Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".