but do affect their reactions to these issues and connection to the profession" (Singer-Gordon, 2005). While we are not all of the same generation and have the same experiences, we are able to share a common interest, which is in our case, librarianship. Stephen Abrams and Judy Luther have acknowledged nine commonalities of the NextGen Librarian that sets them apart from other generations: format agnostic, nomadic, multitasking, experimental, collaborative, integrated, principled, adaptive and finally direct (34-37). It is essential for current librarians to adopt as least some of these aspects into the workplace, not just for new librarians but also for younger patrons.

It is important for libraries to change in order to survive this technology driven world. Libraries need to fit into the Next Generations need for on the spot information, access, and sharing and also mesh that with their workflow (Bannwart, 2007). For instance, libraries lacking wireless capabilities will become irrelevant in our society, unable to compete with corporations like Starbucks and Panera Bread. "The new library 2.0 environment is one that librarians are, by their very nature, well equipped to learn. If librarians do not learn this environment, the Googles of the World surely will and library users will be served, though perhaps not well, by them" (Bannwart, 2007). Susan Bannwart, points out those young adult patrons encompass about 25% of libraries users and growing and yet they are falling by the wayside in libraries. Preteens and teens are in libraries looking for homework/research help, personal information, career/college guidance, reading and entertainment. This is a huge portion of our client base that we are virtually ignoring. Librarians need to pull young adults back into the libraries using technologies that are commonplace for them, such as with through websites, youth organizations, and schools (47).

Works Cited
Abrams, S. J. (2004). Born with the Chip. Library Journal , 34-37.
Bannwart, S. (2007). Reference and Information Services for the Next Generation. Indiana Libraries , 46-48.
Singer-Gordon, R. (2005). Generational Journeys. Library Journal , 42.


And, special bonus post!


In Brief - The Digital Divide

For all this talk about what libraries can do with technology and how they must evolve to serve their increasingly web-savvy patrons, there are still many people who need their libraries, but who don’t have computers at home, email accounts, or even perhaps have never been on the internet. This so called "digital divide" is evident along the lines of economic class, race, and age. A recent editorial lays bare the specifics of this division. "As the statistics show, the digital divide is alive and well in America. Access to a computer at home is affected by race and income: The higher the family income, the greater chance that the student has a computer at home. White non-Hispanics have a higher percentage of home computer ownership than blacks or Hispanics." (Metcalf, 2007). In contrast to the most avid users of new technologies who tend to be young people who have regular and frequent access to computers whether at home or at school, many people simply have not had the time or the opportunities in their lives to learn computer skills and gain familiarity with basic technology, (Carvin, 2006). These people won't necessarily benefit from their libraries' forays into technology and social networking without assistance. Many libraries do more than simply offer one-time assistance with specific tasks by putting on regular classes and workshops that start at the most basic level of computer skills so that members of their communities can gain familiarity with technology. More than simply using technology to enhance how their patrons access information, libraries are also helping their patrons to understand and use the tools of the information age. This is essential because as libraries look to the future and plan on integrating social network tools into their information practices, they must also take care to not leave behind library users who haven't yet made the leap over the digital divide.

Questions to Consider:
Many of us as future librarians have been thrust into a new world of technology as we learn about the goals and practices of libraries in the information age. How do you think our experiences as we learn about the somewhat bewildering digital world can help us to better understand our patrons who are intimidated by technology?
How do you think libraries should respond to patrons who haven't embraced computers and new technology such as social networking? Should they be encouraged to take advantage of any available programs to learn more about things like email and blogs? Or is it okay for libraries keep one foot on either side of the digital divide and serve patrons who aren't into the technological side of things in the more traditional ways? Do libraries have to make themselves over completely?

Sources/Further Reading
Carvin, A. (March 2006). "The Gap." School Library Journal. 52(3), 70-72.
Metcalf, D. (February 2007)."Reducing the Digital Divide." American Libraries, 38(2) 29.
Peterson, E. (Winter, 2006). "Do People Want to Jump the Digital Divide? Exploring Digital Strategies. PNLA Quarterly. 70(2) 4, 17-18.
Yu, L. (2006). "Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides." Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 38; 229.

Social Networking Sites & Libraries: More Particularly MySpace and Facebook

“Just like putting a library branch in a strip mall, creating presence in social networking software makes the library more visible.” ~Meredith Farkas

The above concept rings more true than any other information about social networking sites. The goal of most, if not all libraries is the goal to reach more patrons because it is they who are liable for the continuing existence of libraries. Some libraries may be skeptical about using MySpace and Facebook because they either do not know how to use it or they find it frivolous and something that only young adults would use. The unknown is taking the time to learn how these sites can best benefit your library. While researching this topic, I realized that each library have their own way of utilizing these social networking sites to the best advantage of the library itself and its patrons. We will analyze how academic libraries, special libraries and school libraries can use these sites to promote themselves within their respective communities.

Academic libraries will probably benefit the most from these sites along with school libraries, which will be discussed later. Now some may say that an academic library has no need to be on a social networking site because it is really not very “academia”. As recited above, the unknown is what scares most librarians when it comes to using these sites. It is because they are unaware that the library offers more things that are beneficial to them than just a physical building where there are books and you can study in peace. The sites offer a great way to promote the library’s services such as any events that may be coming up or links to your catalog and/or databases. A college in New York has a MySpace page that they have set up for their library. On their MySpace page, they list the current events; have pictures and links to their official library website www.MySpace.com/brooklyncollegelibrary. They even have blogs about their events, which I believe is the best way to inform your students about the library happenings (Farkas 27). This is a great way to integrate our students’ habits with our library services. Students eventually learn to appreciate how the library operates and the many benefits they offer. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are trends that any and maybe all students use and you cannot ignore this because it does not conform to your mission. Just imagine these sites as another way to advertise your services to your patron base.

Some questions pertain as to how does social networking sites impact special libraries when their patron base is so limited to whatever specialty they are in? If you look at a special library it is just like a social network site. Special libraries exist in a large organization, i.e. the company. Social networking sites are the same whereas you as a “person” exist in the larger organization, i.e. the host. Special library provide services and support to their organization. Special libraries can learn from these social networking sites. How do they get so large in such a short amount of time? They can learn to emulate the concept of these sites into their own special services, i.e. website, special services, intranet, etc. These sites would give special libraries an insight as to how the current generation is using these sites so that they themselves can be prepared when this generation enters the working world (Abrams 34).

Like academic libraries and special libraries, school libraries can and should incorporate the concept of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to promote the further education of their students. Most if not all young children these days are always on the Internet. If a school library were to use these social networking sites, they should promote the further education of the students by showing them how to search the libraries catalog and get them involved in events that the library sponsors. School media specialist can learn the hows and whys of these sites so that they can use the concept of it in their own libraries to further promote student’s use of the libraries as more than a place to go only when you have homework. A student who is aware of how the library works and how to distinguish good information from bad information will do great in post-secondary education when they have to prepare research papers.

When talking about social networking sites being used in school libraries, we also have to talk about the Deleting Online Predator Act (DOPA). It was introduced and passed by the House in 2006 but was not considered by the Senate before the 2006 session ended. The DOPA, if it was made into law would have made accessing social networking sites at any libraries and/or schools that receive federal funds impossible. The DOPA would have required that these places block all access to the social networking sites (Engdahl 74). How would you as a librarian possibly follow this law when your whole ethics is based on access of information for all? The DOPA was mostly geared towards secondary education. Of course the American Libraries Association (ALA) opposed these bill passionately. Beth Yoke, who is the executive director of the Young Adult Library Services Association, testified on behalf of the ALA stating that they had three primary concerns about this bill. The first being that the bill as written is too broad; the second being that it would widen the digital divide for students who uses school and libraries computers as their primary access to the Web; and the third being that parental involvement with their children are the best tools for making sure that their children are kept safe online (Engdahl 100). The best way to protect your students is for parents to get involved and also let librarians and teacher teach them the correct way to use these social networking sites and how to analyze the profile that is requesting friendship.

Now, therefore, how can we as librarians simply ignore these social networking sites? We obviously cannot do that. These sites and other interactive sites are the trends of the future and we cannot put it into a “fad” category that may disappear as times go by. These sites are great tools, even though it takes time to make connection. If a librarian takes the time to make these connections with their patron base that are always on the Internet, they will be able to promote the library’s services and outreach to students more effective than ever (Breeding 32). Also, these social networking sites provide a great way for your students and/or patrons to provide feedbacks (Greenwell and Kraemer 15). As was discussed in class, librarians and libraries have to learn to adapt to these constantly changing trends with respect to these social networking sites. As librarians and libraries, we must figure out a way to incorporate these things into the everyday library life that will make the library more visible and more vibrant than ever.

Questions:

How would you as a librarians use these social networking sites in your library?

What can you as future librarians do to protect your students from predators using MySpace and Facebook as a “feeding” ground?

How would you use these sites as a learning experience?

Will sites like MySpace and Facebook be the learning of our future?

How will these sites impact the future librarian?

Works Cited:

Abram, Stephen. “What can MySpace teach us in school libraries? Just as I get nice and comfortable with Web sites and learning mobile applications, blogging, and downloading streaming media, the Web world goes and mutates yet again!” Multimedia & Internet@Schools. 13.4 (July-August 2006): 22.

Abram, Stephen. “What can MySpace teach us in special libraries?” Information Outlook. 10.5 (May 2006): 34.

Albanese, Adnrew Richard. “Google Is Not The Net.” Library Journal (1976). 131.15 (September 15 2006): 32-4.

Breeding, Marshall. “Librarians Face Online Social Networks.” Computers in Libraries. 27.8 (September 2007): 30-2.

Engdahl, Sylvia, ed. Online Social Networking. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007.

Farkas, Meredith. “Going where patrons are: outreach in MySpace and Facebook. (Technology in Practice).” American Libraries. 38.4 (April 2007): 27.

Greenwell, Stacey and Beth Kraemer. “Internet Reviews: Social Networking Software: Facebook and MySpace.” Kentucky Libraries. 70.4 (Fall 2006): 12-6.

Miller, Sarah Elizabeth and Lauren A. Jensen. “Connecting and Communicating with Students on Facebook.” Computers in Libraries. 27.8 (September 2007): 18-22.

Web 2.0 and Library 2.0

“Essentially, the Web is shifting from an international library of interlinked pages to an information ecosystem, where data circulates like nutrients in rainforest.” (Johnson)

Web 2.0 was first coined by Tim O’Reilly at a conference in 2004. He described it by say, "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform" (Web 2.0, 2008). This is just one of the many definitions for web 2.0. After much research, it became clear that everyone has a different definition on what web 2.0 is. Another definition states that web 2.0 is”…where digital tools allow users to create, change, and publish dynamic content of all kinds” (Stephens, 2006). For instance internet users have become more adept at creating their own web pages, trading pictures and music, and contributing information to forums. Kimberly Bolon, one of the authors of the article, Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0 states that, “Web 2.0 is the next generation of the Internet. It is not so much defined by speed or infrastructure, but how content is created, distributed, and disseminated, and how people interact with that content and each other…” (40). While all of these definitions differ in their explanations, they do agree on one thing and that is that the internet has changed. It has changed from a one dimensional platform to a multi-dimensional landscape. Internet users do not have to sit and stare at a boring website created by nameless faceless people. To name just a few of the most famous web 2.0 sites are Myspace, Facebook, Friendster (social networking sites), Wikipedia(collaborative knowledge sharing), Flickr(photo-sharing), del.icio.us(file sharing), YouTube (video-sharing) and Blogger(Web logs). Other sites that are just as useful but not as widely known are BitTorrent (file-sharing), Furl (online filing cabinet), Hikkup (questions and answers), Ning (social networking), Pandora (play your own music), and Vcarious (travel stories). (Kennedy, Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part I, 2007) & (Kennedy, Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part II, 2007). Web 2.0 has also been called the “Two-Way Web”, the “Read/Write Web” and the “Participatory Web”, all referring back to how the web has interconnected people in ways before unseen (Bolon, 2007).

After witnessing this occurrence, librarians have begun to look at how it can or has changed libraries. This shift has become known as Library 2.0. Coined by Michael Casey in his blog, Library Crunch, he went on to write, “…those who manage and work in libraries must be willing to make significant changes in the way they think and conduct business. This shift will result in taking the traditional library of sterile spaces, static collections, and vanilla catalogs to the next level in a variety of areas” (Bolon, 2007). Michael Stephens highlighted nine Library 2.0 concepts in his article Exploring Web 2.0 and Libraries, and how we are striving to integrate these changes into the library. First openness or transparency meaning libraries are actively encouraging their patrons to participate in libraries. We want our patrons to be involved in the planning of the library. This can be done through tools such as blogs or wikis. Another is ease of use, of which libraries are actively working to make certain platforms, such as their website easier to use and navigate. For example we are introducing patrons to online renewals or holds through the libraries website. Innovation is the third concept. Libraries are trying to think outside of the box by using wikis, blogs, RSS feeds and other tools to help patrons with their wants and needs. Social Interaction and participation to create content are three concepts that libraries use that take advantage of Web 2.0. For instance, we can create blogs for our patrons to discuss programs, books, or games. Sharing is very important for librarians. Patrons can now share their favorite books through RSS feeds, or link up to author’s websites or up-to-date information on new releases. Decentralization has become quite popular. And finally trust. We trust our patrons even more to work with us and each other to make the library an amazing place to be (11-12). As Jenny West wrote, “Libraries have historically been places to receive information but with some rare exceptions, less places to contribute information. Blogs and wikis and tag clouds, all the stuff we prattle on about are good for reading or reading about but really shine through use” (Stephens, 2006). And we often do see some of these tools being used in our local libraries. Library 2.0 is breaking down barriers between librarians and patrons by creating more user friendly services and by doing this through collaboration. Never before have had patrons had so much saying in how libraries are stocked and run (Bolon, 2007).

While we have all these Web 2.0 tools lined up, how exactly can they be used in libraries? Many of these tools, while popular with younger crowds, are viewed with suspicion and annoyance by older generations. For instance instant messaging or IMing is very popular but can be treated with disdain by libraries and schools. However, Meg Atwater-Singer and Kate Sherrill, have highlighted a number of ways these internet features can be transplanted into a library setting. IMing is an exchange of text messages between two or more users. This form of communication is quick, informal, and “much more conversational and conducive to collaboration than email” (48). We can use instant messaging in Patron-to-Librarian, Librarian-to-Librarian, and Librarian to Staff communications. We can use blogs to post information on new material, library news, event announcements, policy changes, and anything else that patrons would find helpful. Patrons can respond back to these posts. Online book discussions are also another very helpful tool used for blogs. RSS, which is short for Really Simply Syndication, is a quick way to deliver news. Patrons can keep abreast of library news by subscribing to an RSS. Wikis are great for collaborating with patrons and staff on anything from “policy creation, customer service, and research.” (49-50) Podcasts can be used to broadcast lectures, instructions, and tours and of course audio books. Flickr can be used to post pictures of programs, book covers, or a photo tour of the library (Atwater-Singer, 2007).

However, not everyone is excited about Web 2.0 and all of the changes that is it bringing. Carol Tenopir wrote an article called, Web 2.0: Our Culture Downfall?, that expresses the skepticism some people have for Web and Library 2.0. For instance, she quotes Andrew Keen a former internet entrepreneur and Web 2.0 disbeliever. He says, “When advertising and public relations are disguised as news, the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. Instead of more community knowledge, or culture, all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content from anonymous sources” (Tenopir, 2007). He believes that when anyone can contribute “unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information” to websites that people take as truth, that “a dangerous, dumbingdown of culture” is created (Tenopir, 2007). While this can be true in some circumstances, it is our job as librarians to teach our patrons how to distinguish between what is news and what is false.

Questions:
Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Keen? Is Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 beneficial to our libraries?
What are some other Web 2.0 technologies that can be used in libraries? What are your experiences with them? Helpful or not?
What do you think Web 3.0 will be?

Works Cited

Atwater-Singer, M. &. (2007). Social Software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & You: A Practical Guide For Using Technology @ Your Library. Indiana Libraries , 48-52.

Bolon, K. &. (2007). Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0. Young Adult Library Services , 40-43.
Johnson, S. (n.d.). Web 2.0 Arrives. Retrieved from Discover: www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/departments/emerging-technology

Kennedy, S. D. (2007). Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part I. Information Today , 17 & 19.

Kennedy, S. D. (2007). Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part II. Information Today , 15 & 17.

Stephens, M. (2006). Exploring Web 2.0 and Libraries. Library Technology Reports , 8-14.

Tenopir, C. (2007). Web 2.0:Out Culural Downfall. Library Journal , 36.

Web 2.0. (2008, March 2). Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2

Welcome to Social Networking!

Overview of Social Networking and Web 2.0

These days, librarians have to know much more than how to alphabetize by author and tell patrons to take their conversations elsewhere. Information seeking has gone from a rather passive activity involving physical repositories of musty tomes to an interactive and user-directed collaboration between the seeker and the source. This is all very exciting, but where do librarians fit into this brave new world? We know that we’ve left behind the old models for information seeking, but what’s next? What are the new tools and technologies that are now available to libraries?

As our culture has embraced technology and the advent of the internet, libraries have stepped up to be on the front lines of this revolution in how people learn, think, and interact with the wealth of information that is now readily accessible. The term “Library 2.0” has come into use to describe the model for how libraries want to fit into this collaborative environment. This is modeled after the term “Web 2.0” that is used to describe how the internet and the World Wide Web evolved from its passive first incarnation, “Web 1.0” where users would only visit sites to view the information and leave again, to the user-driven and collaborative version that we find today. In Web 2.0, users can modify the content of websites, carry on discussions with people on the other side of the world, upload and share photos and documents, work together on projects without ever touching a piece of paper or meeting face-to-face, and so much more. By extension, “Library 1.0” refers to the model whereby the flow of information between patron and library was one-way. A person would go to their library, most likely having to physically enter the establishment, and search for information using physical tools. This could be done either by the patron locating the desired book, periodical, or other physical item by him or herself, or by the patron seeking the assistance of a librarian who would locate the material on behalf of the patron. In contrast, in “Library 2.0” the flow of information goes in both directions as the patron is contributing to the process of information seeking through the various portals that a library makes available to better serve their patrons’ needs and expectations. By no means are libraries trying to discourage their patrons from using their physical location as they once did, but libraries are now making it easier to serve their communities through virtual means such as through their websites and through various social networking tools.

The key to keeping libraries relevant and connected to their communities and to the needs and wants of their patrons can be found in the new social networking technologies that have come into widespread usage as Web 2.0 has become the accepted and even assumed way of doing things. Social networking basically describes the ways that users of the internet can connect with other users and share ideas, discussions, photos and music, and build both professional and personal relationships. Social networking tools are essential to relationships between people who will never or very seldom meet face-to-face, but are also important to friends and colleagues who spend every day together in the same workspace or school.

We will cover social networking sites in more detail in a further post, but here are a few of the most well-known and frequently used.

Facebook, Myspace

Blogging: Blogger, Typepad

Librarything, Goodreads

Twitter

Livejournal

Wikis: Pbwiki, Wikispaces, Wetpaint

Second Life

del.icio.us

Flickr

Recent Sources/Further Reading:

Farkas, M. (December 2007). “ Your Stuff, Their Space: Promoting Library Content Beyond Your Website.” American Libraries, 38(11), 36.

Farkas, M. (January/February 2008) . “What Are Friends For? Capitalizing On Your Online Rolodex.” American Libraries, 39(1/2), 36.

Huwe, T.K. (November/December 2007). “In 2007, Community-Building Tools Rule.” Computers in Libraries, 27(10), 31-33.

Rapacki, Sean. (Winter 2007). “Social Networking Sites: Why Teens Need Places Like Myspace.” Young Adult Library Services, 5(2), 28-30.

Scott, D.M. (December 2007). “Social Media Debate.” Econtent, 30(10), 64.

Tenopir, C. (December 2007). “Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?” Library Journal, 132(20), 36.

White, M. (December 2007). “Donne and Lennon Said It So Well.” Econtent, 30(10), 20.

Some questions to consider:

Do you think that libraries have diluted their essential purpose by embracing social networking? Why or why not?

Is social networking just a fad or is it here to stay? How will we know? When will we know?

Does Library 2.0’s emphasis on emerging technologies run the risk of leaving behind members of the community who have not yet made the leap to using the internet?