Are you thinking of studying next year? There are have been some recent changes to the MLIS programme that might effect your decision making. As part of the LIANZA conference some of us went along to a meeting to discuss these changes with Brenda Chawner, one of the lecturers from Victoria University. It wasn’t a very well attended session to be honest, but did give the current students chance to air their views and be re-assured by Brenda on the choices they make over the next few months that will effect their degree.
Currently, the MLIS runs as a one year, full time course, of 10 papers and a research project. If you are working in Christchurch, then you can study 1 or 2 papers at a time and take between 2 and 4 years to complete. As of next year the emphasise of the course will change slightly. Following the lead from other countries Victoria have decided to drop the word ‘Library’ from their Masters Degree, and will instead be offering a MIS – Masters of Information Studies. If you follow the same core subjects as the current MLIS degree you can graduate with a MIS (LIBS) – a Master of Information with a Library Studies endorsement. With a slightly different set of core papers you can also get an Archives and Records endorsement (ARCR).
If the whole idea of 4 years of part-time study is too much, Victoria have also introduced two other qualifications: a Postgraduate Diploma and a Postgraduate Certificate in Information Studies. The Diploma takes 8 papers and the Certificate takes 4 papers to complete and again, depending on your choices can have the endorsements LIBS or ARCR after them.
Victoria have been working with LIANZA as well, and the core content of the MIS (LIBS) reflects the body of knowledge that is needed to become a Registered member of LIANZA. There is no word yet where the diploma or certificate sit in relation to registration, but Lianza are currently looking at it.For more information do visit the School of Information Management website.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Un-conference day
Tuesday was filled with participation. “Getting people on-side: making allies to support your innovation” presented by Deborah Fitchett, was a workshop to brainstorm ways of realizing ideas, achieving goals, and generally gaining support in our workplaces. Some of the ideas that came through in the session include: taking advantage of those precious moments that we are face to face with our managers, engaging with colleagues to gain kindred spirits, and resolving miscommunications in person. There were a lot of ideas flying so Deborah is developing a website with the collection of suggestions that came about in this un-conference session (#1). I will post this as soon as I get the link for all to enjoy.
Joanne Smith’s presentation “Revitalising libraries for the self-serve generation” was reaffirming. Joanne’s research presented ways in which libraries are preparing themselves for a new set of needs and customers. I sat happily in the session realizing that Christchurch City Libraries already does almost all of the things she suggested implementing for the next generation. Impressive!
how do we make staff meetings more creative?
I might be bias, but “What would you do? Developing and sharing creative solutions”, a pecha kucha-style, unconference-like session (#2!) was the highlight of the day. Paul Sutherland and Elizabeth Whyte were our fearless coordinators. Several LIANZA delegates took the stage with some things they wanted to discuss, providing an opportunity for anyone to present. The questions were revealed in just a few short minutes and everyone sat together to develop solution. Some of the content of the session:
Q: Suggestion boxes, A: Answer feedback and make it public
Q: What would you do about disruptive youth in the library (Kate Ogden’s questions), A: Well, at least we have their attention!
Q: Having more dynamic creative staff meetings, A: Have 10 minute standing meeting, have 1 meeting with an agenda and 1 without, take on the un philosophy.
Q: What’s more important? the food, the service or the menu,
Joanne Smith’s presentation “Revitalising libraries for the self-serve generation” was reaffirming. Joanne’s research presented ways in which libraries are preparing themselves for a new set of needs and customers. I sat happily in the session realizing that Christchurch City Libraries already does almost all of the things she suggested implementing for the next generation. Impressive!
how do we make staff meetings more creative?
I might be bias, but “What would you do? Developing and sharing creative solutions”, a pecha kucha-style, unconference-like session (#2!) was the highlight of the day. Paul Sutherland and Elizabeth Whyte were our fearless coordinators. Several LIANZA delegates took the stage with some things they wanted to discuss, providing an opportunity for anyone to present. The questions were revealed in just a few short minutes and everyone sat together to develop solution. Some of the content of the session:
Q: Suggestion boxes, A: Answer feedback and make it public
Q: What would you do about disruptive youth in the library (Kate Ogden’s questions), A: Well, at least we have their attention!
Q: Having more dynamic creative staff meetings, A: Have 10 minute standing meeting, have 1 meeting with an agenda and 1 without, take on the un philosophy.
Q: What’s more important? the food, the service or the menu,
A: Customer service is the most important, the customer doesn’t always know what they want.
Paul and Elizabeth un-presenting
Thanks Paul and Elizabeth for an awesome, and yes “refreshing” (as was quoted by someone at the end) session.
It really was a fascinating un day. I suspect to see more of these kinds of sessions based on how incredibly popular and useful they were.
Paul and Elizabeth un-presenting
Thanks Paul and Elizabeth for an awesome, and yes “refreshing” (as was quoted by someone at the end) session.
It really was a fascinating un day. I suspect to see more of these kinds of sessions based on how incredibly popular and useful they were.
Should libraries have ebooks?
After a discussion n ebooks and copyright with Nat Torkington he refered me to
http://activitypress.com/2009/04/22/should-libraries-have-ebooks-im-not-sure-they-should/
The NZ$100 million upgrade to New Zealand’s National Library building has prompted debate about whether it’s money well spent. The latest contribution to this debate from the New Zealand Herald’s Brian Rudman suggests that the money would be better spent digitising the library’s collection so it’s available to everyone, not just tourists and residents of Wellington.
This raises an important question for the book industry. Should libraries be able to lend ebooks? Right now, the libraries are focusing on digitising out-of-copyright works or material that falls outside of copyright such as historical documents. This sort of material, 50 or more years old, is mainly of interest to researchers. The general public’s idea of a library is more closely associated with borrowing commercially-available, new and recent books. This is no doubt what Rudman had mostly in mind with his suggestion.
There are several problems with letting libraries lend ebooks, but there are also opportunities that could be a big help to our emerging digital publishing industry. It’s worth looking at both sides. First, some of the potential problems.
If a library buys an ebook, how many times can it lend this ebook and under what terms? With a paper book, there is no limit to the number of times a single copy of a book can be loaned. The main constraint currently is the physical availability of the book — if another borrower has it, you can’t get it until it’s returned.
Notwithstanding the recent passing of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Act 2008 to partially compensate New Zealand authors, the library can continue to lend that single copy without any further payment for the book to the publisher, international authors, or other rights holders.
If the paper book is replaced by an ebook and that ebook is just a click away — no need to drive to the local library to borrow and return the book — it’s probable that borrowing from libraries will see a surge in popularity, especially if it’s free or a nominal fee. Terrific for literacy, educational improvement and many of the cultural benefits that accrue from books. But how can this be reconciled with the need for a commercial industry of publishers, booksellers and others who will have much more to fear from libraries when technology brings the local library to every home and mobile phone.
So, given the potential problems, let’s look at some possible solutions.
The National Library of New Zealand, Wellington
One solution is simply to keep ebooks out of libraries, other than for archival purposes. This is an option that the industry should give serious consideration to. After all, in this digital age, is there really any public good justification for making vast numbers of books available free, in an instant, especially when it has the perverse consequence of undermining the viability of the book industry (and other media such as magazines and perhaps newspapers if libraries go down this path)?
If there are sectors of society that, say for financial reasons, could not buy books, it would make more sense for the taxpayer and ratepayer to subsidise their book purchases than to pay for an expensive library system whose main purpose is to give the books away. Publishers, authors and booksellers would be better off, and so arguably would the public, including those most disadvantaged.
Another option is to severely restrict the terms under which ebooks are supplied to libraries to minimise the harm that can be caused. Examples would be to restrict concurrent loans, limit the number of times a book can be loaned out, and specify devices it can be read with and/or places it can be read. This is one area where DRM could be justified since it’s not just preventing copying, but enforcing a range of terms. Of course, it might seem odd or even pointless that you’d still have have to drive to a library to read an ebook.
On the payment front, instead of a one-time purchase at standard (usually discounted) retail rates, publishers could be reimbursed on a per loan basis, or via a much higher initial purchase price. If this happened sooner rather than later, libraries could, in fact, play a big role in developing the digital reading habit and financing a large part of the commercial sector’s early digitisation needs.
But if terms imposed on libraries were too lax — for instance by allowing a low cost or a large number of times that libraries could lend a book — then commercial booksellers would be undermined, an undesirable consequence regardless of whether or not publishers and authors are fairly compensated. The library sector, as a heavily subsidised competitor, may need competition regulations placed on it.
So, measures such as these could work to reduce the potential harm digital library lending could cause. But would this be reason enough to allow libraries to perform a similar role in the digital world that they perform today with paper? If they have to be so severely restricted, shouldn’t we just drop them completely? There will be plenty of commercial options to fill the gap.
My own feeling is that the lending library, except for specialist research and archival libraries, probably has no place in the emerging digital world. What public benefit would arise from maintaining an expensive digital library system when access to New Zealand’s, and the world’s, books and knowledge is so ubiquitous? Keep the specialised research and archival functions, the role of major libraries since the great Library of Alexandria. But that should be its sole digital function.
http://activitypress.com/2009/04/22/should-libraries-have-ebooks-im-not-sure-they-should/
The NZ$100 million upgrade to New Zealand’s National Library building has prompted debate about whether it’s money well spent. The latest contribution to this debate from the New Zealand Herald’s Brian Rudman suggests that the money would be better spent digitising the library’s collection so it’s available to everyone, not just tourists and residents of Wellington.
This raises an important question for the book industry. Should libraries be able to lend ebooks? Right now, the libraries are focusing on digitising out-of-copyright works or material that falls outside of copyright such as historical documents. This sort of material, 50 or more years old, is mainly of interest to researchers. The general public’s idea of a library is more closely associated with borrowing commercially-available, new and recent books. This is no doubt what Rudman had mostly in mind with his suggestion.
There are several problems with letting libraries lend ebooks, but there are also opportunities that could be a big help to our emerging digital publishing industry. It’s worth looking at both sides. First, some of the potential problems.
If a library buys an ebook, how many times can it lend this ebook and under what terms? With a paper book, there is no limit to the number of times a single copy of a book can be loaned. The main constraint currently is the physical availability of the book — if another borrower has it, you can’t get it until it’s returned.
Notwithstanding the recent passing of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Act 2008 to partially compensate New Zealand authors, the library can continue to lend that single copy without any further payment for the book to the publisher, international authors, or other rights holders.
If the paper book is replaced by an ebook and that ebook is just a click away — no need to drive to the local library to borrow and return the book — it’s probable that borrowing from libraries will see a surge in popularity, especially if it’s free or a nominal fee. Terrific for literacy, educational improvement and many of the cultural benefits that accrue from books. But how can this be reconciled with the need for a commercial industry of publishers, booksellers and others who will have much more to fear from libraries when technology brings the local library to every home and mobile phone.
So, given the potential problems, let’s look at some possible solutions.
The National Library of New Zealand, Wellington
One solution is simply to keep ebooks out of libraries, other than for archival purposes. This is an option that the industry should give serious consideration to. After all, in this digital age, is there really any public good justification for making vast numbers of books available free, in an instant, especially when it has the perverse consequence of undermining the viability of the book industry (and other media such as magazines and perhaps newspapers if libraries go down this path)?
If there are sectors of society that, say for financial reasons, could not buy books, it would make more sense for the taxpayer and ratepayer to subsidise their book purchases than to pay for an expensive library system whose main purpose is to give the books away. Publishers, authors and booksellers would be better off, and so arguably would the public, including those most disadvantaged.
Another option is to severely restrict the terms under which ebooks are supplied to libraries to minimise the harm that can be caused. Examples would be to restrict concurrent loans, limit the number of times a book can be loaned out, and specify devices it can be read with and/or places it can be read. This is one area where DRM could be justified since it’s not just preventing copying, but enforcing a range of terms. Of course, it might seem odd or even pointless that you’d still have have to drive to a library to read an ebook.
On the payment front, instead of a one-time purchase at standard (usually discounted) retail rates, publishers could be reimbursed on a per loan basis, or via a much higher initial purchase price. If this happened sooner rather than later, libraries could, in fact, play a big role in developing the digital reading habit and financing a large part of the commercial sector’s early digitisation needs.
But if terms imposed on libraries were too lax — for instance by allowing a low cost or a large number of times that libraries could lend a book — then commercial booksellers would be undermined, an undesirable consequence regardless of whether or not publishers and authors are fairly compensated. The library sector, as a heavily subsidised competitor, may need competition regulations placed on it.
So, measures such as these could work to reduce the potential harm digital library lending could cause. But would this be reason enough to allow libraries to perform a similar role in the digital world that they perform today with paper? If they have to be so severely restricted, shouldn’t we just drop them completely? There will be plenty of commercial options to fill the gap.
My own feeling is that the lending library, except for specialist research and archival libraries, probably has no place in the emerging digital world. What public benefit would arise from maintaining an expensive digital library system when access to New Zealand’s, and the world’s, books and knowledge is so ubiquitous? Keep the specialised research and archival functions, the role of major libraries since the great Library of Alexandria. But that should be its sole digital function.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
ITSIG WorkShop LIANZA Conference 2009
2009 Workshop at LIANZA conference, Tuesday 14th October, with brief presentations from Peter Kennedy, Assistant Manager, Library IT, University of Canterbury Library, on converting a staff intranet to a wiki, Paul Hayton, Electronic Services Coordinator, Dunedin Public Library, on Web 2.0 at Dunedin Public Library and what amazing things you can do with web 2.0 Blogs, Pods Wiki, Flickr and More and Finally, and Paul Sutherland, Digital Innovation Librarian, Christchurch City Libraries, on Life in Flickr, another inspiring innovating presentation.
Richard Stallman full transcript - Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks
This is not a talk about free software; this talk answers the question whether the ideas of free software extend to other kinds of works. But in order for that to make sense, I'd better tell you briefly what free software means.
Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech”, not “free beer”. Free software is software that respects the user's freedom, and there are four specific freedoms that the user deserves always to have.
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do what you wish.
Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbour; that is, the freedom to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you wish.
And Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That's the freedom to publish your modified versions when you wish.
If the program gives you these four freedoms then it's free software, which means the social system of its distribution and use is an ethical system, one which respects the user's freedom and the social solidarity of the user's community. But if one of these freedoms is missing or insufficient, then it's proprietary software, nonfree software, user-subjugating software. It's unethical. It's not a contribution to society, it's a power grab. This unethical practice should not exist; the goal of the free software movement is to put an end to it. All software should be free, so that all users can be free.
Proprietary software keeps the users divided and helpless: divided, because they're forbidden to share it, and helpless, because they don't have the source code so they can't change it. They can't even study it to verify what it's really doing to them, and many proprietary programs have malicious features which spy on the user, restrict the user, even back doors to attack the user.
For instance, Microsoft Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can forcibly install software changes, without getting permission from the supposed owner of the computer. You may think it's your computer, but if you've made the mistake of having Windows running in it, then really Microsoft has owned your computer. Computers need to be defenestrated, which means either throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the computer out the window.
But any proprietary software gives the developers unjust power over the users. Some of the developers abuse this power more, and some abuse it less, but none of them ought to have it. You deserve to have control of your computing, and not be forcibly dependent on a particular company. So you deserve free software.
At the end of speeches about free software, people sometimes ask whether these same freedoms and ideas apply to other things. If you have a copy of a published work on your computer, it makes sense to ask whether you should have the same four freedoms—whether it's ethically essential that you have them or not. And that's the question that I'm going to address today.
If you have a copy of something that's not software, for the most part, the only thing that might deny you any of these freedoms is copyright law. With software that's not so. The main ways of making software non-free are contracts and withholding the source code from the users. Copyright is a sort of secondary, back up method. For other things there's no such distinction as between source code and executable code.
For instance, if we're talking about a text, if you can see the text to read it, there's nothing in the text that you can't see. So it's not the same kind of issue exactly as software. It's for the most part only copyright that might deny you these freedoms.
So the question can be restated: “What should copyright law allow you to do with published works? What should copyright law say?”
Copyright has developed along with copying technology, so it's useful to review the history of copying technology. Copying developed in the ancient world, where you'd use a writing instrument on a writing surface. You'd read one copy and write another.
This technology was rather inefficient, but another interesting characteristic was that it had no economy of scale. To write ten copies would take ten times as long as to write one copy. It required no special equipment other than the equipment for writing, and it required no special skill other than literacy itself. The result was that copies of any particular book were made in a decentralized manner. Wherever there was a copy, if someone wanted to copy it, he could.
There was nothing like copyright in the ancient world. If you had a copy and wanted to copy it, nobody was going to tell you you weren't allowed—except if the local prince didn't like what the book said, in which case he might punish you for copying it. But that's not copyright, but rather something closely related, namely censorship. To this day, copyright is often used in attempts to censor people.
That went on for thousands of years, but then there was a big advance in copying technology, namely the printing press. The printing press made copying more efficient, but not uniformly. [This was] because mass production copying became a lot more efficient, but making one copy at a time didn't benefit from the printing press. In fact, you were better off just writing it by hand; that would be faster than trying to print one copy.
The printing press has an economy of scale: it takes a lot of work to set the type, but then you can make many copies very fast. Also, the printing press and the type were expensive equipment that most people didn't own; and the ability to use them, most literate people didn't know. Using a press was a different skill from writing. The result was a centralized manner of producing copies: the copies of any given book would be made in a few places, and then they would be transported to wherever someone wanted to buy copies.
Copyright began in the age of the printing press. Copyright in England began as a system of censorship in the 1500s. I believe it was originally meant to censor Protestants, but it was turned around and used to censor Catholics and presumably lots of others as well. According to this law, in order to publish a book you had to get permission from the Crown, and this permission was granted in the form of a perpetual monopoly to publish it. This was allowed to lapse in the 1680s, I believe [it expired in 1695 according to the Wikipedia entry]. The publishers wanted it back again, but what they got was something somewhat different. The Statute of Anne gave authors a copyright, and only for 14 years, although the author could renew it once.
This was a totally different idea—a temporary monopoly for the author, instead of a perpetual monopoly for the publisher. The idea developed that copyright was a means of promoting writing.
When the US constitution was written, some people wanted authors to be entitled to a copyright, but that was rejected. Instead, the US Constitution says that Congress can optionally adopt a copyright law, and if there is a copyright law, its purpose is to promote progress. In other words, the purpose is not benefits for copyright holders or anybody they do business with, but for the general public. Copyright has to last a limited time; publishers keep hoping for us to forget about this.
Here we have an idea of copyright which is an industrial regulation on publishers, controlled by authors, and designed to provide benefits to the public at large. It functioned this way because it didn't restrict the readers.
Now in the early centuries of printing, and still I believe in the 1790s, lots of readers wrote copies by hand because they couldn't afford printed copies. Nobody ever expected copyright law to be something other than an industrial regulation. It wasn't meant to stop people from writing copies, it was meant to regulate the publishers. Because of this it was easy to enforce, uncontroversial, and arguably beneficial for society.
It was easy to enforce, because it only had to be enforced against publishers. And it's easy to find the unauthorized publishers of a book—you go to a bookstore and say “where do these copies come from?”. You don't have to invade everybody's home and everybody's computer to do that.
It was uncontroversial because, as the readers were not restricted, they had nothing to complain about. Theoretically they were restricted from publishing, but not being publishers and not having printing presses, they couldn't do that anyway. In what they actually could do, they were not restricted.
It was arguably beneficial because the general public, according to the concepts of copyright law, traded away a theoretical right they were not in a position to exercise. In exchange, they got the benefits of more writing.
Now if you trade away something you have no possible use for, and you get something you can use in exchange, it's a positive trade. Whether or not you could have gotten a better deal some other way, that's a different question, but at least it's positive.
So if this were still in the age of the printing press, I don't think I'd be complaining about copyright law. But the age of the printing press is gradually giving way to the age of the computer networks—another advance in copying technology that makes copying more efficient, and once again not uniformly so.
Here's what we had in the age of the printing press: mass production very efficient, one at a time copying still just as slow as the ancient world. Digital technology gets us here: they've both benefited, but one-off copying has benefited the most.
We get to a situation much more like the ancient world, where one at a time copying is not so much worse [i.e., harder] than mass production copying. It's a little bit less efficient, a little bit less good, but it's perfectly cheap enough that hundreds of millions of people do it. Consider how many people write CDs once in a while, even in poor countries. You may not have a CD-writer yourself, so you go to a store where you can do it.
This means that copyright no longer fits in with the technology as it used to. Even if the words of copyright law had not changed, they wouldn't have the same effect. Instead of an industrial regulation on publishers controlled by authors, with the benefits set up to go to the public, it is now a restriction on the general public, controlled mainly by the publishers, in the name of the authors.
In other words, it's tyranny. It's intolerable and we can't allow it to continue this way.
As a result of this change, [copyright] is no longer easy to enforce, no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial.
It's no longer easy to enforce because now the publishers want to enforce it against each and every person, and to do this requires cruel measures, draconian punishments, invasions of privacy, abolition of our basic ideas of justice. There's almost no limit to how far they will propose to go to prosecute the War on Sharing.
It's no longer uncontroversial. There are political parties in several countries whose basic platform is “freedom to share”.
It's no longer beneficial because the freedoms that we conceptually traded away (because we couldn't exercise them), we now can exercise. They're tremendously useful, and we want to exercise them.
What would a democratic government do in this situation?
It would reduce copyright power. It would say: “The trade we made on behalf of our citizens, trading away some of their freedom which now they need, is intolerable. We have to change this; we can't trade away the freedom that is important.” We can measure the sickness of democracy by the tendency of governments to do the exact opposite around the world, extending copyright power when they should reduce it.
One example is in the dimension of time. Around the world we see pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer.
A wave of this started in the US in 1998. Copyright was extended by 20 years on both past and future works. I do not understand how they hope to convince the now dead or senile writers of the 20s and 30s to write more back then by extending copyright on their works now. If they have a time machine with which to inform them, they haven't used it. Our history books don't say that there was a burst of vigor in the arts in the 20s when all the artists found out that their copyrights would be extended in 1998.
It's theoretically conceivable that 20 years more copyright on future works would convince people to make more effort in producing those works. But not anyone rational, because the discounted present value of 20 more years of copyright starting 75 years in the future—if it's a work made for hire—and probably even longer if it's a work with an individual copyright holder, is so small it couldn't persuade any rational person to do anything different. Any business that wants to claim otherwise ought to present its projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future, which of course they can't do because none of them really looks that far ahead.
The real reason for this law, the desire that prompted various companies to purchase this law in the US Congress, which is how laws are decided on for the most part, was they had lucrative monopolies and they wanted those monopolies to continue.
For instance, Disney was aware that the first film in which Mickey Mouse appeared would go into the public domain in a few years, and then anybody would be free to draw that same character as part of other works. Disney didn't want that to happen. Disney borrows a lot from the public domain, but is determined never to give the slightest thing back. So Disney paid for this law, which we refer to as the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act.
The movie companies say they want perpetual copyright, but the US Constitution won't let them get that officially. So they came up with a way to get the same result unofficially: “perpetual copyright on the installment plan”. Every 20 years they extend copyright for 20 more years. So that at any given time, any given work has a date when it will supposedly fall into the public domain. But that date is like tomorrow, it never comes. By the time you get there they will have postponed it, unless we stop them next time.
That's one dimension, the dimension of duration. But even more important is the dimension of breadth: which uses of the work does copyright cover?
In the age of the printing press, copyright wasn't supposed to cover all uses of a copyrighted work, because copyright regulated certain uses that were the exceptions in a broader space of unregulated uses. There were certain things you were simply allowed to do with your copy of a book.
Now the publishers have got the idea that they can turn our computers against us, and use them to seize total power over all use of published works. They want to set up a pay-per-view universe. They're doing it with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)—the intentional features of software that's designed to restrict the user. And often the computer itself is designed to restrict the user.
The first way in which the general public saw this was in DVDs. A movie on a DVD was usually encrypted, and the format was secret. The DVD conspiracy kept this secret because they said anyone that wants to make DVD players has to join the conspiracy, promise to keep the format secret, and promise to design the DVD players to restrict the users according to the rules, which say it has to stop the user from doing this, from doing that, from doing that—a precise set of requirements, all of which are malicious towards us.
It worked for a while, but then some people figured out the secret format, and published free software capable of reading the movie on a DVD and playing it. Then the publishers said “since we can't actually stop them, we have to make it a crime”. And they started that in the US in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which imposed censorship on software capable of doing such jobs.
So that particular piece of free software was the subject of a court case. Its distribution in the US is forbidden; the US practices censorship of software.
The movie companies are well aware that they can't really make that program disappear—it's easy enough to find it. So they designed another encryption system, which they hoped would be harder to break, and it's called AACS, or the axe.
The AACS conspiracy makes precise rules about all players. For instance, in 2011 it's going to be forbidden to make analog video outputs. So all video outputs will have to be digital, and they will carry the signal encrypted into a monitor specially designed to keep secrets from the user. That is malicious hardware. They say that the purpose of this is to “close the analog hole”. I'll show you a couple of analog holes (Stallman takes off his glasses): here's one and here's another, that they'd like to poke out permanently.
How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they're not secret—they have websites. The AACS website proudly describes the contracts that manufacturers have to sign, which is how I know about this requirement. It proudly states the names of the companies that have established this conspiracy, which include Microsoft and Apple, and Intel, and Sony, and Disney, and IBM.
A conspiracy of companies designed to restrict the public's access to technology ought to be prosecuted as a serious crime, like a conspiracy to fix prices, except it's worse, so the prison sentences for this should be longer. But these companies are quite confident that our governments are on their side against us. They have no fear against being prosecuted for these conspiracies, which is why they don't bother to hide them.
In general DRM is set up by a conspiracy of companies. Once in a while a single company can do it, but generally it requires a conspiracy between technology companies and publishers, so [it's] almost always a conspiracy.
They thought that nobody would ever be able to break the AACS, but about three and a half years ago someone released a free program capable of decrypting that format. However, it was totally useless, because in order to run it you need to know the key.
And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, with 32 hex digits above them, and I wondered: “Why put those two things together? I wonder if those numbers are some important key, and someone could have put the numbers together with the puppies, figuring people would copy the photo of the puppies because they were so cute. This would protect the key from being wiped out.”
And that's what it was—that was the key to break the axe. People posted it, and editors deleted it, because laws in many countries now conscript them to censor this information. It was posted again, they deleted it; eventually they gave up, and in two weeks this number was posted in over 700,000 web sites.
That's a big outpouring of public disgust with DRM. But it didn't win the war, because the publishers changed the key. Not only that: with HD DVD, this was adequate to break the DRM, but not with Blu-ray. Blu-ray has an additional level of DRM and so far there is no free software that can break it, which means that you must regard Blu-ray disks as something incompatible with your own freedom. They are an enemy with which no accommodation is possible, at least not with our present level of knowledge.
Never accept any product designed to attack your freedom. If you don't have the free software to play a DVD, you mustn't buy or rent any DVDs, or accept them even as gifts, except for the rare non-encrypted DVDs, which there are a few of. I actually have a few [of these]—I don't have any encrypted DVDs, I won't take them.
So this is how things stand in video, but we've also seen DRM in music.
For instance, about ten years ago we started to see things that looked like compact disks, but they weren't written quite like compact disks. They didn't follow the standard. We called them 'corrupt disks', and the idea of them was that they would play in an audio player, but it was impossible to read them on a computer. These different methods had various problems.
Eventually Sony came up with a clever idea. They put a program on the disk, so that if you stuck the disk into a computer, the disk would install the program. This program was designed like a virus to take control of the system. It's called a 'root kit', meaning that it has things in it to break the security of the system so that it can install the software deep inside the system, and modify various parts of the system.
For instance, it modified the command you could use to examine the system to see if the software was present, so as to disguise itself. It modified the command you could use to delete some of these files, so that it wouldn't really delete them. Now all of this is a serious crime, but it's not the only one Sony committed, because the software also included free software code—code that had been released under the GNU General Public License.
Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says “Yes, you're free to put this code into other things, but when you do, the entire program that you put things into you must release as free software under the same license. And you must make the source code available to users, and to inform them of their rights you must give them a copy of this license when they get the software.”
Sony didn't comply with all that. That's commercial copyright infringement, which is a felony. They're both felonies, but Sony wasn't prosecuted because the government understands that the purpose of the government and the law is to maintain the power of those companies over us, not to help defend our freedom in any way.
People got angry and they sued Sony. However, they made a mistake. They focused their condemnation not on the evil purpose of this scheme, but only on the secondary evils of the various methods that Sony used. So Sony settled the lawsuits and promised that in the future, when it attacks our freedom, it will not do those other things.
Actually, that particular corrupt disk scheme was not so bad, because if you were not using Windows it would not affect you at all. Even if you were using Windows, there's a key on the keyboard—if you remembered every time to hold it down, then the disk wouldn't install the software. But of course it's hard to remember that every time; you're going to slip up some day. This shows the kind of thing we've had to deal with.
Fortunately music DRM is receding. Even the main record companies sell downloads without DRM. But we see a renewed effort to impose DRM on books.
You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms of book readers—freedom to do things such as borrow a book from the public library, or lend it to a friend; to sell a book to a used book store, or buy it anonymously paying cash (which is the only way I buy books—we've got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother know everything that we're doing.)
Even the freedom to keep the book as long as you wish, and read it as many times as you wish, they plan to get rid of.
The way they do it is with DRM. They knew that so many people read books and would get angry if these freedoms were taken away that they didn't believe they could buy a law specifically to abolish these freedoms—there would be too much opposition. Democracy is sick, but once in a while people manage to demand something. So they came up with a two-stage plan.
First, take away these freedoms from ebooks, and second, convince people to switch from paper books to ebooks. They've succeeded with stage 1.
In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in New Zealand, that was part of the year-ago Copyright Act; censorship on software that can break DRM was part of that law. That's an unjust provision; it's got to be repealed.
The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to ebooks; that didn't go so well.
One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of ebooks really popular if they started it with my biography. So they found an author and the author asked me if I'd cooperate, and I said “Only if this ebook is published without encryption, without DRM”. The publisher wouldn't go along with that, and I just stuck to it—I said no. Eventually we found another publisher who was willing to do this—in fact willing to publish the book under a free license giving you the four freedoms—so the book was then published, and sold a lot of copies on paper.
But in any case, ebooks failed at the beginning of this decade. People just didn't want to read them very much. And I said, “they will try again”. We saw an amazing number of news articles about electronic ink (or is it electronic paper, I can never remember which), and it occurred to me probably the reason there's so many is the publishers want us to think about this. They want us to be eager for the next generation of ebook readers.
Now they're upon us. Things like the Sony Shreader (its official name is the Sony Reader, but if you put on 'sh' it explains what it's designed to do to your books), and the Amazon Swindle, designed to swindle you out of your traditional freedoms without your noticing. Of course, they call it the Kindle which is what it's going to do to your books.
The Kindle is an extremely malicious product, almost as malicious as Microsoft Windows. They both have spy features, they both have Digital Restrictions Management, and they both have back doors.
In the case of the Kindle, the only way you can buy a book is to buy it from Amazon, and Amazon requires you to identify yourself, so they know everything that you've bought.
Then there is Digital Restrictions Management, so you can't lend the book or sell it to a used bookstore, and the library can't lend it either.
And then there's the back door, which we found out about about three months ago, because Amazon used it. Amazon sent a command to all the Kindles to erase a particular book, namely 1984 by George Orwell. Yes, they couldn't have picked a more ironic book to erase. So that's how we know that Amazon has a back door with which it can erase books remotely.
What else it can do, who knows? Maybe it's like Microsoft Windows. Maybe Amazon can remotely upgrade the software, which means that whatever malicious things are not in it now, they could put them in it tomorrow.
This is intolerable—any one of these restrictions is intolerable. They want to create a world where nobody lends books to anybody anymore.
Imagine that you visit a friend and there are no books on the shelf. It's not that your friend doesn't read, but his books are all inside a device, and of course he can't lend you those books. The only way he could lend you any one of those books is to lend you his whole library, which is obviously a ridiculous thing to ask anybody to do. So there goes friendship for people who love books.
Make sure that you inform people what this device implies. It means other readers will no longer be your friends, because you will be acting like a jerk toward them. Spread the word preemptively. This device is your enemy. It's the enemy of everyone who reads. The people who don't recognize that are the people who are thinking so short-term that they don't see it. It's our job to help them see beyond the momentary convenience to the implications of this device.
I have nothing against distributing books in digital form, if they are not designed to take away our freedom. Strictly speaking, it is possible to have an ebook reader:
that is not designed to attack you,
which runs free software and not proprietary software,
which doesn't have DRM,
which doesn't make people identify yourself to get a book,
which doesn't have a back door, [and]
which doesn't restrict what you can do with the files on your machine.
It's possible, but the big companies really pushing ebooks are doing it to attack our freedom, and we mustn't stand for that. This is what governments are doing in cahoots with big business to attack our freedom, by making copyright harsher and nastier, more restrictive than ever before.
But what should they do? Governments should make copyright power less. Here are my specific proposals.
First of all, there is the dimension of time. I propose copyright should last ten years, starting from the date of publication of a work.
Why from the date of publication? Because before that, we don't have copies. It doesn't matter to us whether we would have been allowed to copy our copies that we don't have, so I figure we might as well let the authors have as much time as it takes to arrange publication, and then start the clock.
But why ten years? I don't know about in this country, but in the US, the publication cycle has got shorter and shorter. Nowadays almost all books are remaindered within two years and out-of-print within three. So ten years is more than three times the usual publication cycle—that should be plenty comfortable.
But not everybody agrees. I once proposed this in a panel discussion with fiction writers, and the award-winning fantasy writer next to me said “Ten years? No way. Anything more than five years is intolerable.” You see, he had a legal dispute with his publisher. His books seemed to be out of print, but the publisher wouldn't admit it. The publisher was using the copyright on his own book to stop him from distributing copies himself, which he wanted to do so people could read it.
This is what every artist starts out wanting—wanting to distribute her work so it will get read and appreciated. Very few make a lot of money. That tiny fraction face the danger of being morally corrupted, like J.K. Rowling.
J.K. Rowling, in Canada, got an injunction against people who had bought her book in a bookstore, ordering them not to read it. So in response I call for a boycott of Harry Potter books. But I don't say you shouldn't read them; I leave that to the author and the publisher. I just say you shouldn't buy them.
It's few authors that make enough money that they can be corrupted in this way. Most of them don't get anywhere near that, and continue wanting the same thing they wanted at the outset: they want their work to be appreciated.
He wanted to distribute his own book, and copyright was stopping him. He realized that more than five years of copyright was unlikely to ever do him any good.
If people would rather have copyright last five years, I won't be against it. I propose ten as a first stab at the problem. Let's reduce it to ten years and then take stock for a while, and we could adjust it after that. I don't say I think ten years is the exact right number—I don't know.
What about the dimension of breadth? Which activities should copyright cover? I distinguish three broad categories of works.
First of all, there are the functional works that you use to do a practical job in your life. This includes software, recipes, educational works, reference works, text fonts, and other things you can think of. These works should be free.
If you use the work to do a job in your life, then if you can't change the work to suit you, you don't control your life. Once you have changed the work to suit you, then you've got to be free to publish it—publish your version—because there will be others who will want the changes you've made.
This leads quickly to the conclusion that users have to have the same four freedoms [for all functional works], not just for software. And you'll notice that for recipes, practically speaking, cooks are always sharing and changing recipes just as if the recipes were free. Imagine how people would react if the government tried to stamp out so-called “recipe piracy”.
The term “pirate” is pure propaganda. When people ask me what I think of music piracy, I say “As far as I know, when pirates attack they don't do it by playing instruments badly, they do it with arms. So it's not music “piracy”, because piracy is attacking ships, and sharing is as far as you get from being the moral equivalent of attacking ships”. Attacking ships is bad, sharing with other people is good, so we should firmly denounce that propaganda term “piracy” whenever we hear it.
People might have objected twenty years ago: “If we don't give up our freedom, if we don't let the publishers of these works control us, the works won't get made and that will be a horrible disaster.” Now, looking at the free software community, and all the recipes that circulate, and reference works like Wikipedia—we are even starting to see free textbooks being published—we know that that fear is misguided.
There is no need to despair and give up our freedom thinking that otherwise the works won't get made. There are lots of ways to encourage them to get made if we want more—lots of ways that are consistent with and respect our freedom. In this category, they should all be free.
But what about the second category, of works that say what certain people thought, like memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific papers, and various other things? To publish a modified version of somebody else's statement of what he thought is misrepresenting [that] somebody. That's not particularly a contribution to society.
Therefore it is workable and acceptable to have a somewhat reduced copyright system where all commercial use is covered by copyright, all modification is covered by copyright, but everyone is free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies.
That freedom is the minimum freedom we must establish for all published works, because the denial of that freedom is what creates the War on Sharing—what creates the vicious propaganda that sharing is theft, that sharing is like being a pirate and attacking ships. Absurdities, but absurdities backed by a lot of money that has corrupted our governments. We need to end the War on Sharing; we need to legalize sharing exact copies of any published work.
In the second category of works, that's all we need; we don't need to make them free. Therefore I think it's OK to have a reduced copyright system which covers commercial use and all modifications. And this will provide a revenue stream to the authors in more or less the same (usually inadequate) way as the present system. You've got to keep in mind [that] the present system, except for superstars, is usually totally inadequate.
What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to decide what to think about modifications.
You see, on one hand, a work of art can have an artistic integrity and modifying it could destroy that. Of course, copyright doesn't necessarily stop works from being butchered that way. Hollywood does it all the time. On the other hand, modifying the work can be a contribution to art. It makes possible the folk process which leads to things which are beautiful and rich.
Even if we look at named authors only: consider Shakespeare, who borrowed stories from other works only a few decades old, and did them in different ways, and made important works of literature. If today's copyright law had existed then, that would have been forbidden and those plays wouldn't have been written.
But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a contribution to art, but it's not desperately urgent in most cases. If you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could wait that long. Not like the present-day copyright that makes you wait maybe 75 years, or 95 years. In Mexico you might have to wait almost 200 years in some cases, because copyright in Mexico expires a hundred years after the author dies. This is insane, but ten years, as I've proposed copyright should last, that people can wait.
So I propose the same partly reduced copyright that covers commercial use and modification, but everyone's got to be free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies. After ten years it goes into the public domain, and people can contribute to art by publishing their modified versions.
One other thing: if you're going to take little pieces out of a bunch of works and rearrange them into something totally different, that should just be legal, because the purpose of copyright is to promote art, not to obstruct art. It's stupid to apply copyright to using snippets like that—it's self-defeating. It's a kind of distortion that you'd only get when the government is under the control of the publishers of the existing successful works, and has totally lost sight of its intended purpose.
That's what I propose, and in particular, this means that sharing copies on the Internet must be legal. Sharing is good. Sharing builds the bonds of society. To attack sharing is to attack society.
So any time the government proposes some new means to attack people who share, to stop them from sharing, we have to recognize that this is evil, not just because the means proposed almost invariably offend basic ideas of justice (but that's not a coincidence). The reason is because the purpose is evil. Sharing is good and the government should encourage sharing.
But copyright did after all have a useful purpose. Copyright as a means to carry out that purpose has a problem now, because it doesn't fit in with the technology we use. It interferes with all the vital freedoms for all the readers, listeners, viewers, and whatever, but the goal of promoting the arts is still desirable. So in addition to the partly reduced copyright system, which would continue to be a copyright system, I propose two other methods.
One is taxes—distribute tax money directly to artists. This could be a special tax, perhaps on Internet connectivity, or it could come from general revenue, because it won't be that much money in total, not if it's distributed in an efficient way. To distribute it efficiently to promote the arts means not in linear proportion to popularity. It should be based on popularity, because we don't want bureaucrats to have the discretion to decide which artists to support and which to ignore, but based on popularity does not imply linear proportion.
What I propose is measure the popularity of the various artists, which you could do through polling (samples) in which nobody is required to participate, and then take the cube root. The cube root looks like this: it means basically that [the payment] tapers off after a while.
If superstar A is a thousand times as popular as successful artist B, with this system A would get ten times as much money as B, not a thousand times.
Linearly would give A a thousand times as much as B, which means that if we wanted B to get enough to live on we're going to have to make A tremendously rich. This is wasteful use of the tax money—it shouldn't be done.
But if we make it taper off, then yes, each superstar will get handsomely more than an ordinary successful artist, but the total of all the superstars will be a small fraction of the [total] money. Most of the money will go to support a large number of fairly successful artists, fairly appreciated artists, fairly popular artists. Thus the system will use money a lot more efficiently than the existing system.
The existing system is regressive. It actually gives far, far more per record, for instance, to a superstar than to anybody else. The money is extremely badly used. The result is we'd actually be paying a lot less this way. I hope that's enough to mollify some of these people who have a knee-jerk hostile reaction to taxes—one that I don't share, because I believe in a welfare state.
I have another suggestion which is voluntary payments. Suppose every player had a button you could push to send a dollar to the artist who made the work you're currently playing or the last one you played. This money would be delivered anonymously to those artists. I think a lot of people would push that button fairly often.
For instance, all of us could afford to push that button once every day, and we wouldn't miss that much money. It's not that much money for us, I'm pretty sure. Of course, there are poor people who couldn't afford to push it ever, and it's OK if they don't. We don't need to squeeze money out of poor people to support the artists. There are enough people who are not poor to do the job just fine. I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people really love certain art and are really happy to support the artists.
An idea just came to me. The player could also give you a certificate of having supported so-and-so, and it could even count up how many times you had done it and give you a certificate that says “I sent so much to these artists”. There are various ways we could encourage people who want to do it.
For instance, we could have a PR campaign which is friendly and kind: “Have you sent a dollar to some artists today? Why not? It's only a dollar—you'll never miss it and don't you love what they're doing? Push the button!” It will make people feel good, and they'll think “Yeah, I love what I just watched. I'll send a dollar.”
This is already starting to work to some extent. There's a Canadian singer who used to be called Jane Siberry. She put her music on her website and invited people to download it and pay whatever amount they wished. She reported getting an average of more than a dollar per copy, which is interesting because the major record companies charge just under a dollar per copy. By letting people decide whether and how much to pay, she got more—she got even more per visitor who was actually downloading something. But this might not even count whether there was an effect of bringing more people to come, and [thus] increasing the total number that this average was against.
So it can work, but it's a pain in the neck under present circumstances. You've got to have a credit card to do it, and that means you can't do it anonymously. And you've got to go find where you're going to pay, and the payment systems for small amounts, they're not very efficient, so the artists are only getting half of it. If we set up a good system for this, it would work far, far better.
So these are my two suggestions.
And in mecenatglobal.org, you can find another scheme that combines aspects of the two, which was invented by Francis Muguet and designed to fit in with existing legal systems better to make it easier to enact.
Be careful of proposals to “compensate the rights holders”, because when they say “compensate”, they're trying to presume that if you have appreciated a work, you now have a specific debt to somebody, and that you have to “compensate” that somebody. When they say “rights holders”, it's supposed to make you think it's supporting artists while in fact it's going to the publishers—the same publishers who basically exploit all the artists (except the few that you've all heard of, who are so popular that they have clout).
We don't owe a debt; we have nobody that we have to “compensate”. [But] supporting the arts is still a useful thing to do. That was the motivation for copyright back when copyright fit in with the technology of the day. Today copyright is a bad way to do it, but it's still good to do it other ways that respect our freedom.
Demand that they change the two evil parts of the New Zealand Copyright Act. They shouldn't replace the three strikes punishment, because sharing is good, and they've got to get rid of the censorship for the software to break DRM. Beware of ACTA—they're trying to negotiate a treaty between various countries, for all of these countries to attack their citizens, and we don't know how because they won't tell us.
Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech”, not “free beer”. Free software is software that respects the user's freedom, and there are four specific freedoms that the user deserves always to have.
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do what you wish.
Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbour; that is, the freedom to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you wish.
And Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That's the freedom to publish your modified versions when you wish.
If the program gives you these four freedoms then it's free software, which means the social system of its distribution and use is an ethical system, one which respects the user's freedom and the social solidarity of the user's community. But if one of these freedoms is missing or insufficient, then it's proprietary software, nonfree software, user-subjugating software. It's unethical. It's not a contribution to society, it's a power grab. This unethical practice should not exist; the goal of the free software movement is to put an end to it. All software should be free, so that all users can be free.
Proprietary software keeps the users divided and helpless: divided, because they're forbidden to share it, and helpless, because they don't have the source code so they can't change it. They can't even study it to verify what it's really doing to them, and many proprietary programs have malicious features which spy on the user, restrict the user, even back doors to attack the user.
For instance, Microsoft Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can forcibly install software changes, without getting permission from the supposed owner of the computer. You may think it's your computer, but if you've made the mistake of having Windows running in it, then really Microsoft has owned your computer. Computers need to be defenestrated, which means either throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the computer out the window.
But any proprietary software gives the developers unjust power over the users. Some of the developers abuse this power more, and some abuse it less, but none of them ought to have it. You deserve to have control of your computing, and not be forcibly dependent on a particular company. So you deserve free software.
At the end of speeches about free software, people sometimes ask whether these same freedoms and ideas apply to other things. If you have a copy of a published work on your computer, it makes sense to ask whether you should have the same four freedoms—whether it's ethically essential that you have them or not. And that's the question that I'm going to address today.
If you have a copy of something that's not software, for the most part, the only thing that might deny you any of these freedoms is copyright law. With software that's not so. The main ways of making software non-free are contracts and withholding the source code from the users. Copyright is a sort of secondary, back up method. For other things there's no such distinction as between source code and executable code.
For instance, if we're talking about a text, if you can see the text to read it, there's nothing in the text that you can't see. So it's not the same kind of issue exactly as software. It's for the most part only copyright that might deny you these freedoms.
So the question can be restated: “What should copyright law allow you to do with published works? What should copyright law say?”
Copyright has developed along with copying technology, so it's useful to review the history of copying technology. Copying developed in the ancient world, where you'd use a writing instrument on a writing surface. You'd read one copy and write another.
This technology was rather inefficient, but another interesting characteristic was that it had no economy of scale. To write ten copies would take ten times as long as to write one copy. It required no special equipment other than the equipment for writing, and it required no special skill other than literacy itself. The result was that copies of any particular book were made in a decentralized manner. Wherever there was a copy, if someone wanted to copy it, he could.
There was nothing like copyright in the ancient world. If you had a copy and wanted to copy it, nobody was going to tell you you weren't allowed—except if the local prince didn't like what the book said, in which case he might punish you for copying it. But that's not copyright, but rather something closely related, namely censorship. To this day, copyright is often used in attempts to censor people.
That went on for thousands of years, but then there was a big advance in copying technology, namely the printing press. The printing press made copying more efficient, but not uniformly. [This was] because mass production copying became a lot more efficient, but making one copy at a time didn't benefit from the printing press. In fact, you were better off just writing it by hand; that would be faster than trying to print one copy.
The printing press has an economy of scale: it takes a lot of work to set the type, but then you can make many copies very fast. Also, the printing press and the type were expensive equipment that most people didn't own; and the ability to use them, most literate people didn't know. Using a press was a different skill from writing. The result was a centralized manner of producing copies: the copies of any given book would be made in a few places, and then they would be transported to wherever someone wanted to buy copies.
Copyright began in the age of the printing press. Copyright in England began as a system of censorship in the 1500s. I believe it was originally meant to censor Protestants, but it was turned around and used to censor Catholics and presumably lots of others as well. According to this law, in order to publish a book you had to get permission from the Crown, and this permission was granted in the form of a perpetual monopoly to publish it. This was allowed to lapse in the 1680s, I believe [it expired in 1695 according to the Wikipedia entry]. The publishers wanted it back again, but what they got was something somewhat different. The Statute of Anne gave authors a copyright, and only for 14 years, although the author could renew it once.
This was a totally different idea—a temporary monopoly for the author, instead of a perpetual monopoly for the publisher. The idea developed that copyright was a means of promoting writing.
When the US constitution was written, some people wanted authors to be entitled to a copyright, but that was rejected. Instead, the US Constitution says that Congress can optionally adopt a copyright law, and if there is a copyright law, its purpose is to promote progress. In other words, the purpose is not benefits for copyright holders or anybody they do business with, but for the general public. Copyright has to last a limited time; publishers keep hoping for us to forget about this.
Here we have an idea of copyright which is an industrial regulation on publishers, controlled by authors, and designed to provide benefits to the public at large. It functioned this way because it didn't restrict the readers.
Now in the early centuries of printing, and still I believe in the 1790s, lots of readers wrote copies by hand because they couldn't afford printed copies. Nobody ever expected copyright law to be something other than an industrial regulation. It wasn't meant to stop people from writing copies, it was meant to regulate the publishers. Because of this it was easy to enforce, uncontroversial, and arguably beneficial for society.
It was easy to enforce, because it only had to be enforced against publishers. And it's easy to find the unauthorized publishers of a book—you go to a bookstore and say “where do these copies come from?”. You don't have to invade everybody's home and everybody's computer to do that.
It was uncontroversial because, as the readers were not restricted, they had nothing to complain about. Theoretically they were restricted from publishing, but not being publishers and not having printing presses, they couldn't do that anyway. In what they actually could do, they were not restricted.
It was arguably beneficial because the general public, according to the concepts of copyright law, traded away a theoretical right they were not in a position to exercise. In exchange, they got the benefits of more writing.
Now if you trade away something you have no possible use for, and you get something you can use in exchange, it's a positive trade. Whether or not you could have gotten a better deal some other way, that's a different question, but at least it's positive.
So if this were still in the age of the printing press, I don't think I'd be complaining about copyright law. But the age of the printing press is gradually giving way to the age of the computer networks—another advance in copying technology that makes copying more efficient, and once again not uniformly so.
Here's what we had in the age of the printing press: mass production very efficient, one at a time copying still just as slow as the ancient world. Digital technology gets us here: they've both benefited, but one-off copying has benefited the most.
We get to a situation much more like the ancient world, where one at a time copying is not so much worse [i.e., harder] than mass production copying. It's a little bit less efficient, a little bit less good, but it's perfectly cheap enough that hundreds of millions of people do it. Consider how many people write CDs once in a while, even in poor countries. You may not have a CD-writer yourself, so you go to a store where you can do it.
This means that copyright no longer fits in with the technology as it used to. Even if the words of copyright law had not changed, they wouldn't have the same effect. Instead of an industrial regulation on publishers controlled by authors, with the benefits set up to go to the public, it is now a restriction on the general public, controlled mainly by the publishers, in the name of the authors.
In other words, it's tyranny. It's intolerable and we can't allow it to continue this way.
As a result of this change, [copyright] is no longer easy to enforce, no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial.
It's no longer easy to enforce because now the publishers want to enforce it against each and every person, and to do this requires cruel measures, draconian punishments, invasions of privacy, abolition of our basic ideas of justice. There's almost no limit to how far they will propose to go to prosecute the War on Sharing.
It's no longer uncontroversial. There are political parties in several countries whose basic platform is “freedom to share”.
It's no longer beneficial because the freedoms that we conceptually traded away (because we couldn't exercise them), we now can exercise. They're tremendously useful, and we want to exercise them.
What would a democratic government do in this situation?
It would reduce copyright power. It would say: “The trade we made on behalf of our citizens, trading away some of their freedom which now they need, is intolerable. We have to change this; we can't trade away the freedom that is important.” We can measure the sickness of democracy by the tendency of governments to do the exact opposite around the world, extending copyright power when they should reduce it.
One example is in the dimension of time. Around the world we see pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer.
A wave of this started in the US in 1998. Copyright was extended by 20 years on both past and future works. I do not understand how they hope to convince the now dead or senile writers of the 20s and 30s to write more back then by extending copyright on their works now. If they have a time machine with which to inform them, they haven't used it. Our history books don't say that there was a burst of vigor in the arts in the 20s when all the artists found out that their copyrights would be extended in 1998.
It's theoretically conceivable that 20 years more copyright on future works would convince people to make more effort in producing those works. But not anyone rational, because the discounted present value of 20 more years of copyright starting 75 years in the future—if it's a work made for hire—and probably even longer if it's a work with an individual copyright holder, is so small it couldn't persuade any rational person to do anything different. Any business that wants to claim otherwise ought to present its projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future, which of course they can't do because none of them really looks that far ahead.
The real reason for this law, the desire that prompted various companies to purchase this law in the US Congress, which is how laws are decided on for the most part, was they had lucrative monopolies and they wanted those monopolies to continue.
For instance, Disney was aware that the first film in which Mickey Mouse appeared would go into the public domain in a few years, and then anybody would be free to draw that same character as part of other works. Disney didn't want that to happen. Disney borrows a lot from the public domain, but is determined never to give the slightest thing back. So Disney paid for this law, which we refer to as the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act.
The movie companies say they want perpetual copyright, but the US Constitution won't let them get that officially. So they came up with a way to get the same result unofficially: “perpetual copyright on the installment plan”. Every 20 years they extend copyright for 20 more years. So that at any given time, any given work has a date when it will supposedly fall into the public domain. But that date is like tomorrow, it never comes. By the time you get there they will have postponed it, unless we stop them next time.
That's one dimension, the dimension of duration. But even more important is the dimension of breadth: which uses of the work does copyright cover?
In the age of the printing press, copyright wasn't supposed to cover all uses of a copyrighted work, because copyright regulated certain uses that were the exceptions in a broader space of unregulated uses. There were certain things you were simply allowed to do with your copy of a book.
Now the publishers have got the idea that they can turn our computers against us, and use them to seize total power over all use of published works. They want to set up a pay-per-view universe. They're doing it with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)—the intentional features of software that's designed to restrict the user. And often the computer itself is designed to restrict the user.
The first way in which the general public saw this was in DVDs. A movie on a DVD was usually encrypted, and the format was secret. The DVD conspiracy kept this secret because they said anyone that wants to make DVD players has to join the conspiracy, promise to keep the format secret, and promise to design the DVD players to restrict the users according to the rules, which say it has to stop the user from doing this, from doing that, from doing that—a precise set of requirements, all of which are malicious towards us.
It worked for a while, but then some people figured out the secret format, and published free software capable of reading the movie on a DVD and playing it. Then the publishers said “since we can't actually stop them, we have to make it a crime”. And they started that in the US in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which imposed censorship on software capable of doing such jobs.
So that particular piece of free software was the subject of a court case. Its distribution in the US is forbidden; the US practices censorship of software.
The movie companies are well aware that they can't really make that program disappear—it's easy enough to find it. So they designed another encryption system, which they hoped would be harder to break, and it's called AACS, or the axe.
The AACS conspiracy makes precise rules about all players. For instance, in 2011 it's going to be forbidden to make analog video outputs. So all video outputs will have to be digital, and they will carry the signal encrypted into a monitor specially designed to keep secrets from the user. That is malicious hardware. They say that the purpose of this is to “close the analog hole”. I'll show you a couple of analog holes (Stallman takes off his glasses): here's one and here's another, that they'd like to poke out permanently.
How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they're not secret—they have websites. The AACS website proudly describes the contracts that manufacturers have to sign, which is how I know about this requirement. It proudly states the names of the companies that have established this conspiracy, which include Microsoft and Apple, and Intel, and Sony, and Disney, and IBM.
A conspiracy of companies designed to restrict the public's access to technology ought to be prosecuted as a serious crime, like a conspiracy to fix prices, except it's worse, so the prison sentences for this should be longer. But these companies are quite confident that our governments are on their side against us. They have no fear against being prosecuted for these conspiracies, which is why they don't bother to hide them.
In general DRM is set up by a conspiracy of companies. Once in a while a single company can do it, but generally it requires a conspiracy between technology companies and publishers, so [it's] almost always a conspiracy.
They thought that nobody would ever be able to break the AACS, but about three and a half years ago someone released a free program capable of decrypting that format. However, it was totally useless, because in order to run it you need to know the key.
And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, with 32 hex digits above them, and I wondered: “Why put those two things together? I wonder if those numbers are some important key, and someone could have put the numbers together with the puppies, figuring people would copy the photo of the puppies because they were so cute. This would protect the key from being wiped out.”
And that's what it was—that was the key to break the axe. People posted it, and editors deleted it, because laws in many countries now conscript them to censor this information. It was posted again, they deleted it; eventually they gave up, and in two weeks this number was posted in over 700,000 web sites.
That's a big outpouring of public disgust with DRM. But it didn't win the war, because the publishers changed the key. Not only that: with HD DVD, this was adequate to break the DRM, but not with Blu-ray. Blu-ray has an additional level of DRM and so far there is no free software that can break it, which means that you must regard Blu-ray disks as something incompatible with your own freedom. They are an enemy with which no accommodation is possible, at least not with our present level of knowledge.
Never accept any product designed to attack your freedom. If you don't have the free software to play a DVD, you mustn't buy or rent any DVDs, or accept them even as gifts, except for the rare non-encrypted DVDs, which there are a few of. I actually have a few [of these]—I don't have any encrypted DVDs, I won't take them.
So this is how things stand in video, but we've also seen DRM in music.
For instance, about ten years ago we started to see things that looked like compact disks, but they weren't written quite like compact disks. They didn't follow the standard. We called them 'corrupt disks', and the idea of them was that they would play in an audio player, but it was impossible to read them on a computer. These different methods had various problems.
Eventually Sony came up with a clever idea. They put a program on the disk, so that if you stuck the disk into a computer, the disk would install the program. This program was designed like a virus to take control of the system. It's called a 'root kit', meaning that it has things in it to break the security of the system so that it can install the software deep inside the system, and modify various parts of the system.
For instance, it modified the command you could use to examine the system to see if the software was present, so as to disguise itself. It modified the command you could use to delete some of these files, so that it wouldn't really delete them. Now all of this is a serious crime, but it's not the only one Sony committed, because the software also included free software code—code that had been released under the GNU General Public License.
Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says “Yes, you're free to put this code into other things, but when you do, the entire program that you put things into you must release as free software under the same license. And you must make the source code available to users, and to inform them of their rights you must give them a copy of this license when they get the software.”
Sony didn't comply with all that. That's commercial copyright infringement, which is a felony. They're both felonies, but Sony wasn't prosecuted because the government understands that the purpose of the government and the law is to maintain the power of those companies over us, not to help defend our freedom in any way.
People got angry and they sued Sony. However, they made a mistake. They focused their condemnation not on the evil purpose of this scheme, but only on the secondary evils of the various methods that Sony used. So Sony settled the lawsuits and promised that in the future, when it attacks our freedom, it will not do those other things.
Actually, that particular corrupt disk scheme was not so bad, because if you were not using Windows it would not affect you at all. Even if you were using Windows, there's a key on the keyboard—if you remembered every time to hold it down, then the disk wouldn't install the software. But of course it's hard to remember that every time; you're going to slip up some day. This shows the kind of thing we've had to deal with.
Fortunately music DRM is receding. Even the main record companies sell downloads without DRM. But we see a renewed effort to impose DRM on books.
You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms of book readers—freedom to do things such as borrow a book from the public library, or lend it to a friend; to sell a book to a used book store, or buy it anonymously paying cash (which is the only way I buy books—we've got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother know everything that we're doing.)
Even the freedom to keep the book as long as you wish, and read it as many times as you wish, they plan to get rid of.
The way they do it is with DRM. They knew that so many people read books and would get angry if these freedoms were taken away that they didn't believe they could buy a law specifically to abolish these freedoms—there would be too much opposition. Democracy is sick, but once in a while people manage to demand something. So they came up with a two-stage plan.
First, take away these freedoms from ebooks, and second, convince people to switch from paper books to ebooks. They've succeeded with stage 1.
In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in New Zealand, that was part of the year-ago Copyright Act; censorship on software that can break DRM was part of that law. That's an unjust provision; it's got to be repealed.
The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to ebooks; that didn't go so well.
One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of ebooks really popular if they started it with my biography. So they found an author and the author asked me if I'd cooperate, and I said “Only if this ebook is published without encryption, without DRM”. The publisher wouldn't go along with that, and I just stuck to it—I said no. Eventually we found another publisher who was willing to do this—in fact willing to publish the book under a free license giving you the four freedoms—so the book was then published, and sold a lot of copies on paper.
But in any case, ebooks failed at the beginning of this decade. People just didn't want to read them very much. And I said, “they will try again”. We saw an amazing number of news articles about electronic ink (or is it electronic paper, I can never remember which), and it occurred to me probably the reason there's so many is the publishers want us to think about this. They want us to be eager for the next generation of ebook readers.
Now they're upon us. Things like the Sony Shreader (its official name is the Sony Reader, but if you put on 'sh' it explains what it's designed to do to your books), and the Amazon Swindle, designed to swindle you out of your traditional freedoms without your noticing. Of course, they call it the Kindle which is what it's going to do to your books.
The Kindle is an extremely malicious product, almost as malicious as Microsoft Windows. They both have spy features, they both have Digital Restrictions Management, and they both have back doors.
In the case of the Kindle, the only way you can buy a book is to buy it from Amazon, and Amazon requires you to identify yourself, so they know everything that you've bought.
Then there is Digital Restrictions Management, so you can't lend the book or sell it to a used bookstore, and the library can't lend it either.
And then there's the back door, which we found out about about three months ago, because Amazon used it. Amazon sent a command to all the Kindles to erase a particular book, namely 1984 by George Orwell. Yes, they couldn't have picked a more ironic book to erase. So that's how we know that Amazon has a back door with which it can erase books remotely.
What else it can do, who knows? Maybe it's like Microsoft Windows. Maybe Amazon can remotely upgrade the software, which means that whatever malicious things are not in it now, they could put them in it tomorrow.
This is intolerable—any one of these restrictions is intolerable. They want to create a world where nobody lends books to anybody anymore.
Imagine that you visit a friend and there are no books on the shelf. It's not that your friend doesn't read, but his books are all inside a device, and of course he can't lend you those books. The only way he could lend you any one of those books is to lend you his whole library, which is obviously a ridiculous thing to ask anybody to do. So there goes friendship for people who love books.
Make sure that you inform people what this device implies. It means other readers will no longer be your friends, because you will be acting like a jerk toward them. Spread the word preemptively. This device is your enemy. It's the enemy of everyone who reads. The people who don't recognize that are the people who are thinking so short-term that they don't see it. It's our job to help them see beyond the momentary convenience to the implications of this device.
I have nothing against distributing books in digital form, if they are not designed to take away our freedom. Strictly speaking, it is possible to have an ebook reader:
that is not designed to attack you,
which runs free software and not proprietary software,
which doesn't have DRM,
which doesn't make people identify yourself to get a book,
which doesn't have a back door, [and]
which doesn't restrict what you can do with the files on your machine.
It's possible, but the big companies really pushing ebooks are doing it to attack our freedom, and we mustn't stand for that. This is what governments are doing in cahoots with big business to attack our freedom, by making copyright harsher and nastier, more restrictive than ever before.
But what should they do? Governments should make copyright power less. Here are my specific proposals.
First of all, there is the dimension of time. I propose copyright should last ten years, starting from the date of publication of a work.
Why from the date of publication? Because before that, we don't have copies. It doesn't matter to us whether we would have been allowed to copy our copies that we don't have, so I figure we might as well let the authors have as much time as it takes to arrange publication, and then start the clock.
But why ten years? I don't know about in this country, but in the US, the publication cycle has got shorter and shorter. Nowadays almost all books are remaindered within two years and out-of-print within three. So ten years is more than three times the usual publication cycle—that should be plenty comfortable.
But not everybody agrees. I once proposed this in a panel discussion with fiction writers, and the award-winning fantasy writer next to me said “Ten years? No way. Anything more than five years is intolerable.” You see, he had a legal dispute with his publisher. His books seemed to be out of print, but the publisher wouldn't admit it. The publisher was using the copyright on his own book to stop him from distributing copies himself, which he wanted to do so people could read it.
This is what every artist starts out wanting—wanting to distribute her work so it will get read and appreciated. Very few make a lot of money. That tiny fraction face the danger of being morally corrupted, like J.K. Rowling.
J.K. Rowling, in Canada, got an injunction against people who had bought her book in a bookstore, ordering them not to read it. So in response I call for a boycott of Harry Potter books. But I don't say you shouldn't read them; I leave that to the author and the publisher. I just say you shouldn't buy them.
It's few authors that make enough money that they can be corrupted in this way. Most of them don't get anywhere near that, and continue wanting the same thing they wanted at the outset: they want their work to be appreciated.
He wanted to distribute his own book, and copyright was stopping him. He realized that more than five years of copyright was unlikely to ever do him any good.
If people would rather have copyright last five years, I won't be against it. I propose ten as a first stab at the problem. Let's reduce it to ten years and then take stock for a while, and we could adjust it after that. I don't say I think ten years is the exact right number—I don't know.
What about the dimension of breadth? Which activities should copyright cover? I distinguish three broad categories of works.
First of all, there are the functional works that you use to do a practical job in your life. This includes software, recipes, educational works, reference works, text fonts, and other things you can think of. These works should be free.
If you use the work to do a job in your life, then if you can't change the work to suit you, you don't control your life. Once you have changed the work to suit you, then you've got to be free to publish it—publish your version—because there will be others who will want the changes you've made.
This leads quickly to the conclusion that users have to have the same four freedoms [for all functional works], not just for software. And you'll notice that for recipes, practically speaking, cooks are always sharing and changing recipes just as if the recipes were free. Imagine how people would react if the government tried to stamp out so-called “recipe piracy”.
The term “pirate” is pure propaganda. When people ask me what I think of music piracy, I say “As far as I know, when pirates attack they don't do it by playing instruments badly, they do it with arms. So it's not music “piracy”, because piracy is attacking ships, and sharing is as far as you get from being the moral equivalent of attacking ships”. Attacking ships is bad, sharing with other people is good, so we should firmly denounce that propaganda term “piracy” whenever we hear it.
People might have objected twenty years ago: “If we don't give up our freedom, if we don't let the publishers of these works control us, the works won't get made and that will be a horrible disaster.” Now, looking at the free software community, and all the recipes that circulate, and reference works like Wikipedia—we are even starting to see free textbooks being published—we know that that fear is misguided.
There is no need to despair and give up our freedom thinking that otherwise the works won't get made. There are lots of ways to encourage them to get made if we want more—lots of ways that are consistent with and respect our freedom. In this category, they should all be free.
But what about the second category, of works that say what certain people thought, like memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific papers, and various other things? To publish a modified version of somebody else's statement of what he thought is misrepresenting [that] somebody. That's not particularly a contribution to society.
Therefore it is workable and acceptable to have a somewhat reduced copyright system where all commercial use is covered by copyright, all modification is covered by copyright, but everyone is free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies.
That freedom is the minimum freedom we must establish for all published works, because the denial of that freedom is what creates the War on Sharing—what creates the vicious propaganda that sharing is theft, that sharing is like being a pirate and attacking ships. Absurdities, but absurdities backed by a lot of money that has corrupted our governments. We need to end the War on Sharing; we need to legalize sharing exact copies of any published work.
In the second category of works, that's all we need; we don't need to make them free. Therefore I think it's OK to have a reduced copyright system which covers commercial use and all modifications. And this will provide a revenue stream to the authors in more or less the same (usually inadequate) way as the present system. You've got to keep in mind [that] the present system, except for superstars, is usually totally inadequate.
What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to decide what to think about modifications.
You see, on one hand, a work of art can have an artistic integrity and modifying it could destroy that. Of course, copyright doesn't necessarily stop works from being butchered that way. Hollywood does it all the time. On the other hand, modifying the work can be a contribution to art. It makes possible the folk process which leads to things which are beautiful and rich.
Even if we look at named authors only: consider Shakespeare, who borrowed stories from other works only a few decades old, and did them in different ways, and made important works of literature. If today's copyright law had existed then, that would have been forbidden and those plays wouldn't have been written.
But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a contribution to art, but it's not desperately urgent in most cases. If you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could wait that long. Not like the present-day copyright that makes you wait maybe 75 years, or 95 years. In Mexico you might have to wait almost 200 years in some cases, because copyright in Mexico expires a hundred years after the author dies. This is insane, but ten years, as I've proposed copyright should last, that people can wait.
So I propose the same partly reduced copyright that covers commercial use and modification, but everyone's got to be free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies. After ten years it goes into the public domain, and people can contribute to art by publishing their modified versions.
One other thing: if you're going to take little pieces out of a bunch of works and rearrange them into something totally different, that should just be legal, because the purpose of copyright is to promote art, not to obstruct art. It's stupid to apply copyright to using snippets like that—it's self-defeating. It's a kind of distortion that you'd only get when the government is under the control of the publishers of the existing successful works, and has totally lost sight of its intended purpose.
That's what I propose, and in particular, this means that sharing copies on the Internet must be legal. Sharing is good. Sharing builds the bonds of society. To attack sharing is to attack society.
So any time the government proposes some new means to attack people who share, to stop them from sharing, we have to recognize that this is evil, not just because the means proposed almost invariably offend basic ideas of justice (but that's not a coincidence). The reason is because the purpose is evil. Sharing is good and the government should encourage sharing.
But copyright did after all have a useful purpose. Copyright as a means to carry out that purpose has a problem now, because it doesn't fit in with the technology we use. It interferes with all the vital freedoms for all the readers, listeners, viewers, and whatever, but the goal of promoting the arts is still desirable. So in addition to the partly reduced copyright system, which would continue to be a copyright system, I propose two other methods.
One is taxes—distribute tax money directly to artists. This could be a special tax, perhaps on Internet connectivity, or it could come from general revenue, because it won't be that much money in total, not if it's distributed in an efficient way. To distribute it efficiently to promote the arts means not in linear proportion to popularity. It should be based on popularity, because we don't want bureaucrats to have the discretion to decide which artists to support and which to ignore, but based on popularity does not imply linear proportion.
What I propose is measure the popularity of the various artists, which you could do through polling (samples) in which nobody is required to participate, and then take the cube root. The cube root looks like this: it means basically that [the payment] tapers off after a while.
If superstar A is a thousand times as popular as successful artist B, with this system A would get ten times as much money as B, not a thousand times.
Linearly would give A a thousand times as much as B, which means that if we wanted B to get enough to live on we're going to have to make A tremendously rich. This is wasteful use of the tax money—it shouldn't be done.
But if we make it taper off, then yes, each superstar will get handsomely more than an ordinary successful artist, but the total of all the superstars will be a small fraction of the [total] money. Most of the money will go to support a large number of fairly successful artists, fairly appreciated artists, fairly popular artists. Thus the system will use money a lot more efficiently than the existing system.
The existing system is regressive. It actually gives far, far more per record, for instance, to a superstar than to anybody else. The money is extremely badly used. The result is we'd actually be paying a lot less this way. I hope that's enough to mollify some of these people who have a knee-jerk hostile reaction to taxes—one that I don't share, because I believe in a welfare state.
I have another suggestion which is voluntary payments. Suppose every player had a button you could push to send a dollar to the artist who made the work you're currently playing or the last one you played. This money would be delivered anonymously to those artists. I think a lot of people would push that button fairly often.
For instance, all of us could afford to push that button once every day, and we wouldn't miss that much money. It's not that much money for us, I'm pretty sure. Of course, there are poor people who couldn't afford to push it ever, and it's OK if they don't. We don't need to squeeze money out of poor people to support the artists. There are enough people who are not poor to do the job just fine. I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people really love certain art and are really happy to support the artists.
An idea just came to me. The player could also give you a certificate of having supported so-and-so, and it could even count up how many times you had done it and give you a certificate that says “I sent so much to these artists”. There are various ways we could encourage people who want to do it.
For instance, we could have a PR campaign which is friendly and kind: “Have you sent a dollar to some artists today? Why not? It's only a dollar—you'll never miss it and don't you love what they're doing? Push the button!” It will make people feel good, and they'll think “Yeah, I love what I just watched. I'll send a dollar.”
This is already starting to work to some extent. There's a Canadian singer who used to be called Jane Siberry. She put her music on her website and invited people to download it and pay whatever amount they wished. She reported getting an average of more than a dollar per copy, which is interesting because the major record companies charge just under a dollar per copy. By letting people decide whether and how much to pay, she got more—she got even more per visitor who was actually downloading something. But this might not even count whether there was an effect of bringing more people to come, and [thus] increasing the total number that this average was against.
So it can work, but it's a pain in the neck under present circumstances. You've got to have a credit card to do it, and that means you can't do it anonymously. And you've got to go find where you're going to pay, and the payment systems for small amounts, they're not very efficient, so the artists are only getting half of it. If we set up a good system for this, it would work far, far better.
So these are my two suggestions.
And in mecenatglobal.org, you can find another scheme that combines aspects of the two, which was invented by Francis Muguet and designed to fit in with existing legal systems better to make it easier to enact.
Be careful of proposals to “compensate the rights holders”, because when they say “compensate”, they're trying to presume that if you have appreciated a work, you now have a specific debt to somebody, and that you have to “compensate” that somebody. When they say “rights holders”, it's supposed to make you think it's supporting artists while in fact it's going to the publishers—the same publishers who basically exploit all the artists (except the few that you've all heard of, who are so popular that they have clout).
We don't owe a debt; we have nobody that we have to “compensate”. [But] supporting the arts is still a useful thing to do. That was the motivation for copyright back when copyright fit in with the technology of the day. Today copyright is a bad way to do it, but it's still good to do it other ways that respect our freedom.
Demand that they change the two evil parts of the New Zealand Copyright Act. They shouldn't replace the three strikes punishment, because sharing is good, and they've got to get rid of the censorship for the software to break DRM. Beware of ACTA—they're trying to negotiate a treaty between various countries, for all of these countries to attack their citizens, and we don't know how because they won't tell us.
Richard Stallman: Copyright vs community in the age of computer networks
Richard Stallman was a mine of quotable quotes. And not at all dry and techy – he started his address with a veritable barrage of jokes – about Wellington’s weather (gumboots/Wellingtons, furniture made from punga – fern-iture).
Chair Brenda Chawner named Stallman as “the most influential person no-one has heard of”. And my, what influences – WWW guru Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales both namecheck the influence of Mr Stallman.
As the LIANZA 2009 Conference blog reports: “Richard Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft, and is the main author of the GNU General Public License, the most widely used free software license. Twenty-five years ago he launched the GNU operating system. GNU is free software: everyone has the freedom to copy it and redistribute it, as well as to make changes either large or small. The GNU/Linux system, basically the GNU operating system with Linux added, is used on tens of millions of computers today.”
Wow, this presentation just pinned me to the wall… Richard Stallman, a very charismatic person with strong opinions, is not afraid to express them. He launched and developed the GNU operating system which is free software, Linux. He explained the concept of software freedom:
0. Run the programme as you wish
1. Allow people to study source code to change it
2. Help your neighbour – redistribute
3. Contribute to the community – publish your modified version
and why should we use the phrase ‘free software’ in order to emphasise software freedom? Because by doing so, we emphasise the benefits we gain from using software that is released under a license that preserves users’ freedom.
When people use software distributed under a free license, they are granted the four essential software freedoms:
Freedom 0, the freedom to run the program for any purpose
Freedom 1, the freedom to study the source code, and modify it to fit their needs better
Freedom 2, the freedom to redistribute copies of the original program
Freedom 3, the freedom to redistribute copies of their modifications
(from The Free Software Definition, http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html)
Taken together, these freedoms give software users the ability to be independent (freedoms 0 and 1), the ability to share (freedom 2), and the ability to participate in joint efforts to improve the software (freedom 3). It’s important to note that taking advantage of Freedoms 1 through 3 is optional—many free software users simply enjoy the benefit of Freedom 0, and never concern themselves with the other three freedoms.
If any of these components is missing from software, Stallman would define it as proprietary.
Here are some of the quotes from the session, but I’ll expand on this more later – there was a lot to take in, particularly in relation to e-books.
QUOTE 1: ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE FREE SO ALL USERS CAN BE FREE
QUOTE 2: THROW WINDOWS OUT OF THE COMPUTER, OR THROW THE COMPUTER OUT THE WINDOW(Microsoft is entering your computer’s back door and can forcibly install software changes – therefore Microsoft has owned your computer)
QUOTE 3: COPYRIGHT NO LONGER FITS WITH THE TECHNOLOGY(It came from the era of the printing press and doesn’t reflect today’s digital world. Copyright is now a restriction on the general public by publishers in the name of authors)
QUOTE 4: WE ARE IN A PAY PER VIEW UNIVERSE(DRM Digital Rights Management is trying to make us pay for every view – how would this apply to books?)
QUOTE 5: DRM = DIGITAL RESTRICTIONS MANAGEMENT
QUOTE 6: SONY SHREDDER (Reader), AMAZON SWINDLE (Kindle)
QUOTE 7: A WORLD WHERE NOBODY LENDS BOOKS TO ANYONE ANYMORE … OTHER READERS WILL NO LONGER BE YOUR FRIEND, BECAUSE YOU’LL BE ACTING LIKE A JERK
QUOTE 8: PIRACY IS A PROPAGANDA TERM. SHARING ISN’T THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF ATTACKING SHIPS
Chair Brenda Chawner named Stallman as “the most influential person no-one has heard of”. And my, what influences – WWW guru Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales both namecheck the influence of Mr Stallman.
As the LIANZA 2009 Conference blog reports: “Richard Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft, and is the main author of the GNU General Public License, the most widely used free software license. Twenty-five years ago he launched the GNU operating system. GNU is free software: everyone has the freedom to copy it and redistribute it, as well as to make changes either large or small. The GNU/Linux system, basically the GNU operating system with Linux added, is used on tens of millions of computers today.”
Wow, this presentation just pinned me to the wall… Richard Stallman, a very charismatic person with strong opinions, is not afraid to express them. He launched and developed the GNU operating system which is free software, Linux. He explained the concept of software freedom:
0. Run the programme as you wish
1. Allow people to study source code to change it
2. Help your neighbour – redistribute
3. Contribute to the community – publish your modified version
and why should we use the phrase ‘free software’ in order to emphasise software freedom? Because by doing so, we emphasise the benefits we gain from using software that is released under a license that preserves users’ freedom.
When people use software distributed under a free license, they are granted the four essential software freedoms:
Freedom 0, the freedom to run the program for any purpose
Freedom 1, the freedom to study the source code, and modify it to fit their needs better
Freedom 2, the freedom to redistribute copies of the original program
Freedom 3, the freedom to redistribute copies of their modifications
(from The Free Software Definition, http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html)
Taken together, these freedoms give software users the ability to be independent (freedoms 0 and 1), the ability to share (freedom 2), and the ability to participate in joint efforts to improve the software (freedom 3). It’s important to note that taking advantage of Freedoms 1 through 3 is optional—many free software users simply enjoy the benefit of Freedom 0, and never concern themselves with the other three freedoms.
If any of these components is missing from software, Stallman would define it as proprietary.
Here are some of the quotes from the session, but I’ll expand on this more later – there was a lot to take in, particularly in relation to e-books.
QUOTE 1: ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE FREE SO ALL USERS CAN BE FREE
QUOTE 2: THROW WINDOWS OUT OF THE COMPUTER, OR THROW THE COMPUTER OUT THE WINDOW(Microsoft is entering your computer’s back door and can forcibly install software changes – therefore Microsoft has owned your computer)
QUOTE 3: COPYRIGHT NO LONGER FITS WITH THE TECHNOLOGY(It came from the era of the printing press and doesn’t reflect today’s digital world. Copyright is now a restriction on the general public by publishers in the name of authors)
QUOTE 4: WE ARE IN A PAY PER VIEW UNIVERSE(DRM Digital Rights Management is trying to make us pay for every view – how would this apply to books?)
QUOTE 5: DRM = DIGITAL RESTRICTIONS MANAGEMENT
QUOTE 6: SONY SHREDDER (Reader), AMAZON SWINDLE (Kindle)
QUOTE 7: A WORLD WHERE NOBODY LENDS BOOKS TO ANYONE ANYMORE … OTHER READERS WILL NO LONGER BE YOUR FRIEND, BECAUSE YOU’LL BE ACTING LIKE A JERK
QUOTE 8: PIRACY IS A PROPAGANDA TERM. SHARING ISN’T THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF ATTACKING SHIPS
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
LIANZA 2010 Conference Launch
LIANZA 2010 Conference Launch
Linda Geddes is 2010 Conference Convenor. It'll be the centennial conference (first NZ library conference was 26th-28th March 1910) - aim to create a historic event. Video prepared with welcome message from Dunedin Mayor, apparently not realising that librarians can party to rival the Undie 500 delegates. :-)Theme will be "At the Edge - Te Matakāheru" 28 November - 1 December in Dunedin, at the University of Otago.
Linda Geddes is 2010 Conference Convenor. It'll be the centennial conference (first NZ library conference was 26th-28th March 1910) - aim to create a historic event. Video prepared with welcome message from Dunedin Mayor, apparently not realising that librarians can party to rival the Undie 500 delegates. :-)Theme will be "At the Edge - Te Matakāheru" 28 November - 1 December in Dunedin, at the University of Otago.
Jessica Dorr - You Tube Video of work back home
Jessica recommended this video on Youtube showing how a library project in Latvia, jointly funded by the foundation and the Latvian government, has turned Latvia’s libraries into centres of learning and opportunity by providing better access to information, jobs, and social connections through technology. The grant—which provided public libraries with computer equipment, Internet connectivity, and skilled librarians—is a huge success story and is helping to close the digital gap in Latvia.
(Thanks to Richard Liddicoat of the Digital Library Web Team for his sterling audio work on the interview)
(Thanks to Richard Liddicoat of the Digital Library Web Team for his sterling audio work on the interview)
Jessica Dorr
Jessica Dorr
You are bold librarians! said Jessica Dorn in her address to the 2009 LIANZA Conference delegates. Jessica represented the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. She presented a talk on “Libraries building communities: communities building libraries"
You are bold librarians! said Jessica Dorn in her address to the 2009 LIANZA Conference delegates. Jessica represented the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. She presented a talk on “Libraries building communities: communities building libraries"
Jessica Dorrabstract (pdf)Begins with "Kia ora"; ends with "Kia ora koutou". :-)Says our reputation precedes us.Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation guided by belief that every life has equal value. Goals to improve health; strengthen education; reduce poverty. "Bill Gates has billions of dollars. Why would he give it to libraries? The answer is simple: libraries change lives." Librarians work to make information available -> strong drivers of economic and social progress.Project to connect all libraries to the internet within five years. Spirit similar to APNK but didn't know how challenging task (including technical support) would be. Pulled it off though it took closer to seven years. Total PCs granted = 47,200; buildings receiving a grant: 10,915; training opportunities: 62,000. When started, less than a quarter had access to internet; now all do, and provide it for free. "If you can reach a public library, you can reach the internet."Started with poorer libraries - those not already connected. Started with states in highest need -- Deep South. 
New Mexico was sixth state and provided challenges and opportunities. First large state they worked in. Noticed when plotted a map there were large gaps with no libraries - discovered those were tribal reservation areas. Felt it was unfathomable that there was no need so went to visit. Found lots of space, and found libraries which weren't on the state-recognised list of libraries.Underestimated challenges of technology and underestimated the relevance of the internet to these communities. Showed Microsoft Encarta online encyclopaedia and they searched for themselves. Found mistakes in the encyclopaedia.Began a crash course - couldn't just add libraries to a list of libraries and give them computers. Needed to do more. Used loom as analogy: if weaving this project needed to learn all six steps.(Native communities are justifiably wary of the outside world but want education, want to learn to use computers in a native way.)Find a sheep / Shearing / Needs assessmentEnvironment makes providing services more difficult and expensive.Computers have to speak and write Native languagesCould work with tribes and network - worked hard to involve all of NavahoHad to work with Navaho definition of libraryHad to build capacity and support organisations that work with tribes long-termTools/equipment: scanners, microphones, digital cameras, software tools, test models, drove computers and generators out to test them thoroughly.Wash and dye / TrainingProject-based - using Native examplesPresenting information less linear, more circular/interrelatedShort days as people had to leave early to chop wood, etcMornings teaching staff, afternoons outreach (students, tribal elders, police, any group that had interest in training)Card and spin / Program challengesConnectivity - In US program didn't plan for long-term payment because government should provide. But here couldn't expect to persuade tribal governments to pay, so gave step-down funding (more first year, less next, less next) to give tribal governments time to recognise the value outweighed disadvantages like porn.Challenge in staff turnover so training need never goes awayDye and pattern / Examples of successIndigenous Language Institute uses YouTube to promote preservation of native langaugesWebsites developed for/by government of all chapters so can email instead of drive, minutes and budgets are online. Bartering online.Individuals - computer lets people do homework online instead of driving hours to study.With the tools in place, they are weaving.Learned importance of being familiar with community needs and working with them.Now working in other countries. Aim to bring about effective, sustainable access in developing countries. Want computers to be useful and used in ways to improve lives.Need training for staff - both in technology and outreachLibraries have to be accessible and open to all. Might need to include health clinic; or be on a boat.Libraries have to demonstrate impact by measuring how they meet local needsIn terms of sustainability, suffering because assumed benefits of libraries were obvious so didn't spend effort on evaluation so libraries could prove benefits. Now work from beginning to include an evaluation component. In Latvia compare library services across other government services. In Lithuania doing a study showing return on investment. In Poland doing a study of library users vs non-users. --Different from country to country but critical to have some evaluation in place.Need strong library systems in place to provide vision for field, develop curricula, create sharing opportunities.More than 70% of people in US who use computers in a library say it's the only place they have internet access.Latvia had so many people sitting outside after hours to use wireless that used bandwidth stats to argue for longer open hours.Libraries need to radically change perceptions people have about libraries, we won't survive. Have to be bold, be more radical, be louder, use data, use stories. Must champion and strengthen the resource. Need to keep libraries on the agenda.Story of mayor in Latvia who had to decide whether to improve roads or libraries. Decided to invest in library - and discovered ripple effect on local business, kids staying in school longer.Q: Even with full funding, would be difficulties in some public libraries to add internet. How did you manage that?A: There's no national library in the US - just state libraries. So asked state libraries to apply on behalf of their libraries. Because it was the Gates Foundation, states didn't want to be left out. Some were hesitant, but starting in places with most need showed their priorities. Policy to only work in libraries that would provide free internet. Some libraries didn't want to, but the momentum carried it through.Q: How are you involved in prison libraries?A: Haven't been yet. Have also been asked about academic, schools. But have chosen to invest in public libraries.Q: How are libraries sustaining themselves in difficult economic times.A: Difficult. 20-25% of libraries are at forefront and can continually refresh computers. Middle group, and then 40% really struggle and in 5 years haven't been able to upgrade. So studying what's the difference between these groups? High-performing libraries isn't due to funding as much as due to the librarian - if they're actively involved, actively promoting, they perform well. So future training is focusing in this area too.Q: Has foundation work increased opportunity for collaboration between libraries?A: She thinks so, and they're trying to support it. Spend time building partnerships between grantees; support them to conferences, publication, etc. Recommends looking at their website.
New Mexico was sixth state and provided challenges and opportunities. First large state they worked in. Noticed when plotted a map there were large gaps with no libraries - discovered those were tribal reservation areas. Felt it was unfathomable that there was no need so went to visit. Found lots of space, and found libraries which weren't on the state-recognised list of libraries.Underestimated challenges of technology and underestimated the relevance of the internet to these communities. Showed Microsoft Encarta online encyclopaedia and they searched for themselves. Found mistakes in the encyclopaedia.Began a crash course - couldn't just add libraries to a list of libraries and give them computers. Needed to do more. Used loom as analogy: if weaving this project needed to learn all six steps.(Native communities are justifiably wary of the outside world but want education, want to learn to use computers in a native way.)Find a sheep / Shearing / Needs assessmentEnvironment makes providing services more difficult and expensive.Computers have to speak and write Native languagesCould work with tribes and network - worked hard to involve all of NavahoHad to work with Navaho definition of libraryHad to build capacity and support organisations that work with tribes long-termTools/equipment: scanners, microphones, digital cameras, software tools, test models, drove computers and generators out to test them thoroughly.Wash and dye / TrainingProject-based - using Native examplesPresenting information less linear, more circular/interrelatedShort days as people had to leave early to chop wood, etcMornings teaching staff, afternoons outreach (students, tribal elders, police, any group that had interest in training)Card and spin / Program challengesConnectivity - In US program didn't plan for long-term payment because government should provide. But here couldn't expect to persuade tribal governments to pay, so gave step-down funding (more first year, less next, less next) to give tribal governments time to recognise the value outweighed disadvantages like porn.Challenge in staff turnover so training need never goes awayDye and pattern / Examples of successIndigenous Language Institute uses YouTube to promote preservation of native langaugesWebsites developed for/by government of all chapters so can email instead of drive, minutes and budgets are online. Bartering online.Individuals - computer lets people do homework online instead of driving hours to study.With the tools in place, they are weaving.Learned importance of being familiar with community needs and working with them.Now working in other countries. Aim to bring about effective, sustainable access in developing countries. Want computers to be useful and used in ways to improve lives.Need training for staff - both in technology and outreachLibraries have to be accessible and open to all. Might need to include health clinic; or be on a boat.Libraries have to demonstrate impact by measuring how they meet local needsIn terms of sustainability, suffering because assumed benefits of libraries were obvious so didn't spend effort on evaluation so libraries could prove benefits. Now work from beginning to include an evaluation component. In Latvia compare library services across other government services. In Lithuania doing a study showing return on investment. In Poland doing a study of library users vs non-users. --Different from country to country but critical to have some evaluation in place.Need strong library systems in place to provide vision for field, develop curricula, create sharing opportunities.More than 70% of people in US who use computers in a library say it's the only place they have internet access.Latvia had so many people sitting outside after hours to use wireless that used bandwidth stats to argue for longer open hours.Libraries need to radically change perceptions people have about libraries, we won't survive. Have to be bold, be more radical, be louder, use data, use stories. Must champion and strengthen the resource. Need to keep libraries on the agenda.Story of mayor in Latvia who had to decide whether to improve roads or libraries. Decided to invest in library - and discovered ripple effect on local business, kids staying in school longer.Q: Even with full funding, would be difficulties in some public libraries to add internet. How did you manage that?A: There's no national library in the US - just state libraries. So asked state libraries to apply on behalf of their libraries. Because it was the Gates Foundation, states didn't want to be left out. Some were hesitant, but starting in places with most need showed their priorities. Policy to only work in libraries that would provide free internet. Some libraries didn't want to, but the momentum carried it through.Q: How are you involved in prison libraries?A: Haven't been yet. Have also been asked about academic, schools. But have chosen to invest in public libraries.Q: How are libraries sustaining themselves in difficult economic times.A: Difficult. 20-25% of libraries are at forefront and can continually refresh computers. Middle group, and then 40% really struggle and in 5 years haven't been able to upgrade. So studying what's the difference between these groups? High-performing libraries isn't due to funding as much as due to the librarian - if they're actively involved, actively promoting, they perform well. So future training is focusing in this area too.Q: Has foundation work increased opportunity for collaboration between libraries?A: She thinks so, and they're trying to support it. Spend time building partnerships between grantees; support them to conferences, publication, etc. Recommends looking at their website.What would you do - Elizabeth White, Paul Sutherland
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
What would you do?
Developing and sharing creative solutions (aka Doing More With Less)Elizabeth Whyte, Paul Sutherland"90 minutes of user-generated discussion. In the spirit of Unconference and Pecha Kucha, hear rapid-fire presentations of ideas and challenges from your colleagues. Then break into groups, design solutions, and get inspired to do more with less."Going to watch presentations, ask questions without answering, and then break into groups ("of at least two people because otherwise it wouldn't be a group") to generate answers. Deborah started with her suggestion box presentation, which she uploaded later. (ETA: it's here.) Questions about this were:- How responded to allegation that AU is better than CU?- How are questions and answers distributed?- Staff training for social media sites- Should we forego paper suggestion boxes completely?Break-out groups came up with: (ETA - there was much more discussion that I've noted of course! These only include the 'takeaway' summary reported back at the end of the session.)- If people ask a question/complain, respond in public so everyone can see.We got another presentation on "What would you do about disruptive youth in a public library?" This library is the only free sheltered space in the area. So kids will congregate which is great, but some associated behaviour (especially age 9-14) is less than delightful. Verbal abuse of staff, customers; bullying; assault; gang activity. Long-term they want kids to stay in the library and keep reading. Diagnose much activity as boredom. Are having holiday programs. Want low-key, low-cost, low-advertising, low-efforts. Have used trespass orders but a 2-year tresspass order to an 11-year old is icky. Police relationship, contacts with schools and other agencies. Blogging on an internal incident archive. Training staff. What else can be done?Questions from the audience:- How do older kids respond to incidents?- Does library employ extra staff in holidays?- What's the scope of the youth worker role?- What about ways of getting youth to interact with library knowledge other than passive reading?- Can you create an alternative space?- How do you engage with parents of children?- What are their interests?Break-out groups came up with:- It's good that youth are coming in; they're disconnected and libraries are connecting them into society.- Lots of other ideas and going to work it into something coherent.Jack GoodmanLibraries have lots of fans but not necessarily outspoken ones. Library is the cool place to hang out because we're about people. Talks about building relationships with businesses, universities, polytechs, future generations of educators. Sporting clubs. WIIFM? What's in it for me/libraries? Innovation is essential. Normally takes a lot of resources, money. Denmark $122 per capita funding for libraries; NZ ~$60, Aus ~40.Have we thought about partnerships with local gardening centre? Example of garden centre referring to library for care instructions.Questions from the audience:- Can you get a supplier to support a project within the library?- How would you make the first approach?- Have you done this yourself?Break-out groups came up with:- Libraries shouldn't sell themselves short re potential partnerships. Build relationships.Ellen Thompson from Queensland University of Technology on the unconference "It functions better when more traditional meetings fail." Traditional meeting boring - either nod off or get surly and disruptive. Would like more dynamic ideas movement going on in meetings. Wants an un-meeting. So did it - convinced boss to have a fortnightly agenda meeting and every second week have an un-meeting:
whoever comes is the right people
whatever they talk about is the right topic
when it starts it's right, when it's over it's over
law of two feetTo get a quick meeting: have it standing up. (Audience suggestion to secretly take the chairs away.) Are there any systems, practices, procedures in our organisation that we can "un-"?- un-performance and strategic direction - un-jargon- joking: un-reference interview- un-email (talk to colleagues instead)- un-bureaucracy- un-heirarchy of information and power- un-serious- un-noncontroversial(Put the "un" in "fun"!)- un-risk averse- ungry!Break-out groups came up with:- A well-run meeting can be a beautiful thing.- Need to have purpose and time and place.- Don't try to mash-up agenda-meeting and unmeeting - will get the worst of both worlds.- Some people have standup meetings and they work, so it can be done!Claire Stent from Statistics New ZealandWe try to offer the silver service "everything to everyone all the time". But then people are in the food court! They know Google's not the best search tool but it's quick and easy and has no tutting librarian over their shoulder. They don't feel *comfortable* with our portals. So what do we do? We improve our portals and our processes. So it's not silver service any more, but there's still no people because nothing's changed: the same service is still under the hood. Uni students get a course reader - a chapter here and a journal article there.What do we want? Something different, like a picnic or barbecue? Why be a restaurant if people don't want that? So now if people go to their research page they get training, emails, etc to do with research. Also has pictures! Getting lots of good feedback.People don't want journals and issues; they want one subject-related article. So instead of table of contents, get a subject-related alert. RSS feed search alerts from Ebsco or ProQuest.Don't invent your same service in a new way; invent a new service!Questions from audience:- Why second-guess what people want rather than asking them? (or watching what they use)- Do your staff understand alerts and RSS feeds?- Is the value of libraries in the food or the service or the menu?Break-out groups came up with:- Vote that we're about service.- We're not convinced people know what they want. Should observe them rather than ask.- People like different delivery methods - need to do a variety of things.---LIANZA Ning - if people sign up we can write up what we came up with today.
What would you do?
Developing and sharing creative solutions (aka Doing More With Less)Elizabeth Whyte, Paul Sutherland"90 minutes of user-generated discussion. In the spirit of Unconference and Pecha Kucha, hear rapid-fire presentations of ideas and challenges from your colleagues. Then break into groups, design solutions, and get inspired to do more with less."Going to watch presentations, ask questions without answering, and then break into groups ("of at least two people because otherwise it wouldn't be a group") to generate answers. Deborah started with her suggestion box presentation, which she uploaded later. (ETA: it's here.) Questions about this were:- How responded to allegation that AU is better than CU?- How are questions and answers distributed?- Staff training for social media sites- Should we forego paper suggestion boxes completely?Break-out groups came up with: (ETA - there was much more discussion that I've noted of course! These only include the 'takeaway' summary reported back at the end of the session.)- If people ask a question/complain, respond in public so everyone can see.We got another presentation on "What would you do about disruptive youth in a public library?" This library is the only free sheltered space in the area. So kids will congregate which is great, but some associated behaviour (especially age 9-14) is less than delightful. Verbal abuse of staff, customers; bullying; assault; gang activity. Long-term they want kids to stay in the library and keep reading. Diagnose much activity as boredom. Are having holiday programs. Want low-key, low-cost, low-advertising, low-efforts. Have used trespass orders but a 2-year tresspass order to an 11-year old is icky. Police relationship, contacts with schools and other agencies. Blogging on an internal incident archive. Training staff. What else can be done?Questions from the audience:- How do older kids respond to incidents?- Does library employ extra staff in holidays?- What's the scope of the youth worker role?- What about ways of getting youth to interact with library knowledge other than passive reading?- Can you create an alternative space?- How do you engage with parents of children?- What are their interests?Break-out groups came up with:- It's good that youth are coming in; they're disconnected and libraries are connecting them into society.- Lots of other ideas and going to work it into something coherent.Jack GoodmanLibraries have lots of fans but not necessarily outspoken ones. Library is the cool place to hang out because we're about people. Talks about building relationships with businesses, universities, polytechs, future generations of educators. Sporting clubs. WIIFM? What's in it for me/libraries? Innovation is essential. Normally takes a lot of resources, money. Denmark $122 per capita funding for libraries; NZ ~$60, Aus ~40.Have we thought about partnerships with local gardening centre? Example of garden centre referring to library for care instructions.Questions from the audience:- Can you get a supplier to support a project within the library?- How would you make the first approach?- Have you done this yourself?Break-out groups came up with:- Libraries shouldn't sell themselves short re potential partnerships. Build relationships.Ellen Thompson from Queensland University of Technology on the unconference "It functions better when more traditional meetings fail." Traditional meeting boring - either nod off or get surly and disruptive. Would like more dynamic ideas movement going on in meetings. Wants an un-meeting. So did it - convinced boss to have a fortnightly agenda meeting and every second week have an un-meeting:
whoever comes is the right people
whatever they talk about is the right topic
when it starts it's right, when it's over it's over
law of two feetTo get a quick meeting: have it standing up. (Audience suggestion to secretly take the chairs away.) Are there any systems, practices, procedures in our organisation that we can "un-"?- un-performance and strategic direction - un-jargon- joking: un-reference interview- un-email (talk to colleagues instead)- un-bureaucracy- un-heirarchy of information and power- un-serious- un-noncontroversial(Put the "un" in "fun"!)- un-risk averse- ungry!Break-out groups came up with:- A well-run meeting can be a beautiful thing.- Need to have purpose and time and place.- Don't try to mash-up agenda-meeting and unmeeting - will get the worst of both worlds.- Some people have standup meetings and they work, so it can be done!Claire Stent from Statistics New ZealandWe try to offer the silver service "everything to everyone all the time". But then people are in the food court! They know Google's not the best search tool but it's quick and easy and has no tutting librarian over their shoulder. They don't feel *comfortable* with our portals. So what do we do? We improve our portals and our processes. So it's not silver service any more, but there's still no people because nothing's changed: the same service is still under the hood. Uni students get a course reader - a chapter here and a journal article there.What do we want? Something different, like a picnic or barbecue? Why be a restaurant if people don't want that? So now if people go to their research page they get training, emails, etc to do with research. Also has pictures! Getting lots of good feedback.People don't want journals and issues; they want one subject-related article. So instead of table of contents, get a subject-related alert. RSS feed search alerts from Ebsco or ProQuest.Don't invent your same service in a new way; invent a new service!Questions from audience:- Why second-guess what people want rather than asking them? (or watching what they use)- Do your staff understand alerts and RSS feeds?- Is the value of libraries in the food or the service or the menu?Break-out groups came up with:- Vote that we're about service.- We're not convinced people know what they want. Should observe them rather than ask.- People like different delivery methods - need to do a variety of things.---LIANZA Ning - if people sign up we can write up what we came up with today.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
LIANZA Keynote Speaker - Tim Spalding
Introduces self as a failed academic, worked in publishing, started LibraryThing.Warning: Library Science being practiced without a degreeStarted as a personal project, now a company. 850,000 members who catalogue their personal libraries - so far 44million books. Available in 12+ languages. (Not Māori but would be open to that - translations done by members.)Social cataloguing is "what I say it means" because he invented it! It's what emerges when personal catalogue goes social. It's becoming increasingly important to libraries. Used in LibraryThing, Shelfari, GoodReads; Visual Bookshelf, BooksWeRead.Ladder of social cataloguing:- started as personal cataloguing and grew from there- users climb the ladder- climbing the ladder is more altruism, more cooperation, more social. But participating is primarily for self. There's some application to libraries but it's different there.Live demonstration of adding "History of New Zealand" by Michael King to his bookshelf. Mixture of tags - "new zealand", "history", "lianza", "interesting". Bookshelf with ratings. Can add from Amazon or many other bookstores or even libraries - 10 libraries in New Zealand contribute data. Can view libraries by list, cover, tag (list or cloud); author cloud or portraits. Statistics on language, number of characters, places. Reviews and ratings. Members' profiles - social networking component but LibraryThing is more about content than people, reflected in focus on users' names rather than user icons.23,000 people adding Twilight. All doing it for themselves but as a result there are now 1200 reviews people can read; tags are added, recommendations are generated ("Will I like it?" - it correctly predicts he won't like Twilight. :-) ) Can follow a feed of new recommendations. There's also the "unsuggester" - trying to be entertaining around books.Example of Neuromancer - library of congress has bizarre subject headings; LibraryThing has "cyberpunk" and you can click through to read more cyberpunk. "Chicklit" is sorted by how many people have called it that; cf Library of Congress "love stories" which is just either/or, no sorting. Idea of prototypes - a robin is a really good example of a bird, a penguin is a kind of okay example of a bird...Non-romance readers think romance readers read romance, but they don't - they read contemporary romance, trashy romance, regency romance, lesbian romance, paranormal romance...."If you're using terms like "social capital" you've already passed some kind of brain test" so not worried about vandalism...."magic" is problematic - Harry Potter mixed in with academic ones."leather" even more soCan do tagmashes to get tagmash "France", "WWII", "fiction""chicklit" is now an LCSH but not geographically subdivided and will never have a "zombie" subdivision.Tags: glbt vs lgbt "But those are the same thing!" -- but no: the books are actually different. The terms that people use encode all sorts of stuff. Many things labelled "homosexuality" actually mean "anti-homosexuality".More than 1.5million covers added (including Albanian, Serbian editions of Harry Potter). When you upload it for yourself, everyone gets the benefit.Social networking based on books you have in common. "Even if I don't want to be his buddy, checking out his library will be very interesting to me. Social networking for people who don't want to talk to each other."Most popular group is Librarians who LibraryThing. Conversations about books on groups are tied into the books' own records.LibraryThing Local - showing us map of bookstores and libraries in Portland, Maine. Can connect to local LT members; find events at bookstores, libraries. Add a photo of our libraries to these pages!Example of wife's books - members have combined all the editions (other languages, etc) FRBR-style. Members have combined "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens"."Common Knowledge" - awards, quotes, characters and places in the story, blurbers - all sorts of things not captured in typical metadata.Series pages - eg Star Wars series. Plus "related series". Much more information than any library has. Collated by people who know about it - the books' fans.How many books does George Washington occur in? How many books take place in Washington, D.C., or in Hell?LT "member" Thomas Jefferson, Marie Antoinette. No New Zealanders at the moment. Based on eg auction house records. Done by the group "I See Dead People's Books". Nice to be able to search Thomas Jefferson's library - couldn't do it before; now can see how you overlap with these people. Most popular book among all legacy libraries is Don Quixote; #2 is Complete Shakespeare.Highest rung of ladder is altruism - flash mob cataloguing where volunteers go to library and catalogue their books in a mob in a day.Six free ways to use LibraryThing:1 Make sure you're in LT Local2 Make an account3 Libraries of Early New Zealand4 Flash-mob catalogue your local historical society, church, health centre...5 "Community library" to create a shared local library with LibraryThing Groups (eg two churches, a historical library, and a couple of people in town).6 Grab our free data: common knowledge data, frbrised data etc.One un-free way:1 LibraryThing for Libraries eg at Seattle Public Library showing other editions and translations; similar books; tags; reviews. Four or five NZ libraries are using it.What does social cataloguing mean for library cataloguing?The end of the world! No!Defends the value of structured metadata but that shouldn't be all we have.LCSH - A book has 3-6 subjects - why? because that's how many we can fit on a card.Subjects are equally valid because of... the card.Subjects never change because of... the card.Only librarians get to add subjects because of... the card.Users don't get a say in how books are classified because of... the card.In the digital world, none of this matters. In libraries these ideas have still persisted.The physical library was human. The first wave of technology was dehumanising but social cataloguing can rehumanise the library. Everyone can help. (We don't need to let them do everything but they can help!) Local matters again. cf Māori Subject Headings - sometimes local communities need headers other communities don't have.A note of caution before joining the exciting world of web2.0 - join the exciting world of web1.0! Library catalogues aren't web1.0. Often you can't link to library catalogue records; they're all session-based. Why why why? People need to be able to bookmark and share. And catalogues aren't indexed in search engines! Why?????Go with the grain of the internet, not against it. We're not in competition with the internet. We should be open. Libraries are going the wrong way. LibraryThing gets twice as much traffic as WorldCat. Dogster gets as much traffic as WorldCat.Be part of the conversation. Trust people: put your stuff online and risk that people might find the "wrong thing" or tag it the "wrong way".Choose solutions that favour all this. He thinks open source is the way to go. He doesn't think open source is necessarily better, but it can be.Social cataloguing can be a last chance to join web 1.0. Before we start struggling with ebooks struggle with the fact that people can't find our books on Google! It's an opportunity to reinvigorate library technology. To reconsider some LIS thinking and improve systems. (Had a LT project to replace Dewey. Turns out to be hard and didn't work. But it's cool to try!) Chance to embrace best traditions of librarianship: radical openness, public spirit, focus, connection to the local and social. Why would we lend books but hold back metadata?Q: Could libraries organise own flash mobs and [? get stuff on web?]A: Absolutely! Thinks flash mobs are good for things on the periphery, stuff that's never been exposed eg churches, historical society. So many books exist in private holdings!Q: What proportion of books on LibraryThing do people catalogue themselves rather than pulling data in?A: Not sure but probably a small percentage. Zines, comics, etc are the main things.
Making IT work for you
Day 2 of the LIANZA Conference 2009 starts with the presentation by Warwick Grey and Corin Haines on “Making IT work for you”.
Warwick is up first. Talking about techologies Linking historical developments with his life
development of computers and television. media and entertainment from black and white to colour (remembers Christchurc Commonwealth games in COLOUR) 1st Colour sports event her saw live on TV.
Then talks about his first computer moving to first PC using DOS. Then Windows 3.1 and so now there is New windows - 2 toolbars. He then shows us a video of the personal computing revolution - do you remember your first computer? "Long live the 1980s" From something exciting to a tool, a commodity. Then in the 90s comes the exciting transformative period - extrordinary change in computing developments technology goals will change - 2000s create community, loyalty, self-help, capture experts, integrate channels HP collaboration with designers for their new netbooks Collaboration among people - multimedia. get connected to products and services - any solution delivered in real time across the internet. shared services
stored in the cloud. This session is sponsored by Datacom. Warwick is from HP
Corin is Discussing social networking. Corin starts talking about Twitter, demonstrating how he filmed a video yesterday, uploaded it then tweeted it during the session Demonstrating his mashup of National Library videos and out of copyright music on flickr.
summary - needs to make social and web tools easy, create feedback , engage custeomers where they are; develope internal ambassadors, partner with external social networks in your community; engage with people; empower internal advocates; accellerate and incubate those efforts across the organisation
Warwick is up first. Talking about techologies Linking historical developments with his life
development of computers and television. media and entertainment from black and white to colour (remembers Christchurc Commonwealth games in COLOUR) 1st Colour sports event her saw live on TV.
Then talks about his first computer moving to first PC using DOS. Then Windows 3.1 and so now there is New windows - 2 toolbars. He then shows us a video of the personal computing revolution - do you remember your first computer? "Long live the 1980s" From something exciting to a tool, a commodity. Then in the 90s comes the exciting transformative period - extrordinary change in computing developments technology goals will change - 2000s create community, loyalty, self-help, capture experts, integrate channels HP collaboration with designers for their new netbooks Collaboration among people - multimedia. get connected to products and services - any solution delivered in real time across the internet. shared services
stored in the cloud. This session is sponsored by Datacom. Warwick is from HP
Corin is Discussing social networking. Corin starts talking about Twitter, demonstrating how he filmed a video yesterday, uploaded it then tweeted it during the session Demonstrating his mashup of National Library videos and out of copyright music on flickr.
summary - needs to make social and web tools easy, create feedback , engage custeomers where they are; develope internal ambassadors, partner with external social networks in your community; engage with people; empower internal advocates; accellerate and incubate those efforts across the organisation
Tim Spalding What is Social Cataloguing - Library Thing
LibraryThing catalogs yours books online, easily, quickly and for free” - but wait, there’s more – you can also use it to … [Warning: the following list is a very narrow summary of features that is not truly representative of all of the functionality available within LibraryThing. Existing users of LibraryThing may find this offensive]:
See who else has the book, and what they think about it.
View and add facts about the book such as character names, awards, or places.
View and add reviews, ratings, tags.
View and add cover images and a gallery of authors.
Look at statistics to see books that you share with other LibraryThing members.
Use comments to send a note to other members.
Connect to other people on LibraryThing by joining or creating a group.
See who else has the book, and what they think about it.
View and add facts about the book such as character names, awards, or places.
View and add reviews, ratings, tags.
View and add cover images and a gallery of authors.
Look at statistics to see books that you share with other LibraryThing members.
Use comments to send a note to other members.
Connect to other people on LibraryThing by joining or creating a group.
In Brief....
It’s an insightful and interesting presentation full of both facts and ideas to consider. Additionally, Spalding is an excellent speaker.
What follows is a NON-COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF a Few Facts and Discussion Points from the keynote. It’s well worth the 50-some minutes to listen for yourself. We think LIS students will also find this presentation worthy of their time.
LT and Social Cataloging:
+ Started in 2005+ 850K Members+ Members Have Cataloged More than 44 Million Books+ Social Cataloging Will Become More Important to Libraries+ The Social Cataloging Ladder+ LibraryThing is More About the Content and Less About Pictures, etc.+ Largest Tag on LT is Cyberpunk+ Comparing LT Tags to LCSH+ Explains TagMashing+ Collaborative Cataloging+ Brings Various Editions of Books Together [Not FRBR but FRBR Like]+ Members Adding Value by Adding Metadata and More Not Provided by the Publishers+ Legacy Cataloging+ Flash Mob Cataloging+ LibraryThing for Libraries (A Fee-Based Service)
+ Traditional Cataloging Will Remain+ Still Believes in Structured Data+ End of Intellectual Structures Rooted in the Limited of the Physical World–David Weinberger+ Humanizing the Catalog (ie. recommendations)+ Library Catalogs are Not Links or Search Engines+ LibraryThing Gets Twice as Much Traffic as WorldCat.org+ Consider Open Source Products+ Social Cataloging Can be a Way for Libraries to Join Web 1.0+ Social Cataloging Can Help Embrace “Best Traditions” of Libraries
Is this enough to pique your interest? If it is then sign up for LibraryThing. Go to the home page, click “Join now” and enter a user name and a password in the yellow box. That’s it.
What follows is a NON-COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF a Few Facts and Discussion Points from the keynote. It’s well worth the 50-some minutes to listen for yourself. We think LIS students will also find this presentation worthy of their time.
LT and Social Cataloging:
+ Started in 2005+ 850K Members+ Members Have Cataloged More than 44 Million Books+ Social Cataloging Will Become More Important to Libraries+ The Social Cataloging Ladder+ LibraryThing is More About the Content and Less About Pictures, etc.+ Largest Tag on LT is Cyberpunk+ Comparing LT Tags to LCSH+ Explains TagMashing+ Collaborative Cataloging+ Brings Various Editions of Books Together [Not FRBR but FRBR Like]+ Members Adding Value by Adding Metadata and More Not Provided by the Publishers+ Legacy Cataloging+ Flash Mob Cataloging+ LibraryThing for Libraries (A Fee-Based Service)
+ Traditional Cataloging Will Remain+ Still Believes in Structured Data+ End of Intellectual Structures Rooted in the Limited of the Physical World–David Weinberger+ Humanizing the Catalog (ie. recommendations)+ Library Catalogs are Not Links or Search Engines+ LibraryThing Gets Twice as Much Traffic as WorldCat.org+ Consider Open Source Products+ Social Cataloging Can be a Way for Libraries to Join Web 1.0+ Social Cataloging Can Help Embrace “Best Traditions” of Libraries
Is this enough to pique your interest? If it is then sign up for LibraryThing. Go to the home page, click “Join now” and enter a user name and a password in the yellow box. That’s it.
Implementing Web 2.0 - Paul Hayton
Implementing Web 2.0
Paul HaytonMetrics are important - available on flickr, wordpress, facebok, youtube, witter. Wikipedia doesn't.Launch dates all refer to Dunedin Public Library's accounts.Flickr:consider using a secret email address; it negates most IT/Council security uploading hassles. Subject heading becomes title and body is description.Flash-based tools may break so use the basic uploaderPro account gives features that are worth it.Link Flickr to blog, facebook, etc - facilitates crossposting.Blog:Started having news and reviews blogs. In Feb 08 merged to a single blog at wordpress.Use Google Analytics. Hosting on own servers makes it easy to put code in.Suggests posting every 1-3 days. Every day is too much, every week not enough.Include youtube clips, flickr banner and links to other services down the side.If doing more than one thing then reuse your content! Eg description on images / blog description of event. Push people through to different services by linking blogpost, photo, through to youtube video etc.Post a little content often rather than a lot infrequently.Link to other online spaces proactivelyReview content using metrics to discover what really is popular content (eg topical links to Swayze-related collection)Use categories, not tags to standardise search when running a blog with multiple contributors - forces authority control.Wikipedia article - launched April 08. Anecdotally well-received but hard to read statistics. Have had one instance of vandalism - corrected by wiki community within 24 hours. When Paul started adding stuff he had people telling him he couldn't put up library-copyrighted stuff.Tips:Establish an accountDeclare who you areStart small, build content as time permitsAdd images and links to other online spacesReference where you canSeek other pages with related content and edit to include a link back to your own pageYouTubeLaunched May 08; now 111 videos, average of 40-60 viewers per day.Tips:Invest in a tripodRecording at 320x240 at 8 frames per second is fine and reduces both file size and upload timeYouTube has a 10min limitDon't pan and zoom.Be consistent in categories and tagsFacebookLaunched December 2008 - wanted to establish a profile and generate viral promotion; engage in dialogue with fans and deliver targeted promotional info to fansAddress is horrible - get a badge. (Me: if you have 100+ fans you can get a custom address)Metrics interesting - fans are 64% female which reflects library membership. Highest fans are at 25-34%Good conversation going.Tips:Have a response plan for if customers engage.Establish a page, not a group.Post links to other online spacesUse the events feature and selectively send invites to fansIf you have a Twitter account, consider linking your status updates to it.Import blog, flickr content etc to your page.TwitterLaunched Feb 09Can get statistics from various analytic sites eg tweetstats.comPredominantly events stuff.Tips:Use web stats services to analyse accountUse the power of the + in http://bit.ly/1894XD+ to get stats on how often it's been viewed.Firefox - install Power Twitter add-on."The more you give the more you get" - the more you tweet the more followers you get - but it's more about quality vs quantity.Implementing:- Strategy - be clear about why and where you're playing, but you don't need a full strategy before you dive in. No analysis paralysis!- Staff/time - better to do one thing well than several things poorly. Look for something you like and do that.- Learn by doing. Forgiveness vs permission, action vs policy.- Proactively network with like minds.- Spend time each week being a 'naive enquirer' to learn more.Q: Release permission for filming booktalks, audiences?A: Get permission for authors, performers. Camera is generally not on audience - only incidental and not very identifiable. Anecdotally - email from someone in a video who wanted a copy to send it aroundQ: Problems with Wikipedia's rule against editing your own page?A: No issues.Q: YouTube filming at low resolution - shouldn't we film at high resolution for posterity and just upload a low-res version?A: Yes, valid point - could be something we could do better at. But currently dealing with practical issues
Paul HaytonMetrics are important - available on flickr, wordpress, facebok, youtube, witter. Wikipedia doesn't.Launch dates all refer to Dunedin Public Library's accounts.Flickr:consider using a secret email address; it negates most IT/Council security uploading hassles. Subject heading becomes title and body is description.Flash-based tools may break so use the basic uploaderPro account gives features that are worth it.Link Flickr to blog, facebook, etc - facilitates crossposting.Blog:Started having news and reviews blogs. In Feb 08 merged to a single blog at wordpress.Use Google Analytics. Hosting on own servers makes it easy to put code in.Suggests posting every 1-3 days. Every day is too much, every week not enough.Include youtube clips, flickr banner and links to other services down the side.If doing more than one thing then reuse your content! Eg description on images / blog description of event. Push people through to different services by linking blogpost, photo, through to youtube video etc.Post a little content often rather than a lot infrequently.Link to other online spaces proactivelyReview content using metrics to discover what really is popular content (eg topical links to Swayze-related collection)Use categories, not tags to standardise search when running a blog with multiple contributors - forces authority control.Wikipedia article - launched April 08. Anecdotally well-received but hard to read statistics. Have had one instance of vandalism - corrected by wiki community within 24 hours. When Paul started adding stuff he had people telling him he couldn't put up library-copyrighted stuff.Tips:Establish an accountDeclare who you areStart small, build content as time permitsAdd images and links to other online spacesReference where you canSeek other pages with related content and edit to include a link back to your own pageYouTubeLaunched May 08; now 111 videos, average of 40-60 viewers per day.Tips:Invest in a tripodRecording at 320x240 at 8 frames per second is fine and reduces both file size and upload timeYouTube has a 10min limitDon't pan and zoom.Be consistent in categories and tagsFacebookLaunched December 2008 - wanted to establish a profile and generate viral promotion; engage in dialogue with fans and deliver targeted promotional info to fansAddress is horrible - get a badge. (Me: if you have 100+ fans you can get a custom address)Metrics interesting - fans are 64% female which reflects library membership. Highest fans are at 25-34%Good conversation going.Tips:Have a response plan for if customers engage.Establish a page, not a group.Post links to other online spacesUse the events feature and selectively send invites to fansIf you have a Twitter account, consider linking your status updates to it.Import blog, flickr content etc to your page.TwitterLaunched Feb 09Can get statistics from various analytic sites eg tweetstats.comPredominantly events stuff.Tips:Use web stats services to analyse accountUse the power of the + in http://bit.ly/1894XD+ to get stats on how often it's been viewed.Firefox - install Power Twitter add-on."The more you give the more you get" - the more you tweet the more followers you get - but it's more about quality vs quantity.Implementing:- Strategy - be clear about why and where you're playing, but you don't need a full strategy before you dive in. No analysis paralysis!- Staff/time - better to do one thing well than several things poorly. Look for something you like and do that.- Learn by doing. Forgiveness vs permission, action vs policy.- Proactively network with like minds.- Spend time each week being a 'naive enquirer' to learn more.Q: Release permission for filming booktalks, audiences?A: Get permission for authors, performers. Camera is generally not on audience - only incidental and not very identifiable. Anecdotally - email from someone in a video who wanted a copy to send it aroundQ: Problems with Wikipedia's rule against editing your own page?A: No issues.Q: YouTube filming at low resolution - shouldn't we film at high resolution for posterity and just upload a low-res version?A: Yes, valid point - could be something we could do better at. But currently dealing with practical issues
ITSIG AGM
ITSIG AGM
Welcome
Paul Sutherland welcomed everyone to teh AGM. A show of hands confirmed most were paid up members.
Apologies
(Convenor, University of Auckland), Bob Pearson (Treasurer, University of Auckland) Peter Kennedy (University of Canterbury), Helen Brownlie (University of Otago
ITSIG Convenor’s Report 2009
Members of the ITSIG Committee for the past year were, John Laurie (Convenor, University of Auckland), Bob Pearson (Treasurer, University of Auckland) Peter Kennedy (University of Canterbury), Paul Sutherland (Christchurch City Libraries ) and Helen Brownlie (University of Otago)
The 2008 LIANZA Conference workshop was well attended, with presentations from Amanda Cole of AUT on Implementing Libguides software from Springshare, Sam Minchin of Auckland Public on the redevelopment of the Auckland Public Library website, John Laurie of the University of Auckland, on text digitization, and Brian Flaherty of the University of Auckland, on current trends.
ITSIG has accumulated nearly $4000 in its bank account and needs to decide on the best way to use this money. Membership has slightly increased since 2008.
The issue of holding workshops around the country for ITSIG members was discussed again at the 2008 AGM and once again they have failed to materialize. Members training needs are diverse and it is difficult to come up with a programme that is sufficiently broad to attract the necessary numbers and focused enough to engage the interest of individuals. There is perhaps also a tradition among IT staff of individually updating their knowledge from Web resources.
As in previous years ITSIG has arranged a workshop at the 2009 LIANZA Conference. This will be held from 11.45 to 12.30 on Tuesday 13th October as a concurrent session, with brief presentations from Paul Sutherland, Peter Kennedy and Paul Hayton followed by general discussion.
The Annual General Meeting will be held at the Conference at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday 13th October.
As I am not attending the workshop or the AGM I would like to thank Paul Sutherland for taking on these roles.
Thanks also to Alastair Smith for checking the list of ITSIG members against the 354 people subscribed to ITSIG email list, and sending out an automatic invitation to join the list to 54 ITSIG members who weren’t subscribed.
John Laurie (Convenor 2009)
Welcome
Paul Sutherland welcomed everyone to teh AGM. A show of hands confirmed most were paid up members.
Apologies
(Convenor, University of Auckland), Bob Pearson (Treasurer, University of Auckland) Peter Kennedy (University of Canterbury), Helen Brownlie (University of Otago
ITSIG Convenor’s Report 2009
Members of the ITSIG Committee for the past year were, John Laurie (Convenor, University of Auckland), Bob Pearson (Treasurer, University of Auckland) Peter Kennedy (University of Canterbury), Paul Sutherland (Christchurch City Libraries ) and Helen Brownlie (University of Otago)
The 2008 LIANZA Conference workshop was well attended, with presentations from Amanda Cole of AUT on Implementing Libguides software from Springshare, Sam Minchin of Auckland Public on the redevelopment of the Auckland Public Library website, John Laurie of the University of Auckland, on text digitization, and Brian Flaherty of the University of Auckland, on current trends.
ITSIG has accumulated nearly $4000 in its bank account and needs to decide on the best way to use this money. Membership has slightly increased since 2008.
The issue of holding workshops around the country for ITSIG members was discussed again at the 2008 AGM and once again they have failed to materialize. Members training needs are diverse and it is difficult to come up with a programme that is sufficiently broad to attract the necessary numbers and focused enough to engage the interest of individuals. There is perhaps also a tradition among IT staff of individually updating their knowledge from Web resources.
As in previous years ITSIG has arranged a workshop at the 2009 LIANZA Conference. This will be held from 11.45 to 12.30 on Tuesday 13th October as a concurrent session, with brief presentations from Paul Sutherland, Peter Kennedy and Paul Hayton followed by general discussion.
The Annual General Meeting will be held at the Conference at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday 13th October.
As I am not attending the workshop or the AGM I would like to thank Paul Sutherland for taking on these roles.
Thanks also to Alastair Smith for checking the list of ITSIG members against the 354 people subscribed to ITSIG email list, and sending out an automatic invitation to join the list to 54 ITSIG members who weren’t subscribed.
John Laurie (Convenor 2009)
Who Are The People in Your neighbourhood
This would be the only session at the Conference that included participants singing not one, but two songs. Ada Nally, its inspirational presenter, first led us into a rendition of the classic Sesame Street song “Who are the people in your neighbourhood?”. This simple song neatly symbolised the theme of Ada’s talk, namely that the role of the library is to be a “good neighbour” for the members of its community. Whereas in the past local communities were more cohesive and neighbours knew and looked out for each other, modern society is far more atomised. Unfortunately this atomisation of society is happening contemporaneously with the ongoing influx of new New Zealanders. It is therefore up to community libraries, Ada argues, to assume the mantle of the good neighbour, especially for the often silent and isolated newcomers.
Newtown Library, where Ada works as Multicultural Community Customer Specialist, has taken on this challenge with gusto: the library not only actively hosts a wide variety of groups of all ethnicities, but is also strongly committed to community outreach. Ada visits groups at childcare centres, kohanga reo, Samoan language nests, schools and community centres, spreading the word that the library belongs to all in the community and, most importantly, inviting them to visit the library. And if people are reluctant to visit the library, Ada takes the library to them, as in the case with the Somali mothers and children who congregate at the city housing community rooms. Ada teaches them songs and rhymes, breaking the ice with a rendition of “Heads, Shoulders, Knees and Toes” in Somali. (In case you were wondering, this was the second song we all got to perform during the session.)
The Muslim Women’s fashion parade held at Kilbirnie Library last year is probably the most well-known result of this outreach effort; however there have been many others. Since 2005, to celebrate Race Relations Day, Ada has also been an active promoter of the Earth People project, which sees adults and children throughout New Zealand make people out of clay, while sharing their diverse experiences and celebrating diversity.
So what are Ada’s suggestions for libraries wanting to become good neighbours?
Use the other neighbours in your community - Plunket nurses, schools, childcare centres, English Language Partners (formerly ESOL Home Tutors), Refugee Services, shopkeepers - to stay informed of new arrivals to the community;
Be flexible: be open to operating in different locations and at different times;
and, above all, Embrace the concept that being a good neighbour is our role.
Here are some interesting links if you want to explore this topic further:
The powerpoint that accompanied Ada’s talk
Earth People on the Wellington City Libraries’ blog
Newtown Library, where Ada works as Multicultural Community Customer Specialist, has taken on this challenge with gusto: the library not only actively hosts a wide variety of groups of all ethnicities, but is also strongly committed to community outreach. Ada visits groups at childcare centres, kohanga reo, Samoan language nests, schools and community centres, spreading the word that the library belongs to all in the community and, most importantly, inviting them to visit the library. And if people are reluctant to visit the library, Ada takes the library to them, as in the case with the Somali mothers and children who congregate at the city housing community rooms. Ada teaches them songs and rhymes, breaking the ice with a rendition of “Heads, Shoulders, Knees and Toes” in Somali. (In case you were wondering, this was the second song we all got to perform during the session.)
The Muslim Women’s fashion parade held at Kilbirnie Library last year is probably the most well-known result of this outreach effort; however there have been many others. Since 2005, to celebrate Race Relations Day, Ada has also been an active promoter of the Earth People project, which sees adults and children throughout New Zealand make people out of clay, while sharing their diverse experiences and celebrating diversity.
So what are Ada’s suggestions for libraries wanting to become good neighbours?
Use the other neighbours in your community - Plunket nurses, schools, childcare centres, English Language Partners (formerly ESOL Home Tutors), Refugee Services, shopkeepers - to stay informed of new arrivals to the community;
Be flexible: be open to operating in different locations and at different times;
and, above all, Embrace the concept that being a good neighbour is our role.
Here are some interesting links if you want to explore this topic further:
The powerpoint that accompanied Ada’s talk
Earth People on the Wellington City Libraries’ blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)