The Complete Copyright Liability Handbook for Librarians and Educators
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lipinski, Tomas A. The Complete Copyright Liability Handbook for Librarians and Educators. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2006. 413 pp. 125.00 USD. ISBN-10: 1-55570-532-4. ∞ This work is a sober review of current U.S. copyright law and discussion of how non-profit public institutions can offer services to patrons while remaining compliant with legislation. Lipinski, Associate Professor and Co-Director of Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin (Madison), does not argue merits of Copyright Act and its recent amendments (Digital Millennium Copyright Act; TEACH), opting instead to inform practitioners of complexities of legislation and to provide model copyright policies and notices, a copyright compliance audit tool and 'Real-World Examples' of legislation's applicability in schools, libraries and archives. The text is divided into five parts: Copyright infringement/liability; Penalties and immunities; DMCA impact; Limiting exposure; and Tools and policies. Each chapter begins with a brief presentation of law followed by its application in library/education sector (particularly higher education). Lipinski modestly suggests that this not be first book reads on copyright (an unlucky neophyte might soon throw up their hands), but is correct in stating that can be an important second one (xi). His opening chapters discuss concepts of infringement liability (direct, contributory, and vicarious), while his latter ones offer comprehensive directions to ensure that reproduction activities in libraries stay within letter of law. Together, they provide both solace and scare for librarians struggling to bring current student and faculty practises into line with demands of copyright legislation. He notes that librarians and educators have been quick to integrate digital technology into educational experience: the problem is that these librarians and educators forgot, or perhaps deliberately neglected, to tell patrons and students that just because technology allows to do something, that does not mean should do it (xiv). Given current climate in libraries, is middle three parts of book that will provide most value (and cause greater amount of hair-pulling). These are chapters (4 through 9) that discuss forms of legal damage and how they can be mitigated, immunities to damages offered to libraries through special rights (s. 108), safe harbour provisions (s. 512), and exemptions from liability arising from circumvention of technology protection methods (s.1201). In sections of Copyright Act reviewed here, Lipinski is careful to distinguish whether educational institutions or their libraries alone, enjoy benefits of law. Throughout chapters he returns to two important points: firstly copyright compliance is, by and large, a matter of risk analysis and, secondly, except for actions of rogue employees, libraries can largely mitigate much of risk by adopting proactive copyright measures such as establishment of a copyright policy, notification of compliance requirements, education of their patrons, and action against habitual infringers. By and large, libraries will most likely suffer legal sanctions in areas of contributory or vicarious infringement: that is, by not monitoring actions of employees or ignoring patron practises, libraries could be accused of not playing ball in copyright world. Lipinski notes that legislators framing enhancements to 1976 Copyright Act have sought to bring public institutions into a partnership with copyright holders, to their mutual benefit (and cost). Nowhere is this mix of permission and partnership more prevalent than in DMCA provisions codified in section 512 , dealing with online content. This is 'infamous' section that requires service providers to take down potentially infringing material from Web sites and disable access (including termination of accounts) for offenders. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,026 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».