Creative Commons released an Add-in for OpenOffice.org which allows users to select and embed a Creative Commons license in documents. Based on work completed as part of the Google Summer of Code by Cassio Melo, the add-in supports Writer (word processing documents), Calc (spreadsheets) and Impress (presentations).
The Add-in is available without charge, and is licensed under the GNU General Public License. Download information and links to source code.
Maybe it’s the approach of the first winter snows or maybe it’s just the most recent PhD cartoon (probably a combination of factors). But I began to think about my scientific impact.
Jorge Cham PhD Comics
It’s been a year since I defended my thesis so I guess a little thought on the topic may not be entirely out of place. Since 1999 I have written over 40 academic texts (journal and conference articles, book chapters, reports and more). Besides my PhD I have also acted as editor to a book, taught an endless amount of classes and given countless guest lectures.
Despite all this “scientific” or “academic” production my impact on the scientific community is negligible. Ok so I realize that my field is not high profile. But I have the sneaking suspicion that the impact of my work is not what it should be or could be.
If we choose to set aside arguments that my impact is low because I am unreadable – since they provide no help – then there may be another reason.
The focus of scientific/academic work has become the journal article. We are not measured in research but in publication. The problem with this system is that it creates a desire (intentional or unintentional) to manipulate the system. What we have seen over the last thirty years is the explosion of the number of journals and the publication hungry academic is always in the market for yet another place to deliver an article to.
The purpose of the journal was to provide an avenue where scientific work could be published quickly and in a focused manner. Well while some journals have longer time-to-print than books this is no longer an advantage. And the dance between authors, editors and reviewers has become so stylized that it resembles a kabuki theater (complex, ornate & beautiful but incomprehensible).
So where am I going with this? Not very far. The process of academic work entails journal publication – we are locked into this system. But to achieve true recognition and impact, in my field, I think your either need to be a cartoonist – or to write books.
A pet hate of mine is people who make notes in library books. I just cannot understand the arrogance of some people who are prepared to borrow a book and then mess it up. It’s not about cost it’s about a lack of interest in other peoples property and a lack of consideration for the next reader.
But now it’s not only the lenders doing it. The Guardian reports that public libraries in the UK will be using books as a direct marketing channel. The project will insert advertising into library books and provide libraries with much needed extra funding.
Up to 500,000 inserts a month are due to be handed out by libraries in Essex, Somerset, Bromley, Leeds and Southend.
The plan is being run by the direct marketing company Howse Jackson, whose business development director Mark Jackson said the company was “very proud” of what he described as “a brand new channel” for direct marketing.
Obviously Mark Jackson is more of a marketer than a reader. Guy Daines (director of policy at the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) was dismayed by the scheme.
(via Lex Ferenda)
The Wikipedia Foundation was being sued by three French nationals for invasion of privacy and defamation after a wikipedia page identified them as being gay activists. The French judge Emmanuel Binoche dismissed the case, stating that wikipedia was not responsible for information introduced onto its Web site and stated that web site hosts are not legally bound to monitor information stored on their websites.
In the written ruling Binoche writes: “Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature”
This position is in line with the accepted approach to ISP liability. Gavin Sutter has written extensively on this topic see for example Gavin Sutter (2003) FE/HE Institutions and Liability for Third Party Provided Content.
(via Slashdot)
Reporters Without Borders and Chinese Human Rights Defenders (a Chinese Internet expert working in IT industry) has produced a study on the Chinese official system of online censorship, surveillance and propaganda. For obvious reasons the author of the report prefers to remain anonymous. The RSF press release promises:
This report shows how the CCP and the government have deployed colossal human and financial resources to obstruct online free expression. Chinese news websites and blogs have been brought under the editorial control of the propaganda apparatus at both the national and local levels.
… [The report] explains how this control system functions and identifies its leading actors such the Internet Propaganda Administrative Bureau…, the Bureau of Information and Public Opinion… and the Internet Bureau…
Internet censorship is a vital topic any work in this area is very welcome. Two PhD thesis’ of interest in this area are Stuart Hamilton’s To what extent can libraries ensure free, equal and unhampered access to Internet-accessible information resources from a global perspective? and Johan Lagerkvist The Internet in China: Unlocking and containing the public sphere.
Luxembourg is the 40th Jurisdiction to adopt the Creative Commons licensing suite worldwide.
An event to commemorate the launch will be held on October 15th at the Public Research Center Henri Tudor (CRP) in Luxembourg, featuring speeches by John Buckman, founder and CEO of Magnatune.com and Board Member of Creative Commons; Paul Keller, Project Lead for Creative Commons Netherlands; Laurent Kratz, founder Luxembourg’s Jamendo, one of the largest music portals offering Creative Commons-licensed works; and Lionel Maurel, scientific coordinator from the National Library of France. (via the Creative Commons blog)
Congratulations Luxembourg!
Here is an online talk by one of the most interesting of tech-lawyers, the intellectual James Boyle talk is on YouTube and the subject is 7 Ways To Ruin A Technological Revolution. From the abstract:
If you wanted to undermine the technological revolution of the last 30 years, using the law, how would you do it? How would you undercut the virtuous cycle that results from access to an open network, force technological innovation into stagnation, diminish competition, create monopolies over the basic building blocks of knowledge? How many of those things are we doing now?
Boyle has been an impressive figure since his book Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society came out in 1997 since then his writings include Papers on the Public Domain (James Boyle ed. 2003) and Bound by Law – A ‘Graphic Novel’ (a.k.a. comic book) on Fair Use.
He has also been central in the launching of Creative Commons and Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain.
(via DigitalKoans)
The Open Access movement is gaining momentum and still there are too many people who are unaware of what it is all about, its goals and effects. There are some very persuasive arguments being presented by key people but don’t worry if you have missed out on these. They are available on YouTube
Film One is a conversation with Sydney Verba, Director of Harvard University Libraries and professor of political science, and Charles Nesson, Professor of Law on the serials crises and the fact that “even Harvard” cannot afford the developments.
Film Two is Chris McManus, a researcher at UCL, describes why research needs to be openly shared not only by other researchers but also by the general public.
Film Three is an interview of researcher Erik Svensson the Department of Ecology, Lund University by Lund librarian Helena Stjernberg on the pros and cons of Open Access.
You might also want to look at the short ad boosting the Public Library of Science, maybe not so informative as fun! The last film is an occupational film from 1947 about the library profession, and becoming a librarian it’s kind of cute – also it shows the idea and image of the librarian of the time.
Librarians (circa 1947)
Being a natural skeptic I must admit to not being totally persuaded by the educational value of YouTube but I did enjoy these films.
Yesterday, the Cecilia Renfors presented the results of her investigation on copyright issues in relation to the Internet (press release in Swedish). The investigation entitled Music and Film on the Internet – threat or possibility? (Musik och film på Internet – hot eller möjlighet?). The purpose of this investigation was to understand and to create a way in which illegal file-sharing would decrease and users would be encouraged to pay for the downloading of video and audio.
The main suggestion in this investigation is to hold the ISP’s liable for users’ treatment of copyrighted material. In reality this would entail that the ISP would move from being an anonymous carrier of information to being actively involved in the content their customers desire. Cecilia Renfors suggests that the ISP’s should be forced to, for example, close accounts for users involved in illegal file sharing.
These suggestions have not been accepted quietly. Naturally the ISP’s are protesting – they don’t want to chase their own customers. But there is a wider issue at stake here.
Suppose that an Internet account is terminated because it has been used for illegal file sharing. This punishment does not fit the crime. Considering the drive towards e-government and the amount of services which are moving wholly online the loss of one’s Internet connection is too high a punishment. Another question is who actually carried out the downloading? Was it the underage child? Or is it a neighbor abusing an open network?
Most users do not know enough about their technology to control their own Internet accounts. In addition they do not know enough about the complexities of copyright law in relation to the Internet. A study (pdf here – in Swedish) user’s rights (paid for by an ISP), also presented yesterday, shows that most people do not know which actions in relation to the copying of copyrighted material are legal or not. This latter study shows that 83% of Swedish teenagers download music from the Internet. Half of them believe that when they make a copy of music for a friend or family member that this act is also illegal.
An example of scenarios presented in the examination:
My friend has bought a song on the internet. She plays it for me on her mp3 player and I would like to copy the song to my mp3 player. Is this act legal?
Teenagers answer
* No: 51%
* Yes: 29 %
* Don’t know: 21%Teenagers parents answer:
* No: 55%
* Yes: 21 %
* Don’t know: 24%
The correct answer is that this act is legal. Sharing a legally purchased song with friends and family is permissible. It is not permissible to share it to the general public nor is it legal to circumvent technical protection measures to copy the song.
The lack of legal and technical information makes this a sensitive issue. Naturally everyone within a society is expected to know the laws which applies to them. Ignorance of the law can never be a defence. However, the fact is that few people really know whats what in copyright and online environments.
If we create an environment where we begin closing access to Internet we are taking a step back in the information society. Access to Internet today is arguably more important than being connected to a telephone system. Not that I would like to give up either.
Like many European countries Sweden has arrived at the sensible conclusion that female genital mutilation is wrong. Male mutilation (circumcision) is still permitted. Sweden has criminalized female circumcision but the problem is how to enforce such a prohibition.
The first easy step is to ensure that hospitals, medical facilities and doctors do not perform the procedure. The next step is also reasonably easy to achieve and that is to prevent “amateurs” from performing the procedure.
The problem arises when attempting to prevent parents from taking their children abroad and carrying out the mutilation. Every so often a bright eager politician or spokesperson states loudly that certain groups of parents should not be allowed to take their children out of Sweden or that if they do then the children should be examined upon their return.
Fortified and justified with horrific images of mutilated females such cries often receive a great deal of nodding and concerned humming from the largely uninformed public. Such suggestions however are, despite their good intentions, fraught with harsh consequences for society at large and the individuals involved.
First there is the inherent racism of singling out specific groups due to their ethnic background. No matter how finely tuned the mechanism – This is racism plain and simple. Second there is a level of child abuse in the actual examination. No matter if the brutal act has been carried out or not – examining a young child in this way (either to just check or to secure evidence) is a form of child abuse. This can often be compounded by the fact that the young child may not understand what the (well intentioned) medical team is attempting to do. Third the effect of checking unwilling and possibly terrified people in this manner does not have a good effect on any of those involved.
In a recent case in Sweden the Discrimination Ombudsman is now claiming damages for a family whose ten-year-old daughter was subjected to such an examination after the family returned from a trip to Africa. As it turns out the girl had not been circumcised but everyone involved has simply assumed that this was the case based upon the ethnic background of the family. They were all found guilty and had to prove their innocence.
Preventing female circumcision is an important task but it must be balanced against the social costs that mistakes such as these entail.