· What censorship issues may arise and how should English teachers
respond? [note: What is our stand on net nanny /surf patrol programs?)
· Suggestions for incorporating [online use issues?] technology into
English Standards (at the state levels)
· How to evaluate sites for classroom inclusion [Can we clarify what
this means? Evaluation guidelines as they relate to our committee’s
charge?]
· Guidelines for responsible uses of Internet for K-12 instruction
(modeling appropriate behavior that may carry over into the home)
· Suggestions for dealing with parental concerns for on-line uses in
classrooms
· Ways of incorporating training about "online use" into pre-service and
professional development
· Guidelines for (from) librarians re: online use issues
· Guidelines for (from) Writing Centers re: online use issues
· Ways of handling "unsupervised" time on the Internet [I see problems
when students are using the Web for research. What do we mean by
supervised? Unsupervised?]
· Developing acceptable use policies (helping students learn how to do
that) [Note: is this a general area rather than an English dept.
concern. Are there any aspects of AU policies of particular concern to
English teachers?]
· How can novices be introduced to [you name it] in the context of
English classes? (including Ways of handling problem assignments  such
as  e-mail for research; problems related to subscribing to listservs,
etc.)

From: Deborah Little 
Deborah's comments follow  each item.

>· What censorship issues may arise and how should English teachers
>respond? [note: What is our stand on net nanny /surf patrol programs?)

I'd like to think that we'll make suggestions forresponsible uses rather
than addressing possible censorship.  That casts it in a more positive
light for me.

>· Suggestions for incorporating [online use issues?] technology into
>English Standards (at the state levels)

We'll probably want to look at NCATE and ISTE technology standards for the
above.

>· How to evaluate sites for classroom inclusion [Can we clarify what
>this means? Evaluation guidelines as they relate to our committee’s
>charge?]

I was thinking along the lines of recommending that before a classroom
teacher points students to a particular a site for class use it needs to be
evaluated for content and purpose.  Of course no one can evaluate all sites
that students may trip up on as they browse the net.  I am sensitive to
responsible uses and want classroom teachers and parents to know that there
are inappropriate sites.

>· Guidelines for responsible uses of Internet for K-12 instruction
>(modeling appropriate behavior that may carry over into the home)

This one is a continuation of the censorship item first mentioned.  I think
classrom teachers nned to model ethical uses of the net and help students
to be critical users of all resources.

>· Suggestions for dealing with parental concerns for on-line uses in
>classrooms

We may want to have a set of guidelines to follow when a parent finds some
internet activity or an assigned site objectionable.  This could be an
adaptation of the guidelines suggested for books found objectionable by
parents.  We discuss such in our library media program here at ASU.

>· Ways of incorporating training about "online use" into pre-service and
>professional development

Again, NCATE and ISTE have already traveled the above route.

>· Guidelines for (from) librarians re: online use issues
ALA and AASL/AECT have suggestions.  I participated in a study last year
and I think I still have a contact e-mail address at AASL/AECT.

>· Guidelines for (from) Writing Centers re: online use issues

Do we know of any writing centers that have already published guidelines?
No use to re-invent the wheel.

>· Ways of handling "unsupervised" time on the Internet [I see problems
>when students are using the Web for research. What do we mean by
>supervised? Unsupervised?]

I think this relates to censorship and responsible uses previously listed.

>· Developing acceptable use policies (helping students learn how to do
>that) [Note: is this a general area rather than an English dept.
>concern. Are there any aspects of AU policies of particular concern to
>English teachers?]

This seems to be a general cross curricular concern, but deserves mention
in our suggested guidelines.

>· How can novices be introduced to [you name it] in the context of
>English classes? (including Ways of handling problem assignments  such
>as  e-mail for research; problems related to subscribing to listservs,
>etc.)

Here again we are back to responsible uses and evaluation.  I think it is
important to help students learn to examine on-line communications for
appropriate uses.  This is especially true for junior and senior high
students who are more apt to have independent research time in schools.

From: Paul Becker 

>· What censorship issues may arise and how should English teachers
>respond? [note: What is our stand on net nanny /surf patrol programs?)

I'd like to think that we'll make suggestions forresponsible uses rather
than addressing possible censorship.  That casts it in a more positive
light for me.

>· Suggestions for incorporating [online use issues?] technology into
>English Standards (at the state levels)

We'll probably want to look at NCATE and ISTE technology standards for the
above.

>· How to evaluate sites for classroom inclusion [Can we clarify what
>this means? Evaluation guidelines as they relate to our committee’s
>charge?]

I was thinking along the lines of recommending that before a classroom
teacher points students to a particular a site for class use it needs to be
evaluated for content and purpose.  Of course no one can evaluate all sites
that students may trip up on as they browse the net.  I am sensitive to
responsible uses and want classroom teachers and parents to know that there
are inappropriate sites.

>· Guidelines for responsible uses of Internet for K-12 instruction
>(modeling appropriate behavior that may carry over into the home)

This one is a continuation of the censorship item first mentioned.  I think
classrom teachers nned to model ethical uses of the net and help students
to be critical users of all resources.

>· Suggestions for dealing with parental concerns for on-line uses in
>classrooms

We may want to have a set of guidelines to follow when a parent finds some
internet activity or an assigned site objectionable.  This could be an
adaptation of the guidelines suggested for books found objectionable by
parents.  We discuss such in our library media program here at ASU.

>· Ways of incorporating training about "online use" into pre-service and
>professional development

Again, NCATE and ISTE have already traveled the above route.

>· Guidelines for (from) librarians re: online use issues
ALA and AASL/AECT have suggestions.  I participated in a study last year
and I think I still have a contact e-mail address at AASL/AECT.

>· Guidelines for (from) Writing Centers re: online use issues

Do we know of any writing centers that have already published guidelines?
No use to re-invent the wheel.

>· Ways of handling "unsupervised" time on the Internet [I see problems
>when students are using the Web for research. What do we mean by
>supervised? Unsupervised?]

I think this relates to censorship and responsible uses previously listed.

>· Developing acceptable use policies (helping students learn how to do
>that) [Note: is this a general area rather than an English dept.
>concern. Are there any aspects of AU policies of particular concern to
>English teachers?]

This seems to be a general cross curricular concern, but deserves mention
in our suggested guidelines.

>· How can novices be introduced to [you name it] in the context of
>English classes? (including Ways of handling problem assignments  such
>as  e-mail for research; problems related to subscribing to listservs,
>etc.)

Here again we are back to responsible uses and evaluation.  I think it is
important to help students learn to examine on-line communications for
appropriate uses.  This is especially true for junior and senior high
students who are more apt to have independent research time in schools.

____________________________________________________________________

I think this puts us closer to the right track.  

Paul


Sender: Dan Norder 

Arun Mehta  wrote:

[some parts snipped for space constraints...]
>already asked you once. Merely suggesting that a law is losing validity,
>may need changing, or is inapplicable to an entirely new situation does not
>warrant such language.

Reading your posts, I'm afraid you were doing more than that. You were
claiming copyrights can't apply to cyberspace and also suggesting it
was perfectly right to copy products found on the internet completely
without reimbursing the original creator. That, effectively, is
stealing under current international copyright laws.

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your position.

>And by the way, don't tell me you have never xeroxed
>an entire article from a magazine or journal? Or taped a TV program for a
>friend? What would you call that?

I don't know what he calls it, but I call it Fair Use, which does not
violate current copyight law, especially in the case of the TV
show. The TV show is already free, the ads pay for it, and when you
tape it, the ads remain. Whether you watch them or not, much like when
the show is live, isn't relevant.

>See, that's just the point: if you were to take some of my ideas, I'd still
>have them -- and if I were to take some of yours, we'd both be richer in
>ideas. That's why property rights aren't appropriate in the case of
ideas.

If ALL we were talking about were ideas, you might have a point (even
then, some ideas are so revolutionary that it is only right that they
be patented, following the same logic as presented below).

We are talking about products: software, written articles, music,
graphics, etc. Just because they are not physical objects you can hold
or because technology has made it easy to create perfect copies of
them does not make them any less valuable.

If you take those without paying for them, the people who made them do
not get reimbursed for their time spent creating them. Economics being
what they are, soon they'll have to flip burgers in a fast food joint
to pay bills, and suddenly nobody (not even the people willing to pay
for the services) will be able to use those products because they
won't exist.

That is the bottom line: If you don't protect intellectual property
rights, there will be no intellectual creations.

Dan Norder
(Who would happily give away all his creations for free except for the
little matter of having to eat now and then)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Sender: ARTLAWNJ@aol.com

Don't believe everything you read on the covers of magazines!  No
copyright needed on these words of advice.

The publisher owns and profits from academic copyrights only if the
contract that you negotiate with the publisher says so.  The copyright
belongs to the creator--you--and you have to sell it or give it away
via such a contract. All of these contracts can be negotiated, with
the help, if necessary or desireable, of a competent lawyer, so that
the author, the mathematician, the academic, the creator, RETAINS the
copyright which is inherently hers (or his).
Sender: ARTLAWNJ@aol.com
Subject: Re: copyrights

Don't you think that the very invention of the printing press,which
made the wider dissemination of works of authorship not only possible
but inevitable, somehow coincided with the widespread cry for the
protection of authors from pirates?

Ideas are not owned under copyright; the expression of the ideas,
their selection and arrangement--known as "authorship"--form the basis
for the concept "a work of original authorship" to which copyright
protection is granted.  You cannot copyright an idea.  L. Miller

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:20:05 -0400
From: Dawn Rodrigues 
Subject: [Fwd: Teacher & Student Use of Electronic Online Communicat]

I'm forwarding this memo from Leslie at NCTE.
Shall I request that the deadline be moved to January 1999?

By the way, our committee gets a slot on the program for November,
1999.   We can report on our conclusions and point conferees to whatever
texts and web sites we've created.  (Note: We should think about the
different publication options and talk about them at our November
meeting.)

Dawn

P.S. I'll send a revision of our "to do" list to all of you tomorrow.

  [ Part 2: "Included Message" ]

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 14:35:38 -0600 (CST)
From: lfroesch@ncte.org
To: drodrigues@UTB1.UTB.EDU
Cc: Rluck@aol.com, gkirsch@ncte.org
Subject: Re[2]: Teacher & Student Use of Electronic Online Communicat

     Hi Dawn!
     
I checked into the January 1998 deadline that is stated in the function for the 
Teacher and Student Use of Electronic Online Communication Committee.  We 
recommend that you write a letter to the Executive Committee (you can send it to
me) explaining that the committee got a late start because the chairship shifted
from Janie to you.  In the letter, request that the Executive Committee change 
the deadline for your committee to prepare the report and recommendations for 
position statements on online electronic communication to whatever date you feel
is workable.  (For example, if you think the committee can complete this task in
one year, you might request that they extend the date to January 1999.)  Your 
committee terminates in November 1999, so you won't want to request an extension
past that date. 

We will submit your letter to the Executive Committee when they meet in November
at the Annual Convention, and Dick Luckert (the Executive Committee liaison to 
your committee) and/or Gesa Kirsch (the NCTE staff liaison to your committee) 
can let you know at your committee meeting on Friday if the Executive Committee 
approved the extension.  

Let me know if you have questions!

Take care,

Leslie

Subject: Re: Teacher & Student Use of Electronic Online Communicat
Author:  drodrigues@UTB1.UTB.EDU at Internet
Date:    9/19/97 3:17 PM


Thanks for the speedy response. Can you tell me how rigid that Jan. 1988 
deadline is. Was that Janie's original deadline? Can it be changed? Can 
we just have something ready, but not done?
lfroesch@ncte.org wrote:
     
>      Dawn,
>
>      Glad to hear all is moving along well with the committee.  Here's 
> the
>      charge:
>
>      Teacher and Student Use of Electronic Online Communication 
>
>      Functions:      to gather information, including background and 
> policy
> documents from other organizations on issues involved in school uses 
> of online
> electronic communications; to explore issues of access and censorship 
> in
> relation to school uses of such communication, clarifying as needed 
> distinctions
> between access in school settings and access by publics outside of the 
> school;
> to prepare a report and recommendations for position statements on 
> these issues
> for the Executive Committee not later than January 1998. 
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Teacher & Student Use of Electronic Online Communication 
> Author:  drodrigues@UTB1.UTB.EDU at Internet
> Date:    9/19/97 12:56 PM
>
> Leslie--
>
> I have misplace my copy of the charge to the committee. I've got the 
> whole folder with all the stuff Charlie sent me, but somehow that's 
> not
> in it.
> Can you either e-mail it to me or Fax it to 956-544-8988.  (Attention 
> Dawn Rodrigues--English and Speech)
>
> Thanks, Leslie!
>
> Dawn
> P.S. We've started our online discussion. All's finally underway.
     
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:01:37 -0700
From: Ted Nellen 
To: use@mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us
Subject: Safety Lessons for the Internet

FYI
In Sat NYTimes Op-Ed
Ted

http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/nyt/11cole.htm
> October 11, 1997
> 
> Safety Lessons for the Internet
> 
> By ROBERT COLES
> 
> [C] AMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Is the Internet dangerous to children? Parents
>     across the country were asking that question after an 11-year-old
> New Jersey boy was sexually abused and murdered, allegedly by a
> 15-year-old neighbor. The teen-ager himself apparently had been the
> victim of a 43-year-old convicted pedophile whom he met on-line.
> 
> As events unfolded, yet another American family debate erupted. There
> were calls for greater regulation of the Internet. And predictably,
> all-or-nothing First Amendment advocates responded by saying that
> parents were ultimately responsible for keeping their children safe --
> just as they guard their children against violent television shows.
> But this argument against regulation doesn't take into account the
> Internet's interactive nature, which makes it an even more dangerous
> medium than television.
> 
> New technology has always posed dilemmas for parents. After World War
> II, television brought a whole visual world into the living room. Some
> parents saw television as an unwelcome distraction that kept children
> from doing their homework. Others were worried that the programs
> thumbed their nose at traditional values. Boys and girls could now see
> what they previously could only hear on the radio -- gunfights and
> romantic scenes.
> 
> The issue of television's effect on children is still with us today --
> witness the debate over the V-chip, which would allow parents to block
> inappropriate programs.
> 
> But the Internet takes us into a quite different terrain. The Internet
> can bring into a home not only passive entertainment, like television
> images, but also the interactive presence of other voices, ready to
> engage in conversation.
> 
> Unlike the strangers children meet on the street, however, these
> outsiders can lie about their identity and intentions without the
> visual cues we tell children to look for on the street in order to get
> some sense of whether a person is dangerous.
> 
> And these strangers have already gotten access to children in a place
> where they feel safe -- at home, perhaps with parents in the next
> room.
> 
> We "experts" have always been quick to give advice on how to set
> limits for children: Know what is available to children; talk with
> them about what is appropriate; exert parental authority respectfully
> but firmly. For many families, this kind of communication is enough to
> keep children safe.
> 
> But in too many homes, among the well-to-do and the poor alike, there
> is little parental supervision. These are the children obviously in
> the greatest danger -- they lack a strong family presence that is the
> first line of defense against various kinds of moral jeopardy.
> 
> The Internet is an ever-expanding and valuable reservoir of knowledge,
> a wonderful means of fast human communication, but it is also a
> garbage heap of pornography, of lewd exchanges, of crazy ranting --
> all of that a mirror of who and what we are as a people.
> 
> Yes, to contemplate some control over the dangerous provocations of
> the Internet presents a First Amendment problem. But we have long been
> struggling to set limits, formal and informal, on what appears on
> television and in the movies -- and with some success.
> 
> Just as there is a new ratings systems for television shows, the
> nation should also consider the place of the Internet in our lives
> and, especially, in our children's lives.
> 
> We as a society must continue to make distinctions between what is and
> is not appropriate for children, and we must keep putting barriers in
> the way of the inappropriate -- on the Internet as well as on
> television and in the movies.
> 
> Robert Coles is a child psychiatrist and the author, most recently, of
> ``The Moral Intelligence of Children.''
> 
>               Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Nellen 
To: use@mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us
Subject: CyberTimes 10/19 article

Folks,

A little history and explanation.

As you know the Internet has been getting some very bad press re abuse of 
children and sex.  I have been folowing these cases for many years, esp  
since I use the net in a k12 environment.  I have noticed that the common 
denominator in all of these cases has been AOL.

Well last Thur, NYTimes ran another article which discussed how the 
Internet had been the way some young man was lured into a compromising 
situation.  It wasn't until the sixth paragraph that AOL was mentioned.  
I wrote to the CyberTimes re this.  I asked why they mentioned AOL inthe 
sixth and not the first paragraph.  Well Lisa N called me Friday morning 
and we chatted.  That chat was printed Sunday online.

You may want to read it.  I have already received mail on it.  8/10 
support what I said and did.  Positive from NCTE talkers.  The main point 
is that I took AOL off the library computer because kids were using the 
chat rooms,  sex chat rooms.  I know this is an issus with our group.  I 
was shocked to see it printed.  I left it with Lisa that we would speak 
Monday.  

I await your discussion on this.  Understand too, From noon Fri until 7pm 
Sunday evening I was involved in an intense weekend at TC where I'm 
working on my doctorate.  I returned to lots of mail and then the 
article. 

I am emotionally and intellectually drained from the work at TC and 
then this.

I can't think, but I know you need to see it.
Need to rest the brain cells.
I can't process this thing right now.

I'm including the article if you can't access CyberTimes

Ted     8-)

        "It's not the Internet I'm after -- it's AOL," Nellen said 
        Friday from his wired classroom at the school, where access to the 
        Internet is still available. "AOL is a playground without a fence. 
        It's a field day for predators. I will put it back on when they clean up 
        their act, but until they show some humanity, I'll keep it off." 
        

Bergtrum High School, and Nellen, are seen as innovators in wired education, but the Superintendent of Manhattan High Schools, Granger Ward, said that Nellen's policy wouldn't automatically extend to other schools in the city.

"We look at individual situations and schools," Ward said. "But certainly Bergtrum is more technically advanced, so we'll be looking at what they've encountered."

Nellen said he asked for AOL to be taken off the dial-up access computer in the school library in the wake of recent scandals in which children who met adults in AOL chat rooms were later abused. And he is angry at what he feels is a popular misperception that AOL equals the Internet.

"Ninety-nine percent of the time when there's a problem, the common denominator is AOL," he said. "It's not the Internet that's causing pain -- it's AOL."

Nellen said it was his responsibility as an educator to keep students away from the Vienna, Va.-based online service. Manhattan high school policy forbids the use of classroom computers for personal communications of any sort, but such use does happen, he said.

"It's like going into a school and saying, 'Free Sex Here,' " he said. "AOL gives away free disks everywhere -- it's like drug dealers, they give it away to get people hooked."

Tricia Primrose, a spokeswoman for AOL, said that keeping the service safe was the company's "top priority." She cited controls available on the service that allow parents to restrict their children's access to certain areas. Obviously, she said, AOL cannot control what happens to people when they meet in real time.

"We can't always be standing over their shoulder, but we can put these limiting tools in place," Primrose said. "We're very focused on creating the tools and making them easy to use. We make it easy for parents to control. If we come across something that is unlawful and illegal, we terminate the account."

But Nellen says that children have little trouble working their way around parental controls, and he says that entering racy chat rooms is "like taking Dad's Playboy in the old days and looking at it." Though students are instructed not to go into these rooms and are told not to give out their names and locations, he says, they often still do it.

"We give condoms away here," Nellen said by way of comparison. "We don't have conversations about how to have sex. We know why they use AOL, and they know we know why they use AOL."

Nellen described himself as a free speech advocate and said that his decision to remove access was "painful."

"It's not the Internet I want to have regulated," he said. "It's the providers."

So far, he has not heard feedback about the missing online access, nor has the school librarian, who says that students could easily bring in their own disks and re-install the service.


Related Sites
Following are links to the external Web sites mentioned in this article. These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability. When you have finished visiting any of these sites, you will be able to return to this page by clicking on your Web browser's "Back" button or icon until this page reappears.

    Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:24:27 -0400 (EDT) From: R Yagelski To: Ted Nellen Subject: Re: CyberTimes 10/19 article Ted, I did indeed see the article in yesterday's NY Cybertimes and read it with great interest. I think this is precisely the kind of issue our committee needs to address, especially since "big" issues such as censorship are likely to confront teachers in the form of problems such as you're facing at your school. In my work with teachers and in my conversations with parents of school-aged children, the most common concern I hear is precisely the one you're dealing with right now: But won't kids get into stuff they shouldn't have access to when they get onto the Internet? I have my own complaints about AOL, but I think the larger issue that your situation raises is how to provide students with access to the many useful resources on the net at the same time that they are prevented from entering inappropriate spaces like sex chat rooms. As you well know, if someone wants to get there, he or she will do it. But I think schools need to set guidelines and limits about what constitutes "appropriate" use. Shutting off access to certain segments of the net--to the extent that this is even possible--may be necessary in certain circumstances (such as yours), but it isn't, in my view, a long-term solution. I wonder what rules or guidelines you and your school had in place regarding student use of the net. Were students held accountable in any way for inappropriate uses such as entering sex chat rooms? Were their net privileges revoked? Were parents notified? Tough situation. I'm interested to learn more and to discuss the matter further. (Incidentally, this situation is another example of the way in which the press often misrepresents issues in education. I don't envy you the task of dealing with them, but I think it's unavoidable. We educators should learn how to handle the press, I think, and perhaps at some point you can share your insights on this with us.) Bob Yagelski rpy95@cnsunix.albany.edu Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:18:27 -0500 From: Dawn Rodrigues To: use@mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us Subject: Agenda for NCTE meeting Everyone-- Let me use responding to Ted's message as a chance to get back to all of you. I'll get the list of topics that we brainstormed into shape before our meeting at NCTE so that we can talk through the issues face to face and determine a more focused agenda. I appreciate all the energy everyone put into the discussion for a few weeks. I got swamped by other projects, so didn't keep the momentum going, but I trust that you'll all just jump in and keep talking at any point. RE: Ted's message: What a nice link between our committee and the Kairos issue. I'm sure we can work something out that might fit for Kairos. We just need to be sure to meet our commitment to NCTE--a report and some sort of publication (brochure, flyer, etc.) or even a book if we'd want. I'll put an agenda together for our NCTE meeting in a week or so. Here's what I'm thinking of at this point: 1. Review charge, deadlines, etc. 2. Refine our charge: determine specific projects, activities, and people responsible for them. 3. Discuss ways of continuing our work through this list as well as other possibilities. What should I add? Dawn P.S. Let me know if you will not be at the meeting. Ted Nellen wrote: > Look at all these goodies just provided by Nick Carbone. > Halloween came early. > > BTW I'm on editorial board of Kairos, so we might be able to work our > work into this issue, if NCTE says okay and so does Kairos. > > Ted 8-) > > Kairos 3.1 will focus on copyright, intellectual property rights, > and > plagiarism, especially as they relate to cyberspace and the > Internet. > For this issue, we'd like to include reviews of books, articles or > collections of articles, web sites, software, email list > discussions > or groups, conference presentations or caucuses, and legislation > proposed or in the works, which concern any of the three issues. > > --->>The deadline for all reviews for Kairos 3.1 is January 27, 1998. > > We welcome your ideas for resources to review and also suggest > these > for consideration; multiple reviewers of a single source are > welcome: > > Books > > The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and > Literature, ed. by Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi, Duke U > Press, 1994. > > Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, ed. by Sean Burke, > Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1995. > > Thomas Mallon's Stolen Words, Forays into the Origins and > Ravages > of Plagiarism, Penguin Books, 1989. > > Ronald V Bettig's Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy > of > Intellectual Property. New York: Westview P, 1996. > > James Boyle's Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the > Construction of the Information Society, Harvard UP, 1997. > > M. Ethan Katsh's Law in a Digital World, Oxford U. Press, 1995, > > and The Electronic Media and the Transformation of Law Oxford > U. > Press, 1989. > > Lance Rose's Netlaw, Your Rights in the Online World, Osborne > (McGraw Hill), 1995. > > Web Resources > > Texas Intellectual Propety Law Journal, > http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tiplj/ > > The Copyright Web Site's infor on Web Issues, > http://www.benedict.com/webiss.htm > > The Copyright Clearance Center's Copyright Information, > http://www.openmarket.com/copyright/html/lawinfo.html > > Intellectual Property Creators Website on Patent Public Policy > and > Enforcement, http://www2.best.com/~ipc/ > > Intellectual Property Magazine, http://www.ipmag.com/ > > Jim Porter's web site for the CCCC-IP Caucus, > http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~jporter/webIP > > UMI's Advice on Copyright for Dissertation and Theses Writers, > http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/strong.copyright.html > > RPI's HotProperty Hyperlinked Bibliography of Copyright/IP > Resources, > http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/intelprop/web/biblio2.html > > Conference workshops or presentations > > We welcome reviews and summaries from anyone who attends a > conference > or workshop on Intellectual Property, Copyright, or Plagiarism, > especially, but not limited to, as these apply to electronic > writing > environments. > > E-Mail List Archives and Discussions > > A recent discussion on ACW-L concering plagiarism and IP can be > reviewed in its archived form. We welcome reviews from members of > ACW-L who either lurked or participated in the discussion, as well > as > from others who may wish to seek it out. To reach the archive for > the > month when the subject held sway, go to > (http://www.ttu.edu/lists/acw-l/9710/). The archive is a good way > to do > a review because references made to online sources can be followed > directly from the URL given in the archived message. Intrepid > readers > are invited to follow up on other e-mail list archives they may > have > found; they are also invited to join an email list that discusses > IP, > copyright, and/or plagiarism and to write a review of the list. > > Your Own Webthology > > As you may have gathered from the long list of web sites and the > references to e-mail list archives, the web is almost always more > than > one web site. For example, you may do an AltaVista Search for > "intellectual property" +copyright + plagiarism +"writing teacher", > > and then use the results--the hits--as a basis for reading and > exploring. If you review as a collection whatever you find from > such > searches, we'd welcome that. > > We also know many scholars contain bookmarks for worthy sources; > you > are welcome to scan your bookmarks on IP, copyright, plagiarism and > to > write a survey and review of what you have. > > The Webthology is new and experimental, so please feel free to > query Nick > Carbone for more information (a.k.a. to help him figure this > concept > out). > > Software > > There are a number of software products: Eastgate's Web Squirrel > and > Forefront's WebWhacker to name but two, which allow a user to > download > websites onto their hard drives for easier reading, subsequently > offering the ability to edit the files. Products such as these > change > the reader's relationship to the web. We seek reviews which do two > things: one, examine the products to see how well they work; two, > consider how the product changes how one interacts (if they do at > all) > with what one downloads. Does property become more malleable and > therefore less permanent on our own harddrives than it is on the > Web? > > We are also open to ideas for reviewing software that supports > writing > bibliographies (Bibliocite, for example), and that operates as a > stand > alone product. > _________________________________________________________________ > > Kairos 3.2 Call for Reviews > > --->>Deadline for reviews for Kairos 3.2 is June 15, 1998 > > English Grammars and Handbooks and the Internet > > Kairos 3.2 will be published late October or early November, about > the > same time many teachers and students are thinking ahead to the next > > semester's courses; for teachers this is a time for considering > what > books to order for those courses. For this issue, then, we'd like > to > focus on a particular type of book, the handbook. Most handbooks > now > include, or are in the process of adding to their next editions, > sections on how to use the Internet. Further, many of handbooks now > > include electronic versions on disk or cd-rom as well as websites > that > serve as companions to the book. > > We'd like to have a cluster of reviews of these books and any > companion or publisher affiliated web sites that complement these > books. While you're attending conferences in the next few months > and > visiting publisher's booths, keep your eye out. If you're > interested > in reviewing a book and cannot get to a conference, most publishers > > will send you a review copy. Herewith a brief sampling, by no means > > complete, representing only handbooks that have come to our > attention: > > * Every Day Writer, with companion web site by Robert Connors and > > Andrea Lunsford > * Keys for Writers by Anne Raimes > * A Writer's Reference by Diana Hacker > * The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers by Maxine Hairston and > > John J. Ruszkiewicz. > > As we all know, there are many, many more handbooks than these, so > whether you are a publisher and would like a handbook to be > considered, or are a potential reviewer and have some other > handbook(s) in mind, please feel free to contact our Reviews > Editor, > Nick Carbone at nickc@english.umass.edu with your ideas. > > Email lists and Usenet Groups > > As a companion to the handbook cluster, we also welcome reviews and > > perspectives on the many email lists and usenet groups which > discuss > matters of English prose writing, and more sometimes more narrowly, > > grammar, usuage, and style. > > Non-Academic/Publishing Web Sites for Writers and Writing > > In addition to the sites which accompany English handbooks, and > those > which are essentially OWLs affiliated with colleges and > universities, > there are a number of websites for the non-academic writer. These > range from those maintained by the hobbyist to those written by the > > publishing professional. We'd like reviews of these sites for > Kairos > 3.2 > > Webthology > > Reading on the web is a matter of following links, going where your > > interest takes you. We sometimes mark our trails with bookmarks, or > > notes. One way to consider a reading experience is to combine a > series > of bookmarks, with the browser's history of links. We invite > readers > to submit reviews of their reading travels--where'd you go?, what'd > > you find?, how'd you like it?, and would you recommend that we go > to > it too? The Webthology offers a way for you to comment upon the > disparate strands you gather and weave into meaning. > _________________________________________________________________ > > Kairos is sponsored by the national Alliance for Computers and > Writing, http://english.ttu.edu/acw/ > > Please direct any corrections, ideas, concerns, or proposals to Nick > Carbone, nickc@english.umass.edu Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:03:05 -0800 From: Cyber Rights To: "Multiple recipients of list cyber-rights@cpsr.org" Subject: cr> Content rating and Internet self-regulation Sender: "Mark Atkins /ADVISOR L. Fausett" >I've been involved in the creation of such a self-regulating >initiative myself; a hotline against child-pornography on the >Internet. ... >This hotline serves as an assembly point for >people that want to complain about the distribution of child-porn on >the Internet. The hotline limits itself to warning people that >publish these materials, and telling them they're committing a >crime. If people do not remove these materials after they've received >a warning from the hotline, the hotline reports their activities to >the police and refrains from further activities. Whose side is this guy on? Certainly not on the side of cyber-rights, civil liberties, or the ACLU. Paraphrased, his posting says: We don't know who, what, or how to regulate so we're going to start by threatening the minority group that most people find the most offensive: posters of "child" "pornography" (which now in the USA includes even plain nudity, fine art, drawings, computer simulations, adults posing with dolls, 17 1/2-year-olds, and even novels without any images whatsoever). Problem 1: Exceptions breed exceptions. As soon as you create one exception to the general rule and allow one minority group to be attacked, this sets a precedent that legislators are all-to-eager to follow in order to destroy innocent people so as to cover up their own corruption and win votes from the ignorant populace. Thanks to violation of this principle, you can now be executed in the USA for growing too much marijuana, or spend 10 years in prison for drawing the wrong picture, or singing the wrong song. Is this where The Netherlands is headed, too? Problem 2: Usually the minority groups are normal and innocent. In the 1940s it was the Jews, in the 1950s it was homosexuals and communists, in the 1980s it was drug users, in the 1990s it's neotephiles (= ephebophiles & pedophiles). Obviously we haven't learned anything yet from history. Imagine the reaction you would get if you tried to ban homosexual-related images, and then realize that while probably only 2-4% of the population is mostly homosexual, at least 21% of the male population has pedophilic tendencies, and probably 95+% has ephebophilic tendencies. Obviously such large groups could not possibly be considered abnormal or a threat to society, and those who attack these groups now are going to look like fools a few years from now when the politicians are no longer able to hide the statistics that reflect reality. Problem 3: There is no reason to ban even real "child" "pornography." The pretext is protecting children, but even neglecting the fact that the images being banned now have nothing to do with protecting children, even the original excuses are fundamentally flawed. The assumption that children are necessarily harmed by having their picture taken is flawed, the assumption that children themselves are not interested in viewing such pictures is flawed, the assumption that normal people do not want to view such pictures is flawed, the assumption that children have no sexual desires and cannot give consent to anything related to sex is flawed, the assumption that you can measure consent by age, or that everybody matures at the same rate, or that the age of puberty is constant, or that there must exist a sudden threshold of growth somewhere, or that pornography can be unambiguously defined, etc. etc. is all flawed. I know people don't want to make fundamental changes in their beliefs or longstanding prejudices, but sorry, you can't permanently hide from reality, no matter how unpleasant or offensive it is. Reality bites back hard--as we saw in the Stonewall Riots, L.A. Riots, French Revolution, American Revolution, etc.--if you ignore it long enough. Problem 4: You can't control information flow. The best you can do is drive it underground where encryption will take over. You can't control encryption, either. Image data can not only be encrypted, but the files themselves can be split, merged, overlaid, and transmitted at different time intervals through different media. The number of ways patterns can be modified is not just infinite, but uncountably infinite. Once again, creating an exception (encryption, content, media, etc.) will necessarily breed more exceptions until the entire regulatory system must collapse from excessive costs and internal corruption, as we're seeing now in the failed war on drugs. Problem 5: An image depicting a crime should itself not be a crime. This is the standing of the ACLU, which has put more years of thought into this topic than any of us possibly could. If depicting a criminal act is a crime, then we should not be able to watch O.J. Simpson driving down the freeway or Rodney King being beaten. Somehow this obvious logic escapes many people. By making an image itself illegal, you just make it harder to track down the criminals depicted, and make it possible for police to destroy anyone at will by planting illegal materials in their home or car, which is all too frequent now in the USA. The enemy is not some minority group that's currently out of fashion, but those who promote and act on ignorance and hysteria, such as this kerel from The Netherlands. "If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." --Carl Schurz, in "The Great Quotations" "Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others." --William Allen White, in "The Great Quotations" "People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people." --Saul D. Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals" "We should be terrified of the notion--now endorsed in circles that were once staunchly supportive of all civil rights--that some beliefs and opinions are beyond the pale and should be silenced in the pursuit of compassion and a just society." --Dean Koontz, in "Ambush at Ruby Ridge" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:32:26 -0500 (EST) From: Ted Nellen Subject: Free speech expulsion of 6th grader from public school (fwd) This is a curious situation. It comes from someone I know well, so I don't doubt its veracity, but the situation is curious. Anyone else know about this? Comments? Ted 8-) Sender: "David S. Bennahum" It recently came to my attention that a 13-year old sixth grader named Mary Fister, who lives in St. Peter (pop. 10,000) Minnesota, was expelled from public school for taping a letter she received in her "work area." She's been out of school for 1 year now, which, she says, is the longest they can keep you out for an offense that does not involve guns. Fister has an extremely interesting Web page that she's done herself, with specific information, including a copy of the letter which led to her expulsion: http://www.gac.edu/~mfister Why this seems of interest to cyber-rights is two-fold: she's using a Web site to get word out on her plight; and free speech issues surrounding children is especially important right now, as they're being used to justify post-CDA legislation yet again. It's always refreshing to read what a supposed potential "victim" of "obscenity" in cyberspace thinks about attempts to control her access to information. One of the charms of cyberspace is that it lets kids speak back, to a potentially huge audience, as Mary is here. best, /d Contributing Editor, Wired