The other night in class, someone mentioned how they told a customer at their work that they were going to grad school to be a librarian - to which the customer, who works partime as a career guidance person - why do you have to go to school for that and with computers will there even be a need for librarians? It also sparked off a discussion in my class and I've come to the understanding that not too many people realize what exactly it is a librarian does. I think this is partially why libraries and librarians have a difficult time justifying resources they need, and why funding is always quickly cut.

In my mind, the term "Librarian" is akin to "Engineer" - in that while we all belong to a certain field of study and a "way of thinking" - there are 1001 different variations of the position. Just as one can be a mechanical, electrical or environmental engineer so can one be an archivist, reference librarian or work in acquisitions. On top of that, Librarians seem to have many more support duties fall on their shoulders because - well - who else will do them to maintain a Library. Librarians need to have an understanding of business if they want to be able to manage the day to day operations of a library such as managing payroll, paying for the building costs like heat and electricity, balancing a budget and paying for new acquisitions and publications. Librarians need to be tech savvy as they are often called upon to do digital reference work, manage online journal databases, manage the library's terminals and network and preform various HTML duties just to name a few. Basically - a librarian is often expected to wear a multitude of different hats - even more so in smaller settings such as school libraries where it's often one person who does it all.

I think most people think of librarians based on their rememberance of what their initial point of contact with librarians were and from what they experience within a library - which is usually going in, asking for help finding a book and then checking the book out. I think a good analogy would be wondering why someone who works for the Sears corporation would need an advanced degree, because how hard is it to stock shelves and run a cash register? The don't think of the massive back end of the Sears corporation like the CEOs, CIOs, Marketing Department and all the other individuals who work for the company.

This is why it is important for Librarians to make the public aware of what it is we do in the first place - and how important and diverse our duties are. We need to take steps to change the opinions that people have that all librarians are responsible for is checking in and out books, shelving books and telling people to "shhh" if they get too loud. They need to understand that we are training to be CEOs, Marketing Reps, Customer Service reps, Information Technology Specialists and a whole slew of other positions - because we have to be. And we have to be librarians on top of that.

Test post

I just updated my other blog, Little Wars and felt I probably should hit this one up too.

So in a nutshell, here is what is new.

I completely redesigned my website for my university account, as it was an assignment for my class this semester - which I'm really enjoying. You can take a peek at it at http://www.buffalo.edu/~jcnewman and know more about me than you probably wanted to.

Work has been fun and interesting. I've got a few projects here that I'm working on that I can't discuss right now. Not that they are secret, but I'm somewhat pressed for time - so I'll go into detail on them later.

I'm working on some documentation for some painting workshops that I teach (miniature painting - see my wargaming blog for more details) - so I'm lreaning Apple's "Pages" program which is pretty neat for simple publishing.

I moved my workspace exactly one cube over, but in doing so I changed the layout of my office and now it's even more comfortable. I have lots of plants and 2 aquariums - one 10 gal and 1 2 gal. I think aquaria should be required in all workspaces for the benefits they provide in regards to stress management and lowering blood pressure. I should probably cite sources to back those up, but I'm not going to.

I also still am completely in love with Library Science which is a good thing, since I totally suffer from Shiny Object Syndrome and wander from one thing to another.

The Guardian is running an article today about the author of the DaVinci Code being sued over copyright issues for lifing some of the central themes from the 1982 non-fiction "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".

The question facing the counts is "Can you copyright an idea or a conjecture"

This is somewhat timely as in my class this semester there was just a small splinter discussion about issues of copyright and HTML source code. I am uncertain as to the legality of taking pieces of someone's source code, or their code in it's entirety and where that falls as far as copyright is concerned. If anyone has a definitive answer, drop me a note and let me know.


From the Guardian Article:

The author of The Da Vinci Code "lifted the central theme" of the bestselling novel from a non-fiction book about Jesus and the Catholic Church, the high court was told today.

Writers Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are claiming that the American novelist Dan Brown appropriated themes and ideas they explored in their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. They are suing their own publishers, Random House, which is also Mr Brown's publisher, for breach of copyright in the potentially far-reaching case. If the two writers are successful and opt to take injunctions stopping use of their material, it could threaten the British release of the film adaptation of the novel, starring Tom Hanks and Sir Ian McKellen, which is scheduled to open on May 19.

The case is also likely to clarify existing copyright laws over the extent to which an author can use other people's research. Counsel for the two writers today disputed claims by Mr Brown, one of the highest paid authors in history, that their work was "incidental" to the creation of The Da Vinci Code, which has sold more than 40m copies worldwide. Jonathan James, QC, told Mr Justice Peter Smith in the chancery division of the high court today that this was an "extraordinary claim that would surprise anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code after reading The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".

The QC said Mr Baigent and Mr Leigh's theory had "spawned many other books" that explored aspects of their historical conjecture in a variety of ways. But he added that only The Da Vinci Code had "lifted the central theme of the book"- the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married, had a child, and the bloodline continues to this day, with the Catholic Church trying to suppress the discovery. Mr James said "many people all over the world" had commented that the novel had lifted this focal theme. The QC said the authors had invested a "massive amount of their lives" researching the Holy Blood book between 1976 and 1981. He added there could be "no dispute" that Mr Brown was aware of the importance of the Holy Blood book to the central theme of the Da Vinci Code when he wrote the novel.

Mr James said the Sir Leigh Teabing character in the novel even mentions the importance of his clients' book. But Mr Brown had said that the non-fiction book was not "crucial or important" to the creation of the central theme of his novel. When he wrote his synopsis, he had not even read it. The QC said: "This cannot be correct. It was not only used as a source, it was an essential point of reference for the making of [the Da Vinci Code]." Mr Brown, whose earnings are estimated at more than £200m, acknowledges the theories of The Holy Blood in his novel and called his villain Sir Leigh Teabing.

It has been suggested that the name was a deliberate part anagram of the surnames of the authors of the earlier work. The Da Vinci Code, which won best book at last year's British Book Awards, has sold over 40m copies worldwide, earning Mr Brown £45m in one year. In a statement today, Gail Rebuck, the chief executive of Random House, described the Holy Blood authors' complaint about The Da Vinci Code as "without merit". John Baldwin QC, representing the publishing company, had told the judge that many of the ideas the authors' complained about were not even in both books and most were not original to the Holy Blood. He said the non-fiction work "did not have anything like the importance to Mr Brown which the claimants contend it had".

The legal action has seen The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail shoot up the Amazon.co.uk bestseller chart from number 173 at lunchtime, to 102 by 2.30pm and was at 53 late this afternoon. The case is expected to last two weeks.

The EFF is reporting that the RIAA states that ripping CDs for MP3 players and for backup is not "Fair Use". Ars Technica also has another look on this story which goes into a little more depth.

From the EFF article:

RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use
February 15, 2006

It is no secret that the entertainment oligopolists are not happy about space-shifting and format-shifting. But surely ripping your own CDs to your own iPod passes muster, right? In fact, didn't they admit as much in front of the Supreme Court during the MGM v. Grokster argument last year?

Apparently not.

As part of the on-going DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA and other copyright industry associations submitted a filing that included this gem as part of their argument that space-shifting and format-shifting do not count as noninfringing uses, even when you are talking about making copies of your own CDs:

"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use."

For those who may not remember, here's what Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

If I understand what the RIAA is saying, "perfectly lawful" means "lawful until we change our mind." So your ability to continue to make copies of your own CDs on your own iPod is entirely a matter of their sufferance. What about all the indie label CDs? Do you have to ask each of them for permission before ripping your CDs? And what about all the major label artists who control their own copyrights? Do we all need to ask them, as well?

P.S.: The same filing also had this to say: "Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use...."

3 of the 4 other males in my LIS class this semester are into comic books - which only reinforces the "Librarians love comic books" theory I have. (Not all, it would be wrong to stereotype librarians - but I think a significantly higher percentage of librarians vs other professions)

Anyways I was granted some wonderful inspiration from one of my classmates to go ahead and use Booxter to inventory my comic collection. For some time I've been wanting to find a way to keep an accurate inventory of what comics I have, along with cover art and have it in a database format for easy access - and now I do. Granted they don't have an ISBN - I can keep most of the pertinant information in Booxter. He uses an Excel spreadsheet now, but I pointed out booxter to him, and hopefully he'll start using it and discovering it's amazing ability. I think I could probably do the same with Delicious Library - but for now it's Booxster.

I'm also happy to see my classmates are equally as AR about bags and backings for each of their issues. And for those who get stupid excited about archiving and preserving things, I'd like to point out Bags Unlimited which is a supplier of items such as bags, boxes and backings for comic books, magazines, photos and all sorts of other things. They sell square ball holders for my baseballs! I love this store.

Yup, I'm pretty geeked today :)

The BBC News is reporting that the British Library fears that DRM may affect their ability to provide materials to patrons.

Text of the article - (The pictures are from the game REZ and is totally unrelated. I just really like the game, and I'm tired of the BBC using the same stock photo for all their library articles)

Libraries have warned that the rise of digital publishing may make it harder or even impossible to access items in their collections in the future.

Many publishers put restrictions on how digital books and journals can be used. Such digital rights management (DRM) controls may block some legitimate uses, the British Library has said. And there are fears that restricted works may not be safe for future generations if people can no longer unlock them when technology evolves. The British Library spends £2m of its £16m annual acquisitions budget on digital material, mainly reference books and journals.

But by 2020, 90% of newly published work will be available digitally - twice the amount that is printed - according to British Library predictions published last year. Libraries are allowed to give access to, copy and distribute items through "fair dealing" and "library privilege" clauses in copyright law. But as publishers attempt to stop the public illegally sharing books and articles, the DRM they employ may not cater for libraries' legal uses.

"We have genuinely tried to maintain that balance between the public interest and respecting rights holders," Dr Clive Field, the British Library's director of scholarships and collections told the BBC News website. "We are genuinely concerned that technology inadvertently may be disturbing that balance, and that would be unhelpful ultimately to the national interest." The All Party Parliamentary Internet Group is conducting an inquiry into DRM. In written evidence, the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (Laca) said there were "widespread concerns in the library, archive and information community" about the potentially harmful effects of DRMs.

"We have grave concerns about the potential use of DRMs by rightholders to override existing copyright exceptions," its statement said. In the long term, the restrictions would not expire when a work went out of copyright, it said, and it may be impossible to trace the rights holders by that time. "It is probable that no key would still exist to unlock the DRMs," Laca said. "For libraries this is serious.

"As custodians of human memory, a number would keep digital works in perpetuity and may need to be able to transfer them to other formats in order to preserve them and make the content fully accessible and usable once out of copyright."

In its written submission to the group, the British Library said DRM must not "exert excessive control on access to information". "This will fundamentally threaten the longstanding and accepted concepts of fair dealing and library privilege and undermine, or even prevent, legitimate public good access." Fair dealing and library privilege must be "re-interpreted and sustained for the digital age", it added. Dr Field said: "This is going to be one of the significant challenges for us over the next few years."