It is clear so far that technology has a big impact on what goes on within a library. It also has strong effect on what it means to work in a library on a daily basis. It affects what the library staff does, how they do it, and how they feel about their jobs. According to a job satisfaction survey done by Library Journal, 49% of the academic librarians surveyed said their jobs changed because of technology (Albanese, 2008). It is clear that technology is having an effect on the conditions of library staff in many ways.
Technology could be seen to make the lives of library staff a little less stressful. For instance, with the online catalog and internet patrons can answer certain questions themselves thus freeing some of the librarian’s time. It can also make it easier to do some routine library tasks, such as check out books. Automation of services will definitely effect what librarians are doing each day. Jack Siggins predicts that as services become more automated “new tasks as yet unidentified will replace traditional ones, much in the way online catalogs have greatly reduced the need for catalog card preparation and filing. Changes both in the stock of equipment and in the organization of work will have a direct impact on jobs and staff” (Siggins, 1992).
Being involved in these changes could be both interesting and rewarding for librarians. While some may fear these changes and feel that increased automation will make libraries and librarians irrelevant, others do not. As Amy BeggDeGroff, a director of IT at Howard County Library in Maryland puts it: “We weren't losing a position in information-seeking activity in fact, we were an active player in information seeking.” (BeggDeGroff, 2008) As “active players” in information-seeking, librarians have the ability to learn about and use technology in a way that benefits patrons, and lead the way towards the future of librarianship. Librarians also have the psychologically rewarding task of teaching patrons about new technologies that have the potential to enrich their lives. The rewards that librarians see in their job are certainly apparent in the Library Journal job satisfaction survey in which 70% of academic librarians described themselves as either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their jobs. (Albanese, 2008).
At the same time, technology can make librarians’ jobs more psychologically demanding. Librarians are now required to teach people how to use technology, answer technology related questions, and even do troubleshooting when technology isn’t working as it should. This can be difficult if the librarians don’t have training in these areas. BeggDeGroff describes the negative effects of technology at a library she worked at: “Our information desks were becoming overwhelmed with computer questions staff could not answer, since no training had been available prior to the computers' installation” (BeggDeGroff, 2008). As new technologies are developed, it can be a struggle to keep up with them. According to the job satisfaction survey by Library Journal, one third of the academic librarians surveyed said that keeping up with new technologies is their biggest on the job challenge (Albanese, 2008).
Technology can also have a physical impact on librarians. Librarianship typically doesn’t involve a lot of physical activity. Technology can add to this problem by increasing the time librarians spend doing sedentary activities such as sitting at the computer. It can also lead to things such as back problems. As Suzanne DeLong describes it: “Many of the activities librarians do--working at a computer terminal, listening carefully to others, looking at printed materials on a desk or countertop, looking carefully at an object on a shelf or wall poster--are conducive to poor posture in the neck and upper back” (DeLong, 1995). This poor posture can create back problems and neck problems. Sitting at a computer too long can also lead to eye strain. According to an article by Jim Young, up to 80% of computer users report suffering from some eye strain or eye fatigue(Young, 1996). These problems can be helped by making sure to stay active as much as possible, as well as keeping an eye on posture and how close you are sitting to the computer.
It is clear that technology has had a big effect on what librarians do every day. It has had both positive and negative psychological effects on librarians, as well as certain physical effects. Here are some questions to consider:
Has technology overall made librarianship easier or harder? Why?
How is technology going to impact librarians’ day to day activities in the future?
As technology continues to develop, what are some ways we can keep up with it?
What are some ways we can minimize the negative psychological and physical effects of technology, and increase the positive effects?
Works cited
Albanese, A. (2008). Take this job and love it. Library Journal , 2 (133), 36-39.
BeggDeGroff, A. (2008). Using open source to give patrons what they want. Computers in Libraries , 28 (3), 6-10.
DeLong, S. (1995). Don't stick your neck out, librarian. American Libraries , 26 (7), 694-696.
Siggins, J. (1992). Job satisfaction and performance in a changing environment. Library Trends , 41 (2), 299-316.
Young, J. (1996). Your guide to safe computing. Electronic Learning , 16 (2), 42-45.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Technology’s Effects on Intellectual Freedom: Access to Information
In times gone by, before the advent of online data and search engines, libraries had more cut and dried access policies. A patron had access to literally every document within the libraries collection or reach, via ILL. Today, much of a library’s holdings are in the form of online databases or available on the wider internet. However, these increased holdings haven’t come without their own unique problems of implementation.
For many reasons, libraries today have limited access to both online resources. In his article entitled “Cluck, Cluck” Joseph Janes points out a profound effect technology has had on librarians, “The truly icky things it that filters have become the de facto collection managers in this scenario.”[1] Janes is speaking about a particular case in Rochester and Monroe County, New York where the County Executive threatened to pull a library’s funding if the library would not install filtering software. As requested by County Executive Brooks, the library caved and installed filters to prevent access to “all pornographic sites.”[2] It remains to be seen what the computer software will construe to be pornographic. Janes furthers his argument, criticizing the fact that “In effect [County Executive] Brooks is saying she trusts that software- designed by people she neither pays nor represents- more than the library staff or clientele.”[3] Janes specifically dislikes that the internet was considered to be a technology issue rather than a collections development issue. This situation displays the perversion of normal library functioning when filtering devices are put in place.
Michael Gorman, in his article “Technostress and Library Values” makes another good point about the effects of such a voluminous addition to a library’s collection. He argues that databases and the vast resources of the internet are wonderful gifts but that they alter the traditional roles of librarians and patrons. His concern is that the possibilities posed by monitoring or steering patrons by staff or policy can be maligned if not carefully measured. He wrote, “We lack the invaluable control mechanisms of publishers in the world of the net and the web. This means that many of the decisions are shifted to librarians and the end user. Though not necessarily a bad thing, that transfer of responsibility means that librarians must confront intellectual freedom issues far more often than before.”[4] It seems, to paraphrase Gorman, that the same gift of valuable information has come with an increase in the number of influences applied before the patron receives their requested information. Influence from unvetted internet resources, library access policy, and the individual skill and intent of assisting librarians have all increased in a professional interaction.
Contemporary technology has, no doubt, been the single biggest benefit to the mission of library science since the adoption of the public library system in this country. However it poses its own unique problems of implementation. In some cases, technological resources such as databases are held as being separate from collections development issues, as in the case of the Rochester and Monroe County, New York Incident Described by J. Janes. This separation led to real curtailment of use for the patrons. The sheer quantity of information that has recently become available has also affected the roles of librarian and patron as described by M. Gorman. These two authors show that recently technology has made a profound impact on the mission of library science to the point of affecting intellectual freedom of the patron.
Sources:
Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library values, Library Journal, 126, no. 7, 48-
50.
Janes, J. (2007). Cluck, Cluck. American Librarian, 38, no. 9, 49.
[1] Janes, J. (2007). Cluck, Cluck. American Librarian, 38, no. 9, 49.
[2] Ibidem
[3] Ibidem
[4] Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library values, Library Journal, 126, no. 7, 50.
For many reasons, libraries today have limited access to both online resources. In his article entitled “Cluck, Cluck” Joseph Janes points out a profound effect technology has had on librarians, “The truly icky things it that filters have become the de facto collection managers in this scenario.”[1] Janes is speaking about a particular case in Rochester and Monroe County, New York where the County Executive threatened to pull a library’s funding if the library would not install filtering software. As requested by County Executive Brooks, the library caved and installed filters to prevent access to “all pornographic sites.”[2] It remains to be seen what the computer software will construe to be pornographic. Janes furthers his argument, criticizing the fact that “In effect [County Executive] Brooks is saying she trusts that software- designed by people she neither pays nor represents- more than the library staff or clientele.”[3] Janes specifically dislikes that the internet was considered to be a technology issue rather than a collections development issue. This situation displays the perversion of normal library functioning when filtering devices are put in place.
Michael Gorman, in his article “Technostress and Library Values” makes another good point about the effects of such a voluminous addition to a library’s collection. He argues that databases and the vast resources of the internet are wonderful gifts but that they alter the traditional roles of librarians and patrons. His concern is that the possibilities posed by monitoring or steering patrons by staff or policy can be maligned if not carefully measured. He wrote, “We lack the invaluable control mechanisms of publishers in the world of the net and the web. This means that many of the decisions are shifted to librarians and the end user. Though not necessarily a bad thing, that transfer of responsibility means that librarians must confront intellectual freedom issues far more often than before.”[4] It seems, to paraphrase Gorman, that the same gift of valuable information has come with an increase in the number of influences applied before the patron receives their requested information. Influence from unvetted internet resources, library access policy, and the individual skill and intent of assisting librarians have all increased in a professional interaction.
Contemporary technology has, no doubt, been the single biggest benefit to the mission of library science since the adoption of the public library system in this country. However it poses its own unique problems of implementation. In some cases, technological resources such as databases are held as being separate from collections development issues, as in the case of the Rochester and Monroe County, New York Incident Described by J. Janes. This separation led to real curtailment of use for the patrons. The sheer quantity of information that has recently become available has also affected the roles of librarian and patron as described by M. Gorman. These two authors show that recently technology has made a profound impact on the mission of library science to the point of affecting intellectual freedom of the patron.
Sources:
Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library values, Library Journal, 126, no. 7, 48-
50.
Janes, J. (2007). Cluck, Cluck. American Librarian, 38, no. 9, 49.
[1] Janes, J. (2007). Cluck, Cluck. American Librarian, 38, no. 9, 49.
[2] Ibidem
[3] Ibidem
[4] Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library values, Library Journal, 126, no. 7, 50.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Impact of Technology on Ethics in the Library Profession
As we have all come to realize during the course of this semester, ethics are at the very core of responsible librarianship. There really is no question that ethics permeate every aspect of the library profession. Likewise, we can all be in agreement that technological advances have changed the nature of the library profession. The real question we are faced with is how has technology affected ethics of the library profession? Or has it?
The question of how technology has influenced ethics in the library profession is a very complex one. Not only do you have a general debate between opposing sides as to whether or not technology has had a significant impact on ethics, but you also have consider all the different areas that are affected by the advancement of technology, such as right to access, patron privacy issues, internet use, material selection, etc. It is a tangled web that leaves your head spinning.
Richard Hauptman is a firm believer that technology has not had an impact on the ethics of librarianship. In his article “Technological Implementations and Ethical Failures,” he makes the argument that “it is obvious that the discovery and applications of new technologies change the ways in which we accomplish things. But universal human values remain amazingly constant. Thus, despite the pleas of scholars such as Hans Jonas (1982) or Duncan Langford (1999), who insist that recent technologies are so different in kind from their forebears that we require new ethics to cope with them, we can continue to apply traditional ethical principles and considerations to contemporary situations and realize positive results” (Hauptman, 2001). Don Fallis, though less assertive than Hauptman about the impact of technology, recognizes too, that it’s not so much a matter of technology changing the ethical model, but rather adapting to the changes and focusing more on the preexisting ethical dilemmas in general. He does recognize that some of the ethical issues faced by librarians are as a result of changing technology, but in general he believes that “even those ethical dilemmas that do involve new information technology (e.g. whether to use internet filters) are clearly special cases of much broader issues in information ethics (e.g. intellectual freedom). Thus, even for twenty-first century library professionals, the ethics of information technology is only a small part of information ethics” (Fallis, 2007).
On the other hand, there are those that feel technology has had an impact on the ethics of librarianship. New challenges caused by technology require librarians to adapt and perhaps revise old ethical standards. The evolution of the virtual library became uncharted territory for librarians. Jan T. Orick believes that “the information revolution and the pervasive thinking that everything is available on the Web have created new challenges to these traditional professional ethics” (Orick, 2000). So not only are librarians faced with the traditional ethical conflicts, they now have new challenges associated with the technological side of the profession, such as filtering, providing dependable access to electronic resources, maintaining anonymity of patrons using electronic resources, issues regarding licensing, and protecting the integrity of the information that the library provides via the electronic resources.
One of the major areas technology creates challenges is with access. Orick feels that the explosion of information that is found on the internet directly challenges the traditional American Library Association code of ethics that we have all become familiar with. Now librarians are faced with ethical dilemmas regarding filtering software or restrictive policies regarding the internet use. The Internet has also forced librarians into the role of “gatekeeper.” K. Coyle notes that “most libraries don’t select hard core porn, but it will be part of their offerings when they link to the Internet (Cottrell, 1999). Librarians, in part, have to assume responsibility for the information obtained by the electronic resources their library provides. The goal is always to provide the best information to patrons, but how can a library do that when there are so many less than quality resources available at the click of a mouse? “The globalization of information has led to a lack of control of the quality of content” (Orick, 2000). On the other hand though, applying filters and abiding by Internet policies directly challenges the upheld ethic that librarians must provide equal access to all users.
Internet use and protecting patron privacy tie in very closely with the issue of access and the challenges librarians face. Protecting patrons privacy is clearly not a new concept, but have technological advancements and internet use changed the way in which librarians effectively deal with these challenges? According to Janet Cottrell, “privacy and confidentiality have always been crucial issues in librarianship, but technology may exacerbate risks to privacy and confidentiality, resulting in new responsibilities (Cottrell, 1999). Though librarians do their best to ensure patron’s privacy is not compromised, Cottrell points out that librarians cannot “hand hold” a patron through their entire Internet usage. Patrons might put themselves at risk by entering personal information in the computer-an act that even librarians cannot control. There is no guarantee that this information is kept confidential given the nature of the Internet. Similarly, a patron’s privacy can be compromised when other patrons in the library simply walk past the computer being used! It is crucial that librarians educate the patrons in privacy issues and smart computer usage, however, at some point the patrons do need to be held accountable. Regardless, this does create new challenges for a librarian as we strive to meet the needs, yet protect privacy, of our patrons.
The question I ask of you then is the very question I started with. Have technological advancements created new ethical challenges for those in the library profession? Or are the preexisting ethical dilemmas still at the core of librarianship regardless of the format of resources librarians now use? If you believe technology has significantly altered ethics of the profession, what area do you believe is affected the most? (i.e. patron privacy, access, collection development, etc).
Work cited:
Cottrell, J. R. Ethics in an age of changing technology: familiar territory or new frontiers?. Library Hi Tech v. 17 no. 1 (1999) p. 107-13.
Fallis, D. Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals [Bibliographical essay]. Library Hi Tech v. 25 no. 1 (2007) p. 23-36.
Hauptman, R. Technological implementations and ethical failures. Library Trends v. 49 no. 3 (Winter 2001) p. 433-40.
Orick, J. T. The virtual library: changing roles and ethical challenges for librarians [presented at the symposium Ethics of Electronic Information in the 21st Century, Memphis, Tennessee]. International Information & Library Review v. 32 no. 3/4 (September/December 2000) p. 313-24.
The question of how technology has influenced ethics in the library profession is a very complex one. Not only do you have a general debate between opposing sides as to whether or not technology has had a significant impact on ethics, but you also have consider all the different areas that are affected by the advancement of technology, such as right to access, patron privacy issues, internet use, material selection, etc. It is a tangled web that leaves your head spinning.
Richard Hauptman is a firm believer that technology has not had an impact on the ethics of librarianship. In his article “Technological Implementations and Ethical Failures,” he makes the argument that “it is obvious that the discovery and applications of new technologies change the ways in which we accomplish things. But universal human values remain amazingly constant. Thus, despite the pleas of scholars such as Hans Jonas (1982) or Duncan Langford (1999), who insist that recent technologies are so different in kind from their forebears that we require new ethics to cope with them, we can continue to apply traditional ethical principles and considerations to contemporary situations and realize positive results” (Hauptman, 2001). Don Fallis, though less assertive than Hauptman about the impact of technology, recognizes too, that it’s not so much a matter of technology changing the ethical model, but rather adapting to the changes and focusing more on the preexisting ethical dilemmas in general. He does recognize that some of the ethical issues faced by librarians are as a result of changing technology, but in general he believes that “even those ethical dilemmas that do involve new information technology (e.g. whether to use internet filters) are clearly special cases of much broader issues in information ethics (e.g. intellectual freedom). Thus, even for twenty-first century library professionals, the ethics of information technology is only a small part of information ethics” (Fallis, 2007).
On the other hand, there are those that feel technology has had an impact on the ethics of librarianship. New challenges caused by technology require librarians to adapt and perhaps revise old ethical standards. The evolution of the virtual library became uncharted territory for librarians. Jan T. Orick believes that “the information revolution and the pervasive thinking that everything is available on the Web have created new challenges to these traditional professional ethics” (Orick, 2000). So not only are librarians faced with the traditional ethical conflicts, they now have new challenges associated with the technological side of the profession, such as filtering, providing dependable access to electronic resources, maintaining anonymity of patrons using electronic resources, issues regarding licensing, and protecting the integrity of the information that the library provides via the electronic resources.
One of the major areas technology creates challenges is with access. Orick feels that the explosion of information that is found on the internet directly challenges the traditional American Library Association code of ethics that we have all become familiar with. Now librarians are faced with ethical dilemmas regarding filtering software or restrictive policies regarding the internet use. The Internet has also forced librarians into the role of “gatekeeper.” K. Coyle notes that “most libraries don’t select hard core porn, but it will be part of their offerings when they link to the Internet (Cottrell, 1999). Librarians, in part, have to assume responsibility for the information obtained by the electronic resources their library provides. The goal is always to provide the best information to patrons, but how can a library do that when there are so many less than quality resources available at the click of a mouse? “The globalization of information has led to a lack of control of the quality of content” (Orick, 2000). On the other hand though, applying filters and abiding by Internet policies directly challenges the upheld ethic that librarians must provide equal access to all users.
Internet use and protecting patron privacy tie in very closely with the issue of access and the challenges librarians face. Protecting patrons privacy is clearly not a new concept, but have technological advancements and internet use changed the way in which librarians effectively deal with these challenges? According to Janet Cottrell, “privacy and confidentiality have always been crucial issues in librarianship, but technology may exacerbate risks to privacy and confidentiality, resulting in new responsibilities (Cottrell, 1999). Though librarians do their best to ensure patron’s privacy is not compromised, Cottrell points out that librarians cannot “hand hold” a patron through their entire Internet usage. Patrons might put themselves at risk by entering personal information in the computer-an act that even librarians cannot control. There is no guarantee that this information is kept confidential given the nature of the Internet. Similarly, a patron’s privacy can be compromised when other patrons in the library simply walk past the computer being used! It is crucial that librarians educate the patrons in privacy issues and smart computer usage, however, at some point the patrons do need to be held accountable. Regardless, this does create new challenges for a librarian as we strive to meet the needs, yet protect privacy, of our patrons.
The question I ask of you then is the very question I started with. Have technological advancements created new ethical challenges for those in the library profession? Or are the preexisting ethical dilemmas still at the core of librarianship regardless of the format of resources librarians now use? If you believe technology has significantly altered ethics of the profession, what area do you believe is affected the most? (i.e. patron privacy, access, collection development, etc).
Work cited:
Cottrell, J. R. Ethics in an age of changing technology: familiar territory or new frontiers?. Library Hi Tech v. 17 no. 1 (1999) p. 107-13.
Fallis, D. Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals [Bibliographical essay]. Library Hi Tech v. 25 no. 1 (2007) p. 23-36.
Hauptman, R. Technological implementations and ethical failures. Library Trends v. 49 no. 3 (Winter 2001) p. 433-40.
Orick, J. T. The virtual library: changing roles and ethical challenges for librarians [presented at the symposium Ethics of Electronic Information in the 21st Century, Memphis, Tennessee]. International Information & Library Review v. 32 no. 3/4 (September/December 2000) p. 313-24.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
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.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)