This week’s DLTJ Thursday Threads has just two pointers. First, a new volunteer web service to report problems with websites, which may be useful for not only our own sites but for the sites our patrons visit. Second, a nine-minute video that illustrates the reuse of themes and ideas in motion pictures across time.

If you find these threads interesting and useful, you might want to add the Thursday Threads RSS Feed to your feed reader or subscribe to e-mail delivery using the form to the right. If you would like a more raw and immediate version of these types of stories, watch my FriendFeed stream (or subscribe to its feed in your feed reader). Comments and tips, as always, are welcome.

Addressing Accessibility, from Fix the Web

Web accessibility is not improving very quickly despite the efforts of many experts. The scale of the problem is huge and there is a need for culture change amongst web developers and website owners.

Our solution is to make it super easy for disabled and older people to report problems with websites. Volunteers do the work of contacting the website owners and signposting them to support. In doing this work, volunteers will understand more about e-accessibility for themselves, as well as giving crucial information to website owners. Everybody wins!

Details of how the process works are explained for the different roles (volunteering and issue reporter) and in the FAQs.

You can get involved in three different ways:

1. Report issues you are having with websites.
2. Volunteer to help liaise with website owners.
3. Support the development of the project: contact the coordinator.

This project intersects with libraries in two ways. First, we must make sure our websites are available to all populations — including users browsing the web with alternate (large screen, color neutral, and/or audio-driven) browsers. (If this intersection is of interest to you, then check out the 1-hour webinar from Infopeople on an ADA Update: Revised Regulations for Disability Accommodations for the Public.) The second place it might intersect with libraries is assisting patrons browsing the web. Although reporting a site won’t fix it for that patron, if it is a common site for your patrons then reporting the issue will engage a group of volunteers that can help site owners fix the accessibility problems.

Everything is a Remix Part 2

An exploration of the remix techniques involved in producing films. Part Two of a four-part series.

Where did George Lucas get ideas for Star Wars? Watch this 9 minute video that shows side-by-side comparisons of Star Wars with movies that the creator of this video says were Lucas’ sources. The creator also describes other examples of ideas and images are drawn through film. This video is the second part (and latest available) of an eventual four-part series. [Via Ron Murray]

The text was modified to remove a link to http://www.fixtheweb.net/more-about-being-volunteer on June 9th, 2011.

It was only a few months ago that I was teasing Dan Chudnov for joining Twitter. Now I’ve gone and done it myself. I don’t expect to be using it much, but after observing the “Falls Church, VA” incident yesterday, I thought it would be an useful tool to have at-the-ready. Here’s the story of what inspired it.

Someone on the Code4Lib IRC channel (was it ‘lbjay’?) asked if anyone knew about an explosion in the Falls Church, VA, area after reading a report about it on Twitter. I ran a search in TweetScan for “Falls Church, VA” and was able to watch the event unfold as the “DC emergency tweet network” fired up. Eventually it was determined that it was indeed an earthquake event, but the discussion of the event via Twitter was enough to catch the attention of at least one media blogger.

It reminded me a great deal of the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California. Many of the landlines were down or jammed with too many people calling, but the internet stayed up and an IRC channel was set up so that reports of the earthquake effects to be broadcast from the region. If the same thing to happen today, Twitter — through the internet or through mobile devices — would likely be the tool used to track the event.

Now, back to Twitter, here are the parts that I can’t figure out. Almost immediately after I registered for the service and signed in for the first time, I was automatically following betseymerkel, someone who appears to be working with open source software in a Cleveland-area library. I don’t remember doing anything to cause me to start following her, although I suppose it is possible I made a stray click somewhere. And through the first 24 hours with the account, four people are following me. I didn’t tell anyone else about my activities — the only two tweets I’ve posted dealt with setting up the account. I don’t think I know any of these people (betseymerkel is one of them), so I don’t get why they would spontaneously start following me. Thoughts?

Oh, and you can start following me, if you want. I’ll probably follow colleagues during library conferences, but then use something like TwitterSnooze to turn off the chatter in-between events.

Next Day Follow-up

The text was modified to update a link from https://twitter.com/DataG/friends to http://twitter.com/#!/DataG/followers on January 28th, 2011.

The text was modified to remove a link to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VA_RICHMOND_LOCKDOWN_VAOL-?SITE=VASTA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT on January 28th, 2011.

The text was modified to remove a link to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Quakes/ld1022071.php on February 12th, 2011.

I’ve been collecting disclaimers that appear on the bottom of e-mail messages in a draft post on DLTJ for about a year now — every time I’d get a new one with a different twist, I’d save it anticipating the day would come that there would be enough humor here to share with the rest of you. That day has come. There wasn’t one that disclaimer that finally pushed the publication of this post over the edge; just the accumulation of examples. Identifying information has been removed, but the humor was left intact. If you recognize your institution/company in these examples, please laugh along with me. If you are the lawyer or pseudo-lawyer that drafted these, please do us all a favor and find something else to work on. Like drafting disclaimers for toothpicks and such.

An Institution By Any Other Name is Just a Number

YOU MUST READ THIS NOTICE [And you must do so while suppressing any giggling about it.]
This email has been sent by institution (institution's random numeric identifier). This email (and any attachment) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of institution. It is very important that before opening any attachments to this email you check them for viruses and defects. institution does not accept liability for any corruption or viruses or any consequence which arise as a result of this email transmission. Email communications with institution may be subject to automated email filtering, which could result in the delay or deletion of a legitimate email before it is read by its intended recipient at institution. Please tell us if you have concerns about this automatic filtering. The Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) Provider Number is another numeric identifier (institution branch), yet another random numeric identifier (institution branch), and a final numeric identifier (institution branch) for institution.

I don’t have concerns about the automatic filtering, just the automatic insertion of needless disclaimers. Which brings us to…

Disclaimers as a Form of Spam?

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.

So the disclaimer was automatically added. Thank goodness for that, because I can’t imagine having to copy and paste needless disclaimers into every e-mail that I sent. But does the fact that it was automatically sent to me make it a form of spam? Hmmm — maybe there is a market for software that automatically removes disclaimers from e-mail messages.

Speaking of Spam

The information in this email is confidential, and intended solely for the Addressee. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Any copying or further distribution beyond the original addressee is not intended, and may be unlawful.

This one arrived in a spam message sent to me. I decided to risk breaking the law by posting this portion of the message in a public forum.

Have Your Agents Talk To My Agents

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither company nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of company or one of its agents. Please note that neither company nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of company or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Company in England and Wales with registered number company's random number Registered Office company's address.

I wish I had agents who would act on my behalf that would read through this gobblety-gook so I wouldn’t have to read through the message and decide if I may or may not be entering into some sort of contract by reading the message.

You are hereby informally notified that I could care less about your disclaimer

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

Can I imply the inverse of the sentence that begins, “If you are not the intended recipient…”? That is to say, if I am the intended recipient, that I can use, copy and distribute the e-mail in any way that I see fit?

Caveats: Humorless

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Damn — and I was hoping to find out the secret plans for invading Canada. By the way, is it conceivable that there could ever be a russia.army.mil and china.army.mil along side us.army.mil?

From the My-Disclaimer-Is-Three-Times-Longer-Than-My-Message Category…

DISCLAIMER and CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION:

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential, proprietary, and may also be legally privileged information, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please send it back to the person who sent it to you and delete the e-mail and any attached files and destroy any copies of it; you may call us immediately at company's phone number or email us at company e-mail address.

Company and/or any of its sister companies owns no responsibility for the views presented in the e-mail and any attached files unless the sender mentions so, with due authority of company.

Unauthorized reading, reproduction, publication, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail and its attachments is prohibited.

We have checked this message for any known viruses; however we decline any liability, in case of any damage caused by a non-detected virus.

For more details about our company, visit company website.

This one came in a message posted to a mailing list that contained exactly five lines of real content — line 1: greeting, line 2: blank, line 3: a quick question, line 4: blank, line 5: author’s name. Talk about a bad signal to noise ratio!

No Bogosity¹ Here!

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

It is good to know that there are companies out there that are trying to stamp out needless b*llsh*t². But let me see if I got this straight — by reading your message, I agree to release you from Bogus Agreements because I am able to do so. But what if I don’t have that authority? Should I not read your message? Perhaps you should have told me that before I read it…

There are No Guarantees on the Internet

Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.

There are, of course, ways to guarantee the integrity and security of messages on the internet. PGP-signed e-mail is one such way.

Let the Lawyers Have the Last Say

******************* Disclaimer *******************

This e-mail, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, of a private nature or which is subject to legal professional privilege or copyright. Accordingly, any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email message is prohibited unless expressly authorised by the sender acting with the authority of or on behalf of the institution.

If you have received this email by mistake, please inform the sender as soon as possible and delete the message and any copies of this message from your computer system network.

The confidentiality, privacy or legal professional privilege attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake.

The institution uses virus scanning software. However, it is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not infected by a computer virus.

Unless expressly attributed, the views expressed in this email do not necessarily represent the views of the institution.

******************** Disclaimer *******************

So just to be sure, should I run the entire message past my legal counsel just to be sure they do not want to assert some sort of legal professional privilege on the correspondence?

Your Turn

The text was modified to update a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_bogodynamics to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_bogodynamics_%282nd_nomination%29 on January 19th, 2011.

Footnotes

1. Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_bogodynamics
2. See http://www.slate.com/id/2114268/ if you need it spelled out for you.

The American Library Association Committee on Professional Ethics is proposing changes to the Code of Ethics.¹ Other than two minor changes (adding commas where there were none previously — see the proposed changes page for details), the big change is in article 4, which now reads:

We recognize and respect intellectual property rights.

The recommended version reads:

We recognize and advocate balance between the rights of intellectual property owners and the rights of information users.

This is a good change. It puts the librarian profession at the crux of publisher’s rights and user’s rights — a position that is increasingly non-existent in what seems like an increasingly polarized world.

The introductory memo also includes a discussion about enforcement of the code. Personally, I fall into the group that sees the code as “a document of moral responsibility.” The recommendation going forward seems to be to advise local institutions to adopt the code as part of local policy. That is probably as far as it can go, because I don’t see our profession herding our own cats to try to vote in some measure of enforcement through the professional organization. Besides, such energy would best be spent elsewhere in the profession.

The text was modified to update a link from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifgroups/cope/committeeprofessional.htm to http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ifgroups/cope/committeeprofessional.cfm on January 20th, 2011.

The text was modified to update a link from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.htm to http://www.ifmanual.org/codeethics on January 20th, 2011.

The text was modified to remove a link to http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifgroups/cope/copeinaction/changestocode.htm on January 20th, 2011.

Footnotes

1. Do those outside the profession know that librarians have an ethical code? We do! And it is part of what makes us special as a culture.

Spotted in the Chronicle of Higher Education Online this morning is mention of two lectures by Wendy Seltzer that will happen today on the topic of copyright and fair-use doctrine. Here are the summaries and hCalendar events (the latter being useful if your browser and/or RSS reader understands the hCalendar microformat markup). Long-time readers of DLTJ might remember Professor Seltzer’s battle with the NFL over the overly broad statement about use of telecasts by posting a 33-second clip the SuperBowl on YouTube, which, at the moment, is still online.

It looks like previous talks from the Cornell University Computer Policy and Law Program are archived at the same website, so if you miss Professor Seltzer’s talks today you can catch them another day.

[Update 20070927T1230 : Fixed the ending dates in the hCalendar microformat markup. Sorry 'bout that.]

The text was modified to update a link from http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2412 to http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/cornell-u-prepares-a-pair-of-webcasts-on-copyright/3363 on January 20th, 2011.

DLTJ featured a discussion last month on what I saw as the outcomes of “clashing values” between the interest of businesses and that of not-for-profit higher education. The discussion started with “Educational Patents, Open Access Journals, and Clashing Values” and continued with a focus on open access publishing specifically with “What Is BioMed Central?.” Here is a update on the topic in the form of an e-mail from Ray English and a press release from Marquette Books.

Ray English’s Perspective on Open Access Publisher Economics

Ray English is the Director of Libraries at Oberlin College (also notably the chair of the SPARC Steering Committee and 2006 Recipient of ACRL’s Academic/Research Librarian of the Year Award) sent an e-mail related to this topic to an internal OhioLINK mailing list. I’m grateful for his permission to reproduce it here:

Here’s some background on open access journals that I hope is helpful.

There are now three major open access journal publishers – BioMed Central, Hindawi, and PLOS.

BioMed Central and Hindawi are both commercial publishers that follow an author fee model. BioMed Central also has an arrangement that allows institutional memberships to cover all or a portion the fees. I would characterize both publishers as having reasonable prices and being focused on access to the literature, rather than profit maximization. Hindawi charges relatively low author fees, in part because they’re based in Egypt and have a lower cost structure. BioMed Central author fees are higher, but below the per article author fees for various “open choice” plans that are place for most commercial publishers. Hindawi reported that they had become profitable last year and BioMed Central has projected that they will
be profitable in the coming year.

PLOS is a non-profit publisher. They follow an author fee model, with institutional memberships, and they also have had a lot of foundation support. They report that their various journals are viable financially except for PLOS Biology, their flagship journal. PLOS Biology’s cost structure, which includes a great deal of content and value ads beyond individual research articles, can’t be supported by their current model of author fees and institutional memberships.

Those of you who are curious about the financial status of these three publishers may want to check out the podcast and PowerPoints from the recent SPARC-ACRL forum at ALA in DC. High-level representatives from BioMed Central, Hindawi, and PLOS spoke about their publishing programs and their financial status. The title of the forum was: “Course check: A conversation with three open access publishers about
the challenges of sustainability” The podcast and PowerPoints are not yet online, but should be up
before too long at: http://www.arl.org/sparc/meetings/forum.html [Jester's Note: they are available at http://www.arl.org/sparc/meetings/ala07/.]

There are many open access journals beyond those produced by these three publishers. The Directory of Open Access Journals now lists just over 2800 titles. They operate under a variety of business models. The vast majority of them are non-profit. A study done a couple of years ago found that under half of all OA journals charge author fees.

Marquette Books’ Open Access Announcement

Marquette Books Goes “Open Access” with Communication Journals

Eight new scientific journals that focus on communication processes and effects will be available free of charge to scholars and the public in 2008, Marquette Books LLC of Spokane, Washington, announced today.

MB Publisher David Demers said he believes this is the first time a privately owned publishing house has made all of its journals open access. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org), almost all open access journals are published by universities or nonprofit organizations, which in turn receive financial support from tax revenues or private donations.

“At a time when most for-profit publishers are increasing the costs of their journals,” said Demers, “we decided to go the opposite route and offer all of our journals free of charge. We want the scholarship in our journals to be read by as many people as possible.”

[...]

To compensate for some of the loss of subscription revenue, Demers said the online portal through which scholars and the public will access the PDF content of MB journals will contain some advertising for MB’s scholarly and trade books. But he doesn’t expect sales of those books or institutional subscriptions to the hard copy versions of MB journals (priced at $85 for one journal and $35 for each additional journal) to cover the costs of making the journals open access.

“This is a long-term strategy,” he said. “We believe open-access along with our policy of allowing scholars to keep the copyright to their submissions will enhance the quality of our journals as well as our brand name.”

[...]

Demers said many higher education librarians are upset with publishers who charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year for journal subscriptions. “The best kept secret in book publishing is that journal publishing is the most profitable arm of the industry,” Demers said. “There clearly isn’t enough competition in this market.”

[...]

Most open access journals are available only in electronic form. But Marquette Books also will publish hard copy versions of the journals for libraries and interested individuals ($35 to $85 for a single journal subscription).

The eight journals scheduled for publication in Winter 2008 are Journal of Media Sociology, Journal of Global Mass Communication, Russian Journal of Communication, Journal of Health & Mass Communication, Journal of Media Law & Ethics, American Journal of Media Psychology, Journal of Communication Studies and International Journal of Media and Foreign Affairs. More information about the journals can be found at www.marquettejournals.org

[...]

Am I reading this right? “[Marquette Books Publisher David Demers] doesn’t expect sales of books [advertised through the journal portal] or institutional subscriptions to the hard copy versions of MB journals to cover the costs of making the journals open access.” So Marquette is choosing to offer the open access material at a loss? Just because they believe in the philosophy of open access? Count me as skeptical.

The text was modified to update a link from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/librarianoftheyear/englishspeech.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/awards/librarianoftheyear/englishspeech.cfm on January 20th, 2011.

The text was modified to update a link from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlawards/acrllibrarian.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/awards/acrllibrarian.cfm on January 20th, 2011.

Published in The New Yorker July 5, 1993.
Image from The Cartoon Bank

As the saying, now a part of Internet lore, goes: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” That may be true, but now we must add: “But we do know if you are from a major news organization or corporation.”

Wired magazine reports on the efforts of Virgil Griffith to expose the source of anonymous edits to Wikipedia. In Virgil’s words, “I came up with the idea when I heard about Congressmen getting caught for white-washing their wikipedia pages.” So he created a searchable database of anonymous edits to Wikipedia pages indexed by the IP address of the computer that made the edit. By cross-referencing those edits with the database of IP addresses assigned to organizations, one can speculate with some certainty about who made the edit — or at least the organization responsible for the IP address of the person who made the edit. There is a list of interesting examples of wikiscanner results along the right side of the wikiscanner homepage, and Wired Magazine is inviting users to submit interesting examples as well.

This is an interesting project, but it is not without faults. First, non-anonymous edits — that is, when a user signs into Wikipedia — are not tracked. Since account registrations are free and not tied to a particular IP address, edits by an organization can be “masked” behind a slew of pseudo-anonymous accounts. (For instance, the list of edits for the range of IP addresses assigned to the OhioLINK central offices does not include edits made when I was logged into to my Wikipedia account.) Second, Virgil is presumably using a recent snapshot of the IP assignments database. Since IP address assignments can change over time, a current assignee could be implicated by the changes of the previous owner. Third, the whole system can be thwarted by systems and services that mask the IP address of the machine being used. So the credibility of the anonymous edits database is about the same as that of Wikipedia itself — good enough for most uses, but not extremely high.

The text was modified to remove a link to http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.153.30.0-255&ip2=&ip3=&ip4= on January 19th, 2011.

My posting on Friday about the clashing values of academic institutions and businesses prompted a comment from Bill Hooker about linking to his blog posting about the pricing structure at BioMed Central (BMC). His comment and the e-mail I received this morning from BMC (reproduced below) got me rethinking about the nature of open access publishing.

What is BioMed Central?

As a publisher, BioMed Central obviously has to be profitable to survive as a service for the biomedical community. We believe that if we add value to raw data, we are entitled to charge for access to it. If a journal commissions topical or thematic reviews, and so helps individuals orientate themselves amidst the complexity of available research, it may have a subscription charge. Furthermore, if we construct and maintain community alerting services, allowing users to discover where, in the eyes of their peers, quality and significance lie, we will charge. An example of such product is Faculty of 1000. We are also carrying advertising on our site, and we will be creating other products and services for which a charge will be made.

I think it is safe to say that BMC is well within the relm of what can be characterized as a “business.”

Compared to PLoS

As a nonprofit organization, PLoS charges authors a fair price that reflects the actual cost of publication. However, the ability of authors to pay publication charges will never be a consideration in the decision whether to publish.

In contrast to BMC, PLoS is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity under the U.S. IRS tax code. As a consequence it files an IRS form 990 that allows us to see the details of its operation and gauge whether there is an undue burden on revenues based on expenses. PLoS lists ways to contribute to its effort, including individual contributions and institutional membership/sponsorship.

Conclusions

Perhaps BMC is ultimately a “better” model. Does the revenue from advertising and direct marketing to registered users ultimately drive down the cost of per-article publishing? Do the subscription (pay-for) services offered by BMC not interfere with access to the underlying article data? (Here’s a good question: can one take the open access article data from BMC and construct competing value-added services? Based on reading point #8 in BMC’s Terms and Conditions, it would appear not. Update 20070815T0907: The answer to this question is yes, one can. See the first comment by Matt Cockerill, followed by my reply and Matt’s announcement of changes to the Terms and Conditions page that, to my reading, makes points eight and nine of BioMed Central’s Terms and Conditions much clearer.) These are all questions to be answered as the open access model evolves.

I would be curious to learn in the comments if others thought that “open access” equated to “not-for-profit”. It is entirely possible that I’m the only one, in which case this jester just made a fool of himself.

The E-mail

From: "BioMed Central Advertising" &ltmonthlyoffers@biomedcentral.com>
To: peter@ohiolink.edu
Subject: BioMed Central August News and Offers
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:24:29 +0100

News from BioMed Central www.biomedcentral.com August Offer 15% discount on all direct emails and keyword search term sponsorship booked before 28th September 2007! Did you know that with BioMed Central you can choose to target your direct emails by institution type, specialty, country, techniques used and job title? Did you also know that you will be guaranteed to get maximum exposure from your emails as well as getting good value for money? 10,000 email names with targeting selections would be $3750 but with a 15% discount this will only be $3187 saving you $563! BioMed Central web ads offer you a bigger impact than advertising on search engines. Why not try a keyword package? Advertise on search results when your keyword is used. Choosing 5 keywords or phrases would be $1000 for 6 months but with a 15% discount this will only be $850. New Portal and Gateways! New portal from BioMed Central highlights importance of open access to scientific and medical literature for the developing world.  Sponsor the new Open Access and Developing World portal and be part of increasing access to the scientific and medical literature for those in the developing world. The new Global Health and Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Gateways are now available for sponsorship. www.biomedcentral.com/gateways Contact BioMed Central today at advertising@biomedcentral.com or on +44(0)20 7631 9168 – or reply to this email for more information. You have received this message in a belief that it would be of interest. If you would not like to receive any further messages from BioMed Central, please reply to monthlyoffers@biomedcentral.com with the word “remove” in the subject line. BioMed Central Ltd, Science Navigation Group, Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland Street, London, W1T 4LB, United Kingdom

This posting has two goals — first, to introduce DLTJ readers to the notion of “Educational Patents” or “edupatents” and provide an update on events of this week. Second, to frame the sometimes contentious interaction between academic institutions and supporting businesses as one of “clashing values.” The former serves as a cautionary tale within the wider scope of the latter.

Educational Patents

The end of last year was a very busy time in the world of edupatents. In early October 2006, the EDUCAUSE board issued a statement denouncing the lawsuit followed by events in December at the Sakai conference in Atlanta: Eben Moglen’s (of the Software Freedom Law Center) keynote speech on the dangers of edupatents [MP3] and a debate between Eben Moglen and Matthew Small (Blackboard’s chief council) on the merits of Blackboard’s case. (I highly recommend listening to both recordings.) All of this was followed by news earlier this year from the combined EDUCAUSE and Sakai boards of a negotiated non-aggression pact between Blackboard and the open source community.

Just this week the story got even more interesting. First, Desire2Learn reported on a major decision by the court in the Blackboard lawsuit: “Claim 1 is rendered invalid because of indefiniteness. Further, all dependent claims that rely on Claim 1 (in our case, Claims 2 through 35) are similarly invalid.” That leaves only Claims 36 through 44 in play. Second, Blackboard file a “preemptive” lawsuit against Turnitin (Internet-based plagiarism-detection service) that seeks to prevent Turnitin’s parent company iParadigms from suing Blackboard over potential claims that Blackboard may have violated iParadigms’ patents (a story from Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription required], Michael Feldstein’s analysis and iParadigms’ view).

How does this apply to academic libraries? In describing the Blackboard versus Desire2Learn lawsuit, Al Essa proposes: “In addition to the core technologies associated with a [Virtual Learning Environment], the Blackboard patent potentially covers any infrastructure and integration elements when used in the context of course delivery.” Could that cover our online course reserve systems? Or our portals for delivering electronic materials to online classroom environments? It may apply directly to our services.

Open Access Journals

[20070812T1930 update: Please note that the first link in the last sentence points to a posting by Bill Hooker in his Open Reading Frame blog about the economics of BMC's publishing model. Bill is decidedly pro-Open Access -- as am I -- and we have a running discussion in the commentary of this posting on DLTJ.]

Clashing Values

So here’s the point: I propose that it is further evidence that we need to take control of our destiny. Not to spell out a doom-and-gloom scenario, but there may be a “perfect storm” brewing in the consolidation of the integrated library system vendors, the entrance of venture capital into the ILS market place (and the corresponding expectations for profitability), and the rise of open source options to the traditional vendor-supplied ILS. None of the ILS vendors appear to be striking out with lawsuits like Blackboard has done. A spirited discussion could be had on whether the ILS vendors are pricing their products in an unrealistic way (as with the BioMed Central example). In any case, it would be in the best interest of the students and faculty that we represent to be mindful of these clashing values. While it is important to be respectful of the traditional values of the business community with whom we interact, it is even more important to act in a manner consistent with the values of our traditional academic community with which we are a part.

The text was modified to update a link from http://blackboard.com/company/patentFAQ.htm to http://www.blackboard.com/About-Bb/Patents/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx on January 19th, 2011.

The text was modified to remove a link to http://issues.sakaiproject.org/confluence/download/attachments/34226/2006_12_06_Keynote_Eben_Moglen.mp3 on January 19th, 2011.

The text was modified to update a link from http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/08/2007081005n.htm to http://chronicle.com/article/In-Preemptive-Action/122899/ on January 19th, 2011.

The text was modified to remove a link to http://www2.library.yale.edu/movabletype/scilib/archive/2007/08/library_drops_b_1.html on January 19th, 2011.