Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017406443 = product of:
  0.078329 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 4785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=4785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 4785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4785)
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 4785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=4785,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 4785, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4785)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The proliferation of information in electronic format does not guarantee its accessibility. The fact that many Web sites are not accessible to large segments of the disabled community has created a "digital divide". The accessibility barriers are systemic. In recent years, there has been a growing body of significant laws and standards concerning Web accessibility that impact people with disabilities. Ways of breaking down these barriers to a fuller accessibility implementation do exist, including education to raise awareness of Web accessibility, nationwide policy and guidelines for accessibility, and Web-based applications and tools to facilitate Web accessibility, to name a few.

Content

Part of a Special Issue: Accessibility of web-based information resources for people with disabilities: part 2. Vgl. auch unter: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/07378830210452613.

0.015047257 = product of:
  0.06771266 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=793,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
    0.049563963 = weight(_text_:systems in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049563963 = score(doc=793,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The study deals with the cutting-edge subject of electronic contracts which have the potential to automatically process and control the access rights for (electronic) goods. It shows the design and the implementation of a rights expression exchange framework. The framework allows DRM systems to exchange electronic contracts, formulated in a standardized rights expression language, and thus provides DRM system interoperability. The work introduces a methodology for the standardized composition, exchange and processing of electronic contracts or rights expressions.

Content

Inhalt: Digital Rights Management Systems - Rights Expression Languages (RELs) - Electronic Contracts - Design and Implementation of a Rights Expression Exchange Framework - Two case studies for the Exchange and Processing of XML-based Rights Expressions.

0.009921286 = product of:
  0.044645786 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2956,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2956, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2956)
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 2956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=2956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 2956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2956)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Worldwide losses due to the copyright infringement of intellectual property such as PC software, music recordings, and motion pictures continue at epidemic proportions in emerging countries. This article develops a research model for analyzing individual ethical decision making that is influenced simultaneously by two chief forces: regulative sanction and self sanction. In particular, we report on the differences between 241 U.S. and 277 China college students' self-reported copyright infringement behaviors and attitudes. The analysis shows that the China subjects exhibit less concern about being prosecuted and penalized, but are equally responsive to social sanctions as U.S. subjects, strongly suggesting that stricter enforcement of copyright law in China will reduce copyright violations. However, the results show that self-regulatory efficacy is the primary determinant of copyright adherence for the U.S. subjects. For the China subjects, while self-regulatory efficacy is shown to significantly predict copyright infringement behaviors, it exists at lower levels and plays a lesser role in ethical decision making when compared to the U.S. subjects. Overall, the results indicate that normative and cultural-cognitive changes in China that go beyond regulative enforcement may be required if significant reductions in copyright infringement are to be expected.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1687-1701

0.008785326 = product of:
  0.039533965 = sum of:
    0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 4754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020956306 = score(doc=4754,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4754, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4754)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 4754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=4754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4754, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Technological developments have changed the concepts of publication, reproduction and distribution. However, legislation, and in particular the Legal Deposit Law has not adjusted to these changes - it is very restrictive in the sense of protecting the rights of authors of electronic publications. National libraries and national archival institutions, being aware of their important role in preserving the written and spoken cultural heritage, try to find different legal ways to live up to these responsibilities. This paper presents some legal aspects of archiving Web pages, examines the harvesting of Web pages, provision of public access to pages, and their long-term preservation.

Date

10.12.2005 11:22:13

0.007379255 = product of:
  0.033206645 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=2833,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The statutes themselves are not the only basis for deciding whether an intellectual property rights infringement has occurred. Ethical judgments can also influence judicial rulings. This column looks at three issues of intellectual property ethics: the nature of the property, written guidelines for behavior, and enforcement mechanisms. For most active infringers digital property seems unreal, the rules ambiguous, and the enforcement statistically unlikely.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.106-110

0.0026033178 = product of:
  0.023429861 = sum of:
    0.023429861 = weight(_text_:of in 5582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023429861 = score(doc=5582,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 5582, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5582)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In addition to stipulating economic rights, the copyright laws of most nations grant authors a series of "moral rights." The development of digital information and the new possibilities for information processing and transmission have given added significance to moral rights. This article briefly explains the content and characteristics of moral rights, and assesses the most important aspects of legislation in this area. The basic problems of the digital environment with respect to moral rights are discussed, and some suggestions are made for the international harmonization of rules controlling these rights

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.2, S.109-117

0.002469724 = product of:
  0.022227516 = sum of:
    0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 4784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022227516 = score(doc=4784,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 4784, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4784)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article details the public policy framework that establishes the legal foundation for requiring access to Web-based information resources for people with disabilities. Particular areas of focus include: the application of the fair use doctrine to an understanding of disability access to digital information; the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to Web-based services; and the application of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to Federal Web-based resources and the extent to which Section 508 may be applicable to states through linkage under the Assistive Technology Act.

Content

Part of a Special Issue: Accessibility of web-based information resources for people with disabilities: part 2. Vgl. auch unter: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/07378830210452604.

0.0022002053 = product of:
  0.019801848 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 2111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=2111,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2111, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2111)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article discusses the accelerating trend of ownership rights in digital property, copyright, in specific. This trend is in contrast to the stated legislative purpose of copyright law to be neutral as to the technology that either owners employ to embody the copyrighted work or that others employ to facilitate access and use of the work. Recent legislative initiatives as well as interpretive court decisions have undermined this important concept. There is an ascendancy of digital ownership rights that threatens to undermine the concept of technological neutrality, which in essence guarantees that ownership and well as "use" rights apply equally to analog and digital environments. The result of this skewing is twofold: an unstable environment with respect to the access and use rights of individuals, institutions, and other users of copyrighted material, and the incentive of copyright owners to present works to the public in digital formats alone, where ownership rights are strongest. This article attempts to plot that digital ascendancy and demonstrate the undermining of neutrality principles.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.9, S.824-835

0.0021169065 = product of:
  0.019052157 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 2063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=2063,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2063, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2063)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was a significant milestone in congressional information policy legislation. However, the results were widely criticized in some circles as providing too much Power to certain stakeholder groups. This paper uses computerbased content analysis and a theoretical taxonomy of information policy values to analyze congressional hearing testimony. The results of document coding were then analyzed using a variety of statistical tools to map how different stakeholders framed issues in the debate and determine if congressional value statements about the legislation conformed more closely to certain stakeholders. Results of the analysis indicate that significant differences in the use of information policy terms occurred across stakeholders, and showed varying degrees of convergence between congressional or other stakeholders when framing information policy issues.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.3-12

0.0017284468 = product of:
  0.015556021 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=4453,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Management of rights in electronic resources on the Internet is a complex issue. this can be considered almost universal knowledge, as paraphrases of this statement can be found in many discussions on this subject. This being the case, it is not surprising that a definition, operational solution to the problem has yet to be found. In one of the world's leading metadata initiatives, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, discussions on this topic over several years have failed to reach a conclusion. Some people think the issue is simply too complex to handle, others that the provision of simple shortcuts to more detailed information should be sufficient. It could be argued that a solution to the issue is in fact out of scope for the Dublin Core element set, in so far as it aims only to establish a core set of descriptive metadata for resource discovery

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 7478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=7478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 7478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7478)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.8-10

7.0563547E-4 = product of:
  0.0063507194 = sum of:
    0.0063507194 = weight(_text_:of in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063507194 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

4.157997E-4 = product of:
  0.0037421973 = sum of:
    0.0037421973 = weight(_text_:of in 202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037421973 = score(doc=202,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.06108427 = fieldWeight in 202, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=202)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Der Konstanzer Informationswissenschaftler Rainer Kuhlen schaltet sich aus Los Angeles in die Debatte um das Urheberrecht ein. Kuhlen lehrt dort derzeit als Gastprofessor an der School of Information Studies der University of California. Er meldet sich zu Wort, nach eigenen Worten »durchaus kritisch (aber nicht als Schelte gemeint) gegenüber der gemeinsamen Stellungnahme', auf die sich der Börsenverein und der Deutsche Bibliotheksverband geeinigt haben und die dem Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Mitte Januar zugestellt wurde«. Kuhlen weist ausdrücklich darauf hin, dass sein Text zwar Argumente des Aktionsbündnisses »Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft« verwendet, aber er nicht offiziell abgestimmt, sondern von ihm persönlich zu vertreten ist.