Category: Uncategorized

Committee Members

Elaine Richardson, Co-Chair
Denise Troutman, Co-Chair
Isabel Baca
Qwo-Li Driskill
David Green
Austin Jackson
Kim B. Lovejoy
Rashidah Jaami Muhammad
Geneva Smitherman
Victor Villanueva
Bonnie Williams-Farrier
Ana Celia Zentella

Committee Charge

Language Policy Committee

General Charge: The Language Policy Committee sponsors activities and initiatives related to linguistic discrimination, language rights, linguistic justice, and equitable approaches to language policies.

Responsibilities

• Keeps the field abreast of how language policies shape our country and our classrooms and puts forth recommendations based on best practices gleaned from state of-the-art research.
• Conducts/updates the “Language Knowledge and Awareness Survey” of CCCC and NCTE membership.
• Maintains, leads revisions of, and advocates for the principles outlined in the CCCC position statements related to their charge.
• Sponsors an annual workshop at the CCCC Annual Convention composed of its committee members.
• Collaborates with other committees on issues and concerns related to linguistic justice and needed improvements in pedagogy, resulting in collaborative action planning, workshops, and relevant research.

Membership

• Members will serve three-year terms.
• Chair: Selects members in consultation with administrative committee chairs and is responsible for fulfilling or delegating its charges.
• Members: Assist Chair in fulfilling the responsibilities of its charges.

 

 

Joseph Janangelo
Loyola University of Chicago; jjanang@luc.edu
Immediate Past President, Council of Writing Program Administrators, wpacouncil.org
Member, CCCC Newcomers’ Committee

Here are some questions and suggestions intended to help you write your CCCC proposals. Good luck!

1. What is your general topic? What are the two or three things that interest you the most about it?
     
2. Who else would or could be interested in your topic? What would interest your readers the most? Why?
     
3. What have other scholars written about your topic? You might begin by searching through issues of College Composition and Communication, College English, Teaching English in the Two-Year College Journal, The Writing Center Journal, and WPA: Writing Program Administration. Also consult other professional journals (perhaps on JSTOR – http://www.jstor.org), listservs, web sites (e.g. CompPile – http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php, the WAC Clearing House – http://wac.colostate.edu), and books to become familiar with scholarly conversations pertinent to your topic.
     
4. In the context of what others have said or written, what would you like to say? What is “new” about your idea, approach, data, or argument? Are there specific ways that you are countering, qualifying, exploring, or extending other scholars’ work?
     
5. What kind of intervention will your project make? For example, will your work inspire your CCCC colleagues to reconsider accepted theories and practices? Does your project offer compelling case studies that chart new pedagogical or theoretical directions?
     
6. What do you want CCCC members to learn from your work? Are you proposing a plan of action?
     
7. Once you draft your proposal, send it to your colleagues for peer review. Ask them if they think your proposal’s title accurately and compellingly reflects its content.
     
8. After you revise in light of colleagues’ feedback, consider the most appropriate “area cluster” in which submit your work.
     
9. Before you send your proposal to the CCCC readers, read it aloud for clarity and concision.

James E. Porter, PhD, The WIDE Research Center, Michigan State University
Martine Courant Rife, MA, JD, The WIDE Research Center, Michigan State University

Acknowledgement:
This paper was supported and originally published by the WIDE Research Center at Michigan State University. Originally published July 2005, revised for further publication venues March 2006.

SUMMARY

In an apparent loss for promoters and users of peer-to-peer filesharing technologies, the US Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of MGM v. Grokster (2005), a case testing whether companies running filesharing services (like Grokster and StreamCast) could be held indirectly liable for the copyright infringements of people using their software for peer-to-peer filesharing.

The Court found that Grokster and StreamCast (the licensers of the Morpheus software) were not “merely passive recipients of information about infringing use” of their software. Rather “each took active steps to encourage [copyright] infringement”; the companies “promoted and marketed themselves as Napster alternatives.” In other words, the companies promoted copyright infringement and sold their services on that basis. The Court found this behavior egregiously blatant, and that was the primary basis for its finding.

It is important to understand the reasons supporting the Court’s opinion. The Court did not rule against peer-to-peer technology per se. Rather the problem, as the Court saw it, was in the way that the companies constructed and subsequently marketed their filesharing software – explicitly as a way to circumvent and subvert copyright holders’ rights. This decision leaves open the possibility that other companies could develop and market P2P filesharing technologies, as long as such companies are sure to promote noninfringing uses.

The Court went to great lengths to distinguish its Grokster decision from its 1984 ruling in Sony v. Universal. Although the Court upheld its position in Sony, reinforcing that mere knowledge that a product or technology might potentially be used to infringe is not a sufficient basis for indirect liability, it did broaden what constitutes “inducement” of copyright infringement, leaving some ambiguity on an important point: To what extent must distributors filter, reprimand, educate, or police copyright infringement on their sites?
 
What are the implications of this case for educators and writing teachers?

The recording and film industries (e.g., RIAA, MPAA) are likely to read the Court’s opinion as broadly as possible and may use it to pursue another type of filesharing intermediary: the university. We have already seen evidence of the recording industry’s willingness to do this. In 2003 the recording industry did not hesitate to file high-profile lawsuits against students at Princeton University, Michigan Technological University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute seeking billions of dollars in damages (Yu). Clearly universities are not promoting copyright infringement by their students, as were Grokster and StreamCast – and universities could just as easily use the Court’s opinion in Grokster to defend its practices. Nonetheless, the recording and film industries are likely to use the ruling as additional basis for litigation holding universities responsible for copyright infringements by students – and such action could well have an unfortunate chilling effect on universities.
 
On a more general level, what the case implies for writing teachers is that you cannot show disregard for the rights of copyright holders. Copyright holders DO have rights, and those rights must be respected. You cannot encourage and promote copyright infringement. You cannot “turn a blind eye” to copyright infringement, even by others, if it is occurring in/across/through an electronic space that you are responsible for — that is, you have set up an electronic “intermediary space” (e.g., your class web site, your blog). At the same time, you are not responsible for infringements by others if you are acting in good faith to promote respect for copyright and if the intermediary service or server you are sponsoring clearly is intended for “substantial noninfringing purposes.”

DISCUSSION OF CASE

On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in the Grokster case, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studies Inc., et al. v Grokster, Ltd., et al. (MGM v. Grokster). The case was argued before the Court on March 29, 2005, having come up on certiorari from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the Supreme Court was the issue of whether the technology distributing companies Grokster and StreamCast were liable for the infringing uses, mainly by private (and young) individuals, of their free P2P filesharing software. 

The issue in this case concerned contributory/secondary/vicarious liability, because it is difficult for entities like MGM and other big media copyright holders to locate and go after private individuals who are infringing on their copyrights. In the August 19, 2004 lower court opinion (MGM v. Grokster), the 9th Circuit held in favor of Grokster, relying on the 1984 case Sony Corp. of American v. Universal City Studios, Inc (the so-called Betamax case). The 9th Circuit stated that because, unlike the scenario in A&M Records v. Napster wherein the centralized supernode provided by Napster allowed the company to have actual knowledge of infringing uses, the de-centralized configuration of Grokster et al. shielded those companies from liability (i.e., the difference between actual and constructive knowledge). The 9th Circuit granted Summary Judgment in favor of Grokster, et al., stating that no liability exists when the product distributed is capable of “substantial non-infringing uses” unless the distributor has actual knowledge of the specific instances of infringement and fails to act on that knowledge. The 9th Circuit did not focus on “intent” to cause infringement or on the marketing strategies of Grokster.

In the present case, the Supreme Court chastised the 9th Circuit, in part for a wrongful reliance on and interpretation of Sony, and remanded the case back to the lower court for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment and the award of possible damages and injunctive relief for MGM et al. (The case eventually  settled out of court [Borland, 2005]).  The Court stated that the previous 9th Circuit decision was erroneous. Clearly in its opinion, of import was the fact that the business model pursued by Grokster et al., was one that encouraged, or “induced,” copyright infringement. The Court noted that any reading of Sony that sees Sony as holding that a substantial non-infringing use component can shield a technology distributor from liability, is an erroneous interpretation, but instead pointed to the fact that Grokster had designed its product for and marketed its product specifically to former Napster customers, had failed to invent filtering tools to prevent infringement, and had an economic/advertising scheme that depended on high volume use. Thus, the Court held that one who distributes devices with the “object of promoting its use to infringe copyright . . . is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS AND WRITING TEACHERS

What are the implications of this case for institutions of higher education in general, for research, for rhetoric and writing, and for writing teachers?

The recording and film industries (e.g., RIAA, MPAA) are likely to read the Court’s opinion as broadly as possible and may use it to pursue another type of filesharing intermediary: the university. We have already seen evidence of the recording industry’s willingness to do this. In 2003 the recording industry did not hesitate to file high-profile lawsuits against students at Princeton University, Michigan Technological University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute seeking billions of dollars in damages (Yu). Clearly universities are not promoting copyright infringement by their students, as were Grokster and StreamCast – and universities could just as easily use the Court’s opinion in Grokster to defend its practices. Nonetheless, the recording and film industries are likely to use the ruling as additional basis for litigation holding universities responsible for copyright infringements by students. Few if any universities will have the will or resources to fight such litigation – and so the result of Grokster, unfortunately, could be a chilling effect: Universities might crack down on students’ (and teachers’) filesharing practices.

In our view, this would be an unfortunate reaction. The Court’s decision in Grokster could just as easily be used to argue to support the university, because universities are not marketing their services as those intended to avert copyright laws. University servers are clearly intended for substantial noninfringing uses, and most universities actively promote responsible use of copyrighted materials. However, universities fearing litigation may react by clamping down even more on student filesharing — and that is the kind of chilling effect that worries us about this case. (It worried Justice Breyer as well, in his concurring opinion.)

What the case does tell us — on a more general level — is that you cannot show wanton disregard for the rights of copyright holders. Copyright holders DO have rights, and those rights must be respected. You cannot encourage and promote copyright infringement. You cannot “turn a blind eye” to copyright infringement, even by others, if it is occurring in/across/through an electronic space that you are responsible for — that is, you have set up an electronic “intermediary space” (e.g., you are maintaining the server; you are sponsoring the blog; you are running the course web site; you are marketing P2P software; you are teaching your students document design, designs which may include the addition of potentially infringing materials; you are requiring students to create web pages as part of class work). At the same time, you are not responsible for infringement by others if you are acting in good faith to promote respect for copyright and if the intermediary service you are providing is not intended for copyright infringement. In short, as long as your intentions are honest and your behaviors ethical, you do not need to be fearful of this decision.

However, as far as current bountiful conversations about the need to change the US copyright regime, this opinion validates current copyright law as a continuing legitimate protection of content. While Lawrence Lessig may wish for an opt-in regime as the ultimate way to go for US copyright law, we are still in an opt-out regime. (An opt-out regime means that we all automatically receive copyright protection on any fixed work unless we opt out by adopting some kind of license, or by donating our work to the public domain. An opt-in system imagines that copyright protection only comes to those who register their work). It is our view that the entities that are working towards upholding access and sharing of information, such as EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and Creative Commons, are now more important than ever. In fact, within 24 hours of the Supreme Court opinion, EFF sent out an email on its mailing list asking for support: “There is no question that there will be a flood of litigation as a result of this decision, as well as congressional hearings. EFF must be there to represent the rights of  innovators and consumers in the fights to come. Now, more than ever, we need your support to continue to protect innovation and new technologies in cyberspace.” 

Since the case validated a strong view of copyright maximalism, not only do we need to continue to support entities such as EFF which are working towards protecting Fair Use and access to information, we need to be sure to continue to educate ourselves, our students, our business partners, and our communities about how they can control the information streams they create, for example by providing easily accessible, clearly written use policies, or by selecting Creative Commons licensing to apply to their own digital work. Creative Commons share-alike licenses could be one significant way to increase access and sharing because the relatively unhindered use of our work becomes dependent on others making the use of their work unhindered.

ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

There are several other issues that we’d like to see addressed as the Grokster opinion spins out. First, what is the current status of Fair Use for educators and researchers? While the Grokster opinion, delivered by Justice Souter, didn’t directly address Fair Use, it did narrow the potential holding of Sony, and Sony validated Fair Use, stating, ““[a]ny individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a ‘fair use’; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use.” In the Grokster case, the concurring opinions of Breyer, Stevens, and O’Connor, and Ginsberg, Rehnquist, and Kennedy, mention Fair Use in passing as at least a consideration in evaluating whether or not a use is infringing.  However, Souter’s opinion makes no mention of Fair Use. This could be viewed as an erasure or erosion of the importance of Fair Use. Educators need to pay attention to this development. 

We are also concerned about the general tenor of the case, and the way the Court construed the issues before it. For example, the Supreme Court justices write that the tension in the case is about balancing the values of supporting creative pursuits through copyright protection and promoting innovation in new communication technologies by limiting the incidence of liability for copyright infringement. The Court sees the issue as balancing the interests of “artistic protection” and “technological innovation.” But we are concerned with this interpretation, because it is quite apparent that the “artistic protection” the Court speaks of has little to do with protecting artists, and everything to do with protecting the interests of comglomerated media and big business. After all, in the end, the Court places the burden of “filtering” and preventing infringing uses on the technology distributors, not on those who could best bear the costs, i.e., big media. 

We are also concerned with a Court that characterizes the conflict before it as one that illustrates how, potentially, “Digital Distribution of copyrighted material threatens copyright holders as never before, because every copy is identical to the original, copying is easy and many (especially the young) people use file sharing software to download copyrighted works.” It concerns us that the Court characterizes the distribution of information as threatening, when it is our view that the withholding of information is the key way control is exercised over individuals and populations. However, importantly, the Court notes that because of the import and breadth of this tension, the public may be drawn “directly” into the discussion of copyright policy. We very much favor greater public participation in the copyright debate.

A last issue that might be addressed within our scholarly community is, what are the cultural and international implications of this? Does the world care about the Grokster decision, and should it? Will international companies arise to take the place of Grokster, knowing they can possibly avert liability under US law? And, if filesharing of copyrighted material through free P2P software becomes “outlawed,” what kind of commercial interests will take its place? For example, per a June 27 interview on “Talk of the Nation,” Wayne Rosso, former president of Grokster, and current CEO of Mashboxx.com (http://www.mashboxx.com/), is overjoyed about the Grokster opinion because Mashboxx.com has a new P2P application ready for release that Rosso claims allows users to legally and “freely” sample music which they can then eventually purchase. However, he says, only copyright holders who register with Mashboxx receive Mashboxx’s protection.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Does this case mean that people will stop file sharing? Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion was particularly worried about “the chilling effect” on the development of P2P technologies – and his concurrence worked hard to deflect some of the possible implications of the main decision. Unfortunately, he only got two other justices to sign on with him (O’Connor, Stevens). Breyer does not want the ruling to discourage entrepreneurs wishing to “bring valuable new technologies to market.” He’s worried about the Grokster ruling working against Sony and creating an “additional chill of technological development” and notes that “the record reveals a significant future market for noninfringing uses of Grokster-type peer-to-peer software.” It is these future markets that we as educators and researcher should work to protect.

RELEVANT SOURCES

A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=0016401&exact=1

Borland, John. (2005, Nov. 7). Last waltz for Grokster. C/net news.com. http://news.com.com/Last+waltz+for+Grokster/2100-1027_3-5937832.html

EFF listserv email.  27 June 2005.

EFF Resources on P2P File Sharing http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/

EFF Summary of MGM v Grokster http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

EFF Summary of Sony v. Universal Studies (aka, the Betamax case) Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/

Foster, Andrea. (2005, June 28). Campus officials disagree on how the Supreme Court’s filesharing decision will affect colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2005/06/2005062801t.htm

IAAL*: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law by Fred von Lohmann http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/?f=p2p_copyright_wp_v4.html
* an excellent over of all the relevant P2P cases leading up to MGM v. Grokster

MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S.______(2005). http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pdf

MGM v. Grokster, 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004). http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mgm/mgmgrkstr81904opn.pdf

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=417

Supreme Court Oral Transcript.  (2005, March 29).  MGM v. Grokster. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf

Talk of the Nation. (2005, June 27).  “Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster.”  Legal Affairs. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4720206

Yu, Peter. (2003). The copyright divide. Michigan State University College of Law Working Paper Series. Research Paper No. 01-21. http://ssrn.com/abstract=460740

von Lohmann, Fred (2005, June 27). Supreme Court sows uncertainty. Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003749.php – a summary of the chief legal issues in the case

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

The CCCC-IP Begins Its Third Decade: Join Us in Tampa at the 4Cs

We warmly invite all CCCC conference attendees to two events sponsored by the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition/Communication Studies (CCCC-IP). This is a landmark year for the IP Caucus, which is beginning its third decade and has now been recognized as a standing group. For twenty years the caucus has explored IP issues pertinent to our academic field and beyond, including the following:

• plagiarism and authorship
• student and teacher rights related to intellectual property
• copyright and copyleft as they relate to scholarship and teaching
• best practices in teaching students and instructors about intellectual property issues
• open access and open-source policies
• contemporary issues in intellectual property, such as corporate surveillance and collection of user metadata (as related to scholarship in composition and communication)

The first event will be the annual open meeting of the caucus. During this session, we welcome educators with questions and concerns about intellectual property to join us in discussions of how intellectual property affects the work of scholars, teachers, and students in our field.

This year’s interactive, action-focused meeting includes a breakout session into four roundtable groups. Each roundtable group, led by a facilitator, will discuss a particular set of IP issues in order to elicit practical solutions, action plans, lobbying strategies, and the production of documents for political, professional, and pedagogical use within CCCC and beyond. Near the end of the meeting, the roundtables reconvene to share their discussions, plans, and recommendations for future action.

The session will also feature remarks by Heather Joseph, executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), advocate for the passage of the Federal Research Public Access Act, and organizer of Access2Research.

This year’s roundtables:

1. Legal and Legislative Developments

This roundtable hosts a discussion of the previous year’s legal and legislative IP developments as they affect students and educators. In previous years our colleagues at this table have discussed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which under some circumstances can have an adverse impact on what students and faculty are able to accomplish in the classroom as well as additional legislation that affect copyright and intellectual property. Discussions have also touched on court cases being closely watched by the educational community, such as one involving Georgia State University’s system of electronic reserves. No matter what the specific topics, discussion will revolve around finding ways to safeguard the ability of students and teachers to make appropriate use of copyrighted material in furtherance of legitimate educational goals.

Roundtable 2: IP Advocacy and Outreach within and beyond CCCC/NCTE

With both short- and long-term planning in mind, this roundtable considers how the CCCC-IP might work to broaden its work as a leading advocate of IP awareness within CCCC and NCTE. In particular, participants will strategize how CCCC-IP might build professional alliances with, and learn from, other professional organizations who have constructed influential professional identities such as the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition.

Roundtable 3: IP in the Classroom: Pedagogical Approaches

As multimodal composition pedagogies become increasingly prevalent, so does the necessity for student-centered teaching about copyright and fair use. This table invites participants to brainstorm innovative ways to teach IP in composition classroom–when composing with text or in other modalities. As composition students write for print, online, mobile, and presentational formats and for a greater audience diversity than ever before, both teachers and students need to know how to handle a wider diversity of intellectual property issues that arise. We’ll also brainstorm about effective ways to distribute these pedagogies with the wider CCCC community.

Roundtable 4: IP Stories from the Field

Anecdotes about being unable to publish certain video clips or textual sections in scholarly articles, being unable to publish student work that uses particular songs or images, or encountering students whose source use practices challenge our definitions of plagiarism are not uncommon in writing studies teacher-scholar lore. No formalized collection of these stories yet exists, however. This roundtable seeks to change that. For this roundtable we invite Caucus members and visitors to share their stories about and experiences with IP, plagiarism, and copyright issues. We will video record responses to gain a collection of the IP encounters that are part of our professional lives.

The above discussions will take place Wednesday, March 18, from 2:00-5:30 p.m. in Room 18 of the Tampa, FL, Convention Center.

The second event will be a panel, “Twenty Years of CCCC-IP: A Roundtable Discussion on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies,” that will explore what intellectual property has meant and will mean for composition studies. Co-chaired by Timothy Amidon (Colorado State University) and Clancy Ratliff (University of Louisiana at Lafayette), the panel also will include Jeffrey Galin (Florida Atlantic University), John Logie (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis); Jessica Reyman (Northern Illinois University), James Porter, (Miami University), and Nick Shockey, Director of Programs and Engagement at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). Serving as respondents will be Johndan Johnson-Eilola (Clarkson University) and Danielle Nicole DeVoss (Michigan State University). This session is listed in the CCCC program as G.44 and will take place Friday, March 20, from 9:30-10:45 a.m. in the Marriott, Florida Ballroom VI, Level Two.

For more information about the two CCCC-IP sessions, contact this year’s senior chair of the IP Caucus: Tim Amidon. In addition, visit this video introduction to the caucus by Dr. Amidon.

This column is sponsored by the Intellectual Property Committee of the CCCC and the CCCC-Intellectual Property Caucus. The IP Caucus maintains a mailing list. If you would like to receive notices of programs sponsored by the Caucus or of opportunities to submit articles either to this column or to the annual report on intellectual property issues, please contact kgainer@radford.edu.

CCCC IP Committee Website

Previous Reports

The 2014 CCCC Intellectual Property Annual: An Opportunity to Contribute

Open Invitation to the Intellectual Property Caucus @ CCCC Indianapolis, 2014

Intellectual Property-Related Motion at the CCCC Business Meeting

2012 Tri-Annual DMCA Rulemaking Creates Expanded Use Rights for Educators

An Invitation to the Intellectual Property Caucus at CCCC in Las Vegas

A Big Win for Georgia State for Online Reserves

Open Access: Where Next?

Tri-Annual DMCA Rulemaking Process Underway—IP Caucus Member Participates

IP and Your Professional Organizations

A Ruling in the Georgia State University e-Reserve Case

The Lord of the Copyright: An IP Fable

The CCCC-IP Annual: Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2011

An Invitation to a Series of Discussions on Intellectual Property

Another (Short) Tale of Open Access: The HathiTrust Case

‘Hacktivist’ or Thief?: What the Aaron Swartz Case Means to the Open Access Movement

Making Textbooks Afforadable and Open

IP Caucus Roundtable: Students’ Rights to Their Writing and to the Writing of Others

Who Owns Your Digital Fingerprint?: Negotiating an Answer to the Question

Who Owns Your Digital Fingerprint?

Update on Google Book Settlement: What Can Your Students Access?

Report of the Meeting of the Annual CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

IP Caucus to Meet April 6 in Atlanta

Part Two: What Teachers Can Learn about Fair Use in Remix Writing from the US Copyright Office

Celebrate the Public Domain

Think Locally, Act Globally: Taking US Copyright Reform to a World Stage

YouTube—and Educators—Win!

Fair Use for Researchers in Communication: A Resource

Part One: The New DMCA Exemption for College Teachers and Students

Understanding Fair Use in the Classroom: A Resource

What? You want to copyright your comic!!?

New Copyright “Combat” Regulations For Colleges and Universities Go Into Effect July 1

Stake Your Claim: What’s at Stake in the Ownership of Lesson Plans?

Report on the March 2010 CCCC-Intellectual Property Caucus Annual Meeting, Louisville, Kentucky

The Times, They Are Remixin’: Indaba Music, Creative Commons, and the Digital Collaboration Frontier

The Rhetoric of Intellectual Property: Copyright Law and the Regulation of Digital Culture (Routledge, 2010)

Data Privacy Day 2010 Celebrated January 28

Transforming Our Understanding of Copyright and Fair Use

CCCC’s Intellectual Property Caucus Member, Martine Courant Rife of Lansing Community College, testifies at the DMCA hearings at the Library of Congress

Plagiarism Detection Services: Unsettled Questions

New Edited Collection from IP Caucus member just published: Composition and Copyright

The Google Book Settlement: Implications for Educators and Librarians

July IP Report: “What’s Fair is Foul?”: Understanding Fair Use in the Classroom

Top Intellectual Property Development Annual Series

Introducing NCTE-CCCC’s Intellectual Property Committee and Intellectual Property Caucus

Committee Members

Michael Faris, Chair
Ruben Casas
Marcos Del Hierro
Elizabeth Keller
Daisy Levy
Kristi McDuffie
Dawn Opel
Hannah Rule
James Sanchez
Meredith Singleton
Kathryn Taylor

March 2018 Update

The committee worked with WPA-GO to develop mentorship opportunities at CCCC in Kansas City, including a very successful Mentoring@Cs event that paired graduate student mentees with mentors in the field. Committee members organized a preconference workshop for CCCC 2018, titled “Your Transition Toolkit: Successfully Moving from Graduate Student to Early Career Professional,” to provide mentoring opportunities for graduate students and early career faculty members. The committee runs a website at http://www.4csogs.org/ to share resources with graduate student members.

We’ve drafted a comprehensive report on our survey results, shared with the Executive Committee in November 2014.

Committee Charge

The CCCC Committee on the Status of Graduate Students is charged with promoting and supporting ongoing understanding about all aspects of teaching, graduate study, research, publication, professional development, professional hiring and other issues relevant to the well-being of graduate students as a vital component of our discipline and of the CCCC membership.
 
Charges:

1. To gather information about the needs of graduate students in CCCC. This might include:

• polling membership regarding the effectiveness of CCCC in meeting the needs of graduate students
• identifying other professional academic organizations that have substantial interest in graduate student issues in the humanities and determine what actions they’ve engaged in that CCCC could adapt to suit its own needs reviewing the history of the CCCC with respect to its activities on behalf of graduate students
• survey scholarship in the discipline of Rhetoric & Writing in order to identify work that specifically addresses graduate student issues
• other actions appropriate to the task as the Committee sees fit

2. Identify graduate student concerns that should be brought to the attention of the CCCC Officers and Executive Committee or to the general membership;

3. Recommend appropriate actions to the CCCC Officers and Executive Committee. This might include position statements, support mechanisms, professional development or research opportunities, and future charges for this committee.

The first of the enumerated goals in the Intellectual Property Committee of CCCC’s mission statement reads as follows: “keep the CCCC and NCTE memberships informed about intellectual property developments, through reports in the CCCC newsletter and in other NCTE and CCCC forums.”  To this end, the Intellectual Property Committee is, with this publication, inaugurating an annual report on major developments in intellectual property law, policy, and research. The following three articles — written by scholars from both the Intellectual Property Committee and the Intellectual Property Caucus (CCCC-IP) — will serve to inform and orient others in the field who increasingly find themselves engaged with intellectual property questions as they pursue their teaching and research.

John Logie
Chair, Intellectual Property Committee
Department of Rhetoric
University of Minnesota

Google Faces Legal Challenges in its Effort to Digitize University Library Contents

Krista Kennedy, PhD Student, University of Minnesota
Assistant Chair, CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

MGM v. Grokster: Implications for Educators and Writing Teachers

James E. Porter, PhD, The WIDE Research Center, Michigan State University
Martine Courant Rife, MA, JD, The WIDE Research Center, Michigan State University

BMG Music v. Gonzalez: Fair Use Tested in a Federal Court

Jessica Reyman, PhD Candidate, University of Minnesota
Assistant Chair, CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

Committee Members

Marisa Klages, Co-chair 
Les Perelman, Co-chair
Bob Broad
Norbert Elliot
Alan Hutchison
Suzanne Labadie  
Patricia Lynne
Jeremy Schnieder
David Slomp
Amy Weaver
Carl Whithaus

November 2015 Update

The Committee on Assessment has been investigating best practices in formative and summative assessment along with efforts to help the discipline successfully critique the machine scoring of essays. We will be publicizing on our web site case studies of exemplary writing assessments in 2 year and 4 year colleges along with updating supporting material for the 2013 NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring.

Committee Charge

Charge 1: Keep abreast of changes in assessment of writing policies and computer-graded essay practices for both formative and summative assessments that affect the profession, including PARCC and Smarter Balance proposed assessments for the Common Core Standards, assessment for placement in first-year writing, and assessment practices in both K-12 and college classrooms. Coordinate with other NCTE committees and groups involved in assessment practices.
 
Charge 2: Work with the CCCC Officers, the MemberWeb Editor, and NCTE staff to disseminate the 2009 Position Statement on Assessment and the 2013 NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring.
 
Charge 3: Supplement the position statements with bibliographies and links to related position statements and explanations of terms.

Charge 4: Advocate for transparency in multiple aspects of assessment including free and open access to computer grading software and the raw data from major studies involving writing assessment.

Charge 5: Serve as a clearing house for publicizing what writing professionals are doing in writing assessment including developing a web site that will allow writing professionals to share various new and innovative practices.

Committee Charge

This CCCC Committee on Diversity is charged to promote and support ongoing dialogues about diversity and difference in all aspects of teaching, graduate study, professional hiring and development, and research on rhetoric, writing, and literacy. This committee has a particular but not exclusive charge to address the concerns and problems of racial diversity in the rhetoric and composition community, given the underrepresentation of people of color in our organization and on college faculties nationwide.

To carry out this general charge this committee is particularly charged

1. To gather data about people of color and other minorities who are members of our professional organization – this includes information such as the degree of diversity of students enrolled in graduate programs, faculty rank and institutional type, representation of diverse scholars & scholarship at our national convention and in NCTE/CCCC publication venues.
2. To poll the membership regarding the effectiveness of CCCC in meeting the needs of our many different constituents, as defined by diverse identity categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, etc.
3. To document and synthesize any data collected from the above efforts, along with scholarship and practical experiences from our members, in order to identify the needs of our membership, and of our discipline, that might appropriately be supported by the CCCC organization or attended to by the CCCC Executive Council.
4. To develop resources that will support our members in engaging in scholarship that directly address diversity issues and/or concerns.
5. To develop resources that will support our members in teaching for diverse student populations, or in teaching diversity-centered curricula to homogenous student populations.
6. To promote the hiring and retention of faculty of color into all departments in which our members are employed.
7. To promote the recruiting and retention of graduate students of color into rhetoric & writing graduate programs and to advocate for diversity-rich graduate curricula.
8. To propose position statements on diversity in the discipline for consideration by the Executive Committee.
9. To combine efforts with other NCTE/CCCC committees where possible to improve efficiency, including the Committee on Disability Issues, the Committee on LGBT/Q Issues, the Committee on Language Policy, as well as with CCCC EC governance groups and Task Forces as is appropriate.

Spring 2014 Update

This CCCC Committee on Diversity is charged to promote and support ongoing dialogues about diversity and difference in all aspects of teaching, graduate study, professional hiring and development, and research on rhetoric, writing, and literacy. This committee has a particular but not exclusive charge to address the concerns and problems of racial diversity in the rhetoric and composition community, given the underrepresentation of people of color in our organization and on college faculties nationwide.

This committee has been working to identify the areas of tension within the organization, and will be moving forward in the next year to craft position statements to submit to the EC. The CCCC Committee on Diversity will also be working with other committees to collaborate on our efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in our organization.

Committee Members

Michael Faris, Chair
Ruben Casas
Marcos Del Hierro
Elizabeth Keller
Daisy Levy
Kristi McDuffie
Dawn Opel
Hannah Rule
James Sanchez
Meredith Singleton
Kathryn Taylor

March 2018 Update

The committee worked with WPA-GO to develop mentorship opportunities at CCCC in Kansas City, including a very successful Mentoring@Cs event that paired graduate student mentees with mentors in the field. Committee members organized a preconference workshop for CCCC 2018, titled “Your Transition Toolkit: Successfully Moving from Graduate Student to Early Career Professional,” to provide mentoring opportunities for graduate students and early career faculty members. The committee runs a website at http://www.4csogs.org/ to share resources with graduate student members.

We’ve drafted a comprehensive report on our survey results, shared with the Executive Committee in November 2014.

Committee Charge

The CCCC Committee on the Status of Graduate Students is charged with promoting and supporting ongoing understanding about all aspects of teaching, graduate study, research, publication, professional development, professional hiring and other issues relevant to the well-being of graduate students as a vital component of our discipline and of the CCCC membership.
 
Charges:

1. To gather information about the needs of graduate students in CCCC. This might include:

• polling membership regarding the effectiveness of CCCC in meeting the needs of graduate students
• identifying other professional academic organizations that have substantial interest in graduate student issues in the humanities and determine what actions they’ve engaged in that CCCC could adapt to suit its own needs reviewing the history of the CCCC with respect to its activities on behalf of graduate students
• survey scholarship in the discipline of Rhetoric & Writing in order to identify work that specifically addresses graduate student issues
• other actions appropriate to the task as the Committee sees fit

2. Identify graduate student concerns that should be brought to the attention of the CCCC Officers and Executive Committee or to the general membership;

3. Recommend appropriate actions to the CCCC Officers and Executive Committee. This might include position statements, support mechanisms, professional development or research opportunities, and future charges for this committee.

Committee Members

Marisa Klages, Co-chair 
Les Perelman, Co-chair
Bob Broad
Norbert Elliot
Alan Hutchison
Suzanne Labadie  
Patricia Lynne
Jeremy Schnieder
David Slomp
Amy Weaver
Carl Whithaus

November 2015 Update

The Committee on Assessment has been investigating best practices in formative and summative assessment along with efforts to help the discipline successfully critique the machine scoring of essays. We will be publicizing on our web site case studies of exemplary writing assessments in 2 year and 4 year colleges along with updating supporting material for the 2013 NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring.

Committee Charge

Charge 1: Keep abreast of changes in assessment of writing policies and computer-graded essay practices for both formative and summative assessments that affect the profession, including PARCC and Smarter Balance proposed assessments for the Common Core Standards, assessment for placement in first-year writing, and assessment practices in both K-12 and college classrooms. Coordinate with other NCTE committees and groups involved in assessment practices.
 
Charge 2: Work with the CCCC Officers, the MemberWeb Editor, and NCTE staff to disseminate the 2009 Position Statement on Assessment and the 2013 NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring.
 
Charge 3: Supplement the position statements with bibliographies and links to related position statements and explanations of terms.

Charge 4: Advocate for transparency in multiple aspects of assessment including free and open access to computer grading software and the raw data from major studies involving writing assessment.

Charge 5: Serve as a clearing house for publicizing what writing professionals are doing in writing assessment including developing a web site that will allow writing professionals to share various new and innovative practices.