Workshop, Code, and HC Readings

I thought the workshop reading was doubly relevant. It provides an example of the rationale and consideration behind creating a particular workshop, each of which may not have been particularly surprising, but which I'm sure takes practice to master. It's also important in that it talked about creating "library assignments" specifically, something I'm sure many of us we'll be tasked with, especially if we work at school or academic libraries. I remember my "library assignments" and I believe they were always scavenger hunts, and I agree that scavenger hunts are NOT a very good way to become a very good library user, or at least to become "information literate." The over-specific facts in scavenger hunts do not very well reflect the sort of research one tends to need a library for (i.e. not for fact checking) and crucially lack the "relevancy judgment" skills that really are important. It's one thing for a user to be able to guess some librarian's favorite reference book for some tidbit, but its more important to be able to judge and locate sources that are relevant to a topic. This is what libraries and librarians aim to facilitate. So unsurprisingly, out of the things to watch out for, I especially liked the need to find a happy medium between over-specified vs. under-specified challenges or assignments, important both as a library worker teaching people how to use a library, and an educator in general. I don't want to overstate myself, a scavenger hunt could still be OK for making sure users can search a catalog for a title they already know, but I don't think they're ideal for more than the basics.

To transition to the HC readings, the item on the ALA code of conduct I found relevant to this situation was IV: to advocate balance between interests of information users and rights holders. This is a fair, worthy goal and I am all for it. However I wonder if we are finally in a world where we can no longer do this alone, at least not directly, in the case of situations like the battle of HC. I am very much loathe to go to the "shouldn't the GOVERNMENT do that?" excuse that public librarians often seem to evoke, especially when it comes to providing services like computer access. But when it comes down to a case like this, legislators really are the ones who can ultimately truly "balance" the interests of rights holders and info users, and its only massive public pressure (not just library pressure) that can bring that about. So libraries' job, to me, is not to directly get publishers to be fair to library users by boycotting or complaining to them, through their own private channels. It's to help the public to realize the issues, so that they can pressure legislators to create a fair playing field, if they are inclined to.

So, as I'm always more interested in hearing about ideas regarding what to do rather than what's wrong, the first HC link I followed was the boycottharpercollins website. I find the phrase that content "self-destructs" after 26 uses to be funny.
It's actually used in the CBC report on the subject as well. I'm pretty sure the files actually just go inert. Well, "explosive" language being used anyway. The website to me was once again harmless enough to me, and a bit misdirected. Yes libraries should be vocal with publishers regarding their and their users' interests. No, I don't think HC is lacking in letters, as the website basically asks one to send, and even has a template set up for a librarian, not a user. Instead, I think libraries need to be sending open letters to their users, as it's the public that must be behind any major political or legal shifts that are going to result in real, lasting change. Again, I hope we don't let that number "26" distract us too much. The practice of limiting downloads per copy at all is a legitimate issue--arguing about the number of times allowed concedes the issue.

Speaking of the CBC, and the other major reports for that matter, I think these do just as much for our cause as raising an in-industry outcry to HC, in that they get the word out to the public. That being said, the CBC report at least really didn't get into the issue in a way that made it seem urgent.

Finally I read the Potash Overdrive letter to see what actions they were taking, and found it to be more or less a mea culpa as to be expected. Putting the HC material (actually "26 check-out limit material") in a separate catalog is a nice gesture, and helps libraries not buy such material ever-so-slightly I guess. It's an act of neutrality, and probably not quite worth the rather positive comments it seems to have generated. I admit I don't know quite enough about them and their owning interests to expect or not expect them to do anything but appease as many parties as possible.