In today's information ecosystem, libraries are at a crossroads: several of the services traditionally provided within their walls are increasingly made available online, often by non- traditional sources, both commercial and amateur, thereby threatening the historical role of the library in collecting, filtering, and delivering information. For example, Web search engines provide easy access to millions of pages of information; online databases provide convenient gateways to news, images, videos, as well as scholarship; and large- scale book digitization projects appear poised to make roaming the stacks seem an antiquated notion. Further, the traditional authority and expertise enjoyed by librarians has been challenged by the emergence of automated information filtering and ranking systems, such as Google's algorithms and Amazon's recommendation system, as well as amateur, collaborative, and peer- produced knowledge projects, such as Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, and Delicious. Meanwhile, the professional, educational, and social spheres of our lives are increasingly intermingled through online social networking spaces such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, providing new interfaces for interacting with friends, collaborating with colleagues, and exchanging information. Libraries face a critical question in this new information environment: what roles might libraries play in providing access to information in today's digitally networked world?One strategy to address this has been to actively incorporate the increasingly interactive, collaborative, and user- centered features of the so- called "Web 2.0" world into traditional library services, thereby creating "Library 2.0" (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006; Courtney, 2007; Maness, 2006). Examples include providing patrons with the ability to evaluate and comment on particular items in a library's collection through discussion forums or comment threads; creating dynamic and personalized recommendation systems ("other patrons who checked out this book also borrowed these items"); using blogs, wikis, and related user- centered platforms to encourage communication and interaction among/between library staffand patrons; and interfacing various library collections and services with relevant Web 2.0 platforms, such as Delicious, GoodReads, and Facebook.Launching such Library 2.0 features, however, poses a unique dilemma in the realm of information ethics, particularly in relation to protecting patron privacy. Traditionally, the context of the library brings with it specific norms of information flow that protect patron privacy (American Library Association, 2012b; Foerstel, 1991; Gorman, 2000; Morgan, 2006). Library 2.0 threatens to disrupt these ethical norms, since the Web 2.0 world introduces competing norms that lean toward the open flow and sharing of personal information. Despite these concerns, many librarians recognize the need to pursue Library 2.0 initiatives as the best way to serve the changing needs
{"title":"Patron Privacy in the \"2.0\" Era: Avoiding the Faustian Bargain of Library 2.0","authors":"M. Zimmer","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.1.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.44","url":null,"abstract":"In today's information ecosystem, libraries are at a crossroads: several of the services traditionally provided within their walls are increasingly made available online, often by non- traditional sources, both commercial and amateur, thereby threatening the historical role of the library in collecting, filtering, and delivering information. For example, Web search engines provide easy access to millions of pages of information; online databases provide convenient gateways to news, images, videos, as well as scholarship; and large- scale book digitization projects appear poised to make roaming the stacks seem an antiquated notion. Further, the traditional authority and expertise enjoyed by librarians has been challenged by the emergence of automated information filtering and ranking systems, such as Google's algorithms and Amazon's recommendation system, as well as amateur, collaborative, and peer- produced knowledge projects, such as Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, and Delicious. Meanwhile, the professional, educational, and social spheres of our lives are increasingly intermingled through online social networking spaces such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, providing new interfaces for interacting with friends, collaborating with colleagues, and exchanging information. Libraries face a critical question in this new information environment: what roles might libraries play in providing access to information in today's digitally networked world?One strategy to address this has been to actively incorporate the increasingly interactive, collaborative, and user- centered features of the so- called \"Web 2.0\" world into traditional library services, thereby creating \"Library 2.0\" (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006; Courtney, 2007; Maness, 2006). Examples include providing patrons with the ability to evaluate and comment on particular items in a library's collection through discussion forums or comment threads; creating dynamic and personalized recommendation systems (\"other patrons who checked out this book also borrowed these items\"); using blogs, wikis, and related user- centered platforms to encourage communication and interaction among/between library staffand patrons; and interfacing various library collections and services with relevant Web 2.0 platforms, such as Delicious, GoodReads, and Facebook.Launching such Library 2.0 features, however, poses a unique dilemma in the realm of information ethics, particularly in relation to protecting patron privacy. Traditionally, the context of the library brings with it specific norms of information flow that protect patron privacy (American Library Association, 2012b; Foerstel, 1991; Gorman, 2000; Morgan, 2006). Library 2.0 threatens to disrupt these ethical norms, since the Web 2.0 world introduces competing norms that lean toward the open flow and sharing of personal information. Despite these concerns, many librarians recognize the need to pursue Library 2.0 initiatives as the best way to serve the changing needs","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"44-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As a result of the global economic turndown, many local and national governments are disinvesting in public libraries. This paper proposes that governments have an obligation to create and fund public libraries, because access to a public library is a human right. Starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and appealing to recent work in Human Rights Theory, I argue that there is a human right to information, which states are obligated to fulfill. Given that libraries are highly effective institutions for ensuring that this right is fulfilled, there is a derived human right to a public library.
由于全球经济衰退，许多地方和国家政府正在减少对公共图书馆的投资。本文提出政府有义务创建和资助公共图书馆，因为使用公共图书馆是一项人权。我从《世界人权宣言》(Universal Declaration of Human Rights)开始，并引用《人权理论》(Human Rights Theory)最近的研究成果，提出信息是一项人权，各国有义务实现这一人权。鉴于图书馆是确保实现这一权利的高效机构，因此公共图书馆也衍生出了一项人权。
{"title":"The Human Right to a Public Library","authors":"Kristy K Mathiesen","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.1.60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.60","url":null,"abstract":"As a result of the global economic turndown, many local and national governments are disinvesting in public libraries. This paper proposes that governments have an obligation to create and fund public libraries, because access to a public library is a human right. Starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and appealing to recent work in Human Rights Theory, I argue that there is a human right to information, which states are obligated to fulfill. Given that libraries are highly effective institutions for ensuring that this right is fulfilled, there is a derived human right to a public library.","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"10 1","pages":"60-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Part I will provide an overview of the moral foundations of privacy — while brief, the goal is to establish the claim that privacy more than a mere interest. Part II will consider several arguments — or strands of argument — purporting to justify free speech rights. While these arguments, taken together, establish that free speech is important, they do not support the view that speech should nearly always trump privacy. In Part III I will suggest a way to balance free speech and privacy claims in the law.
{"title":"Privacy, Speech, and the Law","authors":"A. Moore","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1984807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1984807","url":null,"abstract":"Part I will provide an overview of the moral foundations of privacy — while brief, the goal is to establish the claim that privacy more than a mere interest. Part II will consider several arguments — or strands of argument — purporting to justify free speech rights. While these arguments, taken together, establish that free speech is important, they do not support the view that speech should nearly always trump privacy. In Part III I will suggest a way to balance free speech and privacy claims in the law.","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"21-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67828960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Memoir: A History Ben Yagoda. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009. 291 pp. $25.95The impulse to indulge in autobiographical musings is part of our genome. Even many of the poor souls who have luckily led uneventful lives turn out memoirs faster than we can consume them. Everything from Ben Franklin's classic to the sleaziest Hollywood revelation, from Anne Frank's diary to the constructed life found in Binjamin Wilkomerski's Fragments overflows our bookshops, libraries, and personal collections. We are suckers for a life well-spent (or not) and personally articulated, fairly and factually or falsely and with deceptive rancor. There are, naturally, many ways in which an author can approach this impressive body of material: bibliographically, theoretically, hypercritically, thematically, interdisciplinarally, or historically. Ben Yagoda, though he touches on a variety of peripheral if important issues, chooses this latter method. He begins at the beginning, with Caesar and then Augustine and carries us up to the recent controversial work of James Frey and Augusten Burroughs. Historical overviews of specific ideas, concepts, types, or genres must of necessity suffer from repetitive listings even when there is no pretense of completion. And how could there be? A mere catalogue of all or most or even many of the English-language memoirs would take up all of the pages of a multi-volume encyclopedia. Here, Yagoda surveys the most important works within reasonable sets of chronological or thematic parameters emphasizing those that set new precedents thus altering the genre. Some people are incapable of not chronicling every aspect and detail of their lives. Maya Angelou has written eight memoirs and Shirley MacLaine has produced eleven! Now and again, Yagoda intercalates discussions of concepts such as truth. But he is not as strict as one might hope: He insists that with contemporary memoir, one expects that the facts may be slightly distorted. I disagree. Rigobertu Menchu or Frey present extreme cases that only the ideologically motivated would defend, but I would be disappointed and angered to discover even minor deception in a memoir that I took to be a truthful representation of the author's reality.Extensive historical surveys demand breadth and a certain degree of superficiality. Yagoda notes a specific work, comments briefly, and then moves on to the next one. He makes many interesting points along the way: Abelard suffered more from those who commiserated than from his physical pain; the first English autobiography is The Book of Margery Kempe; and I do doubt that all of the high school students who have been tortured by the enormous outpouring of words in Benvenuto Cellini's autobiography realize that it is packed with action including stabbings and killings but is almost entirely devoid of reflection. These early chronicles and confessions are often religiously oriented (think of Augustine's Confessions and, more than a thousand years later, Bunya
{"title":"Memoir: A History","authors":"R. Hauptman","doi":"10.5860/choice.47-4858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.47-4858","url":null,"abstract":"Memoir: A History Ben Yagoda. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009. 291 pp. $25.95The impulse to indulge in autobiographical musings is part of our genome. Even many of the poor souls who have luckily led uneventful lives turn out memoirs faster than we can consume them. Everything from Ben Franklin's classic to the sleaziest Hollywood revelation, from Anne Frank's diary to the constructed life found in Binjamin Wilkomerski's Fragments overflows our bookshops, libraries, and personal collections. We are suckers for a life well-spent (or not) and personally articulated, fairly and factually or falsely and with deceptive rancor. There are, naturally, many ways in which an author can approach this impressive body of material: bibliographically, theoretically, hypercritically, thematically, interdisciplinarally, or historically. Ben Yagoda, though he touches on a variety of peripheral if important issues, chooses this latter method. He begins at the beginning, with Caesar and then Augustine and carries us up to the recent controversial work of James Frey and Augusten Burroughs. Historical overviews of specific ideas, concepts, types, or genres must of necessity suffer from repetitive listings even when there is no pretense of completion. And how could there be? A mere catalogue of all or most or even many of the English-language memoirs would take up all of the pages of a multi-volume encyclopedia. Here, Yagoda surveys the most important works within reasonable sets of chronological or thematic parameters emphasizing those that set new precedents thus altering the genre. Some people are incapable of not chronicling every aspect and detail of their lives. Maya Angelou has written eight memoirs and Shirley MacLaine has produced eleven! Now and again, Yagoda intercalates discussions of concepts such as truth. But he is not as strict as one might hope: He insists that with contemporary memoir, one expects that the facts may be slightly distorted. I disagree. Rigobertu Menchu or Frey present extreme cases that only the ideologically motivated would defend, but I would be disappointed and angered to discover even minor deception in a memoir that I took to be a truthful representation of the author's reality.Extensive historical surveys demand breadth and a certain degree of superficiality. Yagoda notes a specific work, comments briefly, and then moves on to the next one. He makes many interesting points along the way: Abelard suffered more from those who commiserated than from his physical pain; the first English autobiography is The Book of Margery Kempe; and I do doubt that all of the high school students who have been tortured by the enormous outpouring of words in Benvenuto Cellini's autobiography realize that it is packed with action including stabbings and killings but is almost entirely devoid of reflection. These early chronicles and confessions are often religiously oriented (think of Augustine's Confessions and, more than a thousand years later, Bunya","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71129241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an Anthropological Controversy","authors":"R. Hauptman","doi":"10.5860/choice.48-0365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-0365","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71130285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.-Socrates (in Plato's Republic, Book 1:352d)Ethics is serious, and very difficult.... [It] is about human beings ... in the human pursuit of ... a standard of right conduct or virtue.-Lisa H. Newton (1989, pp. 254-55)When Dean Evangelos Hadjimichael and Professor David Schmidt invited me to speak at a national conference at Fairfield University celebrating the distinguished career of Lisa Newton, I felt both honored and intimidated. I was honored to be included among the presenters at a conference devoted to Professor Newton-an esteemed scholar whose groundbreaking work in applied ethics, which is widely recognized and respected both within and outside of the academic community, has inspired and informed my research in two areas: computer ethics and public health ethics. However, I must admit that I also felt intimidated when I learned that the list of invited conference speakers included some legendary figures in the field of applied ethics. I also worried that because my talk would focus on a topic in computer ethics-a field that is less mature, less established, and thus possibly less understood than other fields in applied ethics-it was quite possible that key elements in my presentation might be unfamiliar to many in an audience whose interests in applied ethics spanned a wide range of academic disciplines. Despite my concerns, however, I humbly accepted the invitation to speak; the present essay is a revised version of my conference presentation.1. Introduction and OverviewBecause the theme of the conference honoring Professor Newton was on "directions in the disciplines (of applied ethics) today," I tried to tailor my presentation accordingly-by describing the current state of the field of computer ethics (CE) and also hinting at some likely directions for its future. However, if Shakespeare's point that the "past is prologue" to the future (Tempest, Act II, Scene 1) is accurate, I thought that at least some mention of important developments in the history of CE would seem warranted. So, I begin my essay (as I did my presentation) with a brief overview of some milestones in the development of CE as a field of applied ethics. This discussion is followed by a brief description of the ongoing debate about the proper scope of CE, as a subfield both in applied ethics and computer science. Next, I describe, in fairly broadbrush strokes, the debate about whether CE qualifies as a legitimate field in applied ethics, as well as the corollary question of whether any CE issues are unique ethical issues.Before briefly considering some specific examples of recent CE and CErelated controversies, I identify a cluster of issues that CE scholars and practitioners have generally considered to be the standard or "mainstream" issues comprising the field. I then examine and reject the claim that CE will eventually "disappear" as a separate field of applied ethics. Finally, I project some likely direct
{"title":"Computer Ethics as a Field of Applied Ethics: Core Questions and Future Directions","authors":"H. Tavani","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.52","url":null,"abstract":"We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.-Socrates (in Plato's Republic, Book 1:352d)Ethics is serious, and very difficult.... [It] is about human beings ... in the human pursuit of ... a standard of right conduct or virtue.-Lisa H. Newton (1989, pp. 254-55)When Dean Evangelos Hadjimichael and Professor David Schmidt invited me to speak at a national conference at Fairfield University celebrating the distinguished career of Lisa Newton, I felt both honored and intimidated. I was honored to be included among the presenters at a conference devoted to Professor Newton-an esteemed scholar whose groundbreaking work in applied ethics, which is widely recognized and respected both within and outside of the academic community, has inspired and informed my research in two areas: computer ethics and public health ethics. However, I must admit that I also felt intimidated when I learned that the list of invited conference speakers included some legendary figures in the field of applied ethics. I also worried that because my talk would focus on a topic in computer ethics-a field that is less mature, less established, and thus possibly less understood than other fields in applied ethics-it was quite possible that key elements in my presentation might be unfamiliar to many in an audience whose interests in applied ethics spanned a wide range of academic disciplines. Despite my concerns, however, I humbly accepted the invitation to speak; the present essay is a revised version of my conference presentation.1. Introduction and OverviewBecause the theme of the conference honoring Professor Newton was on \"directions in the disciplines (of applied ethics) today,\" I tried to tailor my presentation accordingly-by describing the current state of the field of computer ethics (CE) and also hinting at some likely directions for its future. However, if Shakespeare's point that the \"past is prologue\" to the future (Tempest, Act II, Scene 1) is accurate, I thought that at least some mention of important developments in the history of CE would seem warranted. So, I begin my essay (as I did my presentation) with a brief overview of some milestones in the development of CE as a field of applied ethics. This discussion is followed by a brief description of the ongoing debate about the proper scope of CE, as a subfield both in applied ethics and computer science. Next, I describe, in fairly broadbrush strokes, the debate about whether CE qualifies as a legitimate field in applied ethics, as well as the corollary question of whether any CE issues are unique ethical issues.Before briefly considering some specific examples of recent CE and CErelated controversies, I identify a cluster of issues that CE scholars and practitioners have generally considered to be the standard or \"mainstream\" issues comprising the field. I then examine and reject the claim that CE will eventually \"disappear\" as a separate field of applied ethics. Finally, I project some likely direct","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"52-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Has the world really changed in the last three centuries? There is an abundance of information and bringing the public onto the internet has certainly brought a new boom to the technology sector, but has it changed our values for using another's creative works?After the Internet went public in 1995, easy access to data and images brought a shiftin the value of information. Instead of being a shared resource for academics, researchers, and government workers, anyone able to buy or use a connection to the network was able to share and contribute to the wealth of information that was accumulating in cyberspace. Over a very short time span, new interfaces for accessing the data were developed. The original culture of the Internet was one of sharing and open access; this mind set continued as more people became connected. The Web software advancements made it easy to move text and graphics from one location to another and to download music, videos, and eBooks. Until very recently, little thought was given to purchasing the right to use materials posted to the Web. "Free" became an accepted norm for a vast majority of users. This "sharing" was fun. The amount of labor that originally went into creating the work that was being forwarded, posted, or repackaged was not considered. The idea that someone should get paid for the content being used did not enter most users' minds. The common perception was that it was there for anyone to use, a concept from earlier days when the Internet was a closed system accessed primarily by scholars openly sharing their work. But there is a shifttaking place that holds the basic ideology that first brought copyright into existence.Now that the medium is established as another avenue of free market trading and entrepreneurship, the struggle to protect how one's original, creative work is being used and to extract revenue from that work, i.e., intellectual property rights, is resurfacing. A new appreciation for the need for an author or artist to be able to support him or herself through creative works is reemerging to challenge the viewpoint of those who believe that there is no originality, that all creativity comes from community activity, implying that each has an obligation to share those results, without cost, with everyone. Each view is a moral stand on freedom for the individual balanced against the needs of the community.Electronic access and social media have brought millions of creative people onto the scene who do not need the revenue or do not consider that using another's work as taking away someone's paycheck because "everything is free and available to share if it's on the Internet." The battle may not have had its roots in the first mass printings with the invention of the printing press, but that era did struggle to find common ground between the concept of ownership for intellectual property based on the premise that originality exists and those who hold the opinion that originality is not possible becau
{"title":"Intellectual Property, Fee or Free?","authors":"Judy Anderson","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.114","url":null,"abstract":"Has the world really changed in the last three centuries? There is an abundance of information and bringing the public onto the internet has certainly brought a new boom to the technology sector, but has it changed our values for using another's creative works?After the Internet went public in 1995, easy access to data and images brought a shiftin the value of information. Instead of being a shared resource for academics, researchers, and government workers, anyone able to buy or use a connection to the network was able to share and contribute to the wealth of information that was accumulating in cyberspace. Over a very short time span, new interfaces for accessing the data were developed. The original culture of the Internet was one of sharing and open access; this mind set continued as more people became connected. The Web software advancements made it easy to move text and graphics from one location to another and to download music, videos, and eBooks. Until very recently, little thought was given to purchasing the right to use materials posted to the Web. \"Free\" became an accepted norm for a vast majority of users. This \"sharing\" was fun. The amount of labor that originally went into creating the work that was being forwarded, posted, or repackaged was not considered. The idea that someone should get paid for the content being used did not enter most users' minds. The common perception was that it was there for anyone to use, a concept from earlier days when the Internet was a closed system accessed primarily by scholars openly sharing their work. But there is a shifttaking place that holds the basic ideology that first brought copyright into existence.Now that the medium is established as another avenue of free market trading and entrepreneurship, the struggle to protect how one's original, creative work is being used and to extract revenue from that work, i.e., intellectual property rights, is resurfacing. A new appreciation for the need for an author or artist to be able to support him or herself through creative works is reemerging to challenge the viewpoint of those who believe that there is no originality, that all creativity comes from community activity, implying that each has an obligation to share those results, without cost, with everyone. Each view is a moral stand on freedom for the individual balanced against the needs of the community.Electronic access and social media have brought millions of creative people onto the scene who do not need the revenue or do not consider that using another's work as taking away someone's paycheck because \"everything is free and available to share if it's on the Internet.\" The battle may not have had its roots in the first mass printings with the invention of the printing press, but that era did struggle to find common ground between the concept of ownership for intellectual property based on the premise that originality exists and those who hold the opinion that originality is not possible becau","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"114-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Red tape is excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It is usually applied to governments, corporations and other large organizations.-WikipediaThe first gathering of members of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), organized by founder Dr. Rafael Capurro, occurred in Karlsruhe, Germany in fall 2004. While there, a loosely formed subgroup of North American library and information studies (LIS) professors (including Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, Dr. Tom Froehlich, Dr. Martha [Marti] Smith, Dr. Wallace [Wally] Koehler, Dr. Johannes [Hannes] Britz, Dr. Toni Carbo, and Dr. Toni Samek) spoke impromptu about creating a teaching and learning venue for information ethics within the context of the library and information studies community back home. Almost immediately, a plan was set in motion to develop a grassroots contribution to the imminent ALISE annual conference in Boston. This collective effort resulted in a January 2005 conference panel, Activism in the Context of Information Ethics, delivered by Dr. Marti Smith (Drexel University), Dr. Toni Carbo (University of Pittsburgh), Dr. Pnina Shachaf (University of Indiana-Bloomington), and Dr. Toni Samek (University of Alberta).In late February 2005, Samek posted the following message to the JESSE listserv (a popular communications tool for library and information studies educators with a heavy concentration of North American subscribers): "Since the conference in Boston, a number of us have communicated by e-mail about creating a new SIG on Information Ethics to serve as a kind of partner to the newly minted SIG on Information Policy. In order to formally propose a new SIG on Information Ethics to the ALISE Board (which next meets in April), a minimum of 25 association members must endorse the proposal. ... The idea behind the proposed SIG on Information Ethics is to give critical attention to 'ethical reflection' in the context of LIS education. At this point in our history, there is a real interest in creating a consistent formal dedicated space in the [ALISE] conference program for information ethics and related areas such as core values, the global information justice movement, human rights and information work, and so on."1 The listserv post was forwarded to the ALISE members' list and a series of responses ensued, beginning with comments from Dr. Lynn Connaway, who wrote from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC): "I endorse a SIG on Information Ethics. When I taught the Foundations course at the University of Denver, the majority of the class was spent discussing ethics in regard to information policy."2 Charles Harmon (Director of Publishing, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. New York) wrote: "Please list me as an ALISE member in support of this SIG. I chaired the American Library Assoc. Committee on Professional Ethics for four years and believe ethics is an imperative ar
{"title":"\"I Guess We'll Just Have to Wait for the Movie to Come Out\": A Protracted First Stand for Teaching Information Ethics","authors":"T. Samek","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.33","url":null,"abstract":"Red tape is excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It is usually applied to governments, corporations and other large organizations.-WikipediaThe first gathering of members of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), organized by founder Dr. Rafael Capurro, occurred in Karlsruhe, Germany in fall 2004. While there, a loosely formed subgroup of North American library and information studies (LIS) professors (including Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, Dr. Tom Froehlich, Dr. Martha [Marti] Smith, Dr. Wallace [Wally] Koehler, Dr. Johannes [Hannes] Britz, Dr. Toni Carbo, and Dr. Toni Samek) spoke impromptu about creating a teaching and learning venue for information ethics within the context of the library and information studies community back home. Almost immediately, a plan was set in motion to develop a grassroots contribution to the imminent ALISE annual conference in Boston. This collective effort resulted in a January 2005 conference panel, Activism in the Context of Information Ethics, delivered by Dr. Marti Smith (Drexel University), Dr. Toni Carbo (University of Pittsburgh), Dr. Pnina Shachaf (University of Indiana-Bloomington), and Dr. Toni Samek (University of Alberta).In late February 2005, Samek posted the following message to the JESSE listserv (a popular communications tool for library and information studies educators with a heavy concentration of North American subscribers): \"Since the conference in Boston, a number of us have communicated by e-mail about creating a new SIG on Information Ethics to serve as a kind of partner to the newly minted SIG on Information Policy. In order to formally propose a new SIG on Information Ethics to the ALISE Board (which next meets in April), a minimum of 25 association members must endorse the proposal. ... The idea behind the proposed SIG on Information Ethics is to give critical attention to 'ethical reflection' in the context of LIS education. At this point in our history, there is a real interest in creating a consistent formal dedicated space in the [ALISE] conference program for information ethics and related areas such as core values, the global information justice movement, human rights and information work, and so on.\"1 The listserv post was forwarded to the ALISE members' list and a series of responses ensued, beginning with comments from Dr. Lynn Connaway, who wrote from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC): \"I endorse a SIG on Information Ethics. When I taught the Foundations course at the University of Denver, the majority of the class was spent discussing ethics in regard to information policy.\"2 Charles Harmon (Director of Publishing, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. New York) wrote: \"Please list me as an ALISE member in support of this SIG. I chaired the American Library Assoc. Committee on Professional Ethics for four years and believe ethics is an imperative ar","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"33-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aristotle said about reasoning that a little mistake at the beginning becomes a big mistake at the end.-George F. Will (1983: 18)Google Books. United States Circuit Judge Denny Chin, sitting by designation on a case he inherited from his days on the District Court bench, took the unusual move of refusing to enter a settlement in the matter of Google Books, despite its being agreed to by both sides and its being widely lauded in the press, and despite his earlier approval of a preliminary version.He did this, nominally, based on numerous objections his Court received as well as a few but substantial amici curiae tendered in opposition to the settlement-but, in fact, or at least, in effect, on a very lengthy period of reconsideration strongly suggesting an action on his own motion. That took courage, and because of that he deserves one cheer.But the settlement1 is far more flawed than the judge allowed in his opinion and the matter requires much more courageous action. Class-action suits are an essential part of the U.S. legal landscape because of the high costs of filing suit against such major players as Google. At the same time, most class-action suits are settled for prudential reasons and offer class members little relief and the attorneys putatively representing them a rather large pay check. This case is an exception to no part of this generalization.Google is probably the single most ethical firm among the major IT (information technology) players. Nevertheless, in this matter, it has acted so badly as to almost defy belief. I am unaware, in the entire annals of U.S. history, of a U.S. company in all but name declaring an entire Title of the United States Code (here, Title 17, the law governing copyright) null and void. Moreover, Google did not act alone, but in concert with a number of putatively not-forprofit libraries, which received good and valuable considerations for rendering material assistance without which the project would have been impossible.Moreover, Google's defenses are risible. Although fair use does allow the quotation of snippets of a work-and not necessarily only short ones, it certainly does not either (a) allow the scanning of entire works or (b) allow the snippets quoted to depend-as Google's do-on search terms entered, because that, of course, allows any user to find exactly what he wants thereby destroying utterly the market value of such works in two ways-first, the obvious way, by giving the potential buyer what and exactly what he seeks, and, second, working from multiple stations-or perhaps the same station at multiple times-to recover much and perhaps all of the work, thereby again completely destroying the market value of the work, even if the user wants to read a good deal more of the book and is not seeking its use as a source of context-sensitive information.2The other defense Google raises, that of orphan works, is, as Judge Chin noted, a matter for the Congress, but beyond that it is entirely disingenuous
{"title":"Google Books and Other Internet Mischief","authors":"J. S. Fulda","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.104","url":null,"abstract":"Aristotle said about reasoning that a little mistake at the beginning becomes a big mistake at the end.-George F. Will (1983: 18)Google Books. United States Circuit Judge Denny Chin, sitting by designation on a case he inherited from his days on the District Court bench, took the unusual move of refusing to enter a settlement in the matter of Google Books, despite its being agreed to by both sides and its being widely lauded in the press, and despite his earlier approval of a preliminary version.He did this, nominally, based on numerous objections his Court received as well as a few but substantial amici curiae tendered in opposition to the settlement-but, in fact, or at least, in effect, on a very lengthy period of reconsideration strongly suggesting an action on his own motion. That took courage, and because of that he deserves one cheer.But the settlement1 is far more flawed than the judge allowed in his opinion and the matter requires much more courageous action. Class-action suits are an essential part of the U.S. legal landscape because of the high costs of filing suit against such major players as Google. At the same time, most class-action suits are settled for prudential reasons and offer class members little relief and the attorneys putatively representing them a rather large pay check. This case is an exception to no part of this generalization.Google is probably the single most ethical firm among the major IT (information technology) players. Nevertheless, in this matter, it has acted so badly as to almost defy belief. I am unaware, in the entire annals of U.S. history, of a U.S. company in all but name declaring an entire Title of the United States Code (here, Title 17, the law governing copyright) null and void. Moreover, Google did not act alone, but in concert with a number of putatively not-forprofit libraries, which received good and valuable considerations for rendering material assistance without which the project would have been impossible.Moreover, Google's defenses are risible. Although fair use does allow the quotation of snippets of a work-and not necessarily only short ones, it certainly does not either (a) allow the scanning of entire works or (b) allow the snippets quoted to depend-as Google's do-on search terms entered, because that, of course, allows any user to find exactly what he wants thereby destroying utterly the market value of such works in two ways-first, the obvious way, by giving the potential buyer what and exactly what he seeks, and, second, working from multiple stations-or perhaps the same station at multiple times-to recover much and perhaps all of the work, thereby again completely destroying the market value of the work, even if the user wants to read a good deal more of the book and is not seeking its use as a source of context-sensitive information.2The other defense Google raises, that of orphan works, is, as Judge Chin noted, a matter for the Congress, but beyond that it is entirely disingenuous","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"104-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some years ago, I completed the manuscript for Documentation: A History and Critique of Attribution, Commentary, Glosses, Marginalia, Notes, Bibliographies, Works- Cited Lists, and Citation Indexing and Analysis (McFarland, 2008). I worked on this esoteric, scholarly monograph during a concentrated two year period. It was enjoyable to discover various and unusual forms of documentation in many languages as well as analyze and critique some of the currently popular if often illogical systems such as those abbreviated as Chicago, APA, MLA, CSE and the BlueBook. It was also much easier to create the text than to negotiate for permissions. I may, naturally, paraphrase or even briefly quote directly from a source, since this is considered a fair use of a copyright holder's material. But if I wish to physically reproduce an image such as a page of printed or hand- written text, a drawing or engraving, an illumination or rubrication, or some other physical entity, I must acquire permission to do so. One might think that since a 200- year- old book or a 700- year- old manuscript is out of copyright, I would not have to bother, but there are subtleties involved here that elude the uninitiated.If I wander into a library anywhere in the country and discover an outof- copyright volume on the shelf, I may make a photocopy of whatever I like and include it in my study. But if this same volume happens to be secreted in a special collection so that I must call for it, and then have the curators make a copy (and sometimes they insist on an expensive digital format), then I must request permission. Though this makes no sense, it seems to be the way collections (libraries, museums, societies) operate, and with good reason: it can be quite remunerative. Generally, permission is granted, though sometimes with caveats so severe that one may choose to eliminate the illustration. Of the 75 or so images that I had originally chosen for this book, I decided against some 25, for one reason or another. Of those remaining, some were in the public domain and I did not contact anyone; others were covered by copyright and I wrote for permission to use them; still others came from collections and again I made inquiry.The results of such initial queries cover a broad spectrum. Occasionally, a publisher, e.g., Dover, responded by offering immediate and free rights. Others indicated that I must fill out a sometimes complex form, recapitulating all of the germane data that I had already submitted in my concise but complete letter. This must be mailed back along with a check. Thus, Princeton University Press offered me the rights (or license) to publish two items for $75. I paid and was done. A few weeks later, I discovered that an image that I had thought could be acquired from another house belonged to Princeton, so I wrote again, and this time one of those miracles occurred, for which impecunious scholars pray: Someone replied and said I may use the third illustration without addi
{"title":"Permissions and Their Costs","authors":"R. Hauptman","doi":"10.3172/JIE.21.2.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.21.2.110","url":null,"abstract":"Some years ago, I completed the manuscript for Documentation: A History and Critique of Attribution, Commentary, Glosses, Marginalia, Notes, Bibliographies, Works- Cited Lists, and Citation Indexing and Analysis (McFarland, 2008). I worked on this esoteric, scholarly monograph during a concentrated two year period. It was enjoyable to discover various and unusual forms of documentation in many languages as well as analyze and critique some of the currently popular if often illogical systems such as those abbreviated as Chicago, APA, MLA, CSE and the BlueBook. It was also much easier to create the text than to negotiate for permissions. I may, naturally, paraphrase or even briefly quote directly from a source, since this is considered a fair use of a copyright holder's material. But if I wish to physically reproduce an image such as a page of printed or hand- written text, a drawing or engraving, an illumination or rubrication, or some other physical entity, I must acquire permission to do so. One might think that since a 200- year- old book or a 700- year- old manuscript is out of copyright, I would not have to bother, but there are subtleties involved here that elude the uninitiated.If I wander into a library anywhere in the country and discover an outof- copyright volume on the shelf, I may make a photocopy of whatever I like and include it in my study. But if this same volume happens to be secreted in a special collection so that I must call for it, and then have the curators make a copy (and sometimes they insist on an expensive digital format), then I must request permission. Though this makes no sense, it seems to be the way collections (libraries, museums, societies) operate, and with good reason: it can be quite remunerative. Generally, permission is granted, though sometimes with caveats so severe that one may choose to eliminate the illustration. Of the 75 or so images that I had originally chosen for this book, I decided against some 25, for one reason or another. Of those remaining, some were in the public domain and I did not contact anyone; others were covered by copyright and I wrote for permission to use them; still others came from collections and again I made inquiry.The results of such initial queries cover a broad spectrum. Occasionally, a publisher, e.g., Dover, responded by offering immediate and free rights. Others indicated that I must fill out a sometimes complex form, recapitulating all of the germane data that I had already submitted in my concise but complete letter. This must be mailed back along with a check. Thus, Princeton University Press offered me the rights (or license) to publish two items for $75. I paid and was done. A few weeks later, I discovered that an image that I had thought could be acquired from another house belonged to Princeton, so I wrote again, and this time one of those miracles occurred, for which impecunious scholars pray: Someone replied and said I may use the third illustration without addi","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"110-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：