As the new media is becoming more and more accessible to people, more and more documents are being created in digital form: “Born Digital.” One thing that everyone can agree one is that, as the time is passing by, technology is rapidly and constantly changing. Looking at the new media from this prospective, a concern arises among lovers of born digital documents on how to safely preserve their digital creations. But before we all can be concerned about how to lastingly preserved what is in the web or in other digital format, we need to worry about determining what is worth preserving first. I believe that every content has the right to be preserved for the sake of preservation itself, and based in this concept that of one man's trash being another man's treasure. Moreover, the digital storage capacities are getting bigger and more affordable on the daily basis. The down side of this approach is the overload in the amount of material available. Also, this approach destroys the core value of “perceived importance” in the profession of archivists.
“Obviously you have to use some combination of hardware and software to create and serve your website, and it can be difficult to determine where the herd will go.”(Cohen and Rosenzweig, 2005)
Preserving a digital document is more complex than just an ink-paper document. With digital material, the creator should be careful and insightful when it comes to choosing the programing language which will ensure the future of the website's functionality or digital material. The format by which historians should represent their documents. Furthermore, Most digital documents become unreadable just because of the unpopularity in term of the format by which the document were saved under.
“No acceptable methods exist today to preserve complex digital objects that contain combinations of text, data, images, audio, and video and that require specific software applications for reuse.” (Margaret Hedstrom, University of Michigan) . I would agree with her because of the complexity of the new media and the occurrence of constant changes that happen within the new media. However, one thing that all web users and scholars would agree on is the use of back ups and a regular update of those back ups. If we look at preserving the digital past from this prospective, I can say that there is not and there will not be a definitive way of preserving digital material, simply because of all the changes that occur in the technology sector. Backing up data is not enough. The library of congress can back up all their data today and not be able to read it five years from now. I will confidently conclude that preserving digital material is a matter of updating old technologies' material in order to synchronize with future technologies.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Copyrights
After reading Cohen and Rosenzweig (Digital History, 2005, Chapter 7: Owning the Past?), I came to conclude that the this copyright concern among historians and other scholars is not different than the issue of “what is pornography?”.After being unable to describe what is pornography, the United States supreme court judge Potter Stewart said: “I had been a Marines officer; he a Navy officer. We discussed our experiences with material we had seen during our military careers, and discovered we had both seen materials we considered at the time to be pornographic, but this conclusion was arrived at somewhat intuitively. We agreed that “we know it when we see it,” but that further analysis was difficult.”(The Wall Street Journal, 2010). I think that 10 judges will come up with 10 different judgements on this issue of just "what is a copyright for the new media". The copyright is very complex and subjective matter which will remain constantly changing and very partial (either provide more favors to authors and minimize distribution of intellectual materials or provide more to much access to users and de-favorise the rights of authors to be recognized).
With Digital media, historians should be concerned:
First, the nature of copy right laws which is constantly changing. The copyright laws vary not just from one country to another but also a user can be held liable for violating the right of an author while being in another country. With the New Media (Digital Media), there seem to be no jurisdiction based land borders. Historians or scholars in could be using intellectual materials without knowing that those material are copyrighted in a different country.
In the case of GNU General Public License (2007), the Free Software Foundation grants a copyleft license which guarantees the recipient's freedom to share and change all versions of a program, to make sure it remains free software for all its users. Here, the biggest issue historians should worry about is originality. If I create a digital material and pass it on to someone else, does whatever the next person creates is original? http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Moreover, institutions such as Museums should start worrying about pirate materials (Free Culture, 2004).
Second, the notion of creativity can be fuzzy and blurry to determine. Cohen and Rosenzweig (2005) state that copyrightable works must reflect a minimal degree of creativity and originality.,http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/3.php Now the question is: Who determines that is a minimal degree of creativity? When DJ's mixes songs is it creative? Is it enough for DJ's to comodify those products?
In The MIT Press article: The case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (2006), John Willinsky argues about the place of scholarly work in a world dominated by the new media and about he future of knowledge. He thinks that open access is a public good. He claims that the scholarly work carries with it the responsibility to be widely accessed and circulated. For John Willinsky, the right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. However, I think that John Willinsky is missing the fact not all scholar work is done for the sake of knowledge. There is a lucrative aspect as well. Although Scholars (historians) are less likely to be concerned by the lucrative aspect of their work rather than to their reputation, still the money is a great motivator for scholars to copyright their creations. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10611
Third and finally, the notion of “fair use” is very open ended. What is fair use? Who should draw the line between fair use and a violation?
In the book Free Culture (2004), when it comes to the issue of Free Use versus Fair Use Lawrence Lessig states that an author can deny the release of a movie to a movie maker even though that is not his/her writing. These “Exclusive Right” given to authors by the congress for “their writings” is just absurd. It gives too much power to authors. http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf
With Digital media, historians should be concerned:
First, the nature of copy right laws which is constantly changing. The copyright laws vary not just from one country to another but also a user can be held liable for violating the right of an author while being in another country. With the New Media (Digital Media), there seem to be no jurisdiction based land borders. Historians or scholars in could be using intellectual materials without knowing that those material are copyrighted in a different country.
In the case of GNU General Public License (2007), the Free Software Foundation grants a copyleft license which guarantees the recipient's freedom to share and change all versions of a program, to make sure it remains free software for all its users. Here, the biggest issue historians should worry about is originality. If I create a digital material and pass it on to someone else, does whatever the next person creates is original? http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Moreover, institutions such as Museums should start worrying about pirate materials (Free Culture, 2004).
Second, the notion of creativity can be fuzzy and blurry to determine. Cohen and Rosenzweig (2005) state that copyrightable works must reflect a minimal degree of creativity and originality.,http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/3.php Now the question is: Who determines that is a minimal degree of creativity? When DJ's mixes songs is it creative? Is it enough for DJ's to comodify those products?
In The MIT Press article: The case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (2006), John Willinsky argues about the place of scholarly work in a world dominated by the new media and about he future of knowledge. He thinks that open access is a public good. He claims that the scholarly work carries with it the responsibility to be widely accessed and circulated. For John Willinsky, the right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. However, I think that John Willinsky is missing the fact not all scholar work is done for the sake of knowledge. There is a lucrative aspect as well. Although Scholars (historians) are less likely to be concerned by the lucrative aspect of their work rather than to their reputation, still the money is a great motivator for scholars to copyright their creations. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10611
Third and finally, the notion of “fair use” is very open ended. What is fair use? Who should draw the line between fair use and a violation?
In the book Free Culture (2004), when it comes to the issue of Free Use versus Fair Use Lawrence Lessig states that an author can deny the release of a movie to a movie maker even though that is not his/her writing. These “Exclusive Right” given to authors by the congress for “their writings” is just absurd. It gives too much power to authors. http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf
Cohen and Rosenzweig (Digital history,2005): Owning The Past?
Just like Lawrence Lessig (Stanford University law professor), who have promoted the notion of the internet as “Creative Commons.” We all like to think of the web as a place where creators and users meet. And sometimes as creators, we find ourselves becoming users of others intellectual creations. This is where the copyright issue arises.
According to Cohen and Rosenzweig(Digital history,2005) thought that copyright law establishes a balance between the rights of holders and and the rights of users which is a give-and-take that rewards authorship but that also fosters the dissemination of knowledge for educational and academic purposes. Copyright laws change depending on the types intellectual property (digital material, paper written material, web material..), the country, and the philosophies of authorities in office. However, Cohen and Rosenzweig (2005) suggest that as historians, we actively participate in the process of shaping the copyright laws in order to make it more receptive to the sharing of ideas and expressions. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/1.php
Cohen and Rosenzweig thought that the advantages of digital media: First, flexibility,which allows you to combine sound, moving pictures, and images with text poses a major new challenge to digital historians. The rights for images, sound, and moving images are often more complex and more expensive than for text. Second, manipulability of digital data creates another, less common legal issue. Third, its global accessibility which by an author's intellectual property available to a broader audience or specific audience may easily help web user or historians to violate the rights of other authors. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/2.php
Cohen and Rosenzweig thought that not Even the most carefully placed or most threateningly worded copyright notice protect an author, if his/her work does not meet the requirement enunciated in the feist case that copyrightable works reflect a minimal degree of creativity and originality. This means that digitizing someone else's work does not grant the copyright protection. In general, historians are often most concerned about someone stealing their ideas, and the copyright law does nothing to protect ideas, only their formal and fixed expression. For this matter, Cohen and Rosenzweig suggest that the authors use license agreement notice and a log-in membership procedure for their websites. When it comes to universities and educational institutions, there is controversy on whether academic materials should be comodified and copyrighted or just be considered as shared intellectual materials. Nevertheless, Creative Commons has primarily encouraged copyright balance by offering free legal advice to those who want to promote an ethic of sharing and mutuality. With the help of some high-priced legal talent, the creative commons have developed a series of licenses packaged under the rubric “Some Rights Reserved.” For example, their “noncommercial license” permits free use and distribution of work only for noncommercial purposes. Other historians, who put a priority on getting their perspectives widely disseminated, might select the “attribution” license, which allows any site to display their work if it gives them credit http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/3.php.
Cohen and Rosenzweig clarifies that not every material is published after 1923 is necessarily copyrighted. For a website or any other material to be copyrighted,it requires a notice of copyright or a proof of registration with the “copyright office”. Additionally, copyright laws even on the web vary depending on the country where the material was created or copyrighted. One difference between U.S. laws related to intellectual property and those of many other countries is that those countries give authors “moral rights” that do not exist in American law. For instance authors, even if they have sold their work’s economic rights, might have the right of “integrity,” which prevents alterations of this work for example, colorizing a film http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/4.php
Furthermore, Cohen and Rosenzweig think that the hardest task for historians will be determine the rightful owner of a material in order to ask permission or determine what is “fair use” of another author's intellectual material http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/5.php
According to Cohen and Rosenzweig(Digital history,2005) thought that copyright law establishes a balance between the rights of holders and and the rights of users which is a give-and-take that rewards authorship but that also fosters the dissemination of knowledge for educational and academic purposes. Copyright laws change depending on the types intellectual property (digital material, paper written material, web material..), the country, and the philosophies of authorities in office. However, Cohen and Rosenzweig (2005) suggest that as historians, we actively participate in the process of shaping the copyright laws in order to make it more receptive to the sharing of ideas and expressions. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/1.php
Cohen and Rosenzweig thought that the advantages of digital media: First, flexibility,which allows you to combine sound, moving pictures, and images with text poses a major new challenge to digital historians. The rights for images, sound, and moving images are often more complex and more expensive than for text. Second, manipulability of digital data creates another, less common legal issue. Third, its global accessibility which by an author's intellectual property available to a broader audience or specific audience may easily help web user or historians to violate the rights of other authors. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/2.php
Cohen and Rosenzweig thought that not Even the most carefully placed or most threateningly worded copyright notice protect an author, if his/her work does not meet the requirement enunciated in the feist case that copyrightable works reflect a minimal degree of creativity and originality. This means that digitizing someone else's work does not grant the copyright protection. In general, historians are often most concerned about someone stealing their ideas, and the copyright law does nothing to protect ideas, only their formal and fixed expression. For this matter, Cohen and Rosenzweig suggest that the authors use license agreement notice and a log-in membership procedure for their websites. When it comes to universities and educational institutions, there is controversy on whether academic materials should be comodified and copyrighted or just be considered as shared intellectual materials. Nevertheless, Creative Commons has primarily encouraged copyright balance by offering free legal advice to those who want to promote an ethic of sharing and mutuality. With the help of some high-priced legal talent, the creative commons have developed a series of licenses packaged under the rubric “Some Rights Reserved.” For example, their “noncommercial license” permits free use and distribution of work only for noncommercial purposes. Other historians, who put a priority on getting their perspectives widely disseminated, might select the “attribution” license, which allows any site to display their work if it gives them credit http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/3.php.
Cohen and Rosenzweig clarifies that not every material is published after 1923 is necessarily copyrighted. For a website or any other material to be copyrighted,it requires a notice of copyright or a proof of registration with the “copyright office”. Additionally, copyright laws even on the web vary depending on the country where the material was created or copyrighted. One difference between U.S. laws related to intellectual property and those of many other countries is that those countries give authors “moral rights” that do not exist in American law. For instance authors, even if they have sold their work’s economic rights, might have the right of “integrity,” which prevents alterations of this work for example, colorizing a film http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/4.php
Furthermore, Cohen and Rosenzweig think that the hardest task for historians will be determine the rightful owner of a material in order to ask permission or determine what is “fair use” of another author's intellectual material http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/5.php
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Born Digital
Even though most historical materials are still in the process of digitization, many others are not. Some materials are already born digital. This means that some material are already created as digital. There was no process of digitization involved (or very little for picture scanning). Today, after a major event, because of the availability of digital devices and easy access to the internet for the public, people can share with the rest of the web their own pictures, videos, and texts about the event. However, despite this very interesting subjective way of collecting historical material; historians have a lot to worry about in term of authority, veracity of the content, and the preservation of the material.
First, lets look at the problem with authority. On the web or just any other digital material can easily be copied. The same content can be published on the same website but just with a different signature. For instance, in The September Eleven Digital Archive, the website claims that there are over 150,000 digital items and over 40,000 first hand stories. The question is are those 40,000 stories really first hand? I don't think that even people who read and publish all those stories are able to notice two similar stories or even figure to out if those people are who they say they really are.
Second, when it comes to the veracity of the content, stories could easily be made up.
Although the many surveys show that people are less likely to lie when it comes to telling a story about a major historical event, still the possibility are there. A hurricane Katrina story posted on The Hurricane Digital Memory Bank could easily be told by someone who lives on Oregon State and never lived or went to the Gulf Coast. This is one the biggest problem that historians should worry about. There are limited possibilities or none at all when it come to verifying the veracity of personal stories about major historical events.
Third and last, historians should be concerned about the preservation of those “born digital” contents. Just few years back, a floppy disc was if not the only but a prestigious way of digital material. However, today, a floppy disc is literally non existent in the new media market. This case is to show that historians will have the obligation to contently update their methods of storing digital materials. If we look at the digital content Flickr which is a website owned by the giant yahoo. Flickr uses a cloud storage system in order for used to retrieve their material anytime. Still the cloud storage system is not the best way of storing digital materials, it has its disadvantages (see T-Mobile case). Flickr uses other storage methods as well in order to secure the people's digital content. Historians should do the same, have multiple ways of preserving the born digital materials.
First, lets look at the problem with authority. On the web or just any other digital material can easily be copied. The same content can be published on the same website but just with a different signature. For instance, in The September Eleven Digital Archive, the website claims that there are over 150,000 digital items and over 40,000 first hand stories. The question is are those 40,000 stories really first hand? I don't think that even people who read and publish all those stories are able to notice two similar stories or even figure to out if those people are who they say they really are.
Second, when it comes to the veracity of the content, stories could easily be made up.
Although the many surveys show that people are less likely to lie when it comes to telling a story about a major historical event, still the possibility are there. A hurricane Katrina story posted on The Hurricane Digital Memory Bank could easily be told by someone who lives on Oregon State and never lived or went to the Gulf Coast. This is one the biggest problem that historians should worry about. There are limited possibilities or none at all when it come to verifying the veracity of personal stories about major historical events.
Third and last, historians should be concerned about the preservation of those “born digital” contents. Just few years back, a floppy disc was if not the only but a prestigious way of digital material. However, today, a floppy disc is literally non existent in the new media market. This case is to show that historians will have the obligation to contently update their methods of storing digital materials. If we look at the digital content Flickr which is a website owned by the giant yahoo. Flickr uses a cloud storage system in order for used to retrieve their material anytime. Still the cloud storage system is not the best way of storing digital materials, it has its disadvantages (see T-Mobile case). Flickr uses other storage methods as well in order to secure the people's digital content. Historians should do the same, have multiple ways of preserving the born digital materials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
