[Air-l] Re: internet research and confidentiality

Wed Dec 22 13:26:40 PST 2004

I think no one has mentioned copyrights because in the US, as I understand 
it (IANAL, but I am a citizen), anything written down is copyrighted.

So, for instance, all usenet posts... oh, international issues...

In the US, *in theory*, we have the lovely "fair use" clause which allows 
copying for scholarly use, commentary, etc.
More here: 
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

In brief...
"copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, 
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching 
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, 
is not an infringement of copyright...."

But I won't pretend to be an international law or copyright expert. I do 
suggest we all read Lessig and Litman, though.

There are of course a whole host of related issues like the DMCA that have 
kept us scholars in business (article writing) for some time.

ndp...

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Sheri Repucci wrote:

> No one has mentioned copyright laws in this debate.
>
> US copyright laws have changed in recent years and it seems
> that usenet postings now enjoy copyright protection in the US,
> with some exceptions.  From what I've read on this topic the
> public/private nature of the posting site does not affect this
> protection.
>
> -Sheri Repucci
> National Coalition of Independent Scholars
> ==========================================
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:11:30 -0600
>> From: "Mark D. Johns" <johnsmar at luther.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality
>> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041222121958.01a12008 at pop.luther.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>>
>> At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> What matters for me, is not assumptions or expectations, but the mere fact
>>> that something is obviously publicly available.
>>
>> Thomas continues to support his points with language of "I think...," "I
>> wish...," and "what matters for me." Well and good. He is entitled to his
>> opinions (some of which I happen to share). However, I hope that anyone
>> still reading this thread by now has caught my point that, despite what we
>> might think or wish for (even at Christmastime), restrictions apply with
>> which we might not agree, but by which we will nevertheless be forced to abide.
>>
>>> When I hear "blogging" I assume, it is an unprotected webblog. What leads
>>> you to the assumption that it is not? Oriana would surely have mentioned
>>> this detail, as it seems obvious to me that password-protection might lead
>>> to different considerations.
>>
>> Assumptions are what get us into trouble. My assumption was not that the
>> site was public or not, but that Oriana needed to make her own
>> determinations. To assume that everything is public unless protected in a
>> certain way that WE would consider adequate does not make it so. Again, my
>> personal opinion, or Thomas's, is rather beside the point.
>>
>>> Yes, I agree, but I still have not seen any national laws, which would
>>> relegate the typical webblog to the private sphere.
>>
>> There is not a lot of explicit legislation, for which I am very thankful.
>> I, for one, would like to keep it that way by not having some huge public
>> scandal about someone's misguided research. The track record of legislation
>> in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would not suggest that it
>> would go in our favor as researchers (see, for example, the highly
>> restrictive Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the U.S. Fortunately that
>> law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But there's
>> no guarantee, particularly in the climate of the current administration,
>> that we would be as fortunate the next time.). Legislation governing
>> research is already more restrictive in the E.U., generally, than in the U.S.
>>
>> But the absence of legislation does not mean there is no law governing
>> these issues. The body of law is expanded whenever a civil litigation is
>> settled and precedents are set. In the U.S., certainly, and elsewhere, the
>> litigious atmosphere has made institutions extremely cautious, and IRBs
>> have become far more concerned with covering the institutional backside
>> from lawsuits than in following the letter of the legislation while
>> guaranteeing academic freedom. The pressure upon, and the level of
>> apprehension within, IRBs is considerable.
>>
>> The AoIR guidelines are designed to serve three purposes: First, they help
>> us to be ethical researchers who respect the human subjects of our research
>> -- that's a given. But more, they also help us design research projects
>> that will not run afoul of these highly apprehensive IRBs. Third, they help
>> IRBs set standards for Internet research that are reasonable. However
>> restrictive some may find the AoIR guidelines to be, they have been a light
>> burden, indeed, compared to some of the (in my view) completely
>> unreasonable restrictions imposed upon many researchers by zealous IRBs who
>> have neither understood nor cared to understand the technology or the
>> nuances of what constitutes public or private, but who simply feared
>> anything they didn't fully understand might get them sued. The guidelines
>> can be used by researchers in their negotiations with IRBs to demonstrate a
>> reasonable standard that enjoys wide, international acceptance. (By the
>> way, the AoIR Ethics Committee hopes that any who have used the guidelines
>> in this way will report their experience at
>> http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/AoIR/AoIRform.htm.)
>>
>> This will be my final word on this thread for now. However, it remains
>> dangerous on many levels for us, as internet researchers, to make decisions
>> based solely on our own opinions or assumptions. We owe it to ourselves,
>> our research subjects, our institutions, and to the wider research
>> community to be deliberate and careful about our methods and the reporting
>> of our findings. This does not mean that we will all reach the same
>> conclusions. It certainly does not mean that I, or AoIR, or anyone else,
>> can dictate to Thomas or to Oriana how they must proceed. What it means is
>> that none of us will be quick jump in and decide, without careful
>> deliberation and negotiation, what is permitted and what is restricted in
>> any given situation.
>>
>> ------
>> Mark D. Johns, Ph.D.
>> Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics,
>> Luther College, Decorah, Iowa
>> http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> "Get the facts first. You can distort them later."
>>      ---Mark Twain
>>
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-l-aoir.org at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://aoir.org/airjoin.html
>
>
>