Librarians behaving badly

I have to say I was taken aback when reading this posting on this morning's LM_Net listserv:

Colleagues:

It's the last day before winter break and I'll be spending it in traditional fashion: acting as an accessory to a federal crime.

Yes, friends, nothing imparts that holiday glow quite like the teeny thrill of naughtiness and the lingering sense of guilt that comes with being part of a willful breach of copyright guidelines.

Bust out the eggnog and pass the DVDs!

Oh, come now You know what I'm talking about: The holiday film festival. Isn't it pretty much de rigueur in every school on that last day before break? I know I've been asked to do it every year since entering the profession and, though I always, gently, point out that it's actually naughty, not nice, to bend copyright law, teachers and administrators alike always simply nudge me toward the play button with a wink and a nod.

Ah well, it's for the kids...

This year's line up is pretty hot, too: Our library will be hosting a gathering of about a hundred kids who'll grab some popcorn and get cozy in our Kiva area (I installed a dedicated presentation system complete with gut-rumbling cinema sound a few years back) and be treated to a big screen showing of "Christmas with the Kranks." By bypassing any pesky admission or rental fees, we'll be stealing bread off the tables of Tim Allen, Jamie Lee Curtis and the hundreds of other artists and tradespeople responsible for the production and distribution of the show.

But that's not all:

For those who can't make it down to the library, I'll be pumping out "Madagascar" on our schools in-house TV distribution system. You heard me right! The just-released on DVD blockbuster will be available in every classroom in the house!

Now that I've shared my dirty little secret, tell me yours. Does your school system do this too? Are you and I part of what is perhaps the most overlooked mass act of civil disobedience in the nation? Are you doing it right now? Do you feel badly about it or do you kinda like it? Do you ever bring the nasty realities of the matter up to faculty and administration? Do any of you work in a district that has actually taken steps to arrest this sort of practice?

Tell me about it. I wanna know. And, if you tell me, I promise, I'll write you right back. The library's pretty much closed anyway.

We're watching movies!!!

Happy Holidays!

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more?  To the author of this e-mail, I would simply say, "Yes, what you are doing is wrong, wrong, wrong." (Yes, I've ragged on this topic before.) But, I do admire your courage for bringing the dirty laundry out.

Let's leave aside any financial ramifications this act might have. I don't worry about Jamie Lee Curtis not eating well tonight. Let's leave aside that this is a common practice in schools (and churches) across the country. Let's not even worry about a school getting fined if caught illegally showing films for entertainment purposes without a public performance license. Let's not even discuss whether this is a good use of school time or taxpayer dollars.

But let's do talk about the message a professional librarian, who as a part of his training knows and is regarded as expert on copyright, to students, is sending to other teachers, the administration, the parents, and the community: that breaking a law is just fine so long as it is common practice and there is little likelihood of getting caught. That it's better just to shut up and go with the flow than to be unpopular.

To our students who will almost certainly be making their living through the creation of intellectual property, we are doing a grave disservice. In a knowledge/information/conceptual/whatever economy which runs on ideas and creativity, not widgets or manual labor, the theft of intellectual property is no more or less moral than the  theft of physcial property - an idea that too few people seem to grasp. (Even by educators who, in most cases, are earning their paycheck because of brain rather than back power.)

Yes, I find it hard to tell people I won't illegally duplicate software or videos. It's not pleasant when I send a copyright work back to a teacher saying that my shop won't duplicate it. Other professionals get mad when I suggest that copyright images painted in our hallways be painted over (and put the recommendation in writing.) But dammit, I do it.

My district, like that of the author of the e-mail above, willing violates copyright. I never claimed to be a saint in this area personally either. But I sure as hell don't have to be an accomplice. It won't be my finger that pushes the button. I will keep on file memos pointing out activities I believe may be illegal. If we as librarians don't show some moral fiber, who will? I've always thought we were a bit better than the run of the mill educator. The request for dispensation above disappoints me.

OK, I will dismount from the pulpit. Am I being over-reactive or are there other professionals out there who find this problem serious and have taken a principled stand as an individual, even when the district seems to be saying, "Nnudge, nudge, wink, wink?"

Comments

[Scott McLeod]

At the risk of sounding like a Grinch, there's also the question of the educational value of 'Christmas with the Kranks' and 'Madagascar.' I'm all for blowing off a little steam now and then, and do not believe that school has to be all work and no play, but the prevalence of movie-showing in some schools / classrooms is horrendous given said movies' generally low (extremely low) educational value / purpose. Just a sidenote having nothing to do with your post, Doug, but nonetheless a statement on effective uses of the limited instructional time we DO have with kids. I often hear teachers talk about how they only have x amount of time to spend with the kids and the rest is with parents - at least we could spend a greater percentage of that time actually focused on instruction...

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Scott,

I agree on a professional, philosophical level. On a more pragmatic level (having been a classroom teacher for many years), I sympathize with those who are dealing with the sugar-enhanced, vacation-anxious small people.

What I am seeing developing on the list on which this originally appeared are other activities with more educational value that are very engaging. Good solution.

Seems odd to me that with all the access to videos kids must have a home that a movie would be much of a treat anymore anyway.

Thanks for the comment and have a great holiday!

Doug

[Sara Kelly Johns]

Hi, Doug--I agree with you wholeheartedly in general about the use of videos as reward. It does seem to me that even a "we're finished a major unit, let's take a breather" video can be curriculum-related and some of our teachers take this idea very seriously. Many of the commercial movies have curriculum tie-ins. I KNOW that there may be "reward' videos happening in this building today but none of them were signed out from here; machines were signed out without a video...I am not going from classroom to classroom with a clipboard. Our sixth graders are rewarded today by skating on the 1980 Olympic Rink (the Herb Brooks Rink) and actually watching a movie (Narnia) in a movie theater with purchased seats.That a new experience for some of t hem ;-).

It's HARD to uphold copyright the day before a break but teachers respect my position, a familiar one to them. If they violate it, it's aure done in a a "don't tell Sara" manner! At least those who do are aware that they are doing it and feel a bit guilty. They're in a "survival of the fittest" mode today.

Happpy Holidays! I love the Christmas theme of Brady's drawings!

Sara

[Laura]

I had this conversation many times with teachers where I used to work - eventually, they learned to create an educational purpose for their requests. The Head of that school and I also talked about it (particularly after the teacher complaints rolled in) and his position was that I was doing my job - explaining copyright and why I was opposed to their plans - and that was all I could do. I can't wrest the video/dvd from their hands, nor can I police their classrooms. HIS job was to take the fall if anyone (like Disney) went after the school.

Where I work now, they seem to be better informed most of the time. There are times when it's clear that there are violations, and my new Head pretty much takes the same position as my old Head.

Is it an ideal situation? No. But at least I'm not completely complicit in the problem.

[Sonja]

Wow, I love this thread! I too, hate being the police, and have even jokingly been called the copyright Nazi...but my teachers and staff know because I do my best to educate, and along with another LMC in the county make presentations on copyright. This year in anticipation of the video/DVD usage in December, I posted via email a listing of our holiday movies with limited public performance rights, those with none --and to show they had to be curriculum related, and a list of those that come within our movie license. The line up before the holiday period actually started was amazing and the media assistant took to answering the internal phone with "Blockbuster". As a result, I did get a better feel for teachers' awareness of when and how to use the movies we own or that are prior approved. So rather than wringing my hands I took the above mentioned approach. Although the movie license is around $375 or so, it is money well spent...although it is hard for teachers to get their head around the fact that we own the movie doesn't give them carte blanche to use it whenever they feel like it. I have honestly come to the conclusion a lengthy seminar on copyright should be in all teacher ed programs or at least a 2 to 3 hour class would be extremely educational. In presentations on the topic with my co-presenter we find it's the teachers more than the media folk who need to be there. So that's my goal--to reach out and touch those who most break the rules and least understand why.

[leighblackall]

I find it very strange that your blog is licensed creative commons, yet you spend time writing about being the 'copyright enforcer' and neglect to mention let alone encourage the alternatives..

Perhaps I better spend some time reading through your archive and try and get more of an understanding to your thinking, but on this post alone, I nearly hit unsubscribe!

Do you really equate copyright policing as defending the income of creators? I see it as inadvertantly playing bully boy for big businesses who clearly couldn't give a hoot for the principles and creativity.

My God! If IP was around and enforced your way 200 years and beyond ago, I doubt we'd have anything to call science, language, mathematics, or theatre and art!

[leighblackall]

BTW, I hope the original email you have quoted was licensed Creative Commons, because I think the more appropriate place to post your response would have been back into the original list serve, not copying it into your own blog. Where's the link to the original email if it is public? If it is not - then where is your professionalism?

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Leigh,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm a fan of your Teach and Learn blog, and I take criticism from someone like you who writes in a thoughtful manner quite seriously.

Let's first clear up the question of posting from a listserv. Listservs such as LM_Net are archived and publicly accessible to anyone. I don't think there is a problem reposting a message from a public forum (such as another blog), but I did make sure it was OK with the original author when I posted. I asked whether he wanted attribution or anonymity, and he chose the later. I won't personally lose much sleep tonight thinking I've behaved unprofessionally.

I think we have two separate issues here: 1) whether current copyright laws are just and 2) whether current copyright laws should be followed.

At the current time, I personally think copyright laws in the US are overly restrictive. I buy into many of the arguments of Lawrence Leasing advances in his book Free Culture and other articles he's written. I can, by making my own work subject to a Creative Commons license, exempt from many of these restrictions - and do. I also think there is a role government can play in helping those who produce creative works retain control over their work for a limited period of time and receive compensation from others who wish to use their work. As I remember, even Lessig doesn't deny the need for copyright laws, but questions the length of time before a work comes into the public domain.

However, I do think it is my role to exemplify legal behavior in my job, despite any personal disagreement with the law itself. Were this an issue of human rights or health and safety, I might openly and loudly practice some form of civil disobedience, but this is primarily a financial/property issue, not one that has a direct bearing on a person's well-being.

Sorry, I still don't think one shows disagreement with a law by simply not following it. Somehow anarchy doesn't strike me as much of a system of government. I guess I am getting old.

Respectfully,

Doug

[leighblackall]

Hi again Doug. I must apologise for my aggressive tone, commenting on your blog. You've dealt with me very well - sorry for flaming you. I went away for a couple of days recently and admit to cringing everytime I thought of what I wrote into your blog.

I came away from reading Laurence's book feeling quite firey about copyright and IP, and lately (with patent laws, DRM in media players, and so many protective policies to worry about) I've been particularly iching for a fight. I've certainly taken it out on you without thinking clearly.

I thought I detected something political in that naughty librarian's post. The thing is, I think most people are beginning to realise, and some are opting for civil disobedience, and direct action in many levels and ways.

Interesting you bring up anarchy though. I've been doing a little reading on that (in relation to education) and have been finding the ideas very thought provoking. I've been thinking to attempt writing something about what I've found - but the word is so black, so negative, I suspect I'd get nowhere trying. Am thinking "any" might be a better word...

Thanks for not egging me too much Doug.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Leigh,

You fellas in Oz have a wonderful expression that applies here - "No worries."

The exchange made me realize some things. That I am not always as clear as I could be with my writing. That when my own writing is emotional in nature, I should expect emotional responses back (I wasn't very calm in my original post!) And that one really needs a thick skin if one is to write for public consumption. But then I was always one of those ornery little boys in school who felt that negative attention was better than no attention at all! I guess I've never outgrown it.

Anxious to read your thoughts about anarchy. These are really tough issues and great to bat ideas around about.

All the very best and thanks for your response. I'd feel bad losing you as a friendly colleague.

Doug

[Ivan Chew]

Hi Doug, interesting discussion you have here. Seems to me this post isn't so much about copyright law (as you explained in your response to Leigh) but more about ethics. Also, it's also a lesson (to me) about the subtle skill of communication and persuasion. The issue isn't so much about your clarity in writing (which is clear, btw) but about your implied "I'm-better-than-thou" approach in advocating copyright adherence. Esp. when you said "you never claimed to be a saint in this area personally" -- which could be interpreted the wrong way. With a different title and a different tone, I think your post would still get the point across without inviting emotional responses. But reading the responses from you and Leigh, I think this post should really be called "librarians behaving wonderfully". Best Regards, Ivan.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Ivan,

I certainly agree that the tone of my initial posting left something to be desired and was an open invitation to emotional responses. Ah, live and learn, I guess.

Appreciate the comments.

Doug

[John Dyer]

Hi Doug,

This copyright issue really is quite interesting.

Here's a related question: why is it you pay a premium for videos you present to an audience (vs. a single user), whereas you get a discount for buying a book, that gets put in your collection and sent out (or read) to a wide audience? It would seem that there should be a similar premium attached to the public distribution and use of a book (or any other material).

Any thoughts?

John Dyer

[Doug Johnson]

Hi John,

I don't know this answer specifically, but it may have to do with the fact a book can be "accessed" one person at a time whereas a video is accessed by many. (Libraries can also loan videos without having public performance licenses.)

Don't give the copyright people any ideas re: books! Although this will be an interesting issue to watch as e-books become more popular.

I will cc this to my favorite copyright expert, Carol Simpson, and she may have a more rational answer than I do.

Doug

[Doug Johnson]

This is from copyright expert Carol Simpson in response to John's question (added with permission):

It's very interesting with copyright. Laws get added to and new laws are enacted, but old laws are seldom revised. When the last big copyright "thing" came along, print was all there was. Non-dramatic print materials may be read freely to public audiences, but dramatic works may not. I think that is because folks "attend" a dramatic reading, and that would draw away ticket sales from a performance of the play. Remember, copyright is ENTIRELY an act with economic intentions - there is no altruism built into the act - so if there is going to be an economic impact, you aren't going to get that use for free. The part about using film (extended to video, reluctantly) was designed to use PORTIONS of film, but whole showings sorta slipped in there. At that time it wasn't possible to get showings of theatrical films, so they were really talking about educational films, not entertainment-type films. When the next set of guidelines came along (multimedia guidelines) they were more relaxed about using things in different venues, such as professional development workshops (barred for print and video and music at least as far as educational exemptions go), but the older guidelines weren't revised to match. So you can use some things if you put them in Powerpoint, but not if used directly. Then came TEACH, and the same thing happened. Here you can digitize materials for use in online courses, but you can't digitize films for face to face classes. No backward compatibility.

It's just Congress. They don't know how things work on our starship, and frankly they don't care.