News Report #2

“Copyright Head Tells House She Opposes Google Books Settlement”

Gordon Flagg, American Libraries Online

September 16, 2009

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/september2009/petersopposesgooglebooks091609.cfm

On September 10, Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters testified before the House Judiciary Committee in opposition of the Google settlement on its Google Book Search project. The settlement allows Google to display up to 20% of a copyrighted book to users free of charge. Google plans to sell access to individual books and offer subscriptions to large collections for libraries and universities. In her testimony, Mrs. Peters called parts of the settlement “fundamentally at odds with the law”. Google asserts that the project is “fully compliant with copyright law” and contends that the project will provide users with choice and competition. Most of the committee members seemed to support the settlement, with Committee Chair and Representative from Michigan John Conyers Jr. saying that Google has “built a better mousetrap in the eyes of the mousetrap purchasers.”

It seems there are many facets to this debate, but the ones I can see most clearly are those of copyright infringement and monopoly over the market. I understand the indignation of authors that their work is in part free to view, but as a consumer, I like the idea of being able to look at a book before I buy it. I have a feeling that the consumer is going to win. However, the monopolistic tendency that the settlement has the ability to create is a little disturbing. The Register of Copyrights is a governmental position, so I would think that the Congress would be more receptive to her testimony, but that is not the case. A certain amount of weight goes with the fact that the Register of Copyrights thinks this is a bad idea, but then again, I think that people could have made the same opposition (generally) when books first became mass-produced instead of handwritten.

Reading Report #2

“Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?”

Brock Read, Chronicle of Higher Education

10/27/2006, Vol. 53 Issue 10

Since its inception in 2001, Wikipedia has been a source of controversy and conflict within the academic community. Surprisingly, it’s user-created pages seem in general to be accurate. However, the problem that many scholars have with the site seem to do with the ease of access to change and edit the site, thus giving it a transitory nature unable to be peer-reviewed or even referenced with any consistency. The academic supporters of the site say that the site’s format encourages amateur scholarship, but the site’s opponents disagree with Wikipedia’s philosophy of free-source editing and refusal to set standards for admissions. Granted, the site’s editors are diligent in fact-checking the site’s thousands of entries, but the article points out that marginal errors in a sea of facts are still errors.

I agree with the last quote made by Mr. Wales in the article – the question is not about whether or not the information is factual, it’s about being able to discern the validity of an article found online (or anywhere). I feel like this has a lot to do with being information and web literate. Almost all of my teachers have warned against using it, so I’ve never really used it for class. I see their point, and I personally would not use it for any academic work, but I feel like it has its place. When I go on Wikipedia, I normally use it in the context of answering a random or obscure trivia debate among friends. When I stop to think about it, it really is pretty crazy to think that such a tool is freely available and accessible. I feel that in the future it may grow to be something incredibly interactive – on the level of The Matrix or something, but hopefully not as sinister.

Reading Report #1

“Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet” By: Paul S. Piper

Piper writes about the proliferation of web sites that misinform the unwary. There are several of these web sites, and they fall into various categories – counterfeit, malicious, product, fictitious, parodies/spoofs/entertainment, hacks, and disinformation. Some are more harmful than others; For example: Clones-R-Us, a parody site that hopes to provoke thought about the ramifications of cloning, is much less malicious than www.whitehouse.com, a site that poses as a link to the website of the White House (which is www.whitehouse.gov), and which directs the user to a pornography site. The author’s final point is to become web/information literate and to remain critical of the things we find on the net.

I’ve never really though about it before, but I realize that I’ve come across many, many of these types of sites in my Internet career. I’ve definitely come across links that take you someplace else than where you want to go. The thing is, I always thought it was a bad link or something. It never occurred to me that I was being manipulated by people who are looking to mislead. At the same time, I think that I can recognize a false site when I see one. I don’t believe I’ve ever had a problem in using information found on the Internet. I found this article fascinating, but I feel like my generation is pretty good at navigating through such sites, though I see his point when it comes students using such sites for school projects. However, I think that may be more due to laziness than anything else.