Head of S.F.'s Library Resigns Under Pressure (fw

[Earl Young]

     Copyright law is being hotly debated these days here in Washington.  
     The various interest groups are circling warily - each trying to 
     maximize its individual advantage - and the process is neither tidy or 
     real pleasant to watch.  It has all the elements of an action movie - 
     greed, lust, avarice, but no car chases.  People with opinions need to 
     make them known now - send email to your representatives, and 
     encourage others to do the same - because the discussion of how to 
     change the law is well underway.  This is a more reasonable approach 
     than just rippping off a file from a Web site.  Stealing will drive 
     the providers to password everything, just as it causes drivers to 
     hide their stereos when they park.  In this case, posting the article 
     didn't make something available that would otherwise have remained 
     hidden - there was no information "yearning to be free."  It was 
     already free - but it did require someone to click on a URL.  Some can 
     argue that since it's available it really isn't stealing.  Others - 
     and this is my take - is that since it is on the Web, it wasn't 
     necessary to steal it.  The law is clear.  Distribution (adjusted for 
     fair-use) without permission is illegal.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Re[3]: Head of S.F.'s Library Resigns Under Pressure (fw
Author:  SCHNEIDER.KAREN at epamail.epa.gov at INTERNET
Date:    1/24/97 8:57 AM


First of all, copyright law is not a matter of "personal ethical 
opinion," any more than the decision not to thump people over 
the heads with clubs is.  If you think the law needs to be 
changed--and most people agree copyright law needs
reevaluation and modification in light of new media--it's up to you to 
get involved in the activities directed toward examining and changing 
it; that is a very good activity for professionals.  But one of the 
concepts that won't disappear, I am hazarding, is that of the right of 
authors/producers to exercise some control the destiny of their 
products.  If this is "gatekeeping," so be it.  I bet you "gatekeep" 
your paycheck at the end of the week--or do you
walk down the street with greenbacks hanging out of your 
pockets, caroling "librarianship wants to be free, so help 
yourself?"
     
Second, the provider of the original message made it very clear 
to me, when I asked, what his wishes were. It pains me to see 
people be so disrespectful of other people's wishes--law or not. 
A copyright notice is a big heads-up that people DON'T want you 
copying their material outside of the personal-use guidelines. 
These are things we used to learn in library school. 
     
Ironically, many folks are generous with sharing information if 
you *ask.*  This is what I tell my students--when in doubt, *ask.* 
I have been one of the folks known for "giving things away for 
free," to quote a skeptical friend.  But I'd be upset to see 
something I produce to *make a living* distributed in a way that 
compromised my ability to earn a livelihood from it.  For that
matter, my editor and the publishers are entitled to a living.  They 
are not draconian imperialists out to suck dry the coffers of noble 
Americans, but nice people who do pretty good work producing
books of value.  Even if we don't make any money off what we're 
doing, we have personal rights that aphorism draped in the third 
person singular can mask. 
     
Finally, it's very easy to have a discussion about information 
wanting to be free (as if information wanted anything at all) as 
long as you don't discuss the individuals involved. One thing 
very evident in the early 'net days was that everyone knew 
everyone else.  People knew the magic words--"please" and
"thank you"--and didn't begrudge folks like Ed Krol when he 
publshed a commercial book on the Internet by an unknown 
publisher called O'Reilly, which we all went out and bought. I 
remember everyone chatting it up on Panix, a NYC provider.  
Had it been a commercial website and he had asked for payment
(which wasn't practical in those days), I'd like to think that crowd 
would have gladly paid Ed for his contribution.  I'd like to think 
that crowd would still do that, today.
     
Karen G. Schneider/schneider.karen at epamail.epa.gov 
Contractor, GCI/Director, US EPA Region 2 Library 
http://www.epa.gov/Region2/library/