lOO Book Challenge

I don't understand trademarks. From what I know, a trademark is applied to product or service with some exclusivity and can't be used by a different product or service which conflicts with the original trademark. Conversely, if I own the trademark for Bean Shoes, "the shoe made entirely from beans," I can't keep you from selling Bean Caps, "the cap to cover your bean." Or at least, that how it seems to me.

So it seems odd that the American Reading Company sent a cease and desist letter to LibraryThing because they proposed a 100 Book Challenge for 2010 whereby everyone would strive to read 100 books. Apparently the American Reading Company sells products under the brand, "100 Book Challenge" and they don't want to share their ownership of those three (or four; does "100" count as one word or two words hyphenated?) words.

My only response is that the American Reading Company misread the LibraryThing name. It's not the 100 Book Challenge, but the lOO Book Challenge.

Forgive the spelling, but the word is "loo" as in the slang term for lavatory in Britain. The real LibraryThing challenge for 2010 is for everyone to read books in the loo.

I understand that the American Reading Company is concerned about their trademark, but really, these are two entirely different things. I realize that lOO looks similar to 100 to the naked eye, but a computer can see the difference.

It was a harmless mistake. And no, LibraryThing is not changing the capitalization to reduce the confusion. Because it's funnier that way.

p.s. I Am Not a Lawyer.

"You'll put your eye out, kid."

Librarians have been lucky. For a thousand years we've answered questions and suggested further investigation based on a simple, reproducible formula: we find the answer in a book or on other printed matter, or we bash a snake against a rock until the blood reveals the truth.

The printed resources almost always include a publisher and author(s). And over the years, through rather simple vetting processes, libraries have collected these works for the benefit of providing these answers to the truth seekers.

Even up through the 1970's, libraries were not viewed as places for entertainment, unless one's values favored classical works and award-winning texts. Children were allowed in libraries, but only after being walled off into their own tiny ghettos.

When I was growing up, I read Aesop's Fables. And one moral I'll always remember is, "The Chariot sometimes crushes the Falcon." I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but dammit, I remember it. And I offer that advice at many library meetings.

Do we want the furniture in "oak" or "cherry"?

'The Chariot sometimes crushes the Falcon.'

Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. That doesn't mean anything. It never has. Not for the last 500 times you've said it.

One day it will mean something to you, and then you'll realize I'm a freaking genius.

But then librarians got what they call a "good idea": they would give the people what they want.

And that means libraries have taken on providing many new services: job applications, resume preparation, legal assistance, medical research, etc.

The Internet made this happen. Libraries used to be about finding the answer in the books and journals we bought, then later, from computer and online databases, and so our "help" was still extremely limited and confined to sources we could verify and trust. But now the Internet has me finding answers and attempting to verify sources for sites that may disappear at any time. I'm trying to help my patron find answers, but each click opens new opportunities for screwing up.

So now I have to pretend to be a huge idiot. I can't tell anyone what I know for fear of creating a service that our library is not prepared to offer. People come in to fill out all sorts of forms for immigration, family assistance, taxes, whatever. But I can't tell them which forms or websites they should use to apply for these benefits. I have to ask, "Is this the site?" "Is this what you want?" "Read this page and see if this is what you need."

Because if I tell them something, I might create the expectation in their mind that I'm a legal expert and if something goes wrong and the guy is deported or something, I could get blamed for it.

But it's not just the Internet's fault. Libraries also have parents who leave their kids at the library all day, usually to play on the computers. And when we allow this to happen, by not creating or enforcing policies, we create an atmosphere that tells these parents it's okay to do this. So then if something horrible happens to one of these kids, we look guilty. And not just look, but we could be judged guilty.

When we expand library services which go beyond our core mission of providing educational materials and programs to our patrons, to promote reading and learning, then we need to be prepared for the possible consequences.

Yes, it's nice that you allow that guy to bring in the garbage bag full of his personal belongings and leave them under that table while he uses the computers or goes outside for a smoke. And it's also cool that you let him catch a short nap during the day. But if you don't have a policy against that behavior, or you have policy but choose to ignore it, then if his stuff ever gets lost or stolen, he could have a case against your library. Unless you do something to tell everyone to watch their stuff.

The same with Internet privacy. Patrons are using library computers and some people and libraries are becoming complacent, assuming that everything is secure on the public computers. But they are still public computers. There is no way we can ever guarantee to anyone that anything they do on them will be private. People think I'm an asshole when I tell them that I wouldn't use our library computers to buy my airline tickets or check my credit report. They think I don't want to help them. But listen, you idiot, I am helping you. I don't know every computer trick in the world. I don't know that you didn't click on something stupid.

The message should always be: Your property is your responsibility. Your privacy is your responsibility.

My personal message has become, "Don't ask. I Don't Know."

As far as I can tell, the library has never guaranteed to protect your privacy with what you read, only with what appears on your borrowing record. And if I can't protect your privacy with the book you carry around in this building or out to your car or on the coffee table in your house, how the hell can I protect your privacy with all those damn electrons rushing through all those tubes or flying around in the air?

I don't ever want to hear, "...the library took on the responsibility to protect my Internet privacy. Therefore, when my identity was stolen, the library broke this contract."

Privacy should always be the patron's problem. Libraries should provide the bare minimum for clearing sessions, deleting cookies, etc. But patrons need to be responsible for what they do in a public space.

The bank doesn't guarantee you won't be robbed after you use the ATM: you accept the dangers along with the convenience of getting money at 3:00 a.m. So the library can't be responsible for your identity or your bank balance or your cell phone or you laptop or your kid.

Questions you should consider:

Are you creating an environment whereby the patron might reasonably believe that the library claims to be an expert in an area, or do you provide a service or allow a behavior the patron comes to expect as part of normal library service?

If so, what happens when you perform poorly against this expectation? Are you in breach of this unwritten contract? And then, have you done harm by not fulfilling this contract?

So yeah, I don't want to be viewed as an expert in anything. And since you've read this blog, you already know I'm no expert in the world of library stuff.

But if a patron wants to know where the bathroom is, I think it's over there somewhere. But I can't say for certain. You might sue me after you experience it.

Why the Kindle suit is good and bad for everyone...

Amazon has been named in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of all Kindle owners for deleting some copies of 1984 from some accounts and Kindles. Amazon believes it had a duty to the publisher to remove stolen property from its customers' Kindles in order to keep them from going to jail for receiving that stolen property. But because some people like to spend time in jail, they're suing Amazon for all the fun they missed.

Or at least that's how I see it.

If you know me, you know that I hate the digital world. I'd like to go back to the days when I rode my bike over to my friend's house and he showed me things that he got for his birthday and we played with them or smashed them with a hammer. And the mailman brought us letters once a day. And the news came on at 6:00 and I didn't know a damn thing about the world until then.

I don't want to look at pictures of crap on Flickr or videos on YouTube. I don't want 5GB of email storage. I don't want to know everything as soon as it happens. I want life here, in my hands, so I can smash it with a hammer if I want to.

The Kindle suit is bad because Amazon was doing the right thing by its partner, the publisher and rights-holder to George Orwell's 1984. Amazon had unwittingly become a party to distributing stolen property when it allowed Kindle owners to purchase an item Amazon did not have the right to sell.

Amazon doesn't own the books it sells; the only thing Amazon really has any control over is the Kindle itself, the ebook reader, the hunk of plastic. And hammer-blow recipient.

I guess Amazon could have gotten a court order first, since, again, we're dealing with stolen property (IMO-IANAL-!!!-WTF-LOL, okay, forget it). But then hundreds of Amazon customers might have ended up in some criminal database only to have their children removed from their homes by the authorities.

But what makes this suit a good thing, is that I hate the digital world. I don't think any company has any right to tell me what I can do with my stuff. I don't like digital rights or copy limits or download restrictions. I don't want to go home to find that I'm locked out from all the shows on my DVR because some company has the power to limit how long I have to enjoy a television show. I don't want Microsoft to tell me that my installed Office suite is not a legal copy, and I don't want them to even have the power to look.

So if this suit forces companies to rethink their digital business models, then great. But to punish Amazon for taking advantage of people too stupid to understand how digital technology works, then that's just wrong. America is built on extracting fortunes from the stupid.

Why is it that I'm smart enough to understand how digital technology works, but they aren't. And look at me! I'm wearing a bib to eat! And I still got food all over myself. I'd have more to say about this, but my lunch break is over, and I think I got tuna in my hair.

We need insurance for the wired world.

So the RIAA screws some other poor bastard for hundreds of thousands of dollars (re: Joel Tenenbaum, $675 thousand; and Jammie Thomas-Rasset $1.92 million) for music file sharing.

And recently, a property management company sued someone for $50,000 for a tweet the company considered libelous.

In a connected world, every action creates equal, opposite, and even violent reactions.

I continue to see car, health and home owner insurance advertised on television, but where are the Internet, social networking insurance companies?

• Where is my blog post or tweet insurance for the time I mistakenly comment that fast food from M********* gave me this humongous culo?
• Or for when I link to a Korean site that streams Harry Potter movies?
• Or for when I snip too much of that Associated Press article?
• Or for when I copy, link, tweet, retweet, post, borrow, steal or reference anything on the Internet ever again.

How soon until I can cover my ass with $1 million of protection ("for just pennies a day")?

Don't current events demand this type of coverage?

... But won't the existence of such insurance only increase the spread of excessive tort litigation? Crap.

Obama = Hope. Or Obama = Hungry.

So the Associated Press is trying to get a cut from all the $$$ this Obama-Hope image has generated since they own the original photo (snapped by a temp named Manny Garcia). The artist of the Hope image, Shepard Fairey, never got permission to use the original as a template for his work, and so the argument is whether he was required to ask.

I see the resemblance between the images, but to me, the original photo doesn't say, HOPE, it says, "I think I left the bathroom light on." His eyes look a little flat, lacking that glint of inspiration, of vision, of leadership, that the Fairey work reveals.

Other things the original AP photo seems to say (that do not equal HOPE):

• I think I'm having the tuna salad for lunch. Yeah, I should get someone to pick that up for me. And a Sunkist.


• What the hell is going on with Heroes? Man, that show used to be awesome, but not now.


• I think I'll work on my Facebook after this.


• Where did Michelle get these boxers because they are pretty darn comfortable.


• Do I know that guy? I think I know that guy.


• If the White House doesn't have TiVo, I'm getting TiVo. Being President is going to be awesome.

So AP, leave it alone. You are hopeless.

The Bill of Rights is worth $19.74.

A library user who sued an Ohio library for violating his First Amendment rights was paid $1 for having his freedoms trampled. His wife and a nonprofit were also paid $1 each for a grand total of $3.00.

So, by my calculations, using The First Amendment as a guide, our freedoms guaranteed by The Bill of Rights are worth:

First Amendment: $3.00, the baseline established by this case.

Second Amendment: $2.99, almost as valuable as free speech and assembly.

Third Amendment: $0.25, really, when the hell are you going to see this happen?

Fourth Amendment: $3.25. More important than free speech, IMO.

Fifth Amendment: $3.25, again, pretty darn useful.

Sixth Amendment: $3:50. How many times has this one saved my ass?

Seventh Amendment: $1.00. Another one that doesn't mean much to me.

Eighth Amendment: $1.50. I think some people need excessive bail.

Ninth Amendment: $0.50. Not sure what this means, but it must be there for a reason.

Tenth Amendment: $0.50, again, you don't see too many protests about safeguarding this one.

So there you have it. Your rights are worth $19.74, not even a double-sawbuck.

Frankly, this guy is a complete dick since his position was that he shouldn't be denied his right to use The Bible to teach his financial planning seminar in a library meeting room (or something like that: IANAL). The library had the usual position libraries have about using public facilities to promote religion, which in Nein. Religion ist verboten. I think this has something to with separation of church and state or Atheism or something. What's weird about atheists is that they don't believe in God, but they're opposed to public displays of references to God. It's like, if you don't believe in God, then how can the representation of God mean anything to you? Isn't God like Bugs Bunny to an atheist, just another fictional character? But I've never heard atheists complain about Bugs Bunny. So that they are able to recognize displays representing God must mean that on some level they accept the importance of God. Whereas, I would think they should just ignore them. Whatever. Now I lost my place...

So because of the suit, the library had to pay the $3, plus $10,000 to the attorneys, who should all burn in Hell. See, atheists, here's a good reason to have some religion, you can tell people to burn in Hell and know what you're talking about.

Do library catalogs violate copyright and intellectual property rights?

Here is an article which discusses whether it's a copyright violation to display a book cover on library web sites.

Here is the.effing.librarian's opinion of the broader issue:

For years, librarians have been looking at books and telling people what the book is about: Gettysburg, Battle of, Gettysburg, Pa., 1863 -- Fiction.

And for years, people, including competing authors, have been able to riffle through these collections of book records, or "card catalogs," to see what other authors are publishing. Visiting the stacks to examine these texts is time-consuming, but librarians have been bypassing the originals materials to make this very valuable and useful information freely available to competitors for years.

You can argue that the nature of cataloging is necessary to libraries; but is it, really?

Do libraries really need to decide in which subject category to classify a book for someone to find it? Can't people just browse through all the books to find what they want?

And worse yet, libraries have been uploading these catalogs onto the Internet, thus making all of this copyrighted material available to anyone with Internet access. Shouldn't authors and publishers be protected from this blatant disregard for their intellectual property rights?

Is this legal?

Sure, you can argue fair use, but really, what is fair?

Aren't libraries in direct competition with book stores? And book stores survive because of sales while libraries steal those sales away by giving away free access to those same books. So why should libraries be allowed to advertise and promote books the same way book stores can? Why should libraries be allowed to claim fair use when they so unfairly target booksellers, publishers and authors?

Libraries create nothing. They hoist their bulks onto the shoulders of the true artists and workers and demand that they be carried along while giving nothing back. So why should libraries be able to profit from the latest Stephen King novel by displaying its cover in the online library catalog? U.S. copyright law allows reproductions for "useful" objects, but since when has anyone found any library catalog useful?

I don't think libraries should be able to catalog books. Even when "cataloging in publication" information is available in the front of a book, I don't feel libraries have the right to capitalize on the threats the Library of Congress makes against publishers to force them to include this information in their works.

"How does the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) program relate to Copyright?
There is no relationship between the CIP program and Copyright registration. The principal intention of copyright records is to document the intellectual or creative ownership of a work. The principal intention of a CIP record is to describe the bibliographic characteristics of a work and thereby facilitate access to it in library catalogs."

You notice there is no benefit to the publisher; there are no additional protections, only the theft of intellectual property. The Library of Congress says, "we will decide how to classify your book" with the implicit threat that the LoC will make the book virtually invisible with intentionally incompetent cataloging.

We at the.effing.librarian want to see libraries filled with unlabeled, uncatalogued books, DVDs and CDs. We don't even want them on shelves. We envision a room filled with cardboard boxes, with books in vertical stacks, with piles of books in no particular order. If we truly want to keep libraries free and knowledge free, then cataloging or organizing of any sort can only abridge these freedoms.

A free library can only be one without constraints and boundaries and without any cataloging system at all.



[oh, I'm sorry. do I have to post a sarcasm alert?]

The usual suspects.

No warrant required.

To assist with an investigation of a suspected mass-murderer (my term, since five people died) in an anthrax attack, "Library officials turned over the computers voluntarily to the F.B.I. last week." A warrant was eventually approved to conduct a search of the computers, but the computers were surrendered first. (NYT, August 7, 2008)

I don't know how you feel about what level of privacy library patrons should be guaranteed while using library computers, but there was HUGE discussion at LISNews recently about whether there is ever a greater good when assisting law enforcement with a criminal investigation, or if libraries should not only question authority but occasionally even be openly hostile toward it.
Some of the comments supported a patron's privacy at all costs regardless of any alleged criminal activity, and some believed that there are some "life and death" situations where patron privacy no longer matters, or matters much less.

I would fight to guard the privacy of patron borrowing records, but I don't give a crap about what they do on our public computers. My belief is that if I don't control the data, how can I promise to safeguard it?

But after reading some of the arguments, I was beginning to question my stand on this issue; some were pretty persuasive. But I didn't change my opinion. I mean, our borrower database is used by staff, exclusively, therefore we are able to make that promise that patron data will remain under our control. But public computers are out in hostile territory; unprotected, unwanted, and unloved.

Sometimes I feel that the library is like Rick's Café Américain in Casablanca: sometimes when you beg Rick to protect you and hide you from your enemies, he agrees, but sometimes he turns his back and leaves you to the Nazis.

Yes, sometimes I'm Rick. More often I'm Captain Louis. And on Friday nights, I'm Ilsa. Like you didn't see that coming.

the.effing.librarian, private dick

You always knew I was a dick. Other than Internet consensus, we now have proof of my dickhood. And maybe yours.

I don't live in Texas, but I own a lot of guns (is 16 a lot?) and I love chimichangas, so I feel a natural kinship with that state. So it concerns me that Texas recently passed a law to expand what defines a private "investigations company."

"Texas law regulates private investigators,...and passed into law [an] expanded... definition to include companies that sleuth around in computer data." (from CNN Money, By Annalyn Censky July 18, 2008: 7:54 PM EDT)

"If a client asks the technician to dig around in search of criminal activity or to track the behavior of employees, that would constitute an investigation."

I'm a nosey bastard, so I spy on my employees and coworkers, then report them to their department head. Librarianship is a cutthroat business and the only way to get ahead is by deception and character assassination. I once got a coworker reassigned to another location by digging up his cookie file and forwarding it to his supervisor. Nobody liked that guy, anyway. Besides, I wanted his chair.

So sure, destroying a coworker to get his 7-position adjustable and full lumbar-support office chair is obvious, but why would I sabotage my own employees? Don't smart employees make me look like a better supervisor? Yeah, up to a point. As long as I'm able to assume credit for their work. But eventually, the better employee begins to make a name for herself, and that's when she crosses the line. Take her down quickly before she comes under the protection of the shogunate (or another supervisor who might lure her away to use her fighting skills to defeat you).

What Texas statutes really say is:"(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public."
(emphasis mine)

So simply looking at cookies doesn't make you a dick. But checking the IP addresses of websites viewed by computers users does.

And yep, I do that, too. Because it's fun.

One reason privatized libraries will fail.

Family files lawsuit in metal bat injury case

WAYNE, N.J. (AP) — The family of a boy who suffered brain damage after he was struck by a line drive off an aluminum baseball bat sued the bat's maker and others on Monday, saying they should have known it was dangerous.

The family of Steven Domalewski, who was 12 when he was struck by the ball in 2006, filed the lawsuit in state Superior Court. It names Hillerich & Bradsby Co., maker of the 31-inch, 19-ounce Louisville Slugger TPX Platinum bat used when Steven was hit.

The lawsuit also names Little League Baseball and Sports Authority, which sold the bat. It claims the defendants knew, or should have known, that the bat was dangerous for children to use, according to the family's attorney, Ernest Fronzuto.

Steven was pitching in a Police Athletic League game when he was hit just above the heart by a line drive. His heart stopped beating and his brain was deprived of oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes, according to his doctors.

Now, this is a tragic event, tragic because a child suffered a serious injury, but also tragic because there was a sporting event held with children participating and no adult there seemed to know CPR.

But what it says to me is that any "pain and suffering" can be used to link any two events. Now, Steven threw the ball, starting this whole cycle, and after the ball was hit, he was unable to catch the ball or deflect it from hitting him or get out of the way. Now, I'm not trying to be a hard-ass, but up to that one pitch, it seemed to be okay with his parents whenever Steven pitched to any other batter who faced their son using an aluminum bat.

So, again, up to the point of injury, Steven's parents thought aluminum bats were safe enough to let their son stand fifty feet away and throw a baseball at another kid who was swinging one.

But what does this have to do with the privatization of libraries? As long as libraries are public institutions, there seems to be the generally accepted belief that libraries are not liable for any injury caused by the reading of books or the sharing of ideas. So a lawsuit like this one shows me that there will be a point when a private library, run by a corporation, will be blamed for some future event. For example, if a parent plans for her child to grow up to become a doctor, but the child decides to become anything but a doctor because he saw it in a book, the library will be sued for lost wages. If someone gets fat because the recipes in a cookbook were irresistible, the library will be sued. If a child throws a baseball and another child hits it back with an unabridged dictionary hard enough to cause injury, the library will be sued. Library card paper cuts: sued; Adam Sandler movies: sued; gay penguin picture books: sued; Harry Potter turning your daughter into a Wiccan: sued; not enough parking spaces: sued; no cell phone use: sued; too many cell phone users: sued; Internet computer mouse slimy: sued; Internet too slow: sued; Internet down: double-sued.

Now I know this is America, and everyone is free to sue anyone for any damn thing they want, and that lawyers of the spawn of Hell, but how many more lawsuits does this country need?

"People who have children in youth sports are excited about the lawsuit from a public policy standpoint because they hope it can make the sport safer," Fronzuto said after filing the suit Monday morning. "There are also those who are skeptical of the lawsuit and don't see the connection between Steven's injury and the aluminum bat."

One of those skeptics is right here. Now all you parents with a kid involved in organized sports, go now and learn CPR, or lock your kid in his room. Oh, I forgot, it's America; do nothing now and sue everyone later.

And as someone who played baseball as a kid and pitched, one of reasons teams uses aluminum bats was because wood bats would break. I don't know what your experience is, but I was much less terrified of a ball being hit back at me from an aluminum bat than I was of a wood bat cracking in half and sending a one-pound chunk of jagged wood at me at 35 mph.

How the Lawyer brain thinks...

[The inevitable next step in the case of the deaf kiddie porn watcher and the Tulare County library system.]

Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the egregiousness of the offense against my client is almost palpable. I can feel it. Can't you feel it? Just like how my client deals with his infirmity. Deaf people touch people's faces in order to hear them, right? No? Are you sure? Well, that's neither here nor there. I shall continue.

Now this is neither the time nor place to discuss what some library worker thought she saw, I'm here to speak for the victim, a man who through an unfortunate defect of his formation in the womb, a womb we have all shared under the eyes of the Lord, was preyed upon by the neglectful, callous, and dare I say, due to the irony, the blindness of the library.

The library, and through the library, the library workers, violated his most precious rights when they sneaked up on him and spied on his Internet activities. They sneaked like thieves in the night and stole from him. They stole his privacy and his dignity and they stole his freedom. The day they spied on his protected Internet activities, they stole a piece of America from each one of us, ladies and gentlemen. The America our mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, and brothers and sisters, have fought for in many wars and died to protect. Or maybe not died, but got seriously injured. Or maybe had to enroll in a sub-standard college to avoid the draft. Or had to go to Canada. Think about that ladies and gentlemen: Canada.

The library worker, who has since become a celebrity admits to standing behind my client, who could not hear her behind him. She had awareness of his abilities and of his inabilities and she took unfair advantage of them.

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, my client, who is deaf, is entitled to have an accommodation for his disability. The library, having prior knowledge of this disability, was required to install a mirror near the terminal so the man could see who is standing behind him. By denying this fair and simple accommodation, the library violated his rights by not giving him equal treatment, meaning, an equal opportunity with someone who does not suffer a disability to cover or disguise or delete his porn viewing if he spots someone standing near. My client was denied the opportunity to destroy evidence which could incriminate him in a court of law, a cherished freedom guaranteed to all citizens from the President down to the lowly Vice-President.

The library clearly had no looky-behind-my-backy mirror installed as was decided in the case of Arizona vs. Chester the Deaf Molester.

So ladies and gentlemen, find for my client, and for America. Thank you.

Whack. Whack. WHACK. OW!

Wisconsin Law Hinders Lewd Library Case

NEENAH, Wis. — A law protecting library records' confidentiality has hamstrung officials pursuing a man who reportedly masturbated among the books at the Neenah Public Library earlier this month. City Attorney James Godlewski said the library can't turn a surveillance video of the man over to police without a court order.

In this case, the library isn't able to release the suspect's identity to the police unless "someone's life or safety is at risk." I don't know when the last time it was that I saw someone masturbate in the library, but the library books stacks are pretty cramped and some enthusiastic self-gratification could cause a guy to whack his funny bone on a bookshelf. And that's not funny. Or safe. So for heaven's sake, turn over that tape!