Legal and Societal Issues
Related to Multimedia

from Theoretical Foundations of Multimedia
by Robert S. Tannenbaum

Multimedia projects, in common with all other intellectual products, exist in a large societal context. Potentially, they may have broad impact, effects, and implications, and they are subject to the customs, rules, and laws of society.

Given the increasingly litigious nature of our society, it is essential that a multimedia producer be aware of the implications for society of his or her product and of the laws that may affect its production, sale,and use.

This chapter is neither a legal textbook, nor an attempt to provide legal advice; it is an attempt to address the most important aspects of intellectual property law, particularly copyright law, and their relationships to multimedia production. In addition, some aspects of the societal impact and implications of multimedia are discussed.

Multimedia is now a major factor in an increasing variety of aspects of the lives of people. Education, advertising, entertainment, business, health care, scientific research, government, and many other fields all make extensive use of multimedia productions at a rapidly increasing rate. The clear implication is that multimedia productions have the potential for growing social influence on users. Therefore, a multimedia producer has an obligation to consider the societal ramifications of his or her work.

In one sense, multimedia is not different from any other medium used to communicate with people - an author should be aware of the potential impact of the content and the manner in which it is delivered. However, multimedia can be extremely effective in delivering both intended and subliminal messages. Therefore, a developer should accept conscious responsibility for considering the societal impact of a production. Concerns about the societal obligations of multimedia productions are becoming so widespread that books devoted entirely to the subject are beginning to appear.


Intellectual Property

"Intellectual property" is a term used in legal parlance to encompass those areas of the law that deal with tangible and intangible property produced as the result of creative intellectual endeavors, such as books, movies, and multimedia productions, as well as patentable inventions and commercial trademarks. A search of the records of cases that have been argued before the U.S. Supreme Court revealed a use of the term "intellectual property" as early as 1873, in a case concerning patent infringement. (Mitchell v. Tilghman, 86 U.S. 287; 22 L. Ed. 125; 19 Wall. 287, October, 1873, term) However, as a general term, "intellectual property" did not come into common use until much more recently.

In the past, the various types of intellectual property and the basic laws of copyright, patents, and trademarks were somewhat distinct. However, over approximately the last fifty years, even before the advent of computers and computer-based intellectual materials, the previously separate legal areas frequently were each found to be applicable in some ways to the same issue and, thus, to be inextricably interrelated. It was often impossible to determine exactly which (combinations) of the existing laws applied to a new situation. Therefore, the more inclusive concept of intellectual property law, which includes portions of such principal areas of the law as copyrights, patents, and trademarks, as well as related portions of other areas such as contracts, unfair competition, and trade secret matters, came to be used.

Since 1790 in the United States, basic concepts have come to be accepted as fundamental to legal thinking and decisions dealing with what is now called "intellectual property." At the core of this thinking is the tenet that people who create tangible property through intellectual efforts are entitled to ownership of that property and the exclusive, monopolistic rights to control and dispose of it as they see fit, with only very limited restrictions on those rights permitted. The justification for granting and enforcing these rights is that society as a whole benefits from the creation of intellectual property; therefore, in order to encourage further creation, it is necessary to reward such creation with ownership.

Of the three principal areas of intellectual property law (copyright, patent, and trade mark), copyright is usually the most significant for multimedia production, although in a few cases patent law may be important, too. Just as copyright protects the materials developed by others and used by a multimedia producer, copyright also protects the multimedia materials created in the production process. These complementary aspects of copyright must both be considered.


Copyright

The question of how to define property and property rights in general, especially for real objects, has occupied philosophers for many centuries. For example, consider the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century thinking of Locke, Hegel, and Marx. The question of defining property and property rights for what have been termed "abstract objects," such as ideas, inventions, algorithms, and so on, is of extraordinary importance and complexity.

The very concept that an individual may hold a right to an intellectual invention and dictate how it may and may not be used is not necessarily obvious and has been disputed by many people. The early history of copyright in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in England includes countless debates in Parliament and the courts regarding this right and the extent to which it can and should be regulated. The founders of the United States, well acquainted with the English debates and practices, clearly felt that such a right was in the best interests of the society as a whole and included it in the Constitution.

The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. (Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

Thus, the basis for copyright law is embodied in the Constitution, which, in turn, has its roots in English law such as the very first copyright law known as the "Statute of Anne" of 1710, entitled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." In 1783, the first copyright law in the new United States was enacted when Connecticut passed an act "for the encouragement of literature and genius."

Seven years later, the U.S. Congress approved the first U.S. copyright act and President George Washington signed it into law on May 31, 1790. Major revisions of the copyright act were passed by Congress in 1870, 1909, and 1976. The copyright act of 1976, Title 17 of the U.S. Code, Section 106, confers the "Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works" on the owner of a copyright.

Subject to sections 107 through 118, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, music, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures or other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and (5) in the case of literary, music, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly. (Title 17, United States Code, Section 106)

Each of these five fundamental rights is of considerable importance in multimedia production. In the case of materials that have been created by someone else, which a multimedia developer wishes to incorporate into a multimedia production, the owner of the copyright on the materials in question must give permission for their use. In the case of a completed multimedia production, the owner of the copyright on that work holds these five rights, subject to any limits imposed by the owner(s) of any copyrighted work(s) that have been incorporated in the multimedia production.

The first point to be noted with regard to the rights in Section 106 is the adjective "exclusive." The first meaning of this word is that the copyright holder alone, and no one else, holds these rights, with the quite limited exceptions that are noted in subsequent sections. Because the limitations are rather minimal and are specifically itemized, it is understood that all other rights belong to the copyright holder. Because the purpose of copyright is, as set forth first in the Constitution, to encourage the progress of useful arts, the courts have generally ruled in favor of copyright holders, except when the alleged violations being litigated are those explicitly noted in Sections 107 through 118 of Title 17.

The second meaning of the adjective "exclusive" is that the owner has the right to exclude others from using or exploiting the creation. The underlying philosophy is that, unless a copyright holder enjoys these exclusive rights, future creators of "useful progress" will be discouraged because they will not be ensured of enjoying the fruits of their endeavors.

The first of the five rights in Section 106 means that the copyright holder has complete control over the reproduction of the work. Reproduction includes publishing large numbers of copies, as in a press run for a book or a magazine, as well as making individual copies.

The second right under Section 106 reserves the right to create what are called "derivative works" based upon the original - for example, to paint the Mona Lisa in an Andy Warhol or Roy Lichtenstein style, or to modify a story to create a play. Given the ease with which an original image or sound file can be modified using readily available software, right number 2, the adaptation right, raises important issues for multimedia developers. If a developer begins with a digital image or sound file to which he or she does not hold the copyright, can the file be modified (perhaps significantly) and then incorporated into a multimedia work?

The argument has been advanced that once the image or sound file is sufficiently modified, it should qualify as a new original work, and thus, no longer be considered a derivative work but be copyrightable in its own right. In addition, in cases, in which the derivative work is intended as a parody of the original, it has been argued that even less significant modifications of the original material should be permissible. The answers to these and related arguments are not clear-cut.

As with most copyright litigation, the courts' decisions depend upon the specific circumstances and the judges' interpretations of the law. Some very close derivatives have been held to be legitimate parodies and have been allowed. Some quite modified works have still been held to be copyright violations. To be safe, the best policy for a developer is to always obtain permission before using a work to which another party holds the copyright or else to start from scratch and create an entirely original work.

The third right in Section 107 refers to the distribution of copyrighted works by sale, rental, lease, or lending. It has been held permissible to resell a legitimately owned copy of a work, in a used book store for example, but not to make additional copies for sale (a violation of right number 1). It is also permissible to loan a legitimately owned copy of a work.

However, it is not permissible to distribute multiple copies of a work, say a digital image, over a computer network; that would be a violation of both rights 1 and 3. Pirated software falls in the same category as a violation of copyright law, as well as being a violation of other federal laws dealing with unlawful use of or access to computers (specifically, Title 18, Section 1030). Clearly, it would be unlawful for a multimedia developer to incorporate a copyrighted digital image, sound file, or text into a multimedia production and then distribute it without the permission of the copyright owner.

Rights 4 and 5 under Section 107 reserve to the copyright owner control over the public performance or display of a work. Public performance or display certainly includes the use of an image, a text, or a sound track in a multimedia production. Therefore, once again, these two rights require that a multimedia developer who wishes to use the work of another in a multimedia production should obtain permission to do so, because using the work might constitute a public display or performance.


Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies of phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Title 17, U. S. Code, Section 107)

Particularly in educational settings, fair use is often claimed as a right, a privilege, and a license to make almost any desired use of copyrighted works. It is not necessarily any of these three. The law merely recognizes that there may be circumstances under which the strict enforcement of exclusive rights for copyright owners may not be in the best interests of society as a whole. Therefore, certain possible exceptions are noted. The law, however, is purposely nonspecific because it would be impossible to enumerate every conceivable exception. With this point in mind, the law leaves it to the courts to decide whether a particular case is a fair use by applying the four factors.

When a question of fair use is raised, there is normally no dispute over the fact that some portion (perhaps all) of a copyrighted work has been reused without permission by someone who does not own the copyright. The question is whether such use qualifies as an exception to the exclusive rights granted in Section 106.

The first factor in considering whether it is fair use concerns the purpose and character of the use that is made of the copyrighted work. It is not a simple case of whether the use was for commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes. Some commercial uses commonly have been found to be acceptable under fair use. For example, it is normal to allow the use of short quotations from copyrighted works in commercial books, such as the many quotations included in this book. On the other hand, copying an entire videotape or television broadcast for use and reuse in teaching might very likely be found not to be fair use.

The claim that if a use is educational or not-for-profit then it automatically qualifies as fair use is one of the most common misunderstandings of fair use. For example, a multimedia production that is designed for educational purposes is not necessarily more qualified to use copyrighted materials than a commercially distributed multimedia game. Nor is a multimedia production that is sold at cost or even given away necessarily any more qualified to incorporate copyrighted works than one that is sold for a profit. The commercial and/or educational natures of the new work will be just one factor in the court's consideration if the issue is contested. However, commercial use generally weighs heavily against a finding of fair use.

The second factor to be considered is the nature of the original copyrighted work. Different standards apply under different conditions for music, art, prose, poetry, and so on. In addition, the nature of the original work includes whether it was originally produced for profit or for some other purpose. The nature of the work also relates to whether or not it is factual or a work of fiction, fantasy, or entertainment. Normally, factual works are afforded somewhat less stringent protection than other material, because the facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, just their expression, and not even that under certain very limited circumstances.

Factor three has two dimensions: the amount in total of the copyrighted work that is used and the proportion of the total work that is used. In considering factor three, two questions arise: (1) how much material has been copied (measured in number of words, seconds of sound, etc.) and (2) what fraction of the entire original work has been reproduced? Again, the nature of the original work is relevant. Copying an entire five-line poem might be judged differently than copying an entire 5000-word essay. Copying a small percentage (say 10 percent or less) of an image file might be of little or no value, whereas copying the same percentage of a novel (perhaps several chapters) might constitute a substantial infringement.

The fourth factor concerns the impact that copying may have on the market for and the commercial value of the original work. If, by copying the work, the original copyright holder is found to be, thereby, deprived of substantial actual or potential income, the copying will probably not qualify as fair use. In this case, the court might award damages to the copyright owner. On the other hand, it is not necessarily fair use just because the owner of a copyright does not suffer monetary loss as a result of the copying.

As stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, a determination of fair use is to be based on all four factors. In some cases only one factor or another may predominate in making the decision. In other cases, it may be a combination of the factors. There can be no hard and fast formula for determining what constitutes fair use. It is important, however, to avoid the naive assumption that, if the copying does not result in a profit for the person doing the copying or a loss for the copyright owner or if it is for educational purposes, it is automatically fair use. Nothing is automatically fair use.

It should be noted that "fair use" and "public domain" are not equivalent terms. As pointed out by a number of authors, "fair use" refers to the use of (a portion of) a copyrighted work that falls within the guidelines in Section 107. "Public domain" refers to works that cannot be copyrighted, such as those produced by the federal government or those whose copyright has expired or has been abrogated by the owner. Works that are in the public domain are not subject to the exclusive rights in Section 106, nor does their use have to meet the fair use guidelines or have the permission of a copyright owner.


Availability and Accessibility of Information

Who owns information, and to whom is access granted? These rather fundamental and profound questions have been addressed by Anne Branscomb in an informative and provocative manner. Her book includes chapters on such personal matters as "who owns your name and address?" and "who owns your telephone number?" It also includes chapters on matters of direct relevance to the creation of multimedia productions, such as "who owns your image?" "who owns your electronic messages?" "who owns video entertainment?" and "who owns computer software?" and, as James Boyle asks, "who owns genetic code?"

The amount of information that is available in digital format, much of it accessible via the Internet, is almost immeasurable, and the amount is increasing rapidly every day. The questions related to ownership of this information have significant implications for society from several perspectives. First, information about an individual, such as a photograph that includes a person's image, raises a number of privacy issues. Second, digital information, such as images, programs, messages, and so on, may have considerable commercial value. And, third, digital information raises issues of accessibility related to who, under what restrictions, for what purposes, and for what fees, may gain access to the information. There are liability issues that may arise, also, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion.

In terms of the history of law, privacy is a relatively new concept. The right to privacy as a legal concept is usually dated to a seminal law review article written in 1890 by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, later a justice of the Supreme Court. They were prompted by and particularly concerned about late nineteenth century journalists' (mis)uses of photography, which they felt intruded unacceptably into people's private lives. They wrote:

There is substantive support today for the proposition that privacy is a "basic right" entitled to legal protection. . . . There is an emerging recognition of privacy as a distinct, constitutionally protected right.

In the succeeding hundred years, the courts and Congress have generally agreed with Warren and Brandeis and have created a clearer definition of the right to privacy and provided certain statutory and legal protections for this right, including its extension to four specific torts and a number of other privacy issues. However, as Branscomb makes frighteningly clear in Who Owns Information? (1994), digital technology is changing much faster than the law.

The law will lumber along like an unwieldy dinosaur wending its way to extinction if it cannot keep up with the pace of change in this new interactive, information-intensive environment. But the law is by nature conservative, attempting to bring order out of chaos only as fast as consensus can be reached among social groups willing to conform to norms they believe are fair and workable. . . . As time goes by these behavioral norms are written into statutes and constitutions that then govern future human behavior. The law is - or should be - a sociopolitical process through which free citizens agree on the norms and rules of behavior.

Presently, new technologies and ways of exploiting digital information are being introduced far faster than laws can be written or revised. The courts are often forced to interpret existing laws to cover situations that may not have been foreseen or even foreseeable when the laws were written. Such reliance on basic principles and attempts to discern legislative intent are well within the legal tradition, but they result in a considerable degree of uncertainty with regard to the legal status of various digital projects and the rights of the people affected by them.

For multimedia developers, the relevance of privacy issues is clearly associated with the use of images and other digital information related to individuals. Photographers have long understood the need for and have followed a practice of obtaining releases for (formal permission to use) images they create of individuals who could not be considered public figures. Multimedia developers should follow the same practice.

A public figure (such as a political candidate or a sports figure), in his or her role as such, does not enjoy the same rights governing the use of his or her personal image. But most people have the right to control the use of their image, their voice, and most information about themselves by permitting or refusing permission for its use or reproduction. Therefore, before incorporating any digital information concerning an individual person, a developer should obtain an appropriate release. Such a release can be thought of as analogous to obtaining a license from a copyright owner for use of certain material, as discussed previously.

In a more general sense, persons have a right to expect that their privacy, including digital information, will be respected, whether this refers to an image of themselves or any other data that may be related to them. This right is based upon certain common law principles and is embodied in various state statutes (thirty-five states have statutes relating to unauthorized access to computer systems) and federal laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

For a developer of multimedia materials, the burden of this right to privacy implies that whenever identifiable personal data is employed in a multimedia production, permission should be obtained from the individual concerned, and the use should be limited to the purpose for which permission is granted. A widely accepted code of good practice for the use of private information is available from the United States Information Industry.


Access to Information

The reverse aspect of the issue of privacy is the issue of access to information. In various ways and for various reasons it has been asserted that access to information, even what has been termed "universal access," is not only desirable but essential to the progress of our society. According to Milton Mueller, universal access in telecommunications began as a myth created by the Bell telephone system and it has now become a philosophical foundation for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The universal service referred to in the 1996 act is of significance to multimedia developers because it includes the technology for widespread distribution of digital material.

However, regarding the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Mueller asserts that there were four basic assumptions made about universal access and "these assumptions went virtually unquestioned during the drafting of the legislation, yet all are open to serious challenge." Whether one agrees with Mueller or not, for the present at least, it is the policy of the United States to encourage and subsidize some form of universal access to digital technology.

To the extent that this access becomes a reality, a multimedia production may be deliverable via a network to an ever-increasing proportion of the homes in the United States. However, such delivery via a network, imposes certain constraints on the size of the files that ought to be included if they are to be downloaded in an acceptable time.

One final access issue that developers should address relates to making multimedia productions accessible to persons with various physical impairments. For example, a special version that does not rely on any of the sound files could be prepared for persons with hearing impairments, a version with large type fonts could be developed for visually impaired users, or a version that does not require any keyboard input but takes user commands through spoken natural language processing could be designed for users with manual dexterity limitations. Another approach is to ensure that all essential material is presented in at least two different media, perhaps simultaneously, so that a user with limitations in one of the media can still access the material through the other medium.


Ethics Related to Multimedia Development

However people conduct their lives and whenever they interact, they are behaving in accordance with certain ethical standards. They may endorse the standards consciously or simply abide by them somewhat automatically, but the standards are there at all times. Ethical standards apply to computer-related behavior as well as to all other aspects of human interaction and communication. Ethical questions related to multimedia development concern two basic aspects of the activity: the behavior of the developer and the production, and the contents of the production.

A growing number of universities are offering courses to computer science majors and other students concerning ethical behavior associated with the use of computers. In addition, an even greater number of courses, although not devoted entirely to ethics, include major segments that deal with the subject. Engaging instructional activities related to computer ethics are being devised and discussed in the literature. A dozen or more books have been published recently that address the ethical use of computers from a variety of approaches.


Professional Codes of Ethics

All of these books address ethical behavior on the part of computer developers and users, as do the codes of professional conduct of various professional societies. For example, the code of ethics of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html) includes statements of "moral imperatives," and detailed lists of "specific professional responsibilities" and "organizational leadership imperatives." In addition to the code itself, there is a set of supplemental guidelines that provides explanatory paragraphs for each of the main points in the code. The guidelines include definitions of terms and examples of their application.

In the preamble to the ACM Code, it is asserted that: "The Code and its supplemented Guidelines are intended to serve as a basis for ethical decision making in the conduct of professional work." In other words, the code is meant to guide professional behavior. Similarly, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has a Code of Ethics (http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/j/jherkert/ethics.html) that consists of ten moral imperatives and includes a commitment to the "highest ethical and professional conduct."

A third code of ethics that is relevant to multimedia production is being drafted by a joint ACM-IEEE committee. This "software engineering code of ethics," as it is currently known, has been published in final draft form. The latest version of this code is available on-line at http://www.computer.org/tab/seprof/code.htm.

Although the moral imperatives included in the ACM Code are consistent with many major world religions and philosophies, they have been stated in the code in terms that are directly relevant to computing. The professional and leadership responsibilities are even more specifically related to computing activities, but they derive directly from the basic principles. While in some ways it sounds as if someone is preaching to computer professionals about their behavior, it is more appropriate to regard the ACM Code and other such professional codes as a restatement and clarification of the principles by which a professional should always live and by which she or he should measure professional activities.

Ronald Anderson and his associates make the point that the codes relate directly to professional conduct in a practical manner by describing nine cases of realistic situations in which the ACM code can be used to guide professional decision making. For example, their first case deals with a hypothetical programmer who, under considerable time pressure from her supervisor, incorporates code from other people's software into her own program in order to complete it on time. Their discussion focuses on the resulting violations of intellectual property rights, integrity, and compliance with existing laws and sections of the code.

It is important to note that the ACM Code should be read as relating not only to the behavior of the computer professional but also to the behavior of any software or other system she or he creates. For example, software should be written so as not to violate a person's privacy, to ensure confidentiality, and to be in compliance with all applicable laws, especially copyright.


Ethics Related to the Contents of Multimedia

The second aspect of ethics related to multimedia development mentioned above concerns the contents of a multimedia production. The ACM Code does not directly address content, but two of its sections should be read to include content. Section 1.4, which relates to fairness and taking action not to discriminate, implies that a developer should take steps to ensure that the content of any multimedia production is fair to all who are affected by it, both those mentioned or used in the content and those who will use it. Section 3.5 relates to protecting the dignity of all users, which surely requires that the content be appropriate and carefully chosen. Clearly, these imperatives may place a serious responsibility upon a multimedia developer who is dealing with controversial subject matter, but no different from the burden on any conscientious and ethical author.

Most multimedia productions entail serious ethical issues, whether they are considered consciously as such or not. The choice and use of content should be considered both in terms of what is included and in what format, and in terms of what is omitted; that is, the developer should be aware of "errors of commission" and "errors of omission," as they are sometimes termed. An obvious example of an unacceptable error of commission would be the use of derogatory stereotypes in the content of a multimedia production. In addition to being unethical and in violation of the ACM Code, such use would be foolish from a marketing prospective, given the sensitivity of modern society to such negative representations. An example of an error of omission would be the lack of diversity in the examples or the models included in a multimedia production. Many users and potential customers might be offended if the models were not diverse with regard to gender, race, age, and so on.

It is possible to become too concerned with ensuring sufficient diversity and "politically correct" content. Such overattention can paralyze a project. What is needed is a conscious awareness of the relevant matters and a sensitivity to the perceptions of users. A relatively small investment in determining reaction to the content by means of focus groups or beta testing can go a long way toward making the content acceptable and nonoffensive.


The Ethics of Communication

The ethics of communication in general in these times of cultural diversity have become the subject of consideration and study. Essays by a number of leading writers in this field have appeared. The essay by Jana Kramer and Cheris Kramarae is of particular importance to multimedia developers. Their focus is primarily on behavior on the Internet in relation to various models of ethical behavior and how these models, in turn, are related to gender and gender stereotypes. The models and the points made by Kramer and Kramarae can be applied just as well to multimedia productions, especially those that are delivered via a network.

Kramer and Kramarae conclude that an ethic that combines some of the strengths of individualism with a sincere concern for the well-being of all people, together with the rejection of stereotypes and artificial hierarchies (both gender-, class-, and race-based) would be much more helpful overall for users. This conclusion is quite consistent with the implications of the ACM Code, discussed previously.

Excerpts from Chapter 9, "Legal and Societal Issues Related to Multimedia," Theoretical Foundations of Multimedia, New York: Computer Science Press, 1998. Reprinted with permission. Robert S. Tannenbaum is director of Academic Computing at the University of Kentucky. [email protected]


Educom Review Table of Contents