News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 16
— Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Scott is correct. To the casual reader it appears that the reporter(s) added their own bias to the story. It used to be that a reporter reported and left their own opinions, characterizations, etc out of the column. To do otherwise changes the blurb from a news story to an opinion piece.
The words “all powerful” are relative, nebulous, and seem to indicate an agenda on the part of the reporters. Please refrain and allow the reader to form their own opinion... which is supposed to be the point of a piece like this.
R.F., at 9:25 am EDT on April 16, 2008
I’m going to be watching the Georgia State digital distribution case: if the rights in question are not carefully described, it could become impossible to link to copyrighted material without paying royalties, and could be a serious setback in the value of online materials in teaching.
Jonathan Dresner, at 2:25 pm EDT on April 16, 2008
Would it be gauche of me to point out that two of the plaintiffs in the Georgia State suit are also two of the biggest and wealthiest academic presses in the world? Shhh. Don’t tell.
Presses and libraries (and their respective host institutions) don’t have to be on a collision course, so it’s regrettable whenever they come to blows. In my opinion, the plaintiffs always bear a much larger share of the responsibility for the failure to find common ground. Lawsuits should be a last resort, not a tactic.
The problem is that we always come back to the $64k question on digital rights: if a university library purchases a digital copy of a publication, do they have the right (not according to the publisher, but under the Copyright Act and the U.S. Constitution) to circulate that publication to more than one user at a time? In the old days, libraries were constrained by the reality of their owning only a fixed number of copies. But now suddenly the digital medium gives them the ability to distribute a virtually infinite number of impressions. So can they parcel out those impressions as they see fit? What exactly did they buy for their money: a single copy of the work, or that same work in an infinitely reproducible format?
The fact is, whatever answer you choose with, it’s going to make someone unhappy, and there are good reasons to want both presses and libraries to flourish. So instead of these ridiculous winner-take-all lawsuits, maybe we could try to be a little more collaborative, following the lead of some of the more forward-thinking press-library collaborations (Penn State, etc.).
After all, this whole RIAA-type lawsuit approach is _so_ 1990s...
Jim Reische, at 3:45 pm EDT on April 16, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Position Summary: The Princeton University Library, one of the world’s most respected research institutions, ... see job
Job Summary: Reporting directly to the Director of the Westminster Law Library, the FCIL librarian ... see job
Located on the Appalachian Plateau, an area of rolling hills, California University of Pennsylvania is a short drive from ... see job
Empire State College, a nationally recognized leader in nontraditional higher education for adult students, invites ... see job
The John Hancock Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition (JHCPAN) at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and ... see job
East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job
Seeking expert Theater Artist/ Educator/ ... see job
Under the direction of the University Equal Opportunity/ADA Officer, the Assistant Equal Opportunity/ADA Officer will manage ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Posting Description: University of Colorado Denver Instructor / ANP / NP Section of Emergency Medicine / ... see job
Imaginary (biased?) connections
“. . . leading some observers to speculate that McCain had included the idea at the behest of Pennsylvania’s all-powerful guarantee agency, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Authority.”
Is there really a smoking gun here, or are we just proposing that one exists? While we can be sure that politicians rarely propose legislation that is without influence from a variety of special interests, the reporter’s intimation that McCain had a hidden agenda tied to the PHEA appears on its face to lack merit, except as an attempt to justify the reporter’s inclination to make a connection via “some observers.” Even if there is an element of validity to the point being made, this journalistic trick too often represents a thinly veiled attempt by a reporter to put forth personal speculation that has no basis in fact.
In order to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality, I would ask the editors of Inside Higher Education to avoid references to “some observers” without naming them; or at a minimum, to be equally diligent in pointing out the potential political basis for “some observers” opinions. There is a huge credibility gap between the thoughtful perspectives of an impartial analyst and the shrill catcalls of political opponents.
Scott, at 6:50 am EDT on April 16, 2008