Duke ITAC - September 23, 1999 Minutes
DUKE ITAC - September 23, 1999 Minutes
Attending: Ed Anapol, Landen Bain, Pakis Bessias, John Board, Dick Danner, David Ferriero, Alan Halachmi, Patrick Halpin, Donna Hewitt, David Jamieson-Drake, Betty Leydon, Roger Loyd, Melissa Mills, Caroline Nisbet, John Oates, George Oberlander, Lynne O'Brien, Mike Pickett, Grady Powell (for Kevin Cheung), Rafael Rodriguez, Clark Smith, Alfred Trozzo (for Paul Harrod)
Visitors: Kate Hendricks, Kyle Johnson, Charles Register, Al Rossitter, Kacie Wallace, Sue Wasiolek
Review of Minutes and Announcements:
Advertising on Web Sites
David Jamieson-Drake gave a presentation of advertising on Web sites. He noted that at issue is an active relationship between departments and web vendors, and that web services can be provided at little or no cost in exchange for advertising on the web pages. How do we feel about this? Do we want to give advice or counsel to University departments?
David gave a demo of Campus Pipeline. Campus Pipeline has agreements to provide web services to over 400 colleges and universities, including Appalachian State University. The advertising on these web pages allows Campus Pipeline to provide the services at little or no cost. Students complete a personalized survey on their first login and this is used to organize a personal web page for the student.
Several Duke web pages were discussed. The Duke Career Development Center has a job tracking and recruiting service, provided by a third party, that contains advertising. The Human Resources web page includes a Midway Airlines image that links to special fares provided to Duke faculty, students and staff. The Chronicle advertises on its web pages. Alan Halachmi pointed out that the Chronicle gets its revenue from advertising. Kyle Johnson mentioned that Devilnet receives a cut from sales on its web site.
Caroline Nisbet outlined ethical and legal concerns regarding web advertising. Is this something we want to do? Legal concerns include our not for profit status and our obligations to students. Should we notify students when they are not on a Duke sanctioned site?
Kate Hendricks' office has been involved with advertising on some of the Duke web pages. She stated that there were three issues, two legal and one nonlegal, with the nonlegal issue of appropriate use of the Duke name being the overarching issue. The two legal issues were the tax issue related to unrelated business income and legal requirements requiring any use of the Duke name to be in conformity with our registered trademarks. This trademark requirement is largely a technical requirement and simply requires that we not alter the way we use our trademarks (i.e., use of the proper shade of blue in the logo). Sports advertising is permitted in the tax code. Revenue from sponsorships is allowed if appropriate language is included (for example, "this website has been sponsored by..."). The Midway Airlines logo on the HR web page was allowed because of special arrangements with Midway to provide discounted flights to Duke. A link to Midway's web page was not permitted.
George Oberlander asked what constitutes sponsorship. Kate said she could provide details.
A concern was raised regarding whether we are violating any contract by advertising on .edu sites. John Board asked if Chronicle advertising on duke.edu was a concern. Kate responded that the Chronicle is a separate organization and that Duke is not benefiting from the advertising. The concern about advertising on .edu was not resolved.
David Jamieson-Drake had an ethical concern regarding student personal information being collected by advertisers. He asked if we should warn students when leaving campus sites.
Rafael Rodriguez stated that use of the Duke image and name should be guided at a high level in the organization rather than by each department. Al Rossitter noted that the University does not permit use of the Duke name to endorse any product or service. Duke does have partnerships with vendors and these vendors can use the Duke name in internal communications only. He mentioned IBM as an example.
David Jamieson-Drake showed NCSU's Administrative Policy, Computer Use at http://www.fis.ncsu.edu/ncsulegal/compuse.htm. It includes a section on "Use of Computing Facilities for Commercial, Advertising, and Broadcast Purposes." It prohibits paid advertising on official University websites. Simple acknowledgement of sponsorship by an outside entity is permitted and must use the form "Support for this Website [or university unit] has been provided by _____________." It also states "The Chancellor or designee may approve specific exceptions to the prohibition on paid advertising."
Betty Leydon suggested that we do something similar and asked that the University's tax lawyer draft a Duke version.
Kate Hendricks stated that the tax code is complicated. She warned that it is not safe to assume that if another college or university is doing something, it is okay.
Patrick Halpin asked how do we handle control of the use of the Duke image, what is the mechanism? Betty answered that we have policies in place and hope that the community will take the responsibility to follow them.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Computer and/or network use should conform to copyright laws. Because copyright owners hold the exclusive right to copy, reproduce, distribute, perform and display their works, and, therefore, works subject to copyright protection should not be used without permission of the copyright owner unless permitted under copyright laws, such as the "fair use" exception. Repeated acts of copyright infringement may result in termination of your right to use campus computing and network facilities.Members of the Duke community respect the rights of copyright owners to control how their works are used; copyrighted materials shall only be used with the permission of copyright owners or under "fair use" exceptions.
- must have policies in place that educate users about copyright laws
- must have a policy that repeat copyright infringers may be subject to having access cut off and
- must designate an agent to receive and handle complaints of copyright infringement.
Kate Hendricks opened the discussion. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides immunity from copyright infringement for service providers (whose users may be infringing copyright) if the service provider meets certain conditions, including the following:
Charlie Register is Duke's designated agent.
Charliedistributed two options for suggested additions to Duke's Computing Acceptable Use Policy.
Option 1(recommended by University Counsel)
Option 2(recommended by the ITAC Steering Committee)
Charlie suggested adding text on the main Duke web page pertaining to copyrights with a link to the agent and procedures for filing a complaint.
Kate said that the policy should put people on notice that violation of copyright laws will lead to revoking access to computing facilities. David Jamieson-Drake and John Board commented that this could jeopardize a student's ability to complete academic assignments and put them at educational risk. Kate said we could come up with a suitable procedure.
Melissa Mills suggested revoking rights to put up web servers on duke.edu.
It was noted that the normal procedure is to notify the student offender of a Duke policy and send to the Judicial Board for action.
When asked about faculty putting their works on the web without proper copyright permission, Kate noted that we have to provide copyright information to faculty and have policies in place. The faculty member is then responsible.
Betty asked who determines when a policy recommendation becomes official University policy?
Alan Halachmi observed that a significant proportion of students have (copyrighted) MP3 and that there would not be enough clusters to accommodate these students if their computing access was cutoff. Kyle Johnson replied that a volume of illegal acts doesn't make them okay. Alan noted that he was pointing out what might occur, not condoning copyright infringement.
Mike Pickett suggested adding "may result in invocation of University administrative and judicial processes" to the policy statement.
John Board asked who determines if a copyright infringement has occurred? Kate answered that a copyright agent can seek an injunction.
Kacie Wallace noted that the copyright policy has to be included in the Bulletin of Undergraduate Regulations.
David Ferriero asked who is responsible for the education component of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Kyle suggested adding this to the freshman computer orientation. David noted that it was also included in library orientation sessions provided to undergraduates.
Betty asked who's drafting the final version of the policy statement.
Charlie will do this.
Charlie asked what happens if there is an infringement.
Kate answered that Charlie will receive individual complaints of copyright infringement, notify the users of the complaints, and act accordingly, which may include disabling access to the infringing material. Charlie is empowered to ask that the copyrighted materials be removed.
This is distinct from the authority and power to decree that repeat infringers cannot have access to internet services -- that power can be exercised only through the appropriate university judicial and/or administrative processes.
David Jamieson-Drake asked that the policy refer to the judicial process, rather than revoking access.
The "Continuing Discussion on Security" was postponed and will be scheduled for another meeting.