11/30/2011 From INFOdocket comes this brief article on copyright:
Preprint: Copyright Policy and Practice in Electronic Reserves Among ARL Libraries
Posted on November 30, 2011 by Gary D. Price
David R. Hansen (U. of North Carolina)
William. M. Cross (North Carolina State U.)
Phillip M. Edwards (Virginia Commonwealth U.)
Preprint Accepted: November 9, 2011
Scheduled for Publication: November 2012
This paper presents the results of a survey of 110 ARL institutions regarding their copyright policies for providing electronic reserves. It compiles descriptive statistics on library practice as well as coding responses to reveal trends and shared practices. Finally, it presents conclusions about policy-making, decision-making and risk aversion in ARL institutions.
Direct to Full Text Preprint
This version of the preprint does not include tables
11/13/2011 From comes this article on Wikipedia via Turnitin. No surprises here.
Cheating & Plagiarism | Research
Wikipedia Tops List of Plagiarized Sources
- By David Nagel
Where are students finding the materials they plagiarize in their papers? According to a new study, WIkipedia tops the list for both secondary and college students. But as a category, encyclopedia sites are among the least popular sources, coming in behind four other types of information outlets, including both academic sites and paper mills.
The study, Plagiarism and the Web: A Comparison of Internet Sources for Secondary and Higher Education Students, analyzed more than 33.5 million papers–about 9 million from secondary students and 24 million for post-secondary students–submitted to the Turnitin service from iParadigms over a one-year period (June 2010 to June 2011). In those papers, iParadigms’ researchers found 128 million “content matches” from a wide variety of Web sources.
Top Individual Sources Plagiarized by Students
Among papers from secondary students, Wikipedia was used in 7.99 percent of the cases of matched text, just beating out Yahoo Answers, which came in at 7.55 percent. The remainder of the top five individual sources for plagiarism among secondary students included Answers.com (3.37 percent), eNotes (2.9 percent), and Slideshare (2.38 percent).
Among papers submitted by students in higher education, Wikipedia was by far the most plagiarized individual site, at 10.74 percent. Yahoo Answers was a distant second at 3.9 percent. Slideshare came in a close third at 3.87 percent, Answers.com at 3.57 percent, and Appapers.com at 3.11 percent.
Top Categories for Plagiarism
But surprisingly, encyclopedia sites were not at the top of the list of broader categories for plagiarized material. According to the report, the bulk of “matched content” in papers came from social and content sharing sites–31 percent in secondary education, 26 percent in higher education. Sites in this category included Facebook, Yahoo Answers, Answers.com, SlideShare, and others.
“By a margin of 5 percent, secondary students rely more on social and content sharing sites,” according to the report. “The most obvious conclusion to draw is that younger students do not have as sound an understanding of what constitutes a proper source for written work. Instead, they are sourcing material from familiar sites.”
Homework and academic sites came in second, at 23 percent among secondary students and 22 percent among students in higher education. Researchers described this category of sites as “academic, educational, and homework help sites that offer legitimate educational content. Sites such as nih.gov, medlibrary.org, coursehero.com, and bookrags.com are included in this category.”
Cheat sites and paper mills made up the third most popular category for plagiarists, according to the report. These were more popular among students in higher education, at 20 percent, than secondary students, at 14 percent.
Traditional online publications (magazine and news sites) came in fourth at 12 percent among secondary students and 17 percent among higher education students.
And encyclopedias (including Wikipedia, Britannica, and Encyclopedia.com) rounded out the top five at 11 percent in secondary education and 12 percent in post-secondary education.
Other sources included shopping and review sites, accounting for 9 percent of content matches among papers from secondary students and 3 percent from college students.
A Call to Action
The report offered three suggestions to help curtail plagiarism, including:
- Designing writing assignments that focus on personal experience or current events and that are submitted in stages;
- Instructing students in proper citation; and
- Using plagiarism detection in a formative manner to allow students to see where their references are improperly cited and to make those corrections before the final paper is submitted.
The complete 2011 Plagiarism and the Web report is freely available as a PDF via Turnitin.com.
About the Author
David Nagel is the executive producer for 1105 Media’s online K-12 and higher education publications and electronic newsletters. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. He can now be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/THEJournalDave (K-12) or http://twitter.com/CampusTechDave (higher education).
Eriq Gardner filed this report on the Supreme Court addressing the issues of Copyright and Public Domain
Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Whether To Restore Many Copyrighted Works To Public Domain
The United States Supreme Court today considered arguments in Golan v. Holder, one of the most important copyright cases in the country’s history and a case that will decide whether millions of creative works, including early-to-mid 20th century foreign masterpieces from H.G. Wells, Fritz Lang, Frederico Fellini, and Igor Stravinsky, will be copyrighted or in the public domain.
The issue presented in the case is whether the U.S. government wrongfully took many foreign works out of the public domain and violated the free speech rights of the American public by joining an international treaty.
The named plaintiff in the case is an orchestral conductor named Lawrence Golan, who wished to create a derivative work based on compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich, but found himself out of luck after the U.S. led a new international treaty signed in Uruguay in 1994 that harmonized many intellectual property laws around the globe.
The moves established copyright protection in the U.S. for some foreign authors who either never enjoyed it or whose initial copyright term had elapsed without renewal, which upset many educators, performers, publishers, film archivists, and some motion picture distributors, who joined with Golan in fighting the removal of important works from the public domain.
At the hearing today, Anthony Falzone of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society represented the petitioners and argued that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) violated the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Copyright Clause (“to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…”) and the First Amendment.
“The progress of science corresponds roughly to the creation and spread of knowledge and learning,” said Falzone today. “A statute that does nothing, like this one, does nothing but take old works out of the public domain without any impact or prospective incentives, cannot stimulate the creation of anything…All it can do is restrict the spread of things.”
Advocates for the other side argue that Congress was perfectly within its right to ratify the treaty, and many interested parties including large Hollywood companies and trade associations believe that the URAA went a long way to bolstering copyright protection around the world.
At the hearing today, representing the side of the respondents, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verilli told the justices, ”The policy-making branches of our government decided we needed to be, and was in the national interest, to be part of the international copyright system.”
Verilli argued the treaty was merely intended to “rectify a problem” for foreign authors — not establish perpetual copyright terms or make new protection on terms that had run its course.
But Verilli encountered deep skepticism from several justices who questioned whether extending copyright protection backwards offered real incentives for artists to create.
Talking about foreign authors who come to the United States to market works already created, Justice Scalia mused, “It makes more money for the guy who wrote it, but doesn’t incentivize anybody.”
Justice Roberts also admitted that he found the petitioner’s arguments to be appealing on an “intuitive level.”
“One day I can perform Shostakovich,” he said. “Congress does something, the next day I can’t. Doesn’t that present a serious First Amendment problem?”
Verilli answered that it wasn’t so simple, and that Congress had made changes to the copyright system before that may have interfered with speech once freely enjoyed.
For his part, Falzone also was peppered with tough questions, particularly from Justice Ginsburg, who seemed to accept the viewpoint that the treaty was meant to rectify a problem. The justice wondered whether the copyright term ever really began for foreign authors and questioned why they shouldn’t receive the same protections that American authors get.
Justice Ginsburg asked: “We are talking about Shostakovich, Stravinski, and I say: Well, what’s wrong with giving them the same time that Aaron Copland got?”
During the hearing, Falzone warned that if the Supreme Court upholds the treaty, it could potentially open the door to more actions from Congress.
All Congress would need to do to move Alexis de Tocquieville’s 19th century books out of the public domain, he argued as an example, would be to extend existing copyright terms 100 years and apply it retroactively.
Falzone warned about the consequences of such an event. “Then you never know if you’ve reached the limit or not,” he told the justices.
More analysis coming soon…E-mail: email@example.com Twitter: @eriqgardner
09/19/2011 In a survey of plagiarism software done in Germany yields the following results:
Test Overview 2010
Here is the ranking list of the test 2010th The numbers are in percent of possible points.
All TF = all TestCases
TestCases TF = 10-40, those without trackable by Google
TF 31-40 = english test cases
for the Usability = ease workflow in a university
Professionalism = How is the professional company, who is behind the software?
|Systems||All TF||TF 10-40||TF 31-40||User friendliness||Professionalism||Rank|
|Blackboard / SafeAssign||60.83||55.56||53.33||43.33||86.67||9|
|The Plagiarism Checker Free||56.67||47.78||50||65||53.33||13|
|The Plagiarism Checker Premium||55.83||47.78||50||65||53.33||14|
From the same site:
This site has been established to collect information on the topic of plagiarism. Look around times, and if you find something that is missing – please let us!
What exactly is plagiarism? The appropriation of another body of thought? Verbatim copying word? Structure of the acquisition?
A humorous definition for Wilson Mizner:
Write a book = plagiarism,
write two books = essay;
= compilation of three,
four = dissertation.
Today one might add: from Wikipedia = housework.
Joseph Gibaldi, MLA (Modern Language Association) Style Manual : “Plagiarism includes the omission of appropriate source references in the use of phrases or specific wording of another, the summary of the arguments of others, or the representation of thought of another one.” [via . DWW]
Gerhard Fröhlich : “Under the unauthorized acquisition of plagiarism foreign intellectual heritage, the ‘theft’ of intellectual property is understood.” [from echt_falsch]
Paul English : “Plagiarism is therefore the operated out of free resolution of an author or artist, removal of a not inconsiderable thought content of another for his work with the intention of blurring those forced loan after their origin by appropriate transformation and the appearance of his own creation so that the reader or viewer to awaken. “[ from Master of plagiarism, or The Art of Abschriftstellerei. ]
09/06/2011 From a colleague of mind came this essay from “Kate Brown” on students view of plagiarism. Very enlightening.
09/02/11 6:33 PM On time, when discussing plagiarism, citations, etc. with my students, they opened my eyes as to their sense of the whole thing. I was going on, as I always had, about avoiding plagiarism, and was recommending much the same strategies that Lee proposed. A hand went up and a young woman with a very puzzled look on her face asked, ?Are you suggesting that citing things and quoting things is good? Like, if we say we got this idea from someone else it?s a good thing? I always thought that if you told that you got the idea from somebody else, you were like saying you were too stupid to think of it yourself!? I stopped dead in my tracks. What? That perhaps students saw plagiarism and citations entirely bass-ackwards had never occurred to me! Could it be possible? Had they had so little experience with the ways of academia and research (yes) that they really saw plagiarism as admitting weakness and/or being embarrassingly dumb about something instead of seeing it as a way of reflecting their developing academic ability to consult research and incorporate it into their own learning? I have talked to quite a few students about this over time, and while many understand plagiarism and the value of citing the work of others quite well, many, many more than I ever would have expected see the issue as an admission of weakness ? and so go on plagiarizing, not realizing that their readers are probably already familiar with the work(s) they are plagiarizing and what a boost they could have gotten in their reader?s eyes had they only cited the work(s) in the first place. Kate Brown firstname.lastname@example.org
Trevor C. Clarke (left) and Winston Tabb at an IFLA session on copyright.
Copyright was created to protect the rights of literary and creative artists, said Trevor C. Clarke of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Librarians have now challenged WIPO to protect libraries’ rights, he said, noting that WIPO has also moved to secure its own position in a rapidly changing information world. Speaking on Monday at the second plenary session of IFLA’s 77th World Library and Information Congress in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Clarke spent a sizeable chunk of time talking about what librarians must do to secure their positions. Much of it has to do with achieving a balance, he said.
Winston Tabb, chair of the IFLACommittee on Copyright and Other Legal Matters, introduced Clarke and moderated the panel discussion that followed.WIPO, Clarke told the audience, has established nine goals to align its resources with its objectives and serve its member nations better. Clarke referred early on to IFLA’s efforts, particularly the Statement of Principles, an IFLA document shared with WIPOin May 2009, in which the library community asserts that exceptions to copyright law should be viewed as public rights, balancing the private rights that copyright law seems to favor. “I do believe that exceptions and limitations provide an appropriate avenue through which a balance might be found,” Clarke asserted, adding that the use of limitations by developing countries is understandable but the importance of copyright law to developing countries should not be dismissed. It is a matter of “finding the right balance.” “The growth of information is spiraling,” said Clarke, “creating ever more contentious debates about who owns information and the conditions under which it can be used.” Copyright law is at times complex, confusing, and unfair. When it becomes a question of commercial versus public interest, the fact that libraries share information without charge with the public may be the most contentious issue. WIPO is indeed a policy-setting organization, Clarke asserted, but policies are set by member states and do not necessarily reflect the views of all of them. He gave three examples: 32 of 61 do not plan to modify their laws, only 10 have expressed their views on what limitations would be necessary in national legislation, and 29 of 61 are not aware of any impediments to the use of limitations and exceptions related to library use and archives. “My advice to you,” he said, “is that you have to deal with the governments.” “IFLA has drafted its own statement of exceptions and limitations,” Clarke said, “and I applaud you for that.” But he cautioned that “for librarians the road ahead will be difficult.” He agreed with assertions that copyright legislation is too complicated, suggesting that librarians continue to create opportunities for learning about copyright. “If everyone is feeling equally unhappy then you know you have found the right balance,” Clarke concluded. “I know libraries are unhappy. This matter of extending exceptions and limitations is a very difficult one, not unlike balancing the U.S.budget.” In the matter of commercial exploitation versus access to knowledge, progress can be made only through information sharing and compromise, commercial interest and human interest. “Without people there would be no need for commerce,” so there must be a “balance between commercial interests and the welfare of people everywhere.”
Another great contribution by the Krafty Librarian in a discussion of fair use
What is Fair Use
Posted by KraftyLibrarian – August 4, 2011 at 11:05 am
The MidContinental blog referred to a good post on the Myths About Fair Use, on Inside Higher Ed. Patricia Aufderheide specifically mentions academics and their misconceptions of fair use, as a medical librarian I see some of the same misconceptions with the doctors we serve as well.
Patricia breaks it into 7 myths (or as I would say 7 deadly sins) of fair use. She discusses using resources for class, whether the use is transformative, non commercial/commercial issues, and more.
It is a tricky topic and even reading through Patricia’s article can be a little confusing. Personally, I wish she used more examples to further explain her points because when she writes;
“In practice, since 1990 judges have boiled those concerns down to two: Is your use transformative? (In other words, did you add real value and did you employ this material for a different purpose from the one that the owner created it for?) Is the amount appropriate to satisfy that new purpose? If the answer to these questions is yes, the market effect concern takes a back seat. And judges look closely at community practice. That’s why codes of best practices in fair usehave been so valuable in establish what is acceptable and normal to do in any professional community.”
I have to re-read it a few times and then I am not quite sure what exactly she means and how it applies to me or the doctors I serve. Fair use can be tricky and confusing to people, and often when it is discussed or people write about it they tend to slip into their legal voices. Hey doctors do it too, they often speak in medical terms to a patient and sometimes don’t realize the very intelligent patient has no earthly clue as to what they are saying. If you want academics, doctors, librarians, and everyone else to understand fair use, then take a page out of health literacy advocates book. Highly educated and literate academics and doctors have difficulty understanding the legal nuances of fair use. Something like a “fair use for dummies” article or site would be the most helpful in educating academics and others to basic ins and outs of fair use.
I did a quick search online and found The Copyright Site had a very basic flow chart on fair use. The Copyright Site originated from a class at the University of Alabama where Dr. Vivian Wright saw a need for copyright information for educators.
You’ve heard the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words,” well if you are looking for something like that for the subject of fair use you might be interested in reading the comic book, Bound by Lawcreated by Duke Law School Center for the Study of the Public Domain. It appears to be centered more around artists and film making but it really applies to anybody wanting to use images or icons for their work.
If you are in for a little fairy tale fun with Disney films to learn about copyright and fair use, you might want to check out Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University video that reviews copyright principles through the words of the Disney characters. The video can be found herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo It is cute but a little disjointed at times.
Copyright and fair use are tricky little devils, perhaps you have good sites that plainly explain fair use, if so please share them.
This post is provided by ALA’s Inside Scoop blog. It is an important issue to libraries concerning an individuals right to privacy in the library. I think it speaks for itself.
Transparency and Ethics in the Wake of WikiLeaks
Blanton told the audience at “When It Leaks It Pours: WikiLeaks, National Declassification System, and Access to Government Information” that while Assange expected a warm reception, “the journalists almost unanimously turned on him” regarding the release. The reason was one of approach. Blanton said that while journalists consider openness an informed struggle over time, Assange took the anarchists’ approach of posting everything to let it collapse the system. “Contrary to the Anarchist Manifesto, there are some secrets that should be maintained” because they can kill people—such as Afghans who are working with the U.S. to identify members of the Taliban. “I think it’s not an accident that within four weeks [WikiLeaks was] in discussions with The Guardian about how to release” future materials. Now, they are “coming out slowly, and even, I would argue, responsibly.” When the New York Times published cables from WikiLeaks, they got pushback from the government in three categories, Blanton said. First were instances where individuals cited might be put at risk, and the paper cut almost all of those. Second were passages about intelligence-gathering programs that weren’t yet public. TheTimes cut many but not all of those, arguing that some were obvious and others had already been exposed. Blanton said that the government pushed hardest when it felt that the leak might damage a relationship with another country, but “the New York Times didn’t cut any of them.” He argued that it was right not to, because national security interests should not include suppressing information simply because an ally’s official may find secrets embarrassing. The situation is not entirely rosy, of course. A negative consequence of WikiLeaks is the backlash from the government establishment, which has manifested itself in slower responses to FOIA requests and more lawsuits based on them. It also caused what Blanton called “the best whistleblower protection to ever pass Congress” to fail when a few house Republicans pulled their support, and, even more seriously, the undermining of reforms created after 9/11 to encourage information sharing among the government’s classified entities. And ultimately, Blanton said, the current national security system has misplaced priorities, with “low fences around vast prairies, when what we need are high, electrified fences around tiny graveyards of information” that are truly critical to national security.
From the The Centered Librarian
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011 Nina Paley’s Attribution Song – the difference between copying and plagiarism
LYRICS: Always give credit where credit is due if you didn’t write it, don’t say it’s by you just copy the credit along with the work or else you’ll come off as an arrogant jerk Always give credit where credit belongs we know that you didn’t write Beethoven’s songs pretending you did makes you look like a fool unless you’re Beethoven – in that case, it’s coolA transparent system makes cheating unwise the simplest web search exposes your lies no one wants their reputation besmirched which happens to liars when they are web-searched Proper citation will make you a star it shows that you know that we know who you are Plagiarization will only harm you so always give credit where credit is due!From Ms. Paley’s essay:
Attribution is a way to help your neighbor. You share not only the work, but information about the work that helps them pursue their own research and maybe find more works to enjoy. How much one is expected to help their neighbor is determined by (often unspoken) community standards. People who don’t help their neighbors tend to be disliked. And those who go out of their way to deceive and defraud their neighbors – i.e. plagiarists – are hated and shunned. Plagiarism doesn’t affect works – works don’t have feelings, and what is done to one copy has no effect on other copies. Plagiarism affects communities, and it is consideration for such that determines where attribution is appropriate. At least that’s the best I can come up with right now. Attribution is actually a very complicated concept; if you have more ideas about it, please share. http://bit.ly/mDHNRK
More on Copyright from the Chronicle of Higher Education
May 29, 2011
The Copyright Rebellion
New lawsuits and policies have hobbled teaching and research. Now scholars are pushing back.
The digital age was supposed to put information at our fingertips. Books and data and images on an Internet browser would be just a click away.
The Chronicle does it again. Here are the facts about copyright and additional sources
May 29, 2011
What You Don’t Know About Copyright, but Should
Nancy Sims handles copyright issues at the U. of Minnesota Libraries. “A lot of people don’t realize that they themselves are copyright owners,” she says.
If Nancy Sims had to pick one word to describe how researchers, students, and librarians feel about copyright, it would probably be “confused.” A lawyer and a librarian, Ms. Sims is copyright-program librarian at the University of Minnesota Libraries. She’s there to help people on campus and beyond—both users and owners of protected material—understand their rights. “I’m not sure anybody has a very good knowledge” of copyright, she says. For instance, in a recent informal survey she conducted at the university, only 30 percent or so of the faculty respondents knew the answers to basic questions such as how one gets a copyright and how long it lasts. (Librarians did somewhat better.) For the multitudes out there who are copyright-confused, here are some pointers Ms. Sims shared with The Chronicle. If you think you don’t own any copyrights, think again. “The one thing that I wish more people asked me questions about is their own copyright ownership.” Ms. Sims says.
- At the rights sessions she holds for small groups of faculty members, she asks them if they own any copyrights. “I often get more than half the group thinking they don’t, which is a fundamental misconception about how copyright law works,” she says. “A lot of people don’t realize that they themselves are copyright owners.”
- Copyright automatically applies to book manuscripts, articles, blog posts, artwork—almost any copyrightable object that people create. That’s been the law since the 1976 Copyright Act took effect. “If you draw a picture on a scrap of paper, you actually own a copyright in that picture”—no paperwork required, Ms. Sims says.
- Know your rights when you sign contracts with publishers or others to distribute your work. Who owns a copyright can affect how a work is presented. For instance, an author signs a contract with a scholarly publisher, expecting the book to be published in print; then the publisher decides to issue it as an e-book instead. “And the faculty member, having reasonably expected it was going to be a print book, thinks that they can complain about this,” Ms. Sims says.
- Many publication contracts sign the copyright over to the publisher—which leaves an author with little or no say over how his or her book is published. So an author should know, before signing a publication contract, what rights are at stake. “Know your rights and know how your negotiations about your rights are actually affecting your goals as a scholar,” she says.
- Fair use is complicated—but you can also call on the principle of “classroom use.” Ask Ms. Sims for a quick working definition of fair use—when it’s OK to use copyrighted material without permission—and she just chuckles. “There is no such thing as a quick working definition of fair use,” she says. The shorthand she sometimes uses is that fair use “is the breathing space for freedom of expression within copyright law.”
What many faculty members don’t realize, she explains, is that “fair use is not the only kind of noninfringing use” available to them. “The really important exemption that I talk to people about is the one called the classroom-use exemption.” An instructor teaching students face-to-face in a nonprofit educational setting has a good deal of leeway to show them a lot of copyrighted material. For instance, “you can play a whole movie in class if you fit in the exemption category,” Ms. Sims says. “And none of this is fair use.”
- Don’t be ruled by fear. “Because lots of academic types of fair use are not very well settled in the law, there’s room for lawsuits, unfortunately, or at least for complaints,” Ms. Sims says. Nobody wants to get sued. She urges people—and the institutions they work for—to shift the focus from “Will I get sued if I use this?” to “What is it we want to do, and then how can we do that within copyright law?”
People need to comply with the law, she says, but they should focus first on their research and teaching missions. “A risk-oriented, compliance-oriented mind-set is one of the things that makes fair use smaller and helps us not innovate around copyright law in other ways,” Ms. Sims says. She points to the open-courseware movement as an example of the kind of copyright innovation she’d like to see more of.
- Ask for help. And make a difference. “You don’t actually have to do this all alone,” Ms. Sims says. “Try to develop your own personal knowledge, but also try to make connections with people who have more.” If the campus library doesn’t have an in-house copyright specialist—although it’s increasingly likely to—the general counsel’s office may be able to answer questions and offer guidance. Many libraries and other groups have created online guides on copyright, sample contracts, and other useful resources. (See box, above.)
“If you feel like it’s all on you and it’s really scary and you just want to do the thing that will put you at least legal risk, you don’t have much room to shape anything,” Ms. Sims says. Instead, learn about copyright, ask questions, tap into other people’s expertise, and help move copyright law and policies in a research-friendly direction. “We do have some room to really develop copyright,” she says, “so that the copyright that affects our academic lives reflects our academic values.”
Copyright and Fair-Use Guides on the Web
A selection of free online advice for academics Best Practices, from the American University Center for Social Media Copyright and Fair Use, from the Stanford University Libraries Copyrights and Wrongs, from the American Association of University Professors The Copyright Crash Course, from the University of Texas at Austin Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, from Cornell University A Map of Use Issues, from the University of Minnesota Public Domain Slider, Section 108 Spinner, and Fair Use Evaluator, from the American Library Association Tales From the Public Domain: Bound By Law? A comic book from public domain scholars at the Duke University Law School Compiled Ben Wieder http://chronicle.com/article/What-You-Dont-Know-About/127706/
In yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education there is more commentary by a number of national educators on the Georgia State Copyright Case and its implications:
What’s at Stake in the Georgia State Copyright Case
A closely watched trial in federal court in Atlanta, Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., is pitting faculty, libraries, and publishers against one another in a case that could clarify the nature of copyright and define the meaning of fair use in the digital age. Under copyright law, the doctrine of fair use allows some reproduction of copyrighted material, with a classroom exemption permitting an unspecified amount to be reproduced for educational purposes. At issue before the court is the practice of putting class readings on electronic reserve (and, by extension, on faculty Web sites). Cambridge, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications, with support from the Association of American Publishers and the Copyright Clearance Center, are suing four administrators at Georgia State University. But the publishers more broadly allege that the university (which, under “state sovereign immunity,” cannot be prosecuted in federal court) has enabled its staff and students to claim what amounts to a blanket exemption to copyright law through an overly lenient definition of the classroom exemption. The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction to stop university personnel from making material available on e-reserve without paying licensing fees. A decision is expected in several weeks. The Chronicle asked experts in scholarly communications what the case may mean for the future: Kevin L. Smith Director of scholarly communications, Duke University The stakes in this case ought, in my opinion, to be considered from two slightly different perspectives. First, from the perspective of teaching faculty, the potential consequences depend very much on the ultimate decision in the case. If Georgia State prevails, and even if it loses and the injunction the judge issues is narrowly tailored to address those places, if any, where it deviates from accepted practice, then little will really change. Most colleges have reasonable fair-use policies and practices, which could easily survive a carefully written judgment against Georgia State. But if the publishers who brought the case succeed in getting something close to the proposed injunction they have requested, there will be catastrophic consequences. Either higher education will get much more expensive, or options for exposing students to diverse materials will become extremely limited. The other important perspective that the case will probably affect, regardless of the final outcome, is that of the scholarly author. For a great many years, scholars have given the works they produce to academic publishers, without remuneration, in the belief that the scholarly-communication system was mutually beneficial. Authors receive benefits for their work from their universities and participate in a system in which all the financial gain is reaped by publishers, because the authors assume that all parties are working for the advancement of scholarship and education. As it becomes clear that the three publishers who have initiated the lawsuit in search of higher profits are willing to attack the very heart of the system by which scholars live, academic authors will rightly feel betrayed. The plaintiffs are, after all, asking the judge to fundamentally change the copyright rules for higher education. If the rules in the proposed injunction were widely accepted, fair use in this field of endeavor, supposedly favored, would actually be more restricted than in any other activity. Yet the works at issue in the lawsuit are mostly written by scholars for the use of other scholars and students. If those uses become impossible or exponentially more expensive, which today is the same thing, academic authors will need to reconsider whether they are receiving sufficient benefits for the free labor they contribute to scholarly publishing. The open digital environment already offers substantial advantages to scholars who are seeking greater reach and impact for their work. As the benefits of traditional publication decline because of some publishers’ fearful attack on fair use, the benefits of open access will loom larger. Universities, too, are likely to discover that the status quo is unsustainable and move more quickly to adapt promotion-and-tenure processes to the new reality of direct online publication. So the real impact of the Georgia State lawsuit, regardless of which side prevails, may be to hasten the open-access revolution in scholarship. Peter J. Givler Executive director, Association of American University PressesThe basic issue is simple: whether or not an academic institution, Georgia State University, should be permitted to create digital course packs consisting of excerpts from copyrighted works and to make those course packs available to students without permission from or payment to copyright holders. A few key points to consider about this case:
- Despite the fact that the academic presses involved in the suit are, by university-press standards, large, it is perhaps the smaller university presses that have the most to lose in a world where digital course packs, provided gratis and without compensation to authors or publishers, replace book sales and permissions income. As the director of just such a press points out in the most recent issue of Against the Grain, which offers news about the publishing world, it is not textbooks, per se, on which university presses rely, but rather colleges’ adoptions of a relatively few original research monographs that finance the investment and risk inherent in publishing new and unproven books. And it is precisely those works around which much of the Georgia State suit revolves, as it is significant portions of those works that the university appears to be distributing digitally at no charge.
- This case involves a single university that has steadfastly refused to engage in any meaningful way with publishers about their concerns over copyright and digital course packs. It is not symptomatic of a broader conflict between libraries and academic publishers, nor does the remedial action requested by the publishers indicate a desire for a broad clampdown on genuine fair use. It is a case focused on claims of repeated misuse of copyrighted material by one university, Georgia State.
- Whereas course packs in print are typically created by campus copy shops, digital course packs are sensibly the domain of academic libraries. But these libraries shouldn’t be asked to bear the costs of these course packs. A course pack serves exactly the same purpose as a textbook, and, similarly, students are its consumers. Libraries might consider whether to charge students for this increasingly important and central service. As custom-textbook publishing grows by leaps and bounds (and what is a course pack—in digital or print form—if not a custom textbook?), and as the mandates of libraries and presses increasingly overlap, perhaps the provision of digital course packs could provide libraries with a valuable and relatively straightforward means of supplementing their increasingly strapped budgets.
Siva Vaidhyanathan Professor of media studies and law, University of Virginia Congress in 1976, in a rare bolt of wisdom, specifically exempted “multiple copies for classroom use” from copyright infringement. That’s right. Congress did not exempt “portions of copies for classroom use.” It did not exempt “one-time, minimal numbers of copies for classroom use.” It did not exempt “1,000 words for classroom use.” It exempted “multiple copies for classroom use.” Today 1976 seems like ancient times. Oddly, some publishers now want us to use obsolete fair-use guidelines that they drew up then, in coalition with librarians and university representatives, that were never meant to be maximum standards, only suggestions to interpret the law. The guidelines themselves demanded flexibility. And fair use itself is legislated to be flexible, exercised on a case-by-case basis. The publishers have asked a federal court hearing a major academic copyright case to issue an injunction requiring professors to adhere to those standards as absolute limits. Professors would be allowed to distribute just 1,000 words of a document without payment or permission. Under such an injunction, fair use becomes a joke, the explicit intent of Congress would be rendered irrelevant, and thousands of years of academic practice would be voided. If the publishers prevail, I would fear for my job. I wouldn’t fear that I would lose my job. I would fear that I could not do my job. Soon after such an injunction, my university would issue a memo instructing us how to adhere to the severe restrictions that the court would have put on teaching. Fear that would shoot through university counsels’ offices would generate a panic not seen since the Red Scare. Every professor, adjunct, and graduate student would be a potential source of a major lawsuit. Universities would deputize librarians as copyright cops in an effort to monitor and report everything we did in class. We would spend hundreds of hours each September in huge meetings with lawyers, trying to figure out how to comply with the ridiculous and unrealistic limitations that the court would have put, as stipulated in the injunction being requested (1,000 words!), on Georgia State. Most of us would probably just figure out a way around the restrictions. Instead of using legitimate means of distributing content, like e-reserves, we might just make our own PDF’s of chapters and articles and attach them to e-mails to students. Or we might suggest that students, not being employees of the university, could make the copies and accomplish the distribution themselves. In 2005, The Harvard Crimson reported, the cost of Robert Putnam’s course packet for Government 90qa, Community in America, was $464.50. If his students did not pool their money and purchase a single copy of the course packet, I would guess, they were not smart enough to get into Harvard in the first place. Since the previous landmark copyright suit over classroom copying and course packets, Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corporation, in 1991, copy shops have been required to submit article requests to the new Copyright Clearance Center (set up in 1978 at the suggestion of Congress and, conveniently, a key backer of the publishers’ lawsuit against Georgia State). Clearances now take weeks or months, and course packets can cost hundreds of dollars. Once libraries subscribed to electronic-journal articles and we all got copiers and scanners that easily make PDF’s, we found no-cost ways to do our jobs. Even if we are too dumb or risk-averse to figure out how to avoid restrictions, our students aren’t. How did this absurd situation arise? It’s a familiar story of the steady infiltration of market fundamentalism into academe over the past 30 years. Almost every act of teaching and research requires copying. Universities were invented to copy. European universities emerged in the 11th century from the network of monasteries that dotted the continent and ringed the Mediterranean. These monasteries had a core mission to preserve knowledge by copying books and manuscripts as many times as possible, ensuring preservation through redundancy. That tradition lasted well into the late 20th century, at which point universities suddenly became more than vehicles for the creation, preservation, and distribution of knowledge. They became markets. University presses used to be agents of the university, and were similarly insulated from the illogic of the marketplace. But again, for the past 30 years we have seen presses thrown into a commercial relationship with the very academy they both depend on and exploit. It’s a sad situation. But it has roots in the same general economic predicament that has devalued and degraded so much that is public and publicly minded. David E. Shulenburger Senior fellow, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and former executive vice chancellor and provost at the University of Kansas The publishers’ lawsuit against Georgia State is part of an undeclared war on academic fair use, and scholars should take note. This stunning money grab should serve as a wake-up call to academics; it shows that our core interest—the widest possible access to information, especially in the classroom—is in direct conflict with the interests of some of the publishers to whom we have entrusted our scholarship. Worse, the publishers claim to speak for our interests when they attack our institutions. It is past time to declare our independence by embracing new models for academic publishing. In their arguments to the court, the publishers suggest that unless universities divert more and more of their scarce resources to licensing fees, academic writers will stop writing and scholarship will cease to exist. Indeed, by the publishers’ reasoning, any use that does not involve a payment to the publishers poses a threat to scholarship. Fair use, it seems, is inherently the enemy of academic authors. That absurd view ignores the real incentives for scholarly writing. While the copyright system supposes that authors are motivated to write by hope of profit, any academic knows the situation is much more complicated. The rewards for most academic authors, even the pecuniary rewards, come almost entirely from nonroyalty sources: in the form of tenure, prestige, and success on the academic job market, not to mention the gratification of contributing to scholarly discourse. Rare is the academic author who considers likely royalty payments before embarking on a research project. At the same time, every academic author is a voracious user of scholarly work. The production of one piece of scholarship can require access to hundreds of previous works. Policies that stop the flow of information are much more damaging to scholarship than are policies that encourage access; a few extra dollars in your annual royalty check is scant compensation for living in a world where nearly every act of research or pedagogy involves a tax paid to publishers and their representatives (e.g., the Copyright Clearance Center). There is another way. Open access allows authors to make their work freely available on the Internet, whether by publishing with open-access journals and publishers or retaining the right to deposit their works in open-access repositories. In the words of the 2001 Budapest Open Access Initiative, an international effort, open-access publishing permits “any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.” Copyright law gives authors a limited monopoly over access to their works, but it also empowers them to set those works free. The benefits of open access for scholarly users are enormous and self-evident, while the cost to the individual academic is negligible. And by suing Georgia State over well-established fair use, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications, with the help of the Copyright Clearance Center, have added a new benefit for scholarly users: the chance to disassociate yourself from aggressive attempts to monetize scholarship. Kate Douglas Torrey Director, University of North Carolina Press The Georgia State University case turns on fundamental principles of copyright law—both its purpose (to promote new ideas by providing authors and publishers a fair return on their labors, in order to assure the public’s access to knowledge) and its critically important fair-use exemptions. Copyright law is format-neutral; over the years, it has proven flexible enough to accommodate the arrival of photocopiers, read/write cassette recorders, sampling, and other musical forms. At its core, this case asks whether a course pack delivered electronically differs from one printed on paper. It is no coincidence that two of the plaintiffs are not-for-profit university presses and the third is an academic publisher, each an important participant in the system of scholarly communication. When the suit was filed, a few librarians asked, “How could they?”—an indication of the underlying strength of the broad, interconnected educational community that we publishers, our library customers, our faculty authors, their students, and our parent institutions all inhabit. We are family. And, however reluctantly, sometimes family members end up on opposite sides in a courtroom. In this case, since 2003 there is no evidence of Georgia State’s ever having made a payment to any publisher, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, for permission to include significant portions of copyrighted material in its electronic-reserve and course-management systems. The university admits it has no budget designated to pay for digital use; further, it says it has no system to recoup costs from students. It is important to note that Georgia State pays permissions to use copyrighted material in traditional course packs, and that other universities pay for digital use. So what does Georgia State claim is different? The purpose is the same: education. The permissions mechanism is the same: The Copyright Clearance Center, which most universities utilize, has an easy-to-use system. The CCC’s fees are reasonable and often the same for print and electronic materials. The only difference is format—educational material delivered online instead of on paper. In essence, Georgia State claims that this difference constitutes fair use. For years the university has asserted that interpretation, expanding fair use beyond recognition, and has ignored copyright principles, by appropriating the digital use of thousands and thousands of pages of copyrighted material. But fair use, an essential component of copyright law, provides limited, enumerated exceptions to the rights of copyright owners, not an avenue for wholesale avoidance of the law. In fact, both the exercise of fair use and the counterbalancing requirement to secure and pay permissions are cornerstones of scholarly communication, and both are vigorously supported by university presses. Because no reasonable person could expect a spontaneous reversal of the university’s practice, the question is, “How could publishers not take action against such a deeply embedded policy?” As faculty, students, libraries, universities, and university-press publishers embrace an increasingly digital educational environment, the Georgia State case—and that university’s misguided attempt to subvert copyright fundamentals—puts much at risk. Nothing less than the interdependent educational ecosystem, in which widespread access for students is made possible by appropriate compensation for authors and publishers, hangs in the balance. Dorothea Salo Research-services librarian, University of Wisconsin at Madison The eternal academic-librarian plaint is that faculty never question the time and money behind what librarians provide them to read and assign to their classes. For faculty, it’s magic. They look for material, and lo!—it’s there. They want something on e-reserve, and lo!—it turns up in courseware. They want journals, regardless of price, and lo!—those often appear (less often these days, to be sure). Libraries have been papering over serious cracks in the economic foundations of scholarly publishing for more than a quarter-century. The cracks widen daily, as outrageous price-gouging by for-profit, multinational serials publishers (and the scholarly societies that sold out to them) force monograph publishers to fight over the last meager crumbs of library budgets. Yet save for a few indefatigable reformers, faculty have not felt enough pain and fear to question the system, nor enough outrage to force it to change. Nor are librarians blameless; by and large, we have shifted some money and asked for more to paper over more cracks. We know we cannot shift the system without a faculty alliance, and many of us remain unsure we want it to change; we, too, are accustomed to it. What is at stake in the Georgia State lawsuit is the status quo in scholarly publishing, a status quo dependent largely on faculty’s not knowing or caring about its flaws. Should a ruling come down that adds so much complication, cost, or risk to provisions about electronic reserves that institutions and their libraries no longer feel safe offering them, faculty and librarians will unite at last in shared outrage on the far shore of the Rubicon. The results of such outrage are unpredictable and may not be benign: What the Gustavus Adolphus College librarian Barbara Fister has called “liberation bibliography“—broad, unfettered access to scholarly material—would be a blessed outcome; the blind, furious dismantling of publishers with centuries of expertise, not so. Even a ruling favorable to e-reserves may threaten another practice common among faculty members: posting their own articles to personal or professional Web sites after they have transferred copyright to publishers. I am unsure whether this complaint from the original filing is still under consideration by the court, and press coverage has been silent about it. Should the court rule this practice to be not fair use, faculty pain and fear will probably not reach the level of outrage that the destruction of e-reserves would cause, but it might well lead faculty to question or even change their opinions and behaviors and to help themselves and everyone else find, read, and share the scholarly works they produce. The plaintiffs want to win the Georgia State case, but in my opinion they should deeply fear a backlash should the judge forbid knowledge-sharing that faculty and students believe is their due. “When I teach, it feels utterly natural to post articles etc. online for the students,” tweetedAmanda French, a digital-humanities scholar, last week. Thwarting that feeling is a dangerous gambit indeed. Brandon Butler Director of public-policy initiatives, Association of Research Libraries What’s at stake is diminished returns to publishers and diminished access for libraries and students, because this ill-conceived litigation serves no one. It should have, and could have, been avoided. Professors placing excerpts from library materials on reserve is a well-established practice at university libraries. It has no effect on the legitimate market for academic publications. Professors and publishers may quibble over how big a particular excerpt should be, but in no case will e-reserves become a profit center for publishers. Indeed, faculty and librarians at Georgia State have made clear that if putting material on e-reserve involved additional fees, they would largely abandon the practice. This lawsuit is a losing proposition for everyone involved: Publishers stand to gain nothing except huge legal bills (even with 50-percent financing from the Copyright Clearance Center) and resentment, while the relief they seek would deprive Georgia State of important fair-use rights. How did this happen? It’s actually a common problem. Communities of practice that rely on the fair use of copyrighted work, from documentary filmmakers to video mash-up artists, have been encouraged for years to take an attitude of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the extent of their rights, either by a few overzealous rights holders or by the overly risk-averse in their own ranks. Fair use, they are told, is a narrow exception, merely a defense, an arcane and confusing concept best left to lawyers and so on. Those misconceptions lead to community practice that is timid, inconsistent, and often self-defeating, despite friendly court decisions and widely held intuitions about fairness. Rights holders are affected, too. The inconsistency and timidity of current practice makes it difficult for them to distinguish legitimate market opportunities from boondoggles like the current lawsuit against Georgia State. Many libraries rely on fair use to operate robust e-reserve systems. A clear, unified, formal statement from the academic and research-library communities, grounded in a shared understanding of both the opportunities and the limitations of fair use, could have saved the publishers a lot of time and money by showing them what their customers see as the legitimate boundaries of their market. For over a year, I’ve been working with Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, both on the faculty at American University, to formulate a code of best practices in fair use by scholars and research libraries. It has been a fascinating and painstaking process, but we have reason for optimism. Documentary filmmakers were the first success story. Before filmmakers issued their code of best practices, they labored under paralyzing uncertainty about basic issues like whether to pay license fees for short clips of copyrighted films used for criticism and commentary. That left key players unduly nervous. Insurers, who must underwrite any commercial film against the possibility of lawsuit, were especially hesitant or unwilling to insure fair uses. After the documentarians formulated their code, insurers felt comfortable underwriting films with unlicensed fair uses in them, and no longer charged extra for the perceived risk. Rigid, outdated “guidelines” imposed by acrimonious lawsuits are no way to make fair-use policy. Instead, a clear, deliberate, and flexible statement from the key practice community—libraries—can guide users and rights holders alike toward better outcomes.
http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-at-Stake-in-the-Georgia/127718/ In an article from Duke University Library Blog:
Fair Use Under Attack in case of Georgia State Univ. copyright case
In anticipation of the trial starting on Monday in the copyright infringement case brought against Georgia State University by Cambridge, Oxford and Sage publishers, and partially financed by the Copyright Clearance Center, there has been a flurry of motions, mostly relating to the admission of various pieces of evidence. But amongst that deluge of paper is a truly frightening document, the proposed injunction that the plaintiffs are requesting if they win the case. I have always known that there was a lot a stake for higher education in this case, but the injunction the publishers want would be a nightmare scenario beyond even my most pessimistic imaginings. First, if this injunction were adopted as proposed, it would enjoin everyone at Georgia State, including students, who would seem to largely lose their fair use rights by virtue of enrolling at GSU. It would apply to e-reserves, faculty web pages and any learning management systems in use or adopted in the future. It would make GSU responsible for every conceivable act of copying that took place on their campus. In short, administrators at Georgia State would have to look over the shoulders of each faculty member whenever they uploaded course material to an LMS or any other web page. Arguably, they would have to monitor student copying at copiers provided in their libraries, since GSU would be enjoined from “encouraging or facilitating” any copying, beyond a limit of about 4 pages, that was done without permission. Not only would GSU have to micromanage each faculty member’s choices about how to teach every class, they would also have to give the plaintiff publishers access to all of the computer systems on campus so that they too could examine each professor’s decisions. I can only imagine the angry reaction of faculty members if this requirement were actually imposed on our campuses; they might finally rebel against the exploitation they suffer from these “academic” publishers. In any case the order quite literally asks the impossible and was apparently written by people with no functional knowledge of how higher education actually works. The administrative costs alone would be staggering, not to mention the permission fees. Permission fees are the real purpose here, of course. The goal is to drive more and more money to the Copyright Clearance Center, which is the only source of permission mentioned by name in the draft injunction. The way the injunction would accomplish this would be by entirely eliminating fair use for Georgia State. There is absolutely no mention of fair use or section 107 of the copyright law in this proposed order. Instead, the coping that would be permitted without permission is entirely defined by the bright line rules of the 1976 Guidelines for Classroom Copying(see pp 68-70). Actually, it is the guidelines PLUS an additional requirement that is being sought as the sole standard for non-permissive copying. The guidelines’ rule on brevity would entirely circumscribe such copying if this injunction were granted. That rule permits a copy of only 10% or 1000 words of a prose work, which ever is less. Many schools that adopt 10% as a fair use standard will be shocked to find that, under this definition, that is often still too much to be acceptable, since the 1000 word limit will usually take over. Also, the rule about cumulative effect — a limit on the total number of excerpts that can be made — would be enforced across the entire institution. Two classes could not use the same work without paying permission, and Georgia State would be responsible for making sure that no system across its campus was providing access to any more than two excerpts (for the whole campus and of no more than 1000 words each) by the same author. Added to these rules from the Guidelines is a new restriction, that no more than 10% of the total reading for any particular class could be provided through non-permissive copying. The point of this rule is nakedly obvious. If a campus had the temerity to decide that it was going to follow the rules strictly (since the flexibility which is the point of fair use would be gone) and make sure that all of its class readings fell within the guidelines, they still would be unable to avoid paying permission fees. Ninety percent of each class’s reading would be required, under this absurd order, to be provided through purchased works or copies for which permission fees were paid, no matter how short the excerpts were. Not only would the minimum safe harbor for fair use that the guidelines say they are defining become a maximum — the sum total of fair use — but that maximum would be shrunk much further by this 10%/90% rule. The intentions of Congress in adopting fair use, including its clause about “multiple copies for classroom use,” would be mocked, gutted and discarded, at least for Georgia State. I believe that compliance with this order, were the publishers to win their case and the Judge to adopt the proposed injunction, would be literally impossible. For one thing, the record keeping, monitoring and reporting requirements would cost more than any institution can afford, even if they were technically possible. Also, there is really no permission market that is broad and efficient enough to meet the demand that this order would create; the CCC might get what it paid for in underwriting the litigation if this order became the law for Georgia State, but they do not have the coverage, even with their Annual Campus License, to support this kind of regime if it were broadened to other campuses and other publishers. Yet you can be sure that if those things happen, all of our campuses would be pressured to adopt the “Georgia State model” in order to avoid litigation. This proposed order, in short, represents a nightmare, a true dystopia, for higher education. We can only hope, I think, that Judge Evans is clear-sighted enough, and respectful enough of what Congress intended when it passed the 1976 Copyright Act, not to adopt this Orwellian proposal, even if she finds in favor of the plaintiffs. No judge likes to issue an order that cannot be obeyed, and this one would be so far outside the stated policies of the United States in its copyright law that an appellate court could, and likely would, overturn it purely on those grounds. http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/05/13/a-nightmare-scenario-for-higher-education/
More Info from ARL on copyright reform: the Association of Research Libraries
Library Copyright Alliance Releases Statement on Copyright Reform
May 16, 2011 Washington DC—The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) today released a statement describing the key features copyright reform proposals should include in order to constitute significant improvement over current law for libraries and their users. Interested parties are discussing with renewed vigor the issues of orphan works, mass digitization, and even modernization of Section 108 of the US Copyright Act in the wake of the Google Books settlement rejection by Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York. The LCA statement, which represents the needs of library stakeholders in these debates, provides helpful guideposts for these discussions. Libraries have always advocated for reasonable copyright policy—in the courts as well as in the US Congress. Library activities already benefit from broad, flexible protection under the fair use doctrine and related provisions in current law. The LCA’s statement describes the status quo for libraries as well as the policies that would constitute substantial legislative improvement to existing copyright law. To view the statement, please visit:http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/lca_copyrightreformstatement_16may11.pdf.
The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) consists of three major library associations—the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. These three associations collectively represent over 300,000 information professionals and thousands of libraries of all kinds throughout the United States and Canada. These three associations cooperate in the LCA to address copyright issues that affect libraries and their patrons. LCA is on the web at http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org.
For more information, contact: Jonathan Band policybandwidth 202-296-2296 email@example.com