ACRL OnPoint Chat Archive for April 28, 2008 - Section 108 Copyright
Study Group Report
(11 a.m Pacific | 12:00 p.m. Mountain | 1:00 p.m. Central | 2:00 p.m. Eastern)
Conveners: Becky Albitz, Electronic Resources and Copyright Librarian at Penn State and ACRL Copyright Committee Chair; and Jim Neal, Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian at Columbia University and a member of the U.S. Copyright Office Section 108 Study Group.
Copyright continues to be a core interest of the higher education and academic library communities. Discuss the implications of the recommendations and findings of the U.S. Copyright Office Section 108 Study Group report, released March 31, on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Discuss the advocacy and educational roles and responsibilities of librarians as changes to Section 108. How does your library:
- become a knowledgeable resource for your community of accurate and current information about copyright?
- document the impact of changes in the copyright laws on the ability to serve users?
- advocate through the political process for the public interest, if legislation arises?
Suggested background reading:
- U.S. Copyright Office Section 108 study group report
- ALA Washington Office Section 108 website
- Section 108 Study Group Releases Long-Awaited Report, LJ Academic Newswire, April 1, 2008
10:39 jim_neal I am looking forward to this experience and to the different views on 108. Go orphan works.
10:48 fostera This a test--and only a test.
10:49 kara_malenfant Welcome to ACRL OnPoint
10:49 kara_malenfant The chat will begin at 1pm CDT.
10:49 kara_malenfant Today's topic is Section 108 Study Group Report
10:50 kara_malenfant Today's chat will be archived on the ACRL website at:
10:50 kara_malenfant Please increase your font size to 12 point for easy readability.
10:50 kara_malenfant ACRL staff will respond to technical questions via direct message.
10:50 carkoc test
10:50 kara_malenfant Enjoy the chat!
10:50 mrod2007 test
10:50 beckyalbitz Hi Kara--I'm on!
10:51 jim_neal Hi, Becky. Jim Neal here.
10:51 beckyalbitz Hi Jim, nice to have you with us
10:52 kenleyneufeld Bouncing between the ACRL/LAMA virtual conference and this chat session; look forward to hearing your experience.
10:52 kara_malenfant Hi Becky, glad you're here.
10:52 jonstahler To follow up on what Kara said regarding tech questions, I'm a member of ACRL staff. If you have questions regarding Meebo, please don't hesitate to contact me via private chat by double clicking my name in the list of participants.
10:52 mrod2007 are we suppose to have a visual on the top right side of the screen?
10:52 kara_malenfant In an ideal world, you could, but something's funky with the URL for the You Tube intro ppt
10:53 kara_malenfant Try this link http://www.section108.gov/and cllick on "show now" to see how that feature works
10:54 mrod2007 It opens up in a separate window.... oh well.
10:54 lisa.librarian not working for me yet
10:54 kara_malenfant Instead of clicking on the link, try "show now"
10:54 fishgen I am new to this! Is this where I warch and listen to the chat on copyright?
10:55 kara_malenfant Hi fishgen, yup, You're in the right plavce. The chat starts in about 5 mins
10:55 kara_malenfant Feel free to test out the features until then
10:55 fishgen Thanks
10:55 kara_malenfant FYI, Today's chat will be archived on the ACRL website at:
10:56 lisa.librarian is there going to be audio?
10:57 kara_malenfant This is a text only chat.
10:57 lisa.librarian thanks, can leave my door open then :>
10:58 kara_malenfant For those who are new, this is an informal chance to connect, not a formal presentation. Sessions are unmoderated, 30-45 minutes in length.
10:58 beckyalbitz Jim and I hope that you have come prepared with lots of questions and comments
11:02 jim_neal I am supporting Becky's role as moderator and will provide perspectives from my participation on the 108 study group OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS
11:02 beckyalbitz I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today for a discussion about the section 108 study group report.
11:03 beckyalbitz we are thrilled that Jim is here today to provide all the answers to our burning questions about what happened during those three years
11:03 jim_neal Perspectives...not necessarily answers
11:03 beckyalbitz :)
11:03 kenleyneufeld what are the highlights of those three years of work?
11:04 beckyalbitz I hope you've all had a chance to take a look at the excellent executive summary
11:04 jim_neal The study group could not come up with answers but certainly pointed us in new directions.
11:04 rfenske I'm not hearing or seeing anything?
11:04 jim_neal We learned that the digial environment is volatile and stability in IP law may not be possible.
11:05 kara_malenfant Hi rfenske, this is a text only chat.
11:05 beckyalbitz you won't see or hear anything--this is a chat-only environment today
11:05 pagebyrner I am confused as to how copyright pertains to ILL and online databases. Can you please fill in where we are and what was proposed?
11:05 jim_neal We learned that there is deep differences across the content owners and content users communities
11:05 rfenske Am I supposed to dial a phone number or is this chat?
11:05 kenleyneufeld rfenske - but you should be able to click on the link to open material in new windows.
11:05 rfenske Oh, ok it's text only.
11:06 kara_malenfant No phone number. Just type, read, enjoy.
11:06 jim_neal Online databases are generally licensed and thus covered by contract law and not copyright.
11:06 beckyalbitz One of the things I gleaned from the summary is that our license agreements will continue to guide us in what we can do with online databases, rather than copyright
11:06 jim_neal It is the copies for users provisions of 108 that enables ILL
11:06 kenleyneufeld unless your doing ILL with paper materials; then it's copyright
11:06 beckyalbitz yep
11:07 klsmith Can Jim describe some of the discussion about non-negotiable licenses. I though the suggestion that copyright should trump the terms of such licenses was very intersting, but obviously no agreement could be reached.
11:07 jim_neal We are able to use analog means to deliver content from online sources as long as enabled under
11:07 jim_neal the contract.
11:08 jim_neal No agreement. I was involved in the UCITA wars which sought to cover click through
11:08 mcshaw2 It seems to me that there is greater standardisation in license agreements than there used to be.
11:08 jim_neal and shrink wrap license....we beat that one back.
11:08 beckyalbitz there is indeed mcshaw2
11:08 jim_neal Yes, and now we have the SERU process.
11:09 susie.byu.edu going into the study group, did participants anticipate greater resolution than what was reached?
11:09 lisa.librarian i'm seeing standardization in licenses but only to the publisher's benefit - not yet there in terms of indemnification, permitted scholarly use, etc.
11:09 jim_neal I have always felt that the better copyright for our community the more strength we had
11:09 jim_neal in negotiating favorable terms.
11:09 beckyalbitz most seem to permit at least analog delivery--electronic ILL delivery from online sources is still iffy
11:09 pagebyrner Does the "single-copy restritiction on copying" apply to online databases? Does this mean we are able to ILL only an article once, or only from the database once? I'm confused.
11:09 jim_neal The consortial licensing approach has helped. Go open access.
11:10 beckyalbitz it depends on what your contract for that product permits pagebyrner
11:10 wundercapo pagebyrner, section 108 doesn't usually cover ILL through databases - license agreements with vendors do
11:10 kenleyneufeld Do most of our database providers have stipulations about ILL in the contract language?
11:10 jim_neal You are limited or enabled by the terms of your contract.
11:10 mcshaw2 Lisa.librarian, have you ever tried to get a vendor/publisher to change their agreement terms? They very often will if you can think of more favourable language.
11:10 kenleyneufeld (i haven't read many of them in detail)
11:10 beckyalbitz I negotiate licenses for a living, and yes, they will change the terms.
11:11 jim_neal We have a set of standards that we apply to contracts and expect vendors to support.
11:11 beckyalbitz you often need only ask, and have a good reason for doing so
11:11 lisa.librarian oh yes, mcshaw2, that's what i do daily. it's just tiresome having to ask every one to change their terms.
11:11 fostera I'm an archivist and have been struck by how little discussion this report has generated in archival communities. What was the archival participation in the group?
11:11 jim_neal 108 is about copies for users and preservation
11:11 mcshaw2 Jim: How are you communicating your standardised expectations to vendors?
11:11 vjcolson jim_neal, I'd be interseted in seeing your standards for contracts. are the available?
11:11 nmarchand Does anyone have boilerplate language they use when negotiating contract terms?
11:11 jim_neal in house and always changeing
11:11 wundercapo Totally different topic: I wonder about the section on Virtual Libraries. What about something like the Internet Archive - a quite large and important archive? I'm surprised it wasn't recommended to include programs like this
11:11 beckyalbitz there are a number of model licenses out there
11:12 jim_neal Peter Hirtle represented the archives community on 108
11:12 mrod2007 can you address susie.byu.edu's question.
11:12 jim_neal Remember the group was large and widely representative. There were some who looked
11:13 mcshaw2 Jim: do you think that copyright will become less important in the online environment. I find that students and even scholars seem to have little regard for the protection of IP in any online format.
11:13 jim_neal for no action while others wanted total rewrite. we came grossly in the middle
11:13 jim_neal Respect for PTB powers that be is waning....people want convenience and ATM. Copyright is increasingly
11:14 jim_neal not relevant to our work
11:14 mcshaw2 I increasingly see licensing as a way to protect the university from liability rather than to inform users of appropriate use of databases and articles.
11:14 beckyalbitz how do you think this will affect our institutions, as we try to protect them from law suits, Jim
11:14 jim_neal We just hired Kenny Crews for our copyright advisory office and education of faculty and students is critical.
11:14 kayvy Do you think copyright is increasingly non-relevant because it is being superseded by contract law?
11:15 jim_neal Yes.
11:15 mcshaw2 I think this is why universities must be proactive in suggesting appropriate license revisions.
11:15 kbradt Does contract law always supercede fair use or copyright?
11:15 mon_lou_2008 Can you talk a little about the group's recommendations for orphaned works, particularly media?
11:15 beckyalbitz trying to teach our users two sets of rules is much more difficult that teaching them one
11:15 jim_neal think of our largest digital collections...the stuff we license
11:16 jim_neal we did not really deal with orphan works...legislation introduced yesterday
11:16 mrod2007 How does the study group propose to educate faculty and students?
11:16 mcshaw2 Jim: can you address the relationship between fair use doctrine & contract law?
11:16 jim_neal it is not the study group, but our institituions that need to take this on
11:17 dataminer Is everything in the report tied up in conditional agreements, or is there any lowest of the low-hanging fruit that Congress might pass sooner?
11:17 jim_neal in my view, contract trumps copyright, and unless we make provsion in license, we can
11:17 lisa.librarian (to an earlier comment) in our licenses, we are diligent about negotiating terms that fall under fair use. it's an important benchmark, so i would hate for contract law to trump in that situation.
11:17 jim_neal not assume fair use or other exceptions
11:17 lisa.librarian or we would lose some bargaining power
11:17 mcshaw2 Jim: I agree, and this is how I view our contractual agreements.
11:18 mcshaw2 It would be wonderful if an academic users 'Bill of Rights' was established.
11:18 beckyalbitz that is why it is important to include fair use andother copyright exemptions when you negotiate your licenses
11:18 jim_neal on earlier question, I think museum inclusion in 108 will proceed first
11:18 mcshaw2 Fair use doctrine is somewhat arbitrary & nebulous.
11:18 jim_neal thank goodness
11:18 beckyalbitz which is useful
11:18 jim_neal ambiguity is our friend
11:18 kayvy If a license is totally silent on any particular use, e.g., ILL, what does govern that use then?
11:19 mcshaw2 I agree, but licenses aren't very friendly to fair use in many cases.
11:19 mcshaw2 I've been increasingly frustrated by licenses that require scholars to send copies of their academic product back to vendors/publishers.
11:19 jim_neal if it is not indicated then it might not be permitted
11:19 mcshaw2 How are librarians supposed to communicate these restrictive conditions to end users?
11:19 beckyalbitz so you should add
11:19 mcshaw2 No one reads the fine print!
11:20 jim_neal author contracts increasingly critical ...go open access
11:20 beckyalbitz we are contractually obligated to, in some way convey these terms to our users
11:20 jim_neal rights metadata increasingly important
11:20 beckyalbitz we use a simple splash screen with very general usage terms
11:20 jim_neal let's talk web content archiving
11:20 lisa.librarian mcshaw - some universities are posting redacted licenses on their websites or embedded within their opacs (if they have an erms)
11:21 mcshaw2 We do include such terms, but I fear that they're not actually communicated.
11:21 kayvy We are using our electronic resource management system to display what each contract allows in terms of staff and user permissions.
11:21 beckyalbitz I was interested in how institutions become eligible to archive web content, Jim
11:21 jim_neal there is no provision in copyright at this point
11:21 beckyalbitz and why those terms were included in the recommendations
11:22 jim_neal loosing generation of knowledge
11:22 jim_neal should become standard part of collection development
11:22 mcshaw2 How is loccks part of this?
11:22 jim_neal that could be the local archive
11:22 kayvy There are some relatively new movements like LOCKSS and CLOCKSS that are specifically trying to maintain backfiles.
11:23 jim_neal but under copyright we do not have the ability to capture, download, archive and make accessible open
11:23 jim_neal web content
11:23 jim_neal LC says pemission required even for them
11:23 lisa.librarian what do you mean by "open web content"?
11:23 kayvy On what basis does the Internet Archive capture content, etc.
11:24 mcshaw2 In the meantime, web information is disappearing daily!
11:24 jim_neal web sites and web documents which do not require password or registration
11:24 jim_neal good question....the content community says illegal
11:24 OxyLibTeach However, if web content has a Creative Commons license ... ?
11:24 jim_neal yes, some owners see the need but spotty
11:25 kayvy Is that the commercial content community or the content community it general?
11:25 jim_neal we are working on Mellon project on human rights web stuff
11:25 kfernand4 Is downloading considered changing the content format?
11:25 jim_neal format not the issue
11:25 jim_neal both commercial and not for profit
11:25 beckyalbitz How do you determine who is eligible to be an online archive, though?
11:26 jim_neal read the section of the report on web right...very interesting
11:26 beckyalbitz it was
11:26 kayvy So far haven't the online archives been established through negotiation and another set of contracts?
11:26 beckyalbitz I was interested in the process for eligibility
11:26 kayvy Is there one?
11:27 jim_neal that generated huge debate, particulalry for profit libraries and outsourcing
11:27 lisa.librarian "open web content" feels a bit like ephemera or gray lit - interesting that copyright doesn't allow for archiving as we used to collect & make available
11:27 pagebyrner How is Google Book scanning everything in site and not breaking copyright?
11:27 beckyalbitz a series of requirements an institution must meet.
11:27 jim_neal if it is written down or fixed, it is copyrighted
11:27 beckyalbitz my opinion, they are
11:27 kayvy It would be great if there were a standard to be met but I don't think there is one at this time.
11:27 jim_neal the lawsuit by the publishers against google is pursuing that very question
11:28 kfernand4 But linking to the open web content is OK?
11:28 kayvy If your library wants to take on a project you make your case to the rights owner and go from there.
11:28 jim_neal yes
11:28 jim_neal the issue is downloading, archiving and redistributing
11:29 beckyalbitz linking has been shown to be legal
11:29 mcshaw2 So, really, it returns to contractual agreements. Libraries would have approach content producers about archiving rights?
11:29 jim_neal yes, unless we can change 108
11:29 jim_neal how about the preservation stuff
11:29 mcshaw2 Becky: That still doesn't solve the ephemeral issue (linking, I mean).
11:29 beckyalbitz nope, sure doesn't
11:29 jim_neal the erosion of content is devastating
11:30 beckyalbitz we all know how many dead links there are
11:30 mcshaw2 I'm surprised that Nicholson Baker hasn't concerned himself about this!!! LOL!
11:30 jim_neal should libraries have the right to automatically preserve fragile content through digital tech
11:30 beckyalbitz :)
11:30 klsmith Jim, given the scant results in terms of agreement, was the three year investment in the Study Group worth it?
11:30 kayvy In the print era libraries were entrusted by publishers to be the "keepers of the word" so to speak. Now that has gone by the wayside.
11:30 beckyalbitz I agree with the group report that we should be able to preserve fragile material
11:30 lisa.librarian beckyalbitz - interesting too that we'll never know how many dead links there are
11:31 mcshaw2 Jim: I think determining fragility could be difficult.
11:31 beckyalbitz indeed, lisa
11:31 jim_neal absolutely ..lots of education on both sides and opportunity now to make changes, but I am worried
11:31 jim_neal about opening 108
11:31 kayvy I am very concerned about that as well.
11:31 mcshaw2 Unlike in the print days, we can't tell when information is volatile. PDFs don't become brittle!
11:32 klsmith So am I. It could get "teach acted"
11:32 jim_neal content plus functionality
11:32 beckyalbitz and formats change so rapidly in the digital realm
11:32 jim_neal no teach yes fair use
11:32 kfernand4 YesB)
11:32 kayvy Seeing how the publishers have ruminated against open access issues including the NIH mandate, libraries might have a hard time coming out with the preservation of materials.
11:33 mcshaw2 Jim: How will copy work (especially for visual things) be impacted?
11:33 beckyalbitz but the publishers won't do it in a comprehensive way
11:33 kayvy And not lose things like fair use all together.
11:33 jim_neal remember that 108 does not cover media very well
11:33 lisa.librarian that's where our license agreements come in - we have to get archiving & perpetual access permissions explicitly stated
11:33 beckyalbitz and this group, although some tried, couldn't increase media coverage
11:34 beckyalbitz or, I should say, format coverage!
11:34 jim_neal biased to text and analog sound recordings post 72
11:34 beckyalbitz yep--not useful in this day and age
11:34 mcshaw2 Would copy work lke digitising a work of art portrayed in a book be considered media under 108?
11:34 jim_neal remember Walt Disney and Universal Music were at the table
11:34 beckyalbitz with all clamboring to use visuals, and for us to preserve them
11:35 jim_neal images in books are not excluded, provision for embedded content
11:35 mcshaw2 So if images are not commercially available, we can still do copy work from a print text?
11:35 jim_neal photographers were at the table
11:35 jim_neal for 108 purposes
11:36 jim_neal remember we still have 107
11:36 beckyalbitz a lot of the conversation around media had to do with market value, Jim
11:36 jim_neal the disney vault
11:36 beckyalbitz I was curious about one conversation having to do with the value of video/film clips
11:36 beckyalbitz do the rights holders really think there is a viable market for such?
11:37 mcshaw2 I'm noticing a lot of market value concerns amongst architectural photographers.
11:37 jim_neal the new business models....long tail ...very much part of publisher thinkin
11:37 mcshaw2 Architectural resource licenses are painfully restrictive.
11:37 jim_neal clips big deal for educational and web site purposes
11:37 beckyalbitz indeed, as the 108 exemption ruling showed--for film faculty
11:38 jim_neal photographers feel very vulnerable...orphan works
11:38 beckyalbitz guess I will always view them as having that limited use--being a former film major
11:38 jim_neal problem with behavior of our students on peer to peer
11:39 beckyalbitz indeed--hard to focus and control that behavior
11:39 mcshaw2 Also mobile devices . . .
11:39 jim_neal yes, we are pushing stuff to mobile
11:39 beckyalbitz that was an interesting part of the report
11:39 beckyalbitz copying with personal devices--how did that conversation go?
11:39 jim_neal digital cameras in the hands of users
11:39 beckyalbitz particularly to protect libraries with general notices
11:39 jim_neal they want us to control in libraries...we said no way
11:40 beckyalbitz amen
11:40 mcshaw2 That would be impossible to police, especially with the shrinking size of such devices.
11:40 jim_neal 108 will translate into years of struggle...are we ready
11:40 beckyalbitz have to be--nothing in stable
11:41 beckyalbitz is stable--sorry
11:41 beckyalbitz I don't see any other entities taking over the preservation mission of our institutions
11:42 jim_neal publishers said they are and able.....don't believe it
11:42 beckyalbitz not for the long haul
11:42 mcshaw2 I worry about their ability to keep archives affordable.
11:42 jim_neal business plan critical...as are community approaches like Portico
11:42 beckyalbitz and making things available when they finally go into the public domain
11:43 guest4867203 I'd worry about their *desire* to keep archives affordable...
11:43 kayvy Most publishers would be in it for as long as their is an income stream.
11:43 jim_neal public domain... does it still exist
11:43 beckyalbitz not in my lifetime
11:43 beckyalbitz at least for anything created relatively recently...
11:43 jim_neal perpetual copyright on the installment plan
11:44 weilerama Would "orphan works" become public domain?
11:44 weilerama Or could they be "reclaimed" by content owners?
11:44 beckyalbitz We'll see what happens when Mickey is about to go into the public domain again
11:44 jim_neal interesting debate about serving the public interest....libraries or publishers who create jobs
11:44 beckyalbitz libraries create jobs too
11:44 jim_neal and Gerswhin
11:44 beckyalbitz perhaps not as well paying
11:45 jim_neal no orphan works remain in copyright
11:45 kara_malenfant Hi all, lively conversation! Well, we've reached the 45 minute mark (and advertised this as 30-45 minutes). You are, of course, more than welcome to keep chatting away.
11:45 jim_neal owner of orphan work could step forward and law would provide compensation
11:45 kara_malenfant But if you do need to go, please note that today's chat will be archived on the ACRL website at:
11:46 OxyLibTeach Question ... anyone pursuing NEH appropriations language a la the NIH success?
11:46 weilerama Would it be retroactive compensation?
11:46 jim_neal not yet, but NSF and NASA are heating up
11:46 jim_neal could be retroactive comp but with limits
11:47 beckyalbitz would that be effected by the user
11:47 beckyalbitz s attempt to locate the copyright owner?
11:47 jim_neal could be, but more by whether the user made money
11:48 jim_neal interesting orphan works issue is author rights... and digital rights in author contracts
11:48 beckyalbitz again, depends on whether the author retained or gave those away...
11:48 jim_neal we need to look for the copyright owner, but what about author and heirs
11:49 jim_neal but how do we know
11:49 kayvy So authors should be encouraged to retain digital rights, right?
11:49 beckyalbitz indeed
11:49 jim_neal they would argue yes, but our interest might be the ability of publishers to produce databases without gaps
11:49 mcshaw2 I hope that more authors are becoming aware of open access and negotiating even when they publish.
11:49 jim_neal remember Tasini case
11:50 beckyalbitz it's hard to talk with faculty about author's rights, but we need to.
11:50 beckyalbitz It is completely off of most of their radar
11:50 beckyalbitz and tenure looms for many
11:50 jim_neal I agree....it needs to be easy
11:50 jim_neal we have created new center for digital research and scholarship working with faculty on these matters
11:50 mcshaw2 Open access seems to be fluorishing in some disciplines and languishing in others.
11:51 beckyalbitz much has to do with the culture of the discipline
11:51 jim_neal Elsevier permits personal and institutional and discipline repository posting of author text
11:51 weilerama mcshaw2, which disciplines are embracing open access?
11:51 mcshaw2 It seems increasingly in the Sciences.
11:52 beckyalbitz physics has been a leader
11:52 jim_neal where speed of access is critical
11:52 mcshaw2 Right . . .
11:52 weilerama The most expensive journals! :-)
11:52 jim_neal embargo periods interesting development
11:52 mcshaw2 Embargos are sometimes the only affordable option for some journals . . . get them through aggregators.
11:52 jim_neal 108
11:53 kayvy Embargo periods have gotten longer rather than shorter.
11:53 jim_neal yes, but good to see editorial boards enabling open access for back files
11:53 beckyalbitz result can be that most current year is very, very expensive
11:54 lisa.librarian but, mcshaw, are they then really serving scholarship if current content is unavailable to our users?
11:54 beckyalbitz sometimes hard to justify
11:54 mcshaw2 Lisa: I doubt very much if publishers care if they are *serving* scholarship.
11:54 lisa.librarian that's the pity, isn't it :>
11:54 beckyalbitz depends on the publisher, though
11:54 jim_neal get out the boxing gloves
11:55 nmarchand (pirate)
11:55 mcshaw2 I really think that journal usage statistics will be helpful tools for future determination about the true value of a journal at the institutional level.
11:55 beckyalbitz just to be fair--some societies are still working for their members
11:55 jim_neal I agree...they are allies for us....
11:55 mcshaw2 Societies are more scholar-centric.
11:55 jim_neal though they have serious financial challenges...not ACS
11:56 beckyalbitz :D
11:56 beckyalbitz or AAAS
11:56 jim_neal 108
11:56 beckyalbitz indeed
11:56 mcshaw2 Many societies provide access to their materials through Highwire.
11:57 kayvy Some use BioOne as well
11:58 mcshaw2 I need to go but appreciate the discussion . . . cheers!
11:58 beckyalbitz I'd like to thank all of you for your thoughtful comments during this chat
11:58 jim_neal great to talk to everyone....my first experience
11:58 kfernand4 will links be part of transcript?
11:58 mcshaw2 Liked the format.
11:58 beckyalbitz We appreciate your participation, and hope you had the opportunity to learn a little about the section 108 report.
11:59 fbauer thank you. It was very helpful.
11:59 kara_malenfant Today's chat will be archived on the ACRL website at:
11:59 beckyalbitz And it is amazing how many topics are so closely related!
11:59 kara_malenfant Have an idea for a future chat topic? Let any ACRL staff member know.
11:59 kara_malenfant We're looking for new topics for chats this fall. And conveners too!:)
12:01 kara_malenfant Hi folks, looks like a few of us (including Jim) need to sign off. You're welcome to keep chatting though.
12:03 kara_malenfant Join us for the next ACRL OnPoint chat "Green Libraries and Campuses" on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 (noon Central Time/1 p.m. Eastern Time/10 a.m. Pacific Time)
12:03 kara_malenfant Convened by Mary Carr, Dean Instructional Services, Spokane Community College and Dr. Debra Rowe, President of the US Partnership for a Sustainable Future.