Archive for 2005

Library 2.0: An open call

Friday, December 30th, 2005

A couple of days ago, I sent email to a few colleagues who (I believe) hadn’t made any public statements about either Library 2.0 (any one of several sets of concepts) or “Library 2.0” (the meme, slogan, bandwagon…), asking them whether they’d like to send me a paragraph or two suitable for publication.

I’m going to open that call to the slightly larger number of people who read this blog.

Here’s the situation:

I’ve read lots of stuff on “Library 2.0”–at least 40-odd documents.

I’ve prepared the first draft of a C&I Perspective, including “54 Views of a Brand-new Meme” (54 one-sentence “Library 2.0 is…” statements), a core section of cites (excerpts) and insights (commentary) on what’s being said, and a set of conclusions. That draft is just under 15,000 words long–in other words, a complete C&I issue.

I’m not happy with the essay, but I’m not about to discard it either. I believe it needs a philosophical wrapper to relate it to some earlier C&I essays and to illustrate why it’s just possible that Walt Crawford, who in this case observes more as a public library patron than anything else, but who also has five decades in the trenches, “just doesn’t get it.”

If you’ve gone on record at any length, there’s a pretty good chance you’re already included in the core essay.

I’d hoped for a nice medium-length (3,5000 to 5,000 words) essay that would fit in a four-essay (or so) issue, probably the February issue. But I’ve already edited the piece–and, particularly given that I don’t see any reasonably comprehensive essay on “Library 2.0,” particularly from someone who’s not busily pushing the concept, I don’t see that I can cut it in half. Or less than that.

So here’s the open query:

If you have something to say about either Library 2.0 or “Library 2.0” that is both publishable without further clarification and no more than, say, 200 words (brevity does count, at this point), I’d be interested, under the following conditions:

  • It must reach me by Friday, January 6, at 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
  • You can either provide it as a comment on this post or as mail to
  • If it’s a comment, you must explicitly say that it may be published in C&I (Mail to the email address implicitly carries that permission.
  • It must be signed–not with a pseudonym, but with who you actually are.

I reserve the right to edit or ignore any submissions, of course–but I believe there are thoughtful people out there who have followed some of this, have an opinion, and just haven’t chosen to make that opinion public. This is a chance. Of course, your own weblog–or whatever–is a faster chance, where you can say more and won’t be subject to editing. I’m just offering.

Right now, subject to change at any time, best chance is that this will all emerge as a special one-topic issue, before ALA Midwinter.

I think this is my last post of the year. But who knows? In any case, happy new year.

Cites & Insights 2005: A few “popularity” notes

Thursday, December 29th, 2005

An earlier post broke down Cites & Insights volume 5 (2005) by words. I said I might do some “popularity” work when a complete log analysis is ready.

That’s still to come; meanwhile, I found this year’s readership numbers interesting enough for a few notes (but you may not!). All these notes are based on logs from January 1, 2005 through December 28, 2005 at 7:41 a.m. Mountain Time (I believe).

Overall readership: C&I was visited from 44,126 unique IP addresses during 2005. I find that little short of astonishing. There were 423,980 total hits and an average of 381 visitors (not hits) per day.

Geographic distribution: Would you believe visitors from 167 different countries? That’s what the logs show. Of those, 143 had more than one visit (so let’s assume that Andorra, Aruba, Gibraltar, Kazakhstan, Cambodia and 19 others may have been pure accidents). 95 countries had at least 10 visits; I’m inclined to believe all of those represent “legitimate” readership (and, for that matter, it’s hard to believe that all of the 23 others with four to nine visits were accidents).

Moving up, 81 countries show 20 or more visits and 60 show 50 or more. The group with 50 to 99 visits includes Peru, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, Nigeria, Chile, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Morocco, Slovakia, and Cote d’Ivoire.

Fully 49 countries show more than 100 visits each, from Hungary (103) through Iran (148) and Saudi Arabia (176) to Thailand (211), South Africa (264), Poland (298), and Romania (389), with lots of stops in between.

The top ten aren’t particularly surprising: US (100K), UK (8,933), Canada (4,192), France (2,975), Germany (2,497), Australia (1,683), China (1,614), Netherlands (1,384), Japan (1,046) and Spain (792).

This is amazing for a journal written in idiomatic American and primarily concerned with U.S. policy issues–but the web is nothing if not global in scope. (And that one Liberia visit did involve 15 hits, so maybe it’s even “real.”)

Browsers and OS: “22.18% Other” makes it hard to make full sense of the numbers, but it’s worth noting that Firefox comes in third (after IE6 and Other) with 12.98% of visits; Safari is fifth (after IE5), but with only 1.63% of visits; Opera is 9th (after Mozilla, Netscape7, and Netscape4) with 0.58%. It’s not surprising that Mac OS is used by 3.44% of visitors, with Linux making up 1.17%–and then there’s that visitor using BeOS!

Spiders: About 20% of all hits are from spiders, ranging from the hyperactive Yahoo! Slurp (31K hits during the year) and slightly less hyper Googlebot (15K hits) down to oddies like Imspider (139) and ConveraCrawler (132). Heck, even beyond the 50 top spiders (ConveraCrawler being the 50th), other spiders accounted for another 3,483 hits.

Popularity: I guesstimated 1.5 readers per PDF download and one reader per HTML download. Using that metric, after the “Investigating the Biblioblogosphere” piece (far more popular than anything else), the most popular pieces for this year that had lots of HTML downloads in addition to PDF reads appear to be (in descending order):

  • The ACRL report (5:7)
  • (C)3: Balancing Rights (5:7), on DRM and Fair Use
  • A three-way tie: Weblogging ethics and impact (5:7), Bibs & Blather (5:5) and Interesting & Peculiar Products (5:5)
  • Tie: (c)4 on the Broadcast Flag (5:5) and PC Progress (5:5)
  • Offtopic: Family Classics Part 1 (5:4)
  • disContent on Printability (with added notes) (5:6)
  • Dangling Conversations (5:4)
  • Net Media on Google & Gorman (5:6)
  • Life Trumps Blogging (5:13)
  • Tie: Net Media on Wiki, Blogs, and Pew (5:8) and on Google and Wiki (5:11)
  • Broadcast Flag (5:8)

Those are, to be sure, tricky numbers, particularly since issues 5:3, 5:7, and 5:10 all had larger apparent PDF readership than the combined PDF and HTML readership of the last three bullet points.

What I do find interesting are the readership numbers for stuff from earlier volumes–Issue 3:9, of course (the CIPA special), but also 4:12 and 3:14–and, for specific HTML articles, all three of 2004’s PC Progress essays!

Conclusions? Apparently people are willing to follow my changing interests. Net media and blogging essays were well read, as were broadcast flag and other copyright essays. Access has received less attention–and Access essays didn’t score highly. So I guess I’ll keep doing whatever it is I was doing.

Oh, and I will definitely keep doing PC Progress, maybe more than twice a year, maybe with a little more fleshing out. There’s apparently a sustained interest there.

As for overall readership, since every 2005 issue already shows more than 1,000 unique PDF downloads, I’m happy. I don’t know what the minimum would be to keep me happy, but it’s a lot lower than current readership.

Creative Commons licenses: Be careful out there

Wednesday, December 28th, 2005

There’s a brewing story recounted here and here.
Briefly, as I understand it:

Adam Stacey took a cell phone picture of passengers evacuating the London subway in last summer’s bombing incident.

He moblogged the photo using a Creative Commons “by” license (which means anyone can use it for any purpose as long as credit is provided).

Gamma, a photo agency, grabbed the photo and distributed it, crediting Adam Stacey. They also entered it in a Time Magazine photo contest; it was one of the winners and appeared in Time with a “Adam Stacey/Gamma” credit.

Stacey thinks this is outrageous and that the credit should read “Adam Stacey/Creative Commons.”

Here’s the thing. On one hand, a “by” license means anyone can use the photo for pretty much any purpose, sell it, redistribute it, whatever, as long as there’s attribution. Which there was.

Stacey’s only case may be this clause in the “By” license:

“For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. ”

So the question is, did Gamma’s distribution include such clarity–and did Time drop the ball? Or did Gamma fail to honor the terms of a “by” license?

I’m sure we’ll hear more over time, although maybe not.

[Incidentally, I believe Creative Commons still needs some end-of-year donations. If you support the work they do, consider sending or PayPal-ing a donation.]

The real Google threat!

Tuesday, December 27th, 2005

Now it has been revealed: There is a real and serious danger at Google.

As this post reveals, illustrations and all, Googlers are cornering the market on an essential commodity. Well, maybe not cornering the market, but amassing mass quantities of…oh, go click on the link.

Be alert! This could happen in your town! Apparently it has happened in my town.


Tuesday, December 27th, 2005

This morning I carted two canvas bags in to work: A red Time Life Books/African Americans/Voices of Triumph bag and a blue Midwest Library Service 30th Anniversary ALA Dallas 1989 bag.

Sidebar: Anyone at Safeway or Andronico’s who pays attention can pretty well spot the two of us as library people. We use canvas bags for our groceries–and all of the canvas bags come from various state library conferences and the like. Who else would have that collection of bags?

Both bags were about three-quarters full of lemons. Meyer lemons. Huge Meyer lemons, mostly orange-size.

Another sidebar: If you don’t know about Meyer lemons, too bad–and, unless you’re in Santa Clara or San Mateo County in California or dine at certain hotshot restaurants, you may not know about them. They’re not really a commercial crop–they don’t ship worth a damn–and, in fact, the benighted California Department of Agriculture apparently tried to eradicate them because of some disease that Meyers carried, that didn’t hurt them but did hurt commercial lemons. Fortunately, the effort failed, at least some areas, although Meyers are still really not a commercial crop. What Meyers are are big, sweet, lower in acid, flavorful. Apparently they’re a centuries-old cross between lemons and either oranges or some other citrus fruit. Used in desserts by quite a few top chefs…

As usual, I set the red bag down on a counter in RLG’s “kitchen,” and sent out a general-staff junk mail noting that Meyer lemons are here. I’ll replenish the red bag from the blue bag (so people who don’t get here by 7:30 a.m. have a chance at them). This place is pretty deserted this week, but I’m guessing the hundred or so lemons will still be gone by the end of the day–and that “hundred or so” is at least 30 pounds worth of lemons.

That scene’s been repeated once a week for the past three weeks, and will be repeated weekly for most weeks over the next three months, give or take, although there may be only one bag some weeks. It’s an odd perk of working at RLG: Free, bright, shiny, clean, sweet, organic Meyer lemons (well, semi-organic: my wife fertilizes the Meyer shrub/tree but we’ve never used pesticides or other sprays on it).

What we have here is a supply:demand situation made possible by the odd soil and weather conditions in the Mountain View/Los Altos area (and some points north and south on the Peninsula): To wit, one Meyer shrub (I guess it’s a tree, but it looks more like a shrub) will produce better than a thousand lemons over a four-month period. Fortunately, the lemons really are good and people find lots of uses for them. (We keep three or four a week, but we really don’t use a lot of lemons.)

My wife does the picking (she knows which ones are ripe). We cooperate on the cleaning (she rinses, I dry): Presentation is part of assuring demand, and we’re not about to bring in a bunch of dirty lemons. I do the hauling, and since I get in to work a lot earlier I also send out the announcement.

This year’s unusual for two reasons, which probably interact. The summer was a little hotter than usual, and a few hundred immature lemons shriveled–having the effect of thinning the crop. Then the first sustained “cold” spell (that is, weather in the 50s dropping to 40s at night) didn’t hit until much later than usual–and lemons (at least Meyers) don’t fully ripen until it gets cold, but they keep growing. The result: Some lemons are almost the size of small grapefruit, and the smallest ones are two or three times the size of usual supermarket lemons.

No moral. We’re not touting our beneficence; it would be a shame to have all those lemons rot or thrown out, and we know the folks at work like them. (Other people bring in oranges at the right season; we’re not doing anything special.) Just a little story about big sweet lemons.

Mystery posts and announced breaks: a metablog of sorts

Saturday, December 24th, 2005

The devil made me do it…

  • ‘Tis the season for mystery posts: Something big to announce that you can’t announce just yet. So here’s mine: I don’t have anything big or small to announce, but I can’t not announce it until the time is right. You’ll know when that is because there won’t be anything to announce.
  • ‘Tis also the season for explicitly declaring an end-of-year blogging break. Some of you already know how I feel about the need to explicitly announce blogging breaks (or returns, for that matter). But, in the spirit of the echo chamber, I hereby declare that I’m taking a break until my next post appears. When my next post appears, I will have resumed blogging.

We watched “‘Twas the Episode Before Christmas” episode of Moonlighting last night, followed by Chicken Run. Holiday spirit can only go so far.

Speaking, ALA, and all that

Thursday, December 22nd, 2005

Just about a week ago, I opted out of the fight discussion brawl that was kicked off by Jenny Levine’s perfectly reasonable misgivings about being invited to speak [invited, not “having her proposal accepted”] at the 2006 PLA National Conference–and told that, if she was an ALA/PLA member at the time, she’d have to pay at least that day’s conference registration in addition to covering all her own expenses.

I had posted a comment on Levine’s post, noting ALA policy regarding speeches at ALA Annual by ALA members. I also said a lot more in the “opting out” post than really makes sense for a non-post, mostly to provide background.

And, of course, I couldn’t stay entirely away from the discussion–partly because it’s no longer just a discussion about how professional associations should treat members as speakers. It’s gotten much broader than that, including a subtheme of “ALA [hunh!] What is it good for?”

So let’s toss a few more opinions into the ongoing melee set of discussions–although, once again, I’m not going to come down on one side or the other of whether ALA’s policy for its Annual Conference is a reasonable one. (As to whether Ms. Levine’s decision, to hold off on joining ALA and PLA until after the conference because it was silly to be penalized for being a member, was reasonable: Absolutely, in my opinion! But that’s really not a big part of the ongoing discussion.)

  • First an admission of error: My comment about policy refers to ALA Annual Conference and speeches within the conference proper. As someone else has pointed out, that policy is not binding on divisions and their events outside ALA Annual, nor is it binding on preconferences. When I was invited to do something I was unwilling to do at a LITA National Forum, it was clear that I would not have to pay registration if I agreed–and I recall fairly strongly receiving expenses and, I believe, an honorarium for keynoting a LITA preconference many years ago. (That may be an erroneous recollection, but I have no doubt that some divisions cover registration at some conferences and that some speakers are at least partially paid or reimbursed for preconferences, just as they are for workshops and other paid events.) So my comment on policy, while correct, was inapplicable: PLA may have chosen to extend that policy but was not, I believe, required to by the parent organization.
  • The many motives and arrangements for speaking: I believe Jenny Levine and Steven Cohen have both told us more than they were really obliged to about how they handle speaking situations, just as Jessamyn West has been unusually open about her arrangements. This is all fascinating stuff (although I’m happy that actual dollar amounts don’t get mentioned), but in some ways none of our business. My other post goes into some of those details for me as well, but then, my personal website has always included pretty specific notes about my expectations–because I got tired of the series of messages back and forth needed to clarify things in the past.

Some library people need speaking engagements for promotion or their vita. These are the ones most likely to submit speaking proposals, or get involved in program arrangements and see to it that they are on panels. In general, I don’t believe such speakers expect reimbursement or freebies; their reward is being able to list the presentation.

Similarly, some library people want speaking engagements to establish themselves as experts in a field, or because they have something to say that they desperately feel needs to be heard, or just for egoboo. Nothing necessarily wrong with any of these motives, but here again, these people have strong motivations to speak. If they’re proposing speeches at professional conferences, I wouldn’t be inclined to believe they deserve payment or reimbursement. Once they’ve achieved guru status and are being invited, they may (or may not) fall into another category. (This one’s really tricky…)

Then there are the cases where a speaker’s invited. In general, I think it’s hard to justify inviting someone and then not at least covering their expenses, and almost impossible to justify inviting someone and charging them for the privilege. But even within this second category, people fall into various groups:

Some have solid travel and paid-leave support from their employers as a matter of professional support. Great for them, and great for conference organizers: They can get speakers on the cheap. I would hope that this status never influences organizers’ decisions as to who gets invited, but I’m not quite naive enough to believe that as a general principle.

Some have travel and time support because their employers want them to be out there; see remarks in previous paragraphs.

As for others… some do get time off to speak but feel (properly, I believe) that they should be paid for their efforts. Some get limited or no time off and no travel support; for them, unless they’re independently wealthy or otherwise unusual, expense reimbursement and speaking fees are likely to make or break the situation.

I don’t believe anybody’s getting rich off library conference speaking–at least not from state, regional, and national association conferences. I continue to be stunned by the frequency with which some people speak, although I assume they don’t actually write a new speech for each occasion–but still, travel is wearing and time for yourself can be precious. I’ve never been in the “speaking circuit” category and am happy with that fact. I don’t envy those who are. And I certainly don’t begrudge them the fame–or the payments.

All of which is more than enough about “should speakers get paid?” There are lots of ways to “give back.” Speaking actually isn’t the most efficient way to reach lots of people, although it may reach them in a different manner than writing–but, you know, one of these blog entries probably reaches as many people as any single one of my speeches, and each issue of C&I reaches at least three to five times as many people. Expecting people to speak on their own dime Because They’re Professionals is, well, self-defeating. And if it comes from one of the librarians who does make a six-figure income (yes, there are some of those), it’s perhaps just a little hypocritical as well.

The other thread here is more troubling–in part because I find myself torn. That thread is, as noted above, “ALA, (hunh!), What is it good for?”

I’m truly in an odd position on this one because, for the first 20-25 years of my pseudoprofessional involvement (after all, if it was the American Librarians Association I wouldn’t be eligible for membership, lacking the MLS and all that), I only joined ALA because it was the only way I could belong to ISAD, which became LITA.

That’s changed–to the extent that I thought long and hard before renewing both ALA and LITA memberships. I’m still pretty perturbed by LITA getting to the highest divisional dues without asking for a membership vote, and I’m still not at all certain that I’m getting anything close to $60 worth of benefits from LITA membership. Frankly, if I wasn’t a “previous president,” I might have dropped out–after all, I don’t have to be a LITA member to attend any of the IGs or programs. (And if ALA does increase its dues, I’ll really think long and hard next December…who knows? Maybe I belong in ACRL instead. Or in no division at all.) I know I’ve done my “giving back”–serving nine years as LITA Newsletter editor and declining the expenses support that came with that editorship for 8 of the 9 years, if nothing else.

But what about ALA itself? For me, the justifications for membership may boil down to these:

  • I like American Libraries quite a lot, even if they did dump my column; I’d probably pay some significant fraction of the ALA membership fee to keep getting it.
  • I regard ALA Washington Office and ALA’s lobbying and legal activities as vitally important and generally productive. ALA is known as an effective lobbyist, and ALA’s efforts in a number of areas have been important–perhaps not personally, but for the things I believe in.
  • ALA Annual and Midwinter are, for me, the best occasions to stay in real-world touch with at least several hundred of the few thousand people I’ve become acquainted with in the library field, several hundred of whom I’d call friends. I’m a shy guy and don’t maintain those relationships very well between conferences, but at least I get a chance to get back in touch twice a year. I also value the exhibits, some of the discussion groups, and–once in a while–a program. I’m not ready to substitute “virtual conferences” for the real thing. At least not yet.

Now, if I was in Texas or New York or Wisconsin or Minnesota or Colorado or Alaska or Washington or… I might find that my state library association served that third purpose, and served it better, albeit on a smaller scale. I haven’t gotten along very well with my state association, and I don’t know whose fault that is. But I do think that the national mix has its values.

I think this is more than enough to say. I still don’t hold a firm position on whether ALA’s policy still makes sense. If ALA is becoming irrelevant to GenWhatever, that’s a problem, and it’s not one I can solve. (After all, I’m not willing to serve on ALA Council, although I suspect I could get elected pretty easily…and that’s pure selfishness on my part.)

I think ALA’s good for a number of things. Do those things justify its overall structure and budget? I’m not sure. Is Annual really too big to work very well? Probably…but I’m not sure I much care for the alternatives.

I do know I’m looking forward to Midwinter–not just because it’s in the ideal Midwinter city, but because it’s Midwinter.


Wednesday, December 21st, 2005

This is the counterpart essay to the first chunk of Bibs & Blather in Cites & Insights 6:1, also titled “Interdependency.”

That essay explains why I think regular readers of C&I should also subscribe to Walt at Random (that is, add this to an RSS aggregator), a suggestion I would not have made last April when this all began.

If you’ve read that essay, you don’t need to read this one; presumably, you already read C&I. Thanks. I’ll have some other topical post one of these days.

If you don’t read C&I, I’m going to make a modest effort to try to convince you to do so.

Why? Because C&I is my “serious writing”–it’s where my careful, sometimes lengthy, fully-thought-out essays go. (Except for the short econtent-related pieces and somewhat longer PC-related pieces that go into my columns in EContent and Online respectively, and the articles I might start submitting to American Libraries or its competitors one day…maybe. And the book(s) I might start writing again…someday…maybe.)

Also because the ejournal and this blog are becoming more interdependent in some ways:

  • Analysis of popular themes and issues in C&I now typically appears here (as illustrated recently), but doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you don’t read the ejournal.
  • Any theme that begins in the blog and deserves focused review and attention is likely to end up as an essay in the ejournal–and the clarification, expansion, additional background and synthesis that takes place in the ejournal won’t make it back here.
  • “Trial balloons” that start here and that lead to significant or interesting issues in libraries, policy, technology and media–the foci of C&I–will result in essays there if they turn out to deserve real attention. So, for example, my “not a Library 2.0” post was in some ways a trial balloon for the Library 2.0 perspective I’m just starting to work on–and that perspective will appear in C&I, not here.

If you’ve already dismissed C&I as just one guy’s blather about PCs and the internet, well, fine; you’re entitled to your dismissive opinion. You probably shouldn’t bother with this blog either. Worse, you’re likely to make snap judgments about things I say here and on lists that won’t make sense to anyone who has more context, typically provided in C&I.

For example, nobody who reads C&I regularly would accuse me of being either an uncritical admirer of Google’s efforts or a Google-basher. See the April 2005 issue for one fairly long example of what I’ve actually said about Google. For those who believe I’m in love with the company, “Summertime Blahs” in September may be an even better example. You’d also want to read the lead essay for October and the two-part (so far) OCA and Google discussion in December 2005 and January 2006. And, for that matter, Google is mentioned in at least six other 2005 issues…

Similarly, although I’m certainly no lawyer, quick list comments about fair use or DRM or other copyright issues are at least backed up with considerable reading and thinking, as recorded in C&I. I don’t repeat all that background and commentary in list posts (which almost need to be 200 words or less, preferably a lot less, to work very well) or in blog posts (which are too danged long here, to be sure, but still in the high hundreds of words, not medium thousands).

It’s pretty simple. If you think I have worthwhile things to say, you should be aware of the place where I try to say them most carefully and in the most detail. If you don’t think I have worthwhile things to say–well, what are you doing here?

I’m proud of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large (a subtitle I almost never use, but it’s part of the ISSN title). I believe I’ve produced some significant special issues and issue wrapups (significant enough for folks like EFF and ALA OIF to point to them as resources). I’m even willing to claim that it’s a significant contribution to the library literature.

And that’s more than enough on that issue. If you just can’t cope with long essays (they’re not all long, but…), well, that’s a different problem.

C&I table of contents: Oops

Wednesday, December 21st, 2005

It has been brought to my attention (thanks, Ross!) that attempts to get to the contents list for volumes 1 through 5 of Cites & Insights will fail.

My apologies, and I’ll fix it when I get home this afternoon/evening.

I felt it was necessary to split the ToC because the document was just getting too long. Now, the “Contents” link on the C&I home page gets to the new ToC page (which I expect to use for the next five years), which has a link to volumes 1-5 near the top of the page.

If you want to get to the contents list for volumes 1 through 5, this link will get you there (and I’ll correct the internal link later today).

Update: Fixed. And my thanks to Ross Riker for alerting me to the problem!

Cites & Insights 6:1 available

Monday, December 19th, 2005

Cites & Insights 6:1, January 2006, is now available for downloading.

The 24-page issue is PDF as usual. Except for “My Back Pages”–a new section that’s exclusively part of the complete issue–all sections are also available as HTML separates from the home page.

This issue includes:

  • Bibs & Blather – Interdependency, C&I at Midwinter, YBP at Midwinter, “no year’s resolutions” and more.
  • Followup/Feedback Perspective: OCA and GLP Redux – Why I was partly wrong about Project Gutenberg (as explained by Bruce Albrecht), plus a little more about the Open Content Alliance and a lot more about Google Book Search and the Google Library Project.
  • Interesting & Peculiar Products – Eleven of them!
  • Following Up & Feedback – Sony BMG and DRM, and recognizing that Fiona Bradley writes Blisspix, not Explodedlibrary!
  • ©2 Perspective: Will Fair Use Survive? – Notes on the first-rate new report from the Free Expression Policy Project
  • Trends & Quick Takes – Eleven trends and quick takes and four quicker takes.
  • My Back Pages – Five easy pieces in this PDF-only section.