Walt at Random

A separate post, because it has nothing to do with what yesterday’s gathering was about, but:

I have learned that I may have inadvertently ignored someone during the schmoozing part of the celebration, in a manner that must have looked like a snub. I suspect I’ve done the same at other gatherings.

That was not my intention. I was either zoned out (which happens), hard of hearing (which is true), too intent on who I was listening to (which happens a lot), or otherwise just…well, not quite with it.

I’m a shy person [true--I frequently find it hard to mix at parties because I don't want to intrude on conversations, for example]. I’m afraid that makes it easier to be a little withdrawn in social gatherings.

So if I ignored you, I’m sorry: It was definitely not intentional.

And, of course, I’ll try to do better in the future–but I’ll sometimes fail.

Yesterday was the celebration of Ilene Rockman’s life. (See here and here for background, including a growing number of personal tributes from those who knew her.)

It was a wonderful event. I learned much more than I’d known about just how special (and impressive!) Ilene really was, to an astonishing range of people. I’m guessing that 150 people were there, maybe more, but she touched thousands of lives for the better.

I’ve been thinking the kind of semi-deep personal thoughts that the holiday season causes in some of us, including the issue of how people interpret the Universal Ethical Guideline, that is, treat other people as you would have them treat you.

There are those who turn this into “Get other people before they can get you.” That’s just sad.

A little less sad and a lot more common (and I’ve been guilty myself) is “Treat other people as they have treated you.”

The best, I believe, must be one of Ilene’s possibly-unstated rules to live by: “Treat other people better than you’d expect them to treat you, and at least as well as you could hope for them to treat you.” She did. It’s a guideline for more of us to aspire to.

I’ll never aspire to Dr. Ilene Rockman’s energy, expertise, or graciousness. I can try to aspire to her ethical standards, but it’s not easy. It was an honor to know her.

For Cites & Insights readers only:

Are you going to be at ALA Midwinter in that best of Midwinter cities (personal opinion, to be sure), San Antonio?

Want to get together for a chat and a drink (no-host) to celebrate a half decade of C&I?

If so, let me know (comment here or mail me, waltcrawford at gmail.com).

If I hear from at least three or four of you by January 5, I’ll suggest a place and time.

I don’t expect a big response, and I’m not sure how we’d handle that–it’s easy to find a place where 4 to 10 people could gather; 20 or more is tough without formal arrangements, which I wasn’t planning to make.

Time would probably be Monday afternoon between 5 and 6, or something like that; I haven’t put together my schedule yet, but Saturday and Sunday afternoon and evening tend to be pretty crazy, particularly when San Antonio is the site.

I have no idea what the location would be except “On or near Riverwalk”–which covers a lot of territory even within a ten-minute walk of the Convention Center. I was thinking of Lone Star Cafe only because they used to serve some decent Texas wines, but they seem to have dropped the Chardonnays at least. If there’s a response, I’ll do a little checking (or one of you who’s been in San Antonio recently might have a suggestion).

No pressure; there are way too many things to do at Midwinter, way too many things to do in San Antonio, and lots of you probably fly home Monday evening.

I tried something like this four years ago; the two of us who were there had a great time. For two, I’ll skip it, but for a few (probably anywhere between 3 and 10 responses–I’d be astonished to get more than 10) it might be fun.

Update and apology: I hadn’t intended to publish this until I reviewed some stuff; I hit Publish instead of Save yesterday. One paragraph has been removed–but if you know what it is and you’re actually interested in the “bribe” just let me know.

Second update, December 19: Since there will be at least three of us there, the event’s on, Monday at 5, and now I need to decide on a place. This post–whoa! #200!– offers some suggestions and asks for help and advice.

Third and final update, January 9: The time is still Monday, January 23, at 5 p.m. The place is the Menger Bar, in the Menger Hotel. Slightly more details here.

I’ve been biding my time–both here and at Cites & Insights–about discussing “Library 2.0.”

There are several reasons for that, and those reasons have shifted in the past few days, where I’ve seen several thoughtful posts about Library 2.0 from people other than Library 2.0 Advocates. (Apologies to all those I didn’t link to: This is just a tiny convenient selection.) (Many of the posts from Library 2.0 Advocates and advocates–there’s a difference, which I won’t get into here–are also eloquent, thoughtful, worth reading–but they’re not hard to find, and I’m not much of a linker in general. TTW would be one of several places to start…)

On one hand, I don’t really enjoy being called a naysayer, I don’t really enjoy confrontation, and I have no desire to discourage enthusiasm for new ideas and services.

On the other hand, I am seeing a certain degree of “or thinking” going on, and the term itself draws a circle: This is Library 2.0, and everything else is Old Hat Library 1.0. Since I firmly believe this is all a continuum, and I’m not that fond of disruptive thinking and the ease with which people can be labeled as Luddite/old and ready to be put out to pasture/whatever, this is troublesome. I continue to believe that words and names matter, and wonder whether the rallying virtues of “Library 2.0″ outweigh the confrontational drawbacks. “Wonder” in this case really does mean “don’t yet have any firm opinion but am continuing to read, explore, and think”

On the gripping hand, I see a growing number of explicit “middle people” getting involved, trying to make sense of all this from an and, not or perspective, and am encouraged by this–and wonder whether it doesn’t make sense for an “accidental elder” like me to just stay out of the discussion for the moment.

So that’s what I’ll do for now. Some day soon, maybe, I’ll have something semi-coherent to add to the discussion, and will do so either here or in my primary outlet.

“Eli: most of the library leadership in this country have a book fetish, and you have to pander to that to get the money; this isn’t a loss leader; eventually, these book people will be dead”

Honest to Gaia, I didn’t believe I’d read that the first time, here in one of Jenny Levine’s first-rate posts about the Gaming Symposium.

But there it is.

And I thought the “Library 2.0″ meme was getting a touch confrontational! Still, I’ve never heard a Library 2.0 advocate comment that eventually, these Library 1.0 people will be dead…

It’s true, of course: Eventually we’ll all be dead. Not something I’d usually use as an argument or something to celebrate, but I wasn’t there and don’t know the context.

I was pleased to note that George Needham quoted my so-called ideas directly at one point and indirectly a couple of other times. Of course, eventually I’ll be dead too…

I’m going to add a Cites & Insights category soon, partly because Cites & Insights and Walt at Random are becoming more intertwined.

Once I add the category, I’ll go through and assign it to posts that relate fairly directly to the e-journal, except for new-issue announcements (where I can’t imagine why anyone would ever need to go through the old ones, although i will use it for new ones).

I’m not sure how RSS and its ilk recognize newness/updatedness, but I believe it’s at least likely that these posts will show up in Bloglines and other RSS aggregators just because I add the category. If that’s true, my apologies: I’m not trying to get you to read the posts again! If I’m wrong, then no harm is done (other than this pointless post).

Update, 5:45 PST, December 6, 2005: If there have been any repeat messages, this should be the last of them. I’ve finished adding the C&I category to those posts that I think need it (excluding announcements of specific issues). Who knows? I might even have a topical posting one of these days….

Posted on behalf of the Free Expression Policy Project:

Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control from the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law

http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/WillFairUseSurvive.pdf

Executive Summary

“Fair use” is a crucial part of our copyright system. It allows any of us to quote and reproduce parts — or sometimes all — of copyrighted works, if the use advances creativity and democratic discussion. There are similar free expression safeguards in trademark law. Together, they assure that the owners of “intellectual property” cannot close down the free exchange of ideas. These safeguards in our copyright and trademark systems are at risk today. Threatening “cease and desist” letters cause many people to give up their fair use rights. Even more troublesome are “take-down” notices sent by copyright owners to Internet service providers, which pressure them to remove online speech without any court having ruled that it is illegal.

Additional hurdles to fair use come from the “clearance culture” in many creative industries, which assumes that almost no quote can be used without permission from the owner. Meanwhile, educational “fair use guidelines,” which are often narrower than fair use law, prevent many teachers from copying material for their classes. In late 2004, the Brennan Center for Justice began a research project to learn how well fair use and free expression are faring among artists, scholars, and others who make critical contributions to culture and democratic discourse. We conducted focus group discussions, telephone interviews, an online survey, and an analysis of more than 300 cease and desist and take-down letters that have been deposited with the “Chilling Effects” Clearinghouse. Our discussions with members of PEN American Center, Women Make Movies, the College Art Association, and the Location One Gallery yielded two common themes. The first was that artists and scholars have great interest in, and confusion about, fair use. The second was a need for community support and pro bono legal assistance in their dealings with publishers, distributors, and other cultural gatekeepers. Our analysis of 320 cease and desist and take-down letters from the Chilling Effects Web site indicated that more than 20% either stated weak copyright or trademark claims, or involved speech with a strong or at least reasonable free expression or fair use defense. Another 27% attacked material with possible free expression or fair use defenses. Thus, almost 50% of the letters had the potential to chill protected speech. The materials targeted by the letters ranged from criticism of a Scientology-like “planetary enlightenment” program to parodies of American Express and Mastercard. Our telephone interviewees included the creator of a parody New York Times corrections page, an editor at the Cape Cod Voice, and small entrepreneurs using such terms as “Pet Friendly” Travel or “Piggy Bank of America.” Five of them had strong or at least reasonable fair use or First Amendment defenses, and four had possible defenses.

Another seven received cease and desist or take-down letters with weak copyright and trademark claims. Yet nine of the 17 people we interviewed acquiesced in the copyright or trademark owners’ demands, or had their material removed because of take-down letters. 290 people filled out the online survey, expressing opinions about, and experiences with, copyright and fair use. Their stories ranged from an artist who made “Homeland Security” blankets to a fan fiction Web site that posted a story called “Gaelic Dreams” and received a cease and desist letter from the “Gaelic Dreams” import company. Numerous teachers and scholars expressed frustration with a clearance culture that locks images out of public view whenever an owner refuses permission or charges too high a price. What can be done to bolster fair use and free expression in the digital age? Our recommendations include creating a clearinghouse for information, including sample replies to cease and desist letters and take-down notices; a legal support network; outreach to Internet service providers to encourage help for those targeted by take-down letters; and changes in the law to reduce the cost of guessing wrong about fair use.

I certainly plan to comment on this report–but it may be a while before I read it. Meanwhile, Google’s Library Project might yield some clarification of fair use, if the cases go to trial–but that clarification could be good or bad.

If you care about fair use, I recommend that you read the report.

It doesn’t help that it comes right around Thanksgiving time, also a time I’m most likely to get a cold or upper respiratory virus (which seems to be what I have now), also a time that the Season’s Unjollies start to set in…

But somehow it takes quite a while, at least in terms of energy and days “lost” to either productive writing or, even better, goofing off, before a volume of Cites & Insights is really and truly Done in my eyes. I believe I’ve finally reached that point for volume 5 today, which is actually on the early side.

Here’s the steps:

• Close the final issue for the year and turn it into a published C&I. I’ve described this process (in an unusual case) before, if briefly. This time, I closed the issue right around November 21 (I believe), recognized there was no way I was going to get it down to a reasonable size, but finally had it ready to publish on November 24. (But because that was Thanksgiving–we celebrate a day later in my family–I consider November 26, when the issue was uploaded and publicized, to be the actual pub. date.)
• Adding index entries for the issue usually takes another day or two. I think I also got that done on November 24 (staying out of my wife’s way and washing pots, pans, dishes left a lot of time…).
• The first special end-of-volume task is to prepare the index: Correct at least the most obvious errors and inconsistencies in the entries from each issue (don’t worry, there are loads of other inconsistencies still there!), prepare a “final” Word index (I use a dummy Word document consisting entirely of index entries, with a chapter break for each issue to build a running index), and then turn that “final” index into a publishable index.
• What’s involved there? First, global-replacing the chapter/page strings with issue/page strings (e.g., “1001:” becomes “Ja “). Then, in a simultaneous pass, fixing the orthography and eliminating duplicate issue labels. (Orthography: This year I left journal and book titles both with first-caps rather than caps on almost every word. But I still italicize book, magazine, TV show and similar titles and change C&I section and essay names to small caps. (Citations to articles elsewhere appear in quotes, which results in Word putting them all at the beginning of the alphabet; I set those off as a separate index.) Oh yes: Since the index is designed to be useful in a bound volume of C&I I prepend a two-page document, the cover sheet, to the index.
• That process can take anywhere from three days to two weeks; it’s not something that’s so much fun I just want to stick with it… In any case, the index was ready to publish on November 29, and I published it on November 30.
• From external appearances, that’s it: The volume’s complete. But from my perspective, there are three more steps:
• Print the full set of issues in clean duplex form on good paper, without three-hole punching. I did this on my cheap little multifunction this time–yes, an inkjet, but with Office Depot “Color inkjet” paper (24lb., very opaque, 99+ brightness, very smooth), the results are magnificent. (And the feeder is simple enough so that manual duplexing–printing all the odd-numbered pages in an issue, putting the paper stack back in, then printing all the even-numbered pages–worked perfectly, with no double feeds or problems.) Finished that yesterday, December 2.
• Get it bound. I don’t know where I’d have to go or how much I’d have to pay for proper binding, and the local Kinko’s (oh, sorry, Fedex Kinko’s) no longer does tape perfect binding–hasn’t since 2002. So I settle for velo binding with the usual black vinyl back and transparent cover. No spine to write on, and it doesn’t stand up as straight as I’d like, but it’s durable (and C&I has a wide enough binding margin). Just did that today, December 3.
• And the most important step, delayed thanks to illness (as were the previous steps) and general lassitude: Get off my fat…well, and start writing again. More to the point, start working on material for Volume 6. I’ve just begun that process: Not the 2,000 words (and part of a paid column) I was hoping for, but even 500 words is a break from 10 days without writing (unless you count Walt at random

So there it is. Volume 5 is now really, truly done…even if it’s clear that stories from Volume 5 will require followup/feedback space in Volume 6, Issue 1. Coming sometime in late December (or, possibly, early January.) With, I think, a new, sometimes lighthearted, PDF-only feature. More about that when the time is right.