Current Cites

March 2012

Edited by Roy Tennant

Contributors: Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Alison Cody, Peter Hirtle, Leo Robert Klein, Roy Tennant,

Hansen, David R. "Orphan Works: Mapping the Possible Solution SpacesBerkeley Digital Library Copyright Project White Paper  2(10 March 2012)( - In the January issue of Current Cites, I noted the very-useful definitional introduction to the orphan works problem prepared by David R. Hansen of the Berkeley Digital Library Copyright Project. Hansen has followed up with a second white paper on proposed solutions to the orphan works problem. He identifies four: the Copyright Office's proposed waiver of damages after a reasonable search; administrative systems that require that one seek formal approval to use an orphan work; extended collective licensing systems that impose payments to a third-party agency; and fair use analyses. He also speculates as to whether shortened copyright terms, the re-imposition of formalities, or the expansion of library exemptions could solve the problem. He notes that there is opposition to each of these proposed solutions and does not recommend any as the perfect approach. His analysis does make it clear that the use of orphan work is likely to entail real costs even though these works have lost their value in the market place. The questions are how best to minimize these costs and who should pay them: those who wish to make the works available or those interested in preserving their control over potential orphan works. - PH

Henry, Charles, and Brad  Wheeler. "The Game Has ChangedEDUCAUSE Review  47(2)(March/April 2012)( - What might seem like a revolutionary call to action for academic institutions to play nicely together may seem much less revolutionary to libraries which have been doing it for decades, but we still have some things to learn from this piece. Also, the authors should be congratulated for specifically calling for large-scale efforts to cross professional boundaries and include libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, etc., in these collaborations. I'm still not sure what might make this call for massive collaboration any different than those that came before that foundered on the rocks of "not invented here", but maybe this one will be successful where others have failed. Meanwhile, the money quote for libraries, especially those who pin everything on ARL Statistics, is this: "Eliminate statistic-based rivalries. Counting analog parts in a digital era is questionable; counting analog parts that are used to boost competition and create rivalries among higher education institutions is self-defeating." - RT

McEwen, Rhonda, and Kathleen  Scheaffer. "Orality in the Library: How Mobile Phones Challenge Our Understandings of Collaboration in Hybridized Information CentersLibrary & Information Science Research  34(2)(April 2012): 92-98. ( - In this article, the authors explore the tensions between the traditionally quiet atmosphere of the library, and the "increasingly vocal" users who are coming through the door, mobile phones in hand. Many libraries have morphed from a place for silent, independent work into an interactive area that is specifically built to encourage collaboration and group learning, but noise policies often do not consider the role of cell phones in collaboration. To explore this, the authors conducted a review of library and information center policies, observed and interviewed students, and also measured sound levels. They discuss some very interesting findings - including the fact that on average, cell phone users were 25 decibels quieter than people having face-to-face conversations, but were perceived to be louder. Overall this was a very interesting read and provides some good food for thought for any library that is struggling to bring policies more in line with user expectations and habits. - AC

Niu, Jinfang. "An Overview of Web ArchivingD-Lib Magazine  18(3/4)(2012)( - Based on a literature review, Niu examines the selection, acquisition, organization, storage, description, access, and use of web archives in this informative article. She concludes that different web archiving strategies are due to "external factors, such as the legal environment and the relationships between web resource producers and the web archive, as well as internal factors, such as the nature of archived web content, the nature of the archiving organization, the scale of the web archive, and the technical and financial capacity of the archiving organization." Niu's paper is part of a special issue on web archiving, which also includes her "Functionalities of Web Archives" paper and Peter Stirling, Philippe Chevallier, and Gildas Illie's "Web Archives for Researchers: Representations, Expectations and Potential Uses" paper. - CB

Notess, Greg R. "Advanced Search in RetreatOnline  36(2)(March/April 2012): 43. ( - Having trouble keeping up Google's ever-changing search interface? Greg Notess kindly steps in with a look at the status of 'Advanced Search', or rather, with a look at the status of the link to 'Advanced Search'. He describes its overall implementation in various Google Services (Scholar, News, etc.) He even looks at the State of the Link (if I may call it that) in other search engines such as Bing and Hulu. His conclusion? Not good: "Links to advanced search on the homepage of search engines are in decline, and the use of the term may be fading as well. As search engines explore alternative approaches to offering advanced search opportunities, this option is likely to be only a minor focus of any search company since few searchers use advanced features." - LRK

Suber, Peter. "A Tale of Two Bills: The Research Works Act and Federal Research Public Access ActSPARC Open Access Newsletter  (163)(2012)( - The Research Works Act is dead, but it is best not forgotten. Scholarly publishers have lost this round in their fight against open access mandates for articles resulting from federally funded research, but this does not mean that they will not try again. In this article, Suber provides an incisive in-depth autopsy of the RWA. He then turns his attention to the pro-OA Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), providing the same detailed clarity of analysis shown in the RWA section. Suber also touches on the COMPETES Act and the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy's RFIs for open access to articles and data resulting from publicly funded research. Where do things stand for open access to publicly funded research? Suber says: "The RWA, COMPETES Act, FRPAA, and the White House RFI can be put in roughly this order: anti, weak, strong, and stronger. Subtract anti and what do you have? Unambiguous good news. Only time will tell how good it is. And that's where you come in." - CB