Copyright/IP Law and Libraries

Yesterday, while poring over the most recent New Yorker, I started down a path to the strange and quirky ins and outs of American Copyright law. Jeffrey Toobin wrote an article on the Google Books project and the strange role of publishers, and it got me thinking about libraries and copyright.

A little digging turned up a lot of information on "digital libraries," and more broadly, "libraries in the digital age," but the cases themselves were by far the most interesting part of my search.

Here's an excerpt from an ALA brief of Sony v. Universal Studios by Mary Hutchings:

"...The Court's holding below that "intrinsic" uses of copyrighted materials cannot be "fair" uses will profoundly affect the ability of librarians to serve their constituencies effectively. Libraries are the critical link in bringing new information technologies to the public at large. Libraries permit the masses to use such technologies otherwise available only to the rich. Thus, many libraries now, and in the future most libraries will, provide patrons with access to videorecorders for "in-library" use. An increasing number of libraries provide off-air tapes of news and other programs for in-library viewing for patrons who are unable to afford their own recorders, and who otherwise would be denied access to broadcast programming. If the decision of the Court of Appeals is not reversed, libraries could be accused of making, or of aiding and abetting, unfair "intrinsic" uses of copyrighted materials. Rapid technological change and the need to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of copyright owners and copyright users make an early national resolution of these issues a matter of great urgency.

And later:

"The effect of the Court of Appeals' holding is to create a dichotomy between entertainment and education which will restrict public access to information and constrict the judicially-recognized role of libraries as "a mighty resource in the free market place of ideas." Minarcini v. Strongville City School District, 541 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1976).

I, for one, never knew either that libraries had a defined "judicially-recognized role" nor that library staff saw themselves as protectorates of the poor and redistributors of knowledge where wealth is not distributed evenly. Other library organizations echo these concerns. The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) has a manifesto pertaining to internet and information access. They say:

"Unhindered access to information is essential to freedom, equality, global understanding and peace.

and...

"The global Internet enables individuals and communities throughout the world, whether in the smallest and most remote villages or the largest cities, to have equality of access to information for personal development, education, stimulation, cultural enrichment, economic activity and informed participation in democracy. All can present their interests, knowledge and culture for the world to visit.

As these tracts suggest, disseminating information regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual preference, or class are vital elements not only to an American social agenda, but that are and ought to remain protected by US Copyright Law (Title 17). Seen in this light, Hutchings' concerns, as well as those laid out by Lawrence Lessig (quoted in the New Yorker article) are marked (the former moreso than the latter): while the rights of publishers and authors ought to be protected, stripping "the masses" of access to both information and new technologies goes against public rights protected by libraries.

My knowledge of law is limited, so feel free to chastise my interpretation fully.

The Case of the Cranky Critic

I just finished Everything Bad is Good For You by Steven Johnson. I had hoped Emergence would go further than it did, but overall, I liked the book. Everything Bad was a completely different experience.

Before I go on, I want to say that I agree with Johnson's main point: TV, video games, and other visual media aren't inherently bad for us, and they aren't growing worse with time. I concur that popular media can make you smarter, and that they have a significant effect on human sociocultural growth. In all fairness, Johnson addresses a few of my complaints in his Afterword. None of that changes the fact that reading it was like pulling teeth. Aside from the hit-you-over-the-head-until-you-like-it tone and the (I'm sure unintentionally) snarky intonations of "indeed," "to be sure," "no doubt," and "to be certain" (not to mention incessent "I think," "I suspect," and "I imagine" phrases), I have two major criticisms, and it seems I'm not alone. Dana Stevens, also known as Slate's "Surfergirl" of pop culture, said this of an excerpt printed in the New York Times before the book's release:

“Not only does Johnson fail to account for the impact of the 16 minutes' worth of commercials that interrupt any given episode of, say, 24 (a show he singles out as particularly "nutritional"), but he breezily dismisses recent controversies about that program's representation of Muslim terrorists or its implicit endorsement of torture, preferring to concentrate on how the show's formal structure teaches us to "pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships." Wait a minute—isn't a fictional program's connection to real-life political events like torture and racial profiling one of the "social relationships" we should be paying attention to? 24 is the perfect example of a TV show that challenges its audience's cognitive faculties with intricate plotlines and rapid-fire information while actively discouraging them from thinking too much about the vigilante ethic it portrays. It's really good at teaching you to think … about future episodes of 24.

Johnson certainly has a point, and I do think visual media have the ability to push our cognitive boundaries...but "smart" and "good" are hardly synonymous. Heck, bombs have gotten "smarter" in the last half century. "Smarter" isn't "better" unless there's an accompanying interest in using those newly improved problem-solving skills to solve, say, the immensely complex social and environmental problems facing our world.

I'm with Stevens on the second point, too: Visual media may encourage us to seek out new challenges, but that's not always a good thing. Challenging ourselves to regularly use our problem-solving skills is one thing, but the addiction Johnson associates with constant challenges in video games is, well, addiction, and like any other it has the potential to seriously disrupt an otherwise well-organized life. If you're bored to tears by menial tasks, you'll likely have trouble starting out in the workforce, especially if you're also very good at higher-level cognitive skills. It's good to have those skills, but I'm not so sure it's good to require mental exercise at all times, largely because menial chores will always be necessary for society to function.

So I'm sorry to "Heroes" and "Smallville" for taking my Johnson-inspired frustrations out on you. Each showcases social commentary in its own way. Whether that commentary is always forward-thinking or agreeable to this particular critic is a different issue which I'll happily discuss in-depth later.