Dungeons and Downloads: Collecting Tabletop Fantasy Role-playing Games in the Age of Downloadable PDFs.

Stephannie Tornow
Fall 2016

Citation

Sich, D. (2012). Dungeons and downloads: Collecting tabletop fantasy role-playing games in the age of downloadable PDFs. Collection Building, 31(2), 60-65.

Summary: Sich explains how RPGs are a great resource for libraries. As they only require rule books and/or guidebooks, they can easily and compactly be stored on the shelves (some game may require dice or figures which can be kept behind the desk). Adding RPGs to the collection could bring more people into the space to participate in this spontaneous activity. However, it is important to understand how RPG publishing works in order to avoid copyright issues. While many RPGs are available as digital PDFs, these are intended for single use. Libraries which purchase RPG PDFs for use as part of the collection may be breaching copyright.

Evaluation: This short article can feel more like an advisory than an exploratory essay or analysis, but it does have an interesting literature review on the use of RPGs in libraries.  For a look at alternative materials in collection building, it is also demonstrates how librarians should consider copyright issues has they build their collections.

Massive Open Online Courses

Guzman, Laura

Gore, H. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and their impact on academic library services: Exploring the issues and challenges. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(1), 4-28.

Descriptive Summary:

This article discusses the impact that Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are having on academic library services.  MOOCs are unique because they are usually free, with no time boundaries or prerequisites, and have the ability to remix content to individual needs.  At one time a class could have hundreds of thousands of students. 

MOOCs began when the University of Manitoba, Canada launched an open course in 2008.  Shortly afterwards, Stanford University began free online courses which became a start-up called Udacity.  Now there are dozens of other organizations sponsoring MOOCs such as Coursera, Khan Academy, and edX.  Coursera has developed the largest peer-grading system to date with thousands of students reviewing each other’s work. 

Where does the librarian fit into these MOOCs?  Information literacy is crucial to the success of these courses.  The librarian needs to continue to connect people with information.  A newer role for librarians is to be an ambassador for collaboration between students, professors, and this online environment.  A librarian might help a professor by questioning sources, choosing a presentation medium, developing a search strategy, selecting relevant databases and resources, and formulating questions.  A few challenges might be influencing faculties, copyright, delivering remote services, and dealing with a very diverse group of students.  

Evaluation:

It is not surprising that MOOCs are growing tremendously.  The idea of free education will appeal to so many people.  I have never taken a MOOC, but would like to try it to see how it differs from regular online courses.  MOOCs will be especially popular for those who would like enrichment learning after already completing a degree program.  MOOCs are definitely links that we can add to our research guides in the academic library.  

Digitizers Restrict Access to Public Domain Books

Thormann, Gabrielle

Clark, A. & Chawner, B.  (2014). Enclosing the public domain: The restriction of public domain books in a digital environment.  First Monday, 19(6). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i6.4975  

     "Research shows that open repositories allow works to have far greater societal impact than when access is restricted (Cullen and Chawner, 2008)."  Access to public domain books is being threatened by digitizers.  This article does a great job of making the complex issues clear, and offering solutions.  The writers who are from New Zealand examine this problem by choosing to track 100 public domain books from New Zealand before 1890.  The questions they ask and answer are:  How much are public domain books being restricted in terms of access and use?  What are the reasons for these restrictions and are these reasons okay?  What’s a fair way to digitize and host public domain books to balance needs of digitizer and the public?  Starting this study as a microcosm within New Zealand led them to the macrocosm of varying copyright law and contractual law internationally.
     Basically, these digitizers create contracts for internet use, and then claim these contracts take precedent over copyrights.  Those of the public who are concerned believe the books still belong in the public domain on the internet also.  And, different countries have different definitions of copyrights and contracts.  
     Interestingly, digitizers HathiTrust and Google both of the United States apply the most restrictions to access public domain books.  They use 'Technological Protection Measures' (TPM) to block access to materials that may be considered public domain.  These measures include blocking the cut and paste function, using the ‘snippet view,’ and blocking full pdf download access.  The writers did contest blocked public domain books for both large companies.  As of the published article in 2014, Google did not resolve the dispute, while HathiTrust immediately released all 11 of the contested books back into the public domain.  The problem is that there are many more books blocked by these companies.  Further, other companies will access and download pdfs, and then charge unreasonable access prices for these public domain books:  Amazon is one company doing such practice.  Know that other digitizers as mentioned by this article, such as Early New Zealand Books, New Zealand Electronic Books, Project Gutenberg, and The Internet Archive, usually do provide full access for most public domain books.  Thus, it’s always worth searching for the item you’re looking for to see if it’s available for free. 
      Why are these digitizers restricting access?  Since copyright law varies globally, Google Books and HathiTrust responded that they are wary of legal battles, as they are missing bibliographic information for many books.  So, they apply more restrictions, specifically increase copyrights beyond terms.  They also increase copyrights as they figure they have done the work to digitize, so they are entitled to reap profits from this work.  However, the research is clear that " the social costs of copyright extension do not outweigh the benefits.  Legislators should refrain from increasing the period of copyright protection..."

     Here are suggestions by the writers to solve issues:

• Attach bibliographic metadata to each public domain book that takes a minute to find and is found 66% of the time.  This time is in comparison to the time needed to digitize a book.  In 2006 digitizing 500 pages took 30 minutes plus other processing time. 
• Use statistical analyses to develop copyright restrictions for books with missing biographical data.
• Create standardized processes to determine copyright, and create an easy way for users to contest digitizers.
• If standards are agreed to, create a ‘safe harbor’ for digitizers, as problems emerge regarding copyright issues.

     While this was a tough article to get through, I wanted to know how and why digitizers are charging for items that are supposed to be free.  And, what are the implications of such practice?  We know the ideal internet helps to make information accessible, not restrict those who can have access and those who cannot.    
  

            

Building a Collaborative Digital Collection: A Necessary Evolution in Libraries

Poster: Curtin, Shane

Wu, M. M. (2011). Building a Collaborative Digital Collection: A Necessary Evolution in Libraries. Law Library Journal, 103(4), 527-551.

Summary:

This article discusses the importance of collaborative digital collections for law libraries, and how collection development is influenced by storage practices and budget. The author describes her vision for a library that can grant access to its users regardless of “time, space, and resources…” She discusses the millions spent on collection development by law libraries throughout the country, and how some states have dramatically reduced costs through collaborative collection development. If each library commits  a small sum to the creation of a shared database, she contends, each library would each get hundred of times more than their money’s worth in access.

The explosion of legal resources and the constantly accelerating pace of the development and proliferation of laws no longer supports an institution by institution method of collection development: it is not an intelligence use of time or money. Each library, the author proposes, should focus its collection development on materials of local interest, while allowing the central branch of its consortium to obtain all of the general materials. Past attempts at consortium have failed because, according to the author, “local need… takes precedence over collective need” in the minds of most of the librarians invited to participate.
Following this is  an in-depth discussion of copyright law and the problem librarians face when truing to digitize their materials. A law known as 17 USC 108 puts substantial limits on the duplication rights of libraries. So why “recreate the wheel” the author asks.  If private companies like Google are already embrarking on such massive digitization projects, can we not just utilize their efforts? Of course, but it would be a risk; Resources provided by private institutions have fluctuating conditions, and their future is at the whom of those who control them.
The author concludes with a “call for collective action” to start building the law libraries of the future.

Evaluation:

All in all, this was a very interesting article. Law libraries are an interesting type of library to study, because the questions that dog standard reference collections (regarding the quick obsolescence of the resources) apply to the vast majority of things owned by law libraries.  While I support the goals of building a truly open access digital repository free from control by private entities like Google, I am a little skeptical of the feasibility of the project.  The sentiment is good —
 “If each library group committed to pre- serving a portion of the world’s existing, printed knowledge in cooperation with one another, they could reduce duplication of effort and ensure an unbiased preservation of materials. “ (p 545)
but could libraries ever work together on such a vast scale? While we are all bonded by the ALA, collaboration at this level for a sustained period of time is a big thing to ask, especially with so many institutions already strapped in terms of resources, financing and manpower.
Furthermore, digitization of law books is not even a good use of time- laws are always changing. Books on any one aspect of the law, like probate code, sometimes have several new editions or addendum’s per year, rendering the old versions instantly moot. While the evolution of laws is of historical importance and could be of use to scholars, most law library patrons are lawyers and in need of current information. If there any library materials that should be kept in digital format only, its those of law and science, which often become in obsolete even as the editor makes the final proof.  It seems prudent for law libraries to do away with hard copy versions of low-circ legal texts altogether, and subscribe instead to legal databases.

The article raised an interesting point I had not considered- the extent that out viewpoint about history are influenced by contemporary materials- The author says of her proposed digital database-

“Its creation would hopefully also allow libraries to prevent a great harm—the potential distortion of information. If users gravitate to online sources and only recent legal information is available online, then society’s perception of reality shifts to reflect only the information easily available. Part of our mission, therefore, should be to ensure that use of information is not determined solely by format, and the most effective way to achieve that goal is to place print and online documents on equal ground.”

The effort is similar to the rift in history between the world before and after writing, or the creation of audiovisual materials. Even in the short term, our view of the past is warped by medium- like the quality of  old time radio broadcasts and black and white films amplify the differences between the past and the present which are in truth, quite minute. Medium influences perception of content, and makes many unduly prideful of their own era, entrenched in the contemporary zeitgeist.

A View from Outside the Box

Lederer, Haylee

Bradford, R. (2015). A View from Outside the Box. Library Journal, 140(12), 50. 

Summary: This short article discusses a particular problem that a lot of libraries face today: music licensing. It brings attention to issues that the digital age is producing for libraries. The author claims that "Many librarians may not be aware that playing music during programs, or for most purposes, requires a license" (pg. 50). This has the capacity to bring unnecessary legal issues to libraries, who may or may not have the means to handle them. The author expresses surprise at this problem, because of how wholeheartedly most libraries embrace digital content.

Evaluation: This article was really short, but it served as a good source to start looking into libraries and digital issues. It presents the reader with a specific library who is dealing with this issue. It could also be used as inspiration for other libraries who maybe dealing with the same thing. I found the article really interesting, because music and copyright are not things that I think about very often. Because of the radio and internet streaming, music just seems always readily available, as well as free. As librarians, I think it's important to remember that there are legal hoops that need to be jumped through if the institution is interested in providing music for its patrons.