dLIST E-Print Archive Adds Use Statistics

Authors who deposit e-prints in dLIST (Digital Library of Information Science and Technology) can now see use statistics for their works (archive users can see use startistics as well). For example, at the record for the "Indian Digital Library in Engineering Science and Technology (INDEST) Consortium: Consortia-Based Subscription to Electronic Resources for Technical Education System in India: A Government of India Initiative," you would click on "View statistics for this eprint" to get the use statistics for this work. You can view use statistics for the past four weeks, this year, last year, or all years.

Archive-wide use statistics are also available from either an e-print record or the dLIST Statistics page. From either one, you can rank all e-prints by use for the same time periods as individual e-prints and show overall archive use by year/month or country.

Disclosure: I am now the Scholarly Communication subject editor for dLIST.

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog Update (3/13/06)

The latest update of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (SEPW) is now available, which provides information about new scholarly literature and resources related to scholarly electronic publishing, such as books, journal articles, magazine articles, newsletters, technical reports, and white papers. Especially interesting are: "Establishing a UK LOCKSS Pilot Programme," "EThOS: Progress towards an Electronic Thesis Service for the UK," "Long-Term Preservation of Digital Humanities Scholarship," "Net Neutrality Reading List," "Managing Digital Assets in Higher Education: An Overview of Strategic Issues," "Three Gathering Storms That Could Cause Collateral Damage for Open Access," and "Update on the NIH Policy."

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog Update (2/27/06)

The latest update of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (SEPW) is now available, which provides information about new scholarly literature and resources related to scholarly electronic publishing, such as books, journal articles, magazine articles, newsletters, technical reports, and white papers. Especially interesting are: "©1: Term & Extent," Copyright and Access to Knowledge, "Copyright Issues in Open Access Research Journals: The Authors’ Perspective," "Digital Repositories in UK Universities and Colleges," "A Research Library Based on the Historical Collections of the Internet Archive," and "The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition: An Evolving Agenda."

Version 61, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography

Version 61 of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography is now available. This selective bibliography presents over 2,610 articles, books, and other printed and electronic sources that are useful in understanding scholarly electronic publishing efforts on the Internet.

The Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals, by the same author, provides much more in-depth coverage of the open access movement and related topics (e.g., disciplinary archives, e-prints, institutional repositories, open access journals, and the Open Archives Initiative) than SEPB does.

The "Open Access Webliography" (with Ho) complements the OAB, providing access to a number of Websites related to open access topics.

Changes in This Version

The bibliography has the following sections (revised sections are marked with an asterisk):

Table of Contents

1 Economic Issues
2 Electronic Books and Texts
2.1 Case Studies and History*
2.2 General Works*
2.3 Library Issues
3 Electronic Serials
3.1 Case Studies and History*
3.2 Critiques
3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals*
3.4 General Works*
3.5 Library Issues*
3.6 Research*
4 General Works*
5 Legal Issues
5.1 Intellectual Property Rights*
5.2 License Agreements*
5.3 Other Legal Issues
6 Library Issues
6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata*
6.2 Digital Libraries*
6.3 General Works*
6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation*
7 New Publishing Models*
8 Publisher Issues*
8.1 Digital Rights Management*
9 Repositories, E-Prints, and OAI*
Appendix A. Related Bibliographies
Appendix B. About the Author*
Appendix C. SEPB Use Statistics*

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resources includes the following sections:

Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata*
Digital Libraries*
Electronic Books and Texts*
Electronic Serials*
General Electronic Publishing*
Images*
Legal*
Preservation*
Publishers
Repositories, E-Prints, and OAI*
SGML and Related Standards*

Further Information about SEPB

The HTML version of SEPB is designed for interactive use. Each major section is a separate file. There are links to sources that are freely available on the Internet. It can be can be searched using Boolean operators.

The HTML document includes three sections not found in the Acrobat file:

  1. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (biweekly list of new resources; also available by mailing list and RSS feed)
  2. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resources (directory of over 270 related Web sites)
  3. Archive (prior versions of the bibliography)

The Acrobat file is designed for printing. The printed bibliography is over 215 pages long. The Acrobat file is over 570 KB.

Related Article

An article about the bibliography has been published in The Journal of Electronic Publishing.

HTML Version of "What Is Open Access?"

An HTML version of my "What Is Open Access?" preprint is now available. This version includes additional links in the body of the document that make it easier to quickly access related information about OA concepts, documents, or systems. While it makes many footnote links available in the body of the document (as well as new ones), it is not an attempt to replicate all footnote links in it.

This paper presents a more nuanced, contemporary view of open access than my "Key Open Access Concepts" excerpt from the Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals; however, it had to be very compact to meet the publisher’s needs, and it omits some topics discussed in the earlier document.

Those wanting a more in-depth recent treatment might want to try the first half of my "Open Access and Libraries" preprint, which covers much of this material more fully as a preliminary to discussing the relationship between open access and library functions and operations. However, the "What Is Open Access?" paper reflects some changes in my thinking about OA not found in "Open Access and Libraries."

A PDF version of "What Is Open Access?" is also available, which is more suitable for printing and reading offline.

"What Is Open Access?" will appear in: Jacobs, Neil, ed. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2006. It is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog Update (2/13/06)

The latest update of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (SEPW) is now available, which provides information about new scholarly literature and resources related to scholarly electronic publishing, such as books, journal articles, magazine articles, newsletters, technical reports, and white papers. Especially interesting are: "Analog Hole and Broadcast Flag," "Delivering Open Access: From Promise to Practice," "The (Digital) Library Environment: Ten Years After," "Google Scholar: Potentially Good for Users of Academic Information," "Open Journal Systems: An Example of Open Source Software for Journal Management and Publishing," Report on Orphan Works, "Research Libraries Engage the Digital World: A US-UK Comparative Examination of Recent History and Future Prospects," "Scholarly Communication in the Digital Environment: The 2005 Survey of Journal Author Behaviour and Attitudes," "Self-Archiving and the Copyright Transfer Agreements of ISI-Ranked Library and Information Science Journals," and "Six Things That Researchers Need to Know about Open Access."

"What Is Open Access?" Preprint

A preprint of my book chapter "What Is Open Access?" is now available. This chapter provides a brief overview of open access (around 4,800 words). It examines the three base definitions of open access; notes other key OA statements; defines and discusses self-archiving, self-archiving strategies (author Websites, disciplinary archives, institutional-unit archives, and institutional repositories), and self-archiving copyright practices; and defines and discusses open access journals and the major types of OA publishers (born-OA publishers, conventional publishers, and non-traditional publishers). It will appear in: Jacobs, Neil, ed. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2006. It is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

UH E-Publications Have A New Virtual Home

The University of Houston Libraries’ e-publications have moved to a new server. The old URLs have been mapped to the new ones, but some minor Web page cleanup is being done to accommodate the new venue and searching is temporarily down. Pardon our digital dust.

PACS-L http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pacsl/pacsl.html
PACS-P http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pacsp/pacsp.html
Public-Access Computer Systems News http://epress.lib.uh.edu/news/pacsnews.html
Public-Access Computer Systems Review http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pr/pacsrev.html
Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography http://epress.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.html
Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resources http://epress.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepr.htm
Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog http://epress.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepw.htm

Update: Migration complete. Everything should be working now.

Open Access Bibliography Author and Title Indexes Are Now Available

Author and title indexes for the Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals are now available.

These indexes, which include complete references, were initially generated in EndNote, then refined through a lengthy production process using several text editing programs to produce the final HTML files.

Gary Flake’s "Internet Singularity"

Dr. Gary William Flake, Microsoft technical fellow, gave a compelling and lively presentation at SearchChamps V4 entitled "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Imminent Internet Singularity."

Flake’s "Internet Singularity," is "the idea that a deeper and tighter coupling between the online and offline worlds will accelerate science, business, society, and self-actualization."

His PowerPoint presentation is text heavy enough that you should be able to follow his argument fairly well. (Ironically, he had apparently received some friendly criticism from colleagues about the very wordiness of the PowerPoint that allows it to stand alone.)

I’m not going to try to recap his presentation here. Rather, I urge you to read it, and I’ll discuss a missing factor from his model that may, to some extent, act as a brake on the type of synergistic technical progress that he envisions.

That factor is the equally accelerating growth of what Lawrence Lessig calls the "permission culture," which is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past."

Lessig discusses this topic with exceptional clarity in his book Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (HTML, PDF, or printed book; Lessig’s book in under an Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0 License).

Lessig is a Stanford law professor, but Free Culture is not a dry legal treatise about copyright law. Rather, it is a carefully argued, highly readable, and impassioned plea that society needs to reexamine the radical shift that has occurred in legal thinking about the mission and nature of copyright since the late 19th century, especially since there are other societal factors that heighten the effect of this shift.

Lessig describes the current copyright situation as follows:

For the first time in our tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law, which has expanded to draw within its control a vast amount of culture and creativity that it never reached before. The technology that preserved the balance of our history—between uses of our culture that were free and uses of our culture that were only upon permission—has been undone. The consequence is that we are less and less a free culture, more and more a permission culture.

How did we get here? Lessig traces the following major changes:

In 1790, the law looked like this:

  PUBLISH TRANSFORM
Commercial © Free
Noncommercial Free Free

The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also free.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the law had changed to this:

  PUBLISH TRANSFORM
Commercial © ©
Noncommercial Free Free

Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if published, which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still essentially free.

In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded. Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to look like this:

  PUBLISH TRANSFORM
Commercial © ©
Noncommercial ©/Free Free

The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies, especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks like this:

  PUBLISH TRANSFORM
Commercial © ©
Noncommercial © ©

Lessig points out one of the ironies of copyright law’s development during the last few decades: the entertainment industries that have been the driving force behind moving the law from the permissive to permission side of the spectrum benefited from looser regulation in their infancies:

If "piracy" means using value from someone else’s creative property without permission from that creator—as it is increasingly described today—then every industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. . . . The list is long and could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the last. Every generation—until now.

Returning to Flake’s model, what will the effect of a permission culture be on innovation? Lessig says:

This wildly punitive system of regulation will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition. Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition. The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to produce an overregulated-regulated market.

New knowledge typically builds on old knowledge, new content on old content. "Democratization of content" works if the content is completely new, if it builds on content that is in the public domain or under a Creative Commons (or similar) license, or if fair use can be invoked without it being stopped by DRM or lawsuits. If not, copyright permissions granted or withheld may determine if a digital "Rip, Mix, Burn" (or as some say "Rip, Mix, Learn") meme lives or dies and the full transformational potential of digital media are realized or not.

If you are concerned about the growing restrictions that copyright law imposes on society, I highly recommend that you read Free Culture.

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog Update (1/16/06)

The latest update of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (SEPW) is now available, which provides information about new scholarly literature and resources related to scholarly electronic publishing, such as books, journal articles, magazine articles, newsletters, technical reports, and white papers. Especially interesting are: "The Changing Scholarly Communication Landscape: An International Survey of Senior Researchers," Digital Rights Management: A Guide for Librarians, The Google Library Project: The Copyright Debate, "Learned Society Business Models and Open Access: Overview of a Recent JISC-Funded Study," "Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0’," and "Open Access in 2005."

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2005 Use Statistics

There were 1,327,703 successful SEPB file requests in 2005, of which 1,034,745 were page requests. 115,029 host computers were served in 160 domains (excluding unknown domains). From October 1996 through December 2005, there have been 5,564,636 successful requests for SEPB files. See the details below.

SEPB Use Statistics

Requests By Year (October 1996-December 2005)

Year Number of File Requests Average Daily File Requests Number of Page Requests Average Daily Page Requests
1996 (October to December) 19,801 281 14,616 207
1997 156,139 428 109,638 300
1998 230,143 630 150,422 412
1999 254,411 697 170,517 467
2000 317,220 867 215,113 588
2001 405,037 1,109 280,547 768
2002 622,311 1,705 393,251 1,077
2003 1,023,619 2,827 634,607 1,752
2004 1,208,252 3,301 796,953 2,177
2005 1,327,703 3,637 1,034,745 2,834

Total File Requests (October 1996-December 2004)

Year Number of File Requests
1996-2005 5,564,636

Number of Host Computers Served (October 1996-December 2005)

Year Distinct Hosts Served
1996
(October to December)
4,276
1997 29,160
1998 39,145
1999 43,114
2000 51,809
2001 68,391
2002 94,464
2003 117,777
2004 128,218
2005 115,029

"Open Access and Libraries" Preprint

A preprint of my forthcoming book chapter "Open Access and Libraries" is now available.

The preprint takes an in-depth look at the open access movement with special attention to the perceived meaning of the term “open access” within it, the use of Creative Commons Licenses, and real-world access distinctions between different types of open access materials. After a brief consideration of some major general benefits of open access, it examines OA’s benefits for libraries and discusses a number of ways that libraries can potentially support the movement, with a consideration of funding issues.

It will appear in: Jacobs, Mark, ed. Electronic Resources Librarians: The Human Element of the Digital Information Age. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2006.

Postscript: A new preprint is available. I have added more content specific to the impact of OA on electronic resources librarians’ jobs and an appendix on the Creative Commons. Also, I have added another way that OA can save libraries money. I’ve changed the above link to the new preprint; the old one is still available; however, I would recommend reading the new one instead.

Post-PostScript: Having two versions of the preprint available has caused some confusion, so I have taken down the earlier version.

Library 2.0

Walt Crawford has published a mega-issue of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large on Library 2.0 that presents short essays on the topic by a large number of authors, plus his own view. At Walt’s request, I dashed off the following:

Blogs, tagging, Wikis, oh my! Whether "Library 2.0" truly transforms libraries’ Web presence or not, one thing is certain: the participative aspect of 2.0 represents a fundamental, significant change. Why? Because we will ask patrons to be become content creators, not just content consumers. And they will be interacting with each other, not just with the library. This will require what some have called "radical trust," meaning who knows what they will do or say, but the rich rewards of collective effort outweigh the risks. Or so the theory goes. Recent Wikipedia troubles suggest that all is not peaches and cream in Web 2.0 land. But, no one can deny (ok, some can) that participative systems can have enormous utility far beyond what one would have thought. Bugaboos, such as intellectual property violations, libel, and fiction presented as fact, of course, remain, leading to liability and veracity concerns that result in nagging musings over control issues. And it all is mixed in a tasty stew of enormous promise and some potential danger. This is a trend worth keeping a close eye on.

What Is www.digital-scholarship.com?

I’ve switched to a new domain for everything but DigitalKoans and SEPB/SEPW:

www.digital-scholarship.com

If you enter an old escholarlypub.com address it will automatically switch you to the equivalent digital-scholarship.com address. Due to a peculiarity in the way my blogging software works, DigitalKoans must remain at:

http://www.escholarlypub.com/digitalkoans/

However, if you enter the digital-scholarship.com address by mistake you will still get to the site, but the URLs will revert to the old domain as soon as you start navigating the blog. Confused? Hopefully not.

My new e-mail address is:

cbailey@digital-scholarship.com

I’ll still check the old one for awhile.

Note to catalogers: Many catalog records for the Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals still point to:

http://info.lib.uh.edu/cwb/oab.pdf

They should be updated to:

http://www.digital-scholarship.com/oab/oab.pdf

The old link will not get users directly to the file.

New Campus Copyright Booklet

Four associations (Association of American Publishers, Association of American Universities, Association of American University Presses, and Association of Research Libraries) have prepared a new copyright booklet, Campus Copyright Rights and Responsibilities: A Basic Guide to Policy Considerations, that, according to ARL, represents "a consensus document" that is "descriptive, not prescriptive." As such, this 30-page document is unique, and it is well worth reading.

Creative Commons Exceeds Fundraising Goal

As I write this, the Creative Commons has raised over $249,000, exceeding its fundraising goal of $225,000. In part, this is due to a check from Microsoft for $25,000. Following the fundraising campaign’s Web page daily, it has been obvious me that a large number of individual contributions have been made in the last week or so. In fact, there have been so many that the December contributor’s page seems to have cratered under the load, since it now shows no one. Anne Marino, Creative Commons Development Director, has posted a blog entry that says, in part:

Because of this tremendous community support, the groundwork for CC’s fundraising program is in place. 2006 will bring many more opportunities for CC to serve the public, create programs for individual Commoners to connect and participate, provide networking forums and events for CC’s new Corporate Commoners Program and encourage and involve continuing institutional support. Stay tuned! 2006 will have many surprises!

Update (1/5/06): The CC campaign had a spectacular finish: there was an anonymous gift of $1 million, plus the total funds raised, excluding this gift, have grown to $346,212.00.

Preliminary www.escholarlypub.com 2005 Use Statistics

The www.escholarlypub.com site was made public on 4/20/2005 when DigitalKoans was launched; I moved my personal publication files to www.escholarlypub.com on 6/27/2005. SEPB/SEPW files are still on University of Houston Libraries servers, and are not included here. My e-prints are also on DLIST and E-LIB, and those figures are not included here; nor are statistics for my old UH Libraries e-print site. The below statistics are generated by Urchin, which my host service provides. (I’ll crunch the numbers with analog later; experience shows there can be some variation between different log analysis packages.)

From 4/20/05 until around noon today, there have been about 134,400 sessions on www.escholarlypub.com, with 500 sessions daily (all figures are rounded to the nearest hundred). There have been 250,000 page views, with 900 page views daily. There have been 297,300 hits, with 1,100 daily hits.

For the site, there were sessions from 119 Internet domains. Leaving aside unknown domains, the top 10 are:

  1. com (Commercial): 54,300
  2. net (Network): 14,400
  3. edu (Educational): 11,500
  4. ca (Canada): 3,000
  5. org (Non-Profit Organizations): 2,800
  6. de (Germany): 2,300
  7. au (Australia): 2,100
  8. uk (United Kingdom): 2,100
  9. it (Italy): 1,400
  10. fr (France): 1,300

The top 10 site pages (leaving aside the Atom/RSS feeds, top-level pages, and Weblog category pages) were:

  1. Open Access Webliography (e-print): 10,500
  2. Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals (OAB description page): 9,100
  3. The Google Print Controversy: A Bibliography (DigitalKoans posting): 8,000
  4. Key Open Access Concepts (e-print; part of the OAB): 6,500
  5. Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A Bibliography (DigitalKoans posting): 4,300
  6. Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals (e-print): 4,100 (there also were 29,000 requests at the UH Libraries site)
  7. Selected Publications of Charles W. Bailey, Jr.: 4,100
  8. The Role of Reference Librarians in Institutional Repositories (e-print): 2,600
  9. The Spectrum of E-Journal Access Policies: Open to Restricted Access (DigitalKoans posting): 2,200
  10. BMC’s Impact Factors: Elsevier’s Take and Reactions to It (DigitalKoans posting): 1,600

(Note: DigitalKoan page view counts are partial because new postings stay on the home pages until they roll off.)

For DigitalKoans alone, there have been 182,100 page views.

The Sony BMG Rootkit Fiasco Redux

There’s a new development in the Sony BMG Rootkit story (for background see my prior posting and update comment): Sony BMG has reached a settlement (awaiting court approval) regarding the class action lawsuit about its use of DRM (Digital Rights Management) software after virtual "round-the-clock settlement negotiations" (on December 1st numerous individual lawsuits were given class action status). The short story is that XCP-protected CDs will be replaced with DRM-free CDs and customers will be given download/cash incentives to exchange the disks; no recall for MediaMax-protected CDs, but buyers will get song MP3s and an album download. You can get details at "Sony Settles ‘Rootkit’ Class Action Lawsuit."

Since my December 4th update comment, there have been a few articles/blog postings of note about this controversy. "Summary of Claims against Sony-BMG" provides an analysis by Fred von Lohmann of EFF of "the various legal theories that have been brought against Sony-BMG over the CD copy-protection debacle." In "Sony CDs and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act," Ed Felten considers whether Sony BMG, First4Internet, and SunnComm/MediaMax "violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is the primary Federal law banning computer intrusions and malware" (he notes that he is not a lawyer), and, in "Inside the MediaMax Prospectus," he highlights some interesting aspects of this document. "New Spyware Claim against Sony BMG" describes a new claim added to the Texas lawsuit by Attorney General Greg Abbott: "MediaMax software . . . violated state laws because it was downloaded even if users rejected a license agreement." Finally, "Just Let Us Play the Movie" examines the fallout for the film industry and DRM use in general.

In other recent IP news, two items of interest: "France May Sanction Unfettered P2P Downloads" (mon dieu!) and "Pro-Hollywood Bill Aims to Restrict Digital Tuners."

Lessig Explains Why the Creative Commons Urgently Needs Donations

In a posting on Lessig Blog yesterday, Lawrence Lessing explains in more detail why donations are still needed by the Creative Commons by December 31st. As I write this, the CC is within $10,000 of its goal. Quote:

(1) Where’d you get the goal of $225,000?

To understand this, you need to know something about the "public support test" that is part of the IRS review all tax-exempt non-profits suffer after 4 years of life. That test essentially asks, how diverse is your funding support. If most of your support comes from a few foundations, then there’s a risk you’ll lose your tax exempt status. I let this issue remain unresolved for too long. But this is the year the numbers will be calculated, and hence the push right now.

When we saw how much we needed to raise to pass the test, we divided up areas of support. The $225,000 is the amount we absolutely must raise from a general public appeal. If we meet that, and the other goals we’ve also set, then we’re fine.

(2) What happens if we fail this test?

The risk is that we’ll lose our public charity status. That’s critical to us because some foundations are not able to support organizations without a public charity status. And however fantastic the support from the public has been so far, we still absolutely must continue to get foundation support.

Lessing also explains in some detail how the raised funds will be used.

You can give at:

http://creativecommons.org/support/


Machinima

Here’s an interesting trend: using video games to create animated digital films. It’s called "Machinima." In one technique, the 3-D animation tools built into games to allow users to extend the games (e.g., create new characters) are used to generate new 3-D films. Of course, it can be more complicated than this: the Machinima FAQ outlines other strategies in layperson’s terms.

BusinessWeek has a short, interesting article on Machinima ("France: Thousands of Young Spielbergs") that describes one social commentary Machinima film (The French Democracy), noting that it got over one million hits in November. It also quotes Paul Marino, executive director of the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences as saying: "This is to the films what blogs are to the written media."

If you want to check out more Machinima films, try the 2005 Machinima Film Festival or Machinima.com (try "download" if "watch" doesn’t work).

Machinima is yet another example of how users want to create derivative works from digital media and how powerful a capability that can be—if intellectual property rights owners don’t prohibit it. Since the first Machinima movie was created in 1996, it appears that the video game industry has not moved to squash this movement, and, needless to say, it has thrived. However, this state of affairs may simply reflect Machinima’s low profile: A recent Wired News article, which notes that Machinima has been employed in commercials and music videos, indicates that Doug Lombardi, Director of Marketing at Valve (a video game software company), feels that: "As the films become commercially viable, machinima filmmakers are going to butt up against copyright law."

The Creative Commons Needs Urgent Help

According to Michael W. Carroll, Associate Professor of Law at Villanova University School of Law, the Creative Commons is in danger of losing its charitable status with the IRS unless it receives more donations by the end of the year. Any donation, no matter how small, will help and it will be matched. For donations at $50 or above, the CC offers buttons, stickers, and shirts (at least $75 for this item).

Give at:

http://creativecommons.org/support/

More information at Carroll’s SOAF message.

Also see Lawrence Lessig’s blog posting.


Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog Update (12/19/05)

The latest update of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (SEPW) is now available, which provides information about new scholarly literature and resources related to scholarly electronic publishing, such as books, journal articles, magazine articles, newsletters, technical reports, and white papers. Especially interesting are: "Comparison of IR Content Policies in Australia," "If You Harvest arXiv.org, Will They Come?," "Interdisciplinary Differences in Attitudes towards Deposit in Institutional Repositories," "Open Access Federation for Library and Information Science: dLIST and DL-Harvest," and "Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact."

Open Access Bibliography and The Access Principle Discount at Amazon

Amazon is offering the Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals and John Willinsky’s insightful The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship together for a discounted price of $68.07 (vs. the normal $79.95). See the OAB Amazon record for the link. (Note: By my request, I do not profit from sales of the print version of the OAB; all proceeds go to ARL to subsidize the print version.)