High expecations from end-users will only get higher

After reading about use restrictions of digital databases and defining authorized users, I was struck by the tension between the three different interested parties: publishers/vendors, libraries, and end-users. The articles in particular that I felt alluded to this the most were Zhu and Eschenfelder’s “Social Construction of authorized users in the Digital Age” (2010) and “The Pre-Internet Downloading Controversy: The Evolution of Use Rights for Digital Intellectual and Cultural Works” by Eschenfelder et al.(2001). In the first article, Zhu and Eschenfelder look at how the notion of authorized users has changed and how those changes were negotiated between libraries and publishers. In the second article, Eschenfelder et al. argue that changes in technologies and the capabilities of those technologies have subsequently influenced what is considered restricted use and non-restricted use. The social and cultural climate then created by that technology then also has a part to place in determining what expected and acceptable use is. 

Both of these articles highlighted for me what I think is an overarching tension between the differing wants and needs of publishers/vendors, libraries, and end-users. Publishers and vendors want more market share, more licenses with more users (more money); libraries want more access for more people (as Zhu and Eschenfelder call it, the “library mantra”); and what I see as the party that has changed the most recently, the end-user, who wants access to everything at all times with no restrictions.* 

I believe that the end-user is demanding more and more now from the library and what it expects in terms of service and accessibility and largely because of technology and how that has changed expectations about when and how things should be available to us. Where before the library would have fought on behalf of the end-user (as alluded to in Eschenfelder et al. during the period of library aided searching in the 1980s and early 1990s), now the end-user is putting pressure on the library to extract more and more unrestricted use out of publishers and vendors, simply because this is what a majority of our end-users experience in other realms of their life. This is the idea that Eschenfelder et al. present as a “use-regime” which comes out of “sociotechnological ensemble” – a fairly straightforward way of saying that technology, culture, social climate, etc. all work and meld together to create the current expectations about and limitations on access. It will be interesting to see in the next couple of years whether the bubble will burst and we will enter into a new “use-regime.” My instinct is to say “yes,” simply because I think the advancement of technology and user expectations will push us there, perhaps without even really trying; their expectations for access and unlimited use is that high. 

Whether we can call this seemingly insatiable desire for use with absolutely no strings attached a manifestation of entitlement, and whether or not it is currently realistic, is somewhat of a moot point because of the often precarious position academic libraries find themselves. Perhaps by now it is a cliché to say that the library itself is under horrendous pressure from administrators to prove it remains an important fixture on campus, just in order to get a shrinking piece of the university or college budget pie. Libraries are forced to justify themselves and their relevance not only by extensive student use, but also by student satisfaction. (The end-user is a customer as well.) The reality is then that if the library cannot provide a vast amount of materials instantaneously and to any location, students are dissatisfied and perhaps will relay on less worthy sources for their studies and research. 

I think then that as technology continues to develop, libraries will have to continue to vie for better access and fewer restrictions on digital resources, not only to make sure that new technologies don’t take away the uses and services that end-users have come to expect, but also to make sure there are continually added benefits to researching through ones affiliation with the library.  

*I realize I am using a bit of hyperbole here, since there are still end-users who knew libraries before the advent of the Internet. However, I write largely referring to the latest generation of end-users in academic library settings and the generations that are to come, who have never known the libraries assets to be in its paper collections.

I Got A Kookabura

So, I have to admit that trying to wrap my head around some concepts in copyright is very hard for me. Reading Jessica Litman’s book Digital Copyright, I was a little blindsided by some of the technical descriptions of the history of copyright – my eyes glaze over whenever I see case numbers or committee names – and also by her “ranty” style. I am having a much easier time understanding what James Boyle has to say about copyright in his book, The Public Domain. While I’m still not finished, I can say in general terms that I enjoy his style which includes lots of paraphrasing, showing that he has patience for readers like me who might not get it the first time around.

I also like Boyle’s focus on what strong copyright laws and precedence in interpreting those laws can mean for culture. In chapter 6 of the book, “I Got a Mashup,” he documents the history of Ray Charles’ song “I Got a Woman” from gospel tune to 21^st century mashup (with stop offs at Kanye West’s “Gold Digger,” the Legendary K.O.’s “George Bush Doesn’t Care About Black People and Youtube videos by The Black Latern and Franklin Lopez). The point to this example is that things in art and culture, both great and small, come from being able to freely make use of and transform those things which have come before.

 In some respects, “I Got a Woman” might be considered a success story; it grew and transformed into new works, even in recent year and in spite of copyright. And as far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet been sued for copyright infringement regarding “I Got a Woman.”

Contrast this with what I consider a case where copyright has failed us: the Men at Work song, “Down Under.” (Huge disclaimer: I do not know the particulars of Australian copyright law. For the sake of argument, I am going to assume they are analogous to U.S. copyright law. Any similar case could take place in the U.S., and as a case study, I think it points out some flaws in our system.)  

It was just announced today that Men at Work lost their final appeal against the copyright infringement suit brought against them by Larrakin Music for copying two bars of a traditional Australian song composed in 1934 by Marion Sinclair, “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.” (See the most recent article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15212096 , although there is much more background about the case in this article, which I will be quoting from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8499973.stm )

I will just expound briefly upon one of the problems that I have with this case and what it illustrates that is damaging about copyright law when we let it get extended for long periods of time. If we are to assume that copyright is meant to further the arts and sciences (which is indeed what U.S. law says is its goal) then we should be concerned that in this instance, the person who is responsible for composing “Kookaburra” is deceased and that the infringement case is being brought against Men at Work by a company twenty years after the songs original release.

In this case, the copyright for the song “Kookaburra” was bought by a company after the composer’s death. (Query: Was it part of the estate sale?) I think this is a shame though; I find it slightly exaggerated that companies (and even individuals) can buy and sell copyright like they do stocks. To me, this shows that far too often copyright is about economics and protecting a financial investment instead of encouraging intellectual production. In this particular instance, defending the copyright of “Kookaburra” has nothing to do with protecting the bundle of rights that Marion Sinclair had as a composer to encourage her to create more content – she has passed away. The copyright to her song is a commodity, which I don’t think over twenty years after her death, nor twenty years after the release of the so-called infringing song, should be allowed to exist. 

In fact, the owner of Larrakin Music is unapologetic in acknowledging that this is just about money: “Mr Lurie told Melbourne newspaper The Age: ‘Of course it would be disingenuous for me to say that there wasn't a financial aspect involved, [but] you could just as easily say what has won out today is the importance of checking before using other people's copyrights.’” 

While what Mr. Lurie says is true (today it is important to check before using other people’s copyrights), unfortunately, his claims seem all the more preposterous when you realize that “Down Under” was a song released in 1981, and Mr. Lurie’s company only bought the rights to “Kookaburra” in 1990. As Colin Hay (composer of “Down Under”) notes: "… Marion Sinclair herself never made any claim that we had appropriated any part of her song Kookabura..." 

It seems to me that if original composers, creators and writers have no objections to appropriation (conscious or otherwise) of their material, it flies in the face of the original spirit of copyright law and intellectual production to allow a company or corporation with an acquired copyright to sue after the fact.