- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

AoIR elections and membership
by Jeremy Hunsinger 10 Jun '05

10 Jun '05

I just want to remind everyone that AoIR Elections are occurring soon, and that the discussion is occurring now at http:// forums.aoir.org , while anyone can participate in the forums, much like air-l, only members can participate in the election. As such, I encourage everyone to join AoIR, directions for joining are at http:// www.aoir.org/?q=node/112 . AoIR is managed by members and governed by members, on a volunteer and election basis, so joining and participating benefits everyone, because it lets the executive committee know what you want from AoIR. (not to mention the other members benefits such as reduced conference fees, reduced journal and book prices, etc. etc.) jeremy hunsinger jhuns(a)vt.edu www.cddc.vt.edu jeremy.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments

1 0

OII Cybersafety conference registration opens
by Vicki Nash 10 Jun '05

10 Jun '05

Dear colleagues, I'm pleased to announce that registration for the Oxford Internet Institute's September conference 'Safety and Security in a Networked World: balancing cyber-rights and responsibilities' has now opened. Details of the programme and the registration form can be found at www.oii.ox.ac.uk/cybersafety best Dr Victoria Nash Policy and Research Officer 01865 287231 Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford 1, St Giles OX1 3JS www.oii.ox.ac.uk

1 0

NERDI LECTURE IN AMSTERDAM
by Paul Wouters 10 Jun '05

10 Jun '05

Researching blogs and blogging research: synergies of colliding worlds Lecture/debate on weblogs and the different shapes and colours of academic blogging*By Lilia Efimova**Tuesday June 21 at 14.00 hrs.ISHSS Building, room D (1st Floor)Free entrancePrins Hendrikkade 189-B 1011 TD Amsterdam The Netherlands For a researcher who starts studying weblogs getting hands-on experience in blogging may be a natural step, either as part of learning about new phenomenon, as a way to engage in conversations with other weblog researchers or as a conscious choice for participatory research methods. In either case the lines between the "blogger who does research" and the "researcher who blogs" are getting blurred. In this presentation Lilia Efimova will provide an overview of the weblog research field and talk about the different shapes and colours of academic blogging. *Organised by Networked Research and Digital Information (Nerdi), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences www.nerdi.knaw.nl **Lilia Efimova works as PhD researcher at the Telematica Institute: http://www.telin.nl. Research weblog: http://blog.mathemagenic.com Paul WoutersDr. P. F. Wouters Programme Leader Networked Research and Digital Information (Nerdi) NIWI-KNAW The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences PO Box 95110 1090 HC Amsterdam The Netherlands T 3120 4628654 F 3120 6658013 http://www.nerdi.knaw.nl paul.wouters(a)niwi.knaw.nl

1 0

Re: [air-l] Software to store webpages
by Dan L Burk 09 Jun '05

09 Jun '05

I'm not sure if Laura is still monitoring air-l after being "graced" with the administrative burden as Head of her department. I know a fair bit about the "Cyberliteracy" story, but will wait a little in case Laura is around to recount the story first-hand. DLB On 9 Jun 2005, Kirsten A. Foot wrote: > In Dan Burk's last post regarding Laura Gurak's appendix on fair use, he > wrote: > > >Laura was graced with a publisher who was willing to back her principled > stance <snip> Having said that, I think we also need to recognize that there > is something of a chicken-and-egg problem involved; publishers and > universities are more likely to back the fair use of authors and researchers > if we demand that they do so. Consequently, someone has to be willing to > take the initial > risk of asserting fair use. I would hope that the research community would > be willing to step forward and take that initial risk, but it's necessary > to understand the potential downside before doing so. > > My sentiments exactly, Dan. When *Cyberliteracy* came out I expressed > appreciation personally to Laura for doing just that (as I'm sure Dan did). > Laura-- if you're reading this-- could you give us some of the background on > how Yale Press came to publish the appendix on fair use? Were you 'graced' or > did you make the inclusion of that appendix a condition of publication for > you in selecting a publisher? > > This is a timely conversation, as Steve Schneider and I are currently > involved in negotiating a book contract with an academic press (the name of > which I will not disclose at this time) for a book that uses many archival > Web objects-- all duly attributed (to the author/producer), located (with > original & archival URLs), dated (time-stamped when collected). We have sent > the press a copy of Laura's appendix, and have made it clear that it is a > high priority to us to employ the model she used of *not* seeking permissions > from > > > ************************************* > Kirsten A. Foot, PhD > Assistant Professor, Communication > Co-Director, WebArchivist.org > University of Washington > Box 353740 > Seattle, WA 98195-3740 > 206-543-4837 > kfoot(a)u.washington.edu > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011

1 0

Re: [air-l] Software to store webpages
by Kirsten A. Foot 09 Jun '05

09 Jun '05

In Dan Burk's last post regarding Laura Gurak's appendix on fair use, he wrote: >Laura was graced with a publisher who was willing to back her principled stance <snip> Having said that, I think we also need to recognize that there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem involved; publishers and universities are more likely to back the fair use of authors and researchers if we demand that they do so. Consequently, someone has to be willing to take the initial risk of asserting fair use. I would hope that the research community would be willing to step forward and take that initial risk, but it's necessary to understand the potential downside before doing so. My sentiments exactly, Dan. When *Cyberliteracy* came out I expressed appreciation personally to Laura for doing just that (as I'm sure Dan did). Laura-- if you're reading this-- could you give us some of the background on how Yale Press came to publish the appendix on fair use? Were you 'graced' or did you make the inclusion of that appendix a condition of publication for you in selecting a publisher? This is a timely conversation, as Steve Schneider and I are currently involved in negotiating a book contract with an academic press (the name of which I will not disclose at this time) for a book that uses many archival Web objects-- all duly attributed (to the author/producer), located (with original & archival URLs), dated (time-stamped when collected). We have sent the press a copy of Laura's appendix, and have made it clear that it is a high priority to us to employ the model she used of *not* seeking permissions from site producers to display archival impressions of their publicly posted Web objects as a matter of principle, in order to exercise (and thereby strengthen-through-use) the fair use doctrine. Initial verbal indications from the editor have been positive, but we want this understanding to be formalized in the contract, and we'd like to include a similar type of statement about fair use in the book itself (citing Laura & Yale Press, of course). As we wait for a response, it would be great to learn about similar negotiations anyone else has had with publishers. -Kirsten ************************************* Kirsten A. Foot, PhD Assistant Professor, Communication Co-Director, WebArchivist.org University of Washington Box 353740 Seattle, WA 98195-3740 206-543-4837 kfoot(a)u.washington.edu

1 0

?Assessing critical reflection in an online forum discourse?
by kate.pavlidou＠netceptions.net 09 Jun '05

09 Jun '05

Hi all I am looking for some kind of rubric/taxonomy that will assess/determine levels of professionals' <Critical Reflection> to analyze discourse from an online forum. I have found a few references that focus on critical thinking etc but not on critical reflection. Any help will be much appreciated. Many thanks Kate Pavlidou, PhD Candidate aikaterini.pavlidou(a)durham.ac.uk

4 4

Re: [Air-l] Technical competence
by erickaakcire.1532473＠bloglines.com 09 Jun '05

09 Jun '05

> I have thought about this often, especially > when people post UNIX-based solutions to questions > on this list. I appreciate the unix solutions & I imagine many OSX, Linux and people with shell accounts do. It might not benefit the original person with the question all of the time, but I'm sure there are enough peple who can/do use unix based systems that it's worth posting. -Ericka

1 0

Re: [Air-l] SW to store webpages
by Dan L Burk 08 Jun '05

08 Jun '05

On 8 Jun 2005, Alex Halavais wrote: > I guess I will weigh in on the liberal collecting side here: > > COPYRIGHT > > Agreeing with Dan's post, suggesting that fair use is about as far > from clear cut as possible, it strikes me that there is potential harm > in being over-cautious on this. I guess I am living (ever so slightly) > dangerously when I make private copies of websites as part of my > research, but I also think it is necessary, fair, and just. I would > hate to see us as a community give up our rights to make use of > copyrighted material. Our research does (or at least ought to) serve > the public welfare, and we should assert our rights to use copyrighted > works appropriately. By shying away from this, I think we adversely > affect the future enforcement of copyright. This is a sentiment that I heartily endorse, and is largely the rationale behind Laura Gurak's reliance on fair use in her book "Cyberliteracy," which Kirsten Foot points out. However, I think we have to recognize that Laura was graced with a publisher who was willing to back her principled stance -- many publishers, not to mention research institutions, will tend to be more risk averse (or, if you prefer, cowardly) and do not necessarily have the interests of the research community, at least not the long term interests, in mind. Having said that, I think we also need to recognize that there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem involved; publishers and universities are more likely to back the fair use of authors and researchers if we demand that they do so. Consequently, someone has to be willing to take the initial risk of asserting fair use. I would hope that the research community would be willing to step forward and take that initial risk, but it's necessary to understand the potential downside before doing so. > ROBOTS.TXT / TOS > > There needs to be some balance here in terms of coverage. While I may > be in the minority, I don't think that it is vital that robots.txt > *always* be followed. (For practical reasons, especially with dynamic > sites, it may be a good idea, but I don't think it is an absolute.) If > my robot behaves in such a way that it is indistinguishable from a > gaggle of humans loading stuff on their browsers and saving, then I > see no reason I shouldn't be able to use a robot. > > Most robot.txt prohibitions exist because web authors are looking for > a way to shape the search engines' report of their site. They have not > predicted the use of the content by researchers. > > On the other hand, some robots (built-in IE engine mentioned above, > iirc, as well as Acrobat) seem to behave not at all like a human, > delivering a huge number of simultaneous or sequential requests, > without appropriate delays. Here, the harm (or potential harm) is much > clearer. This is a rather different kettle of fish, as the problem here arises not in the context of copyright, but under a theory of trespass to computers -- in essence, under the theory that contact with the server in some manner not countenanced by the proprietor of the server interferes with her physical property, that is, with the server itself. (It is worth noting that this claim has, so far as I can tell, yet to appear anywhere outside the U.S., although there is the potential for it to do so in the E.U. member states and of course in other common law countries.) In any event, here the fair use argument disappears, as trespass law has no such doctrine. The claim does require some type of harm, but courts have mostly been willing to recognize the unwanted contact *itself* as a harm. The robots.txt and TOS files serve as an indicator of what type of contact is agreeable to the web site owner; unwanted contact will tend to constitute "harm." Neither is the dividing line between human contact and equivalent robotic contact, as unwanted human contact may equally well consitute trespass (as an example from a recent case: an airline reservation web site TOS stating that individual customers are welcome to search the site but travel agents are not). And there is, again, the question of research ethics, quite apart from the legality. Your reasoning above is based largely on a balancing of harms, but it may be that the question is one of informed consent to the research, regardless of harm. I tend to think that this is the wrong approach, as most web site "scraping" is unlikely to implicate any individual autonomy or personal interests. However, resaonable minds could differ. Charles Ess points out that under a European, particularly Scandinavian approach, the answer may be that informed consent is necessary. Dan L. Burk Visiting Professor Cornell Law School Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 USA Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011

1 0

Re: [Air-l] SW to store webpages
by Dan L Burk 08 Jun '05

08 Jun '05

I make it a policy to agree with Kirsten as often as possible, and this instance is no exception, although I do have a couple of caveats: first, copyright in web pages really has nothing to do with the DMCA; it's just the way the U.S. copyright statute has worked since at least 1989, and is the way it works in most countries adhering to the Berne/TRIPs treaties. Second, copyright is not really an "opt out" system, and nothing under fair use is ever clear until settled by a court. Brewster Kahle made a decision early on to live dangerously, and so far the gamble has paid off, but there are no guarantees that any given researcher will be so lucky. While I tend to agree that (in the U.S.) a holding that research archiving is fair would be the right outcome, I can certainly make the argument the other way. So YMMV, caveat emptor, and all that stuff. And none of the legal analysis quite goes to the ethical question except to the extent that one believes that either law reflects morality, or the other way 'round. DLB On 8 Jun 2005, Kirsten A. Foot wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 Gail Tailor wrote: > > >I have been following this discussion and have not yet seen anyone raise a > question relating to the legality of using this approach to capture web pages > in > support of academic research, in particular those web pages that are clearly > identified as being copyrighted. Are you contacting the owner of the site to > ask > permission to create a copy of their documents for current and future use? If > not, how are you justifying using this approach to duplicating the data? Fair > use laws? > > Gail-- > Here's my $.02 in response to your questions about fair use and copyright > regarding Web pages... My understanding of the U.S. Digital Millenium > Copyright > Act is that all Web pages are copyrighted upon posting to the Web (which > means > that every instance of use of a Web browser can be argued to be illegal, > since > browsers "copy" Web pages as they display them). Clearly some interpretations > of > the DMCA are technically untenable. That said, copying Web pages (and storing > the copies) for the purpose of academic research is clearly within the U.S. > fair > use doctrine. However, the applicability of the fair use doctrine in > re-presenting copied Web pages on the Web or in print in the context of > academic > research has been interpreted in a range of ways by various U.S. > universities, > libraries, and academic publishers over the last five+ years-- resulting in a > range of protocols regarding the means (e.g. opt-in or opt-out) and timing > (e.g. > before/during collection or before/during display) of notification of site > producers. The Internet Archive (a non-proft organization) is an example of a > liberal interpretation of the DMCA: it has taken the stance that previously > produced Web resources should be preserved and available in the public > domain, > and generally operates on a post-display opt-out mechanism (see > http://web.archive.org) In each of the Web collections in which our > WebArchivist.org research group has participated, a different protocol has > been > employed in response to the nature of the colllection, and the policies of > participating institutions. I highly commend the precedent that AOIR member > Laura Gurak and Yale University Press set in Laura's book *Cyberliteracy*. A > 2-page appendix explains the U.S. fair use doctrine and the rationale > underlying > Laura's (and the Press's) decision *not* to seek permissions from site > producers > for the screenshots included in this book. > > > How are you using the data after it has been captured? Are you extracting > data > > >to support point in time studies? Longitudinal studies? > > My collaborators and I have employed Web-based data (e.g. archived Web pages) > and metadata (codes and other kinds of annotations associated with Web pages) > in > several kinds of analyses, both point-in-time and longitudinal. Some of our > publications about Web-based research are available at > http://webarchivist.org/resources.htm. You might be particularly interested > in > our presentation on the "Ethics of Web Archiving" from the 2003 Internet > Research conferece, which is also available via that page. > > > I am also using this as an opportunity to advance research practices in a > > >manner that call attention to the dynamic nature of Internet web sites and > > some of the inherrent issues in taking this approach to collecting data in > > comparison to some of the more traditional methods that might be used when > > working with paper documents. > > I share your interest in these issues, and would be happy to correspond > further > with you about this offlist. > > -Kirsten > > *************************************** > Kirsten A. Foot, PhD > Assistant Professor, Communication > Co-Director, WebArchivist.org > University of Washington > Box 353740 > Seattle, WA 98195-3740 > 206-543-4837 Dan L. Burk Visiting Professor Cornell Law School Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 USA Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011

2 1

Re: [Air-l] SW to store webpages
by Kirsten A. Foot 08 Jun '05

08 Jun '05

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 Gail Tailor wrote: >I have been following this discussion and have not yet seen anyone raise a question relating to the legality of using this approach to capture web pages in support of academic research, in particular those web pages that are clearly identified as being copyrighted. Are you contacting the owner of the site to ask permission to create a copy of their documents for current and future use? If not, how are you justifying using this approach to duplicating the data? Fair use laws? Gail-- Here's my $.02 in response to your questions about fair use and copyright regarding Web pages... My understanding of the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act is that all Web pages are copyrighted upon posting to the Web (which means that every instance of use of a Web browser can be argued to be illegal, since browsers "copy" Web pages as they display them). Clearly some interpretations of the DMCA are technically untenable. That said, copying Web pages (and storing the copies) for the purpose of academic research is clearly within the U.S. fair use doctrine. However, the applicability of the fair use doctrine in re-presenting copied Web pages on the Web or in print in the context of academic research has been interpreted in a range of ways by various U.S. universities, libraries, and academic publishers over the last five+ years-- resulting in a range of protocols regarding the means (e.g. opt-in or opt-out) and timing (e.g. before/during collection or before/during display) of notification of site producers. The Internet Archive (a non-proft organization) is an example of a liberal interpretation of the DMCA: it has taken the stance that previously produced Web resources should be preserved and available in the public domain, and generally operates on a post-display opt-out mechanism (see http://web.archive.org) In each of the Web collections in which our WebArchivist.org research group has participated, a different protocol has been employed in response to the nature of the colllection, and the policies of participating institutions. I highly commend the precedent that AOIR member Laura Gurak and Yale University Press set in Laura's book *Cyberliteracy*. A 2-page appendix explains the U.S. fair use doctrine and the rationale underlying Laura's (and the Press's) decision *not* to seek permissions from site producers for the screenshots included in this book. > How are you using the data after it has been captured? Are you extracting data > >to support point in time studies? Longitudinal studies? My collaborators and I have employed Web-based data (e.g. archived Web pages) and metadata (codes and other kinds of annotations associated with Web pages) in several kinds of analyses, both point-in-time and longitudinal. Some of our publications about Web-based research are available at http://webarchivist.org/resources.htm. You might be particularly interested in our presentation on the "Ethics of Web Archiving" from the 2003 Internet Research conferece, which is also available via that page. > I am also using this as an opportunity to advance research practices in a > >manner that call attention to the dynamic nature of Internet web sites and > some of the inherrent issues in taking this approach to collecting data in > comparison to some of the more traditional methods that might be used when > working with paper documents. I share your interest in these issues, and would be happy to correspond further with you about this offlist. -Kirsten *************************************** Kirsten A. Foot, PhD Assistant Professor, Communication Co-Director, WebArchivist.org University of Washington Box 353740 Seattle, WA 98195-3740 206-543-4837 kfoot(a)u.washington.edu

1 0