I did NOT mean to post the same video with the same post title a day after Nikki did.

[/EDIT]

Ever have a hard time explaining the placebo effect? Let Dr. Ben Goldacre do it for you in this video from the NHS:

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
I still think it is a huge waste of resources for a library to invest any time or money in a Second Life presence.

Gawande talks with Stewart about The Checklist Manifesto (video embedded below).

Steven Levitt calls this “…the best book I’ve read in ages.”

Dagnabbit. Now I need to read it.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

I’m sincerely flabbergasted to hear a librarian (or any information professional) complain that there is “too much data” or “too many RSS feeds.”

“Web 2.0″ doesn’t cause an information glut. What causes an information glut is being an information glutton, taking on more than anyone can reasonably manage. There aren’t too many RSS feeds. Rather, there are users who subscribe to too many RSS feeds. The solution isn’t for less data to exist, the solution is smarter, more selective use of the data. The tools that help us filter and manage the information that we care most about are continuing to improve in power and sophistication.

Nice to see Clay Shirky agree:

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

[Embedded video above]

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

Got a call from Tom Richardson at the NEJM (who I saw play with the Bearded Pigs at MLA 2008!).

According to Tom, NEJM has no arrangement with Clinical Reader and did not license their content to Clinical Reader. So it appears that Clinical Reader is again violating copyright.

[/UPDATE]

So, Clinical Reader shows video content from the NEJM, including a video on chest tube insertion (yeah, the same one I blogged about a ways back).

I thought this was odd.

After all, if you go to the NEJM’s home for this video, it clearly says one needs a subscription to view the content.

Hmmm.

So I decided to look around for any notes from either organization that would indicate Clinical Reader is using this video content with permission. Didn’t find it. Also didn’t find any published terms under which NEJM offered to license it.

My curiosity piqued, I decided to poke around more to see if anyone else was showing NEJMs content. Sure enough, somebody with a subscription to NEJM downloaded a decent copy and posted it on Vimeo:

It has been viewed there over 1,600 times.

Note to Vimeo: This violates terms of service. The user who uploaded it did not own it (as should be fairly obvious by the title cards). As much as I enjoy free access to high quality video, this belongs to NEJM, not this user. The video should at least be taken down from your servers.

Anyway, Vimeo allows users to download videos in .flv format. I downloaded that .flv with no problem…so now Vimeo is serving as a distribution channel for others who would like unlicensed copies. I wonder if perhaps that is how Clinical Reader got a copy to show from their site.

I’d be interested to hear from the NEJM and Clinical Reader: Was this content licensed to Clinical Reader? If so, why is the video quality so much poorer than in the original at the NEJM’s site OR the Vimeo copy?

If not, why isn’t the NEJM interested that their content is being stolen?

I mean…if I didn’t sweat pesky things like copyright, I think I could build an AMAZING portal for health information…made of other people’s content.

Clinical Reader’s FAQ says:

Clinical Reader respects all copyrights and legal restrictions on content and access. Clinical Reader cannot give a user access to articles to which the user does not already have access to copyright-restricted content. For example, if a user does not have access to a research article in the BMJ (either through an individual subscription or through the user´s institution), Clinical Reader will not be able to show the item in full.

Huh. I don’t have access to NEJM from here at home. But I can still view its content in Clinical Reader.

[EDIT]
Veoh is showing this video, too.

…and medicalvideos.us

…and there’s a RapidShare link on this blog.
[/EDIT]

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

Links mentioned in the embedded video above:
http://davidrothman.net/category/library-20/
http://www.libraryman.com/blog/essays-on-101/

[Edit]

Excellent response from Sarah Glassmeyer (video embedded below):

[/Edit]

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

I continue to be surprised by how many otherwise rational people (including health professionals) are frightened by the prospect.

For the record: If New York State law did not require me to get both the seasonal and the H1N1 vaccine, I would get both anyway.

I’ve avoided commenting on the media coverage of Swine Flu. Why bother when Jon Stewart does it better?

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

[via: http://liblog.mayo.edu/2009/10/13/video-tutorial-my-ncbi-custom-filters-and-sharing-collections/]

Melissa rules.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
Twitter and similar tools have no innate value. The value is in the network you use the tool to connect with.