Defining noncommercial use study

The report and raw data from a year long study, Defining Noncommercial, on how people view noncommercial use was released Monday, September 14, 2009 by Creative Commons. The study was conducted by Netpop Research.

An excerpt from the press release.

Creative Commons noncommercial licenses preclude use of a work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” The majority of respondents (87% of creators, 85% of users) replied that the definition was “essentially the same as” (43% of creators, 42% of users) or “different from but still compatible with” (44% of creators, 43% of users) theirs. Only 7% of creators and 11% of users replied that the term was “different from and incompatible with” their definition.

Study noted by the 'In the News' email newsletter on digital copyright from the Center For Intellectual Property at the University of Maryland University College.



Study was discussed in Plagiarism Today blog from Johnathan Bailey.

Compact for open access publishing equity

Scott Jaschik reports in the September 15, 2009 edition of Inside Higher Ed that five major research universities, MIT, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University and the University of California at Berkeley, pledge to set up system of payments for work their professors publish in free, online journals -- aiming to shift economic model of scholarly communication, the "Compact for Open Access Publishing Equity".

Specifically, the universities have each committed to "the timely establishment of durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in open access journals and for which other institutions would not be expected to provide funds."

Here's the same story from the Chronicle of Higher Education's Wired Campus blog posted by Ben Terris on September 14, 2009.

Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Copyrights!

Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Copyrights! is an article by Steve Kolowich on the next deadline of the Google book settlement from Inside Higher Ed, September 4, 2009.

[Judge Denny] Chin, the federal judge who is presiding over Author’s Guild et al. v. Google, Inc., has been inundated with letters and amicus briefs in advance of the September 7 deadline for participants in the class action to opt out of a settlement over the company's controversial Google Books project that has received preliminary approval from the court. A handful of the documents have come from professors, university libraries, and advocacy groups.

Auraria Library students and faculty search Lexis Nexis Federal and State case law or Lexis Nexis Law reviews using these links.

"Google's Book Search: a disaster for scholars"

This review from the Chronicle Review on August 31, 2009 by Geoffrey Nunberg brings to light some of the problems of re-publishing works without metadata, or to be exact, sloppy and incorrect metadata. It also points out the problem with depending solely on automated processes.

While many web users focus on the idea more than on when an idea was published or it's author, scholars need to know the truth. There is a useful comment on this review by John Wilkin, Executive Director of the Hathi Trust.

The review is at http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/. Auraria Library users who are off campus will need the information at this link to see the article.