A Comparative Analysis of Libraries’ Approaches to Copyright: Israel, Russia, and the U.S.

1. For example, James G. Neal, ‘‘Copyright is Dead . . . Long Live Copyright.’’ American Libraries 33 (11) (December 2002): 48–51.

2. Ibid., p. 48.

3. Pnina Shachaf, ‘‘A Global Perspective on Library Association Codes of Ethics.’’ Library and information Science Research 27 (December 2005): 513–533.

4. A search in LISA identified about 350 articles since 1977 on the topic. Of the other representative countries studied here, one was about Russia and one about Israel. To provide context, forty-five articles listed are from the U.K.; twenty-two from Australia; fifteen from Germany; thirteen from Japan; thirty-seven from a mix of Western European countries; seven from Eastern European countries (excluding Russia/USSR); five from India, four from Africa;

four from Canada; one from the United Arab Emirates; one from New Zealand; one from Malaysia; one from Iceland; and fourteen from a mix of countries discussing global issues.

5. Janice T. Pilch, ‘‘Fair Use and Beyond: The Status of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the Commonwealth of Independent States,’’ College and Research Libraries 65 (6) (November 2004):468–504.

6. Janice W. Holladay, ‘‘Educators/Copyright: The Academic Librarians’ Viewpoint,’’ Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 22 (2) (May 1982): 78–81; Charles Martell, ‘‘Copyright-One Year Later: A Symposium,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 5 (3) (July 1979): 124–131; Regina Shelton, ‘‘Adaptation: A One-Year Survey of Reserve Photocopying,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 6 (2) (1980): 74–76.

7. Meredith Butler, ‘‘Copyright and Reserve Books: What Libraries are Doing,’’ College and Research Libraries News 39 (5) (May 1978): 125–129.

8. Kimberly Bonner, Kimberly B. Kelley, James S. McMichael, and Neal Pomea, ‘‘Intellectual Property, Ownership and Digital Course Materials: A Study of Intellectual Property Policies at Two and Four Year Colleges and Universities,’’ Portal: Libraries and the Academy 2 (2) (Apr 2002): 255–266.

9. Ibid., p. 264.

10. Karen I. Wagner, ‘‘Intellectual Property: Copyright Implications for Higher Education,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 24 (1) (January 1998): 11–19.

11. David B. Walch, ‘‘The Circulation of Microcomputer Software in Academic Libraries and Copyright Implications,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 10 (5) (November 1984): 262–266.

12. Donna L. Ferullo, ‘‘Major Copyright Issues in Academic Libraries: Legal Implications of a Digital Environment,’’ Journal of Library Administration 40 (1/2) (2004), p. 35.

13. Thomas H.P. Gould, Thomas A. Lipinski, and Elizabeth A. Buchanan, ‘‘Copyright Procedures and the Deciphering of Fair Use in the Creation of Reserves at Major University Libraries,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31 (3) (May 2005): 182–197.

14. Judy Anderson and Lynn DeMont, ‘‘Treading Carefully Through the Murky Legalities of Electronic Reserves,’’ Computers in Libraries 21 (6) (Jun 2001): 40–42, 44–45; Tanya Shkolnikov, ‘‘To Link or Not to Link: How to Avoid Copyright Traps on the Internet,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (3) (2002): 133–140; Pat Wilson, ‘‘The Ins and Outs of Providing Electronic Reserves for Distance Learning Classes,’’ The Journal of Library Administration 37 (3/4) (2002): 537–548; Richard Nollan, ‘‘Campus Intellectual Property Policy Development.’’ Reference Services Review 32 (1) (2004): 31–34.

15. Ibid.

16. Pilch, ‘‘Fair Use and Beyond: The Status of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the Commonwealth of Independent States,’’ p. 468–504.

17. Ibid., p. 493.

18. Debbie L. Rabina, “Copyright Protection in Israel: A Reality of being ‘Pushed into the Corner,’” Information Research 6 (4) (2001). Available: http://informationr.net/ir/6-4/paper110.html (November 2005).

19. Shachaf, ‘‘A Global Perspective on Library Association Codes of Ethics,’’ p. 526.

20. For review of clustering of countries see for example by Simcha Ronen and Oded ‘‘Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and Synthesis,’’ Academy of Management Review (10) (1985): 435–454. They proposed the following eight clusters based on a review of all other existing clusters: Near Eastern, Nordic, Germanic, Anglo, Latin European, Latin American, Far Eastern, and Arab, as well as Independent that were proposed.

21. While Israel is in the Middle East, it cannot be treated as representative of Middle Eastern countries. However, it is clear that Israel is not an integral part of any of the other two clusters. This study treats Israel as an independent country in an unidentified cluster.

22. Internet Center for Corruption, Corruption Perception Index 2004. Available: http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004 (November 2005).

23. Israel Center for Digital Information Services, Available: http://libnet.ac.il/~libnet/malmad-israelnet.htm (October 2005).

24. Regional University and Science Library Advanced Network in the North-West of Russia, available at http://www.ruslan.ru:8001/rus_lib.html (October, 2005); LibWeb, Available at http://lists.webjunction.org/libweb/rus.html (October 2005).

25. Association of Research Libraries, available at http://www.arl.org/members.html.

26. The differences among the first 50 ARL libraries and the Israeli and Russian libraries were apparent and we concluded that further examination of American libraries will not improve our comparative analysis.

27. The Web sites of the first 50 libraries on the membership list of ARL was examined. The list is organized by alphabetical order of states. There is no basis to assume that these 50 libraries’ Web sites are not representative of the other member libraries.

28. Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd ed. (London: Nicholas Brealey, 1998).

29. Kathryn Handley, ‘‘Rewriting the Rules of the Game in Russia: The Neglected Issue of Demand for Law.’’ online. East Europe Constitutional Review 8 (4) (Fall 1999). Available: http://www.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol8num4/feature/rewriting.html (November 2005); Kathryn Handley, ‘‘Demand for Law in Russia? A Mixed Picture,’’ online. East Europe Constitutional Review 10 (4) (Fall 2001). Available: http://www.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol10num4/special/hendley.html (November 2005).

30. Julia P. Melentieva, ‘‘The Russian Librarian’s Professional Code of Ethics,’’ in The Ethics of Librarianship: An International Survey, edited by Robert W. Vaagan (Mqnchen: K.G. Saur, 2002) p. 213. It should be emphasized that this is an exact quote from this chapter.

31. Archie B. Carroll, ‘‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders,’’ Business Horizons 34 (4) (July/August 1991): 39–48. The four levels they proposed are: At the lowest level, an organization assumes only economic responsibility and makes an effort to be profitable. At the second level, an organization assumes legal responsibility and obeys the law. At the third level, an organization assumes ethical responsibility, does what is right, and avoids harm. At the fourth and highest level, an organization takes a discretionary responsibility and contributes to the community and quality of life.

32. Elizabeth Gatewood and Archie B. Carroll, ‘‘The Anatomy of Corporate Social Response: The Rely, Firestone 500, and Pinto Cases,’’ Business Horizons 24 (5) (September 1981): 9–16. January 2007 105