Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Center for Intellectual Property Handbook. Edited by Kimberly M. Bonner and the staff of the Center for Intellectual Property. New York, NY: Neal Schuman Publishers, 2006. 257 pp. 85.00 USD. ISBN 1-55570-561-8.∞ This volume addresses the growth in digital delivery of copyright-protected content in American higher education and is directed at faculty, librarians, e-learning directors and web-based training specialists. Despite its U.S. focus, several of the issues discussed are of interest in Canada and it should enjoy some attention from Canadian higher education librarians and those in the library community interested in attempts to reform our Copyright Act. The book's nine chapters cover the basics of copyright law in the U.S., the creation of instructional material, fair use, electronic reserves, the TEACH Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), digital rights management (DRM), and copyright education programs. In addition, several appendices contain important legal decisions and discussions (all American), as well as resources for copyright education. Copyright is as American as football: in fact it may be more so, since football does not appear in the first article of the Constitution. The purpose of copyright then (and now), is to balance the preservation of the economic rights of 'creators' for a limited period, while promoting new knowledge and commerce. Since that time there has been little consensus on copyright protection and its extension to other forms of creation (performances, sound recordings, computer programs). The 1976 Copyright Act attempted to deal with these matters in a comprehensive manner, but it has been amended and extended by legislation to strike the proper balance between the rights of creators and demands of users. Each new piece of legislation has lead to greater efforts by both sides to expand their rights. If the debate could be reduced to a single phrase, it might be, what constitutes fair use? Fair use (codified in the 1976 Act) exempts certain uses of a copyrighted product, such as criticism, private study and research, teaching, and scholarship from claims of infringing on a creator's sole right to exploit her work. Unfortunately it can only be conclusively determined by reference to the courts. One exception to copyright, that the purpose of the use is a non-profit educational one, is the only educational exemption in the United States. Attempts to negotiate with producers for educational uses (the Classroom Guidelines Set, Principles for Licensing Electronic Resources) have not settled the matter as it relates to digital material and its delivery where such delivery is outside the traditional classroom. The TEACH (Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization) Act sought to solve this dilemma, permitting use of more material formats in educational settings, including provision over networks outside classroom sessions, but, as Kimberly Bonner makes clear, fewer than 10% of higher education institutions make use of it (preferring the fair use standard). Similarly, the DMCA made provision for educational institutions to enjoy 'safe harbour' provisions for the potential infringing actions of faculty and researchers, but they must now be proactive in informing users about copyright and policing infringing activities (like P2P file-sharing networks in college dormitories). Two issues of particular interest to academic librarians are e-reserves and digital rights management. The first of these replays the old photocopy reserve question which was partially settled by the 1976 Act and the agreed-upon Classroom Guidelines, later enhanced by the ALA Model Policy for Higher Education, which balanced user demand and owners' rights. Attempts in the 1990s to embrace digital content did not win the approval of ACRL or the ALA nor of the academic publishers, and the latter is now in court challenging the e-reserve system at UC-San Diego. In the article on DRM, the authors produce results from a survey of American schools that provide insight into the growing rift between owners and academic users. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.218 | 0.248 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".