Andy Guess reported a little on the future of libraries' digitization efforts in this morning's Inside Higher Ed.
I find myself back to questions from earlier blog posts. Why does everything need to be digitized? Why does everything need to be 'saved' with such evangelical fervor?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Watermarking (DRM) and Privacy
MediaPost's Daily Online Examiner today comments briefly on the Center for Democracy & Technology's "Privacy Principles for Digital Watermarking," which can be downloaded from this page.
The E-Publishing Circuit
Last week David Pogue's Circuits article covered his experience with giving PDFs of his books to scammers who proceeded to post the items online. This week he follows-up, as he frequently does, with readers' responses to his article.
I'm a bit surprised that he didn't go to any "experts" who have experimented with book epublishing. That said, the responses he published seemed to cover most of the ground experts would, from recommendations to refer special-needs readers to Bookshare to various distributors who are experimenting with book DRM.
I'm a bit surprised that he didn't go to any "experts" who have experimented with book epublishing. That said, the responses he published seemed to cover most of the ground experts would, from recommendations to refer special-needs readers to Bookshare to various distributors who are experimenting with book DRM.
And More . . . (but no mention of Live Search Books)
Fortune Magazine (via OnlineMediaDaily) in an interview with Kevin Johnson of Microsoft, unveils a tiny part of the overall strategy of Microsoft in the epic battle, Microsoft vs. Google. The recent closure/reorganization of Live Book did not even rate a mention. There is some scary big-brother-esque "engagement mapping" mentioned.
And More . . .
The Chronicle of Higher Ed this morning featured a story, "Microsoft's Book-Search Project Has a Surprise Ending" By ANDREA L. FOSTER (nearly a week after the event, and I've included no links because it will disappear behind a wall after 5 days, both reasons why Chronicle is loosing ground to Inside).
I'm still not convinced Microsoft ever meant this project to be more than a pain in Google's side. Their "Surprise Ending" has the hallmarks of an attempt to "monetize" the effort in a more efficient way for them--with proprietary software and a deal to lease it to another company (Ingram), rather than proprietary algorithms and walled information. I never thought I would be defending Microsoft, makers of Outlook (ick).
Thanks to Lisa Bayer for the forward from CHE.
I'm still not convinced Microsoft ever meant this project to be more than a pain in Google's side. Their "Surprise Ending" has the hallmarks of an attempt to "monetize" the effort in a more efficient way for them--with proprietary software and a deal to lease it to another company (Ingram), rather than proprietary algorithms and walled information. I never thought I would be defending Microsoft, makers of Outlook (ick).
Thanks to Lisa Bayer for the forward from CHE.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
More on Microsoft Going Scan-Free
Library Journal's Academic Newswire today did a slightly-more in-depth piece on Microsoft's intentions to drop LiveSearch.
They seem a bit ticked off, but reported that Open Content Alliance (OCA) founder Brewster Kahle wasn't, though the quotes they attribute to him sound like he's disappointed to be loosing the future funding (and who wouldn't be).
They're keeping the equipment and training. With costs for server space declining, and so much of it available for free, I can't see that this will be a huge hardship until it comes time to update the software. But then again, I'm probably naive. I also tend to be skeptical about the need for new non-profits; and about the need for preserving every single book ever printed (a check in the why-I'm-not-a-librarian box).
They seem a bit ticked off, but reported that Open Content Alliance (OCA) founder Brewster Kahle wasn't, though the quotes they attribute to him sound like he's disappointed to be loosing the future funding (and who wouldn't be).
They're keeping the equipment and training. With costs for server space declining, and so much of it available for free, I can't see that this will be a huge hardship until it comes time to update the software. But then again, I'm probably naive. I also tend to be skeptical about the need for new non-profits; and about the need for preserving every single book ever printed (a check in the why-I'm-not-a-librarian box).
Friday, May 23, 2008
Take that, Google!
Microsoft's latest volley in their match with Google: They are ending the "Live Search" book digitization and search project, and making the digitized books available for free to the original "owners."
Global Problems
The Chicago Tribune reports on the troubles the U of I's Global Campus is facing.
To me the Global Campus initiative resembles a scaled-up, tacked-on version of the online degree that the Graduate School of Library and Information Science has offered for at least the past ten years. The "tacked-on" element is the problem.
Inside Higher Ed pointed to this article.
To me the Global Campus initiative resembles a scaled-up, tacked-on version of the online degree that the Graduate School of Library and Information Science has offered for at least the past ten years. The "tacked-on" element is the problem.
Inside Higher Ed pointed to this article.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
More on Orphan Works
Yesterday's LJ features a short piece on the forthcoming Orphan Works legislation.
I understand why libraries interested in digitizing and making available books are for it, and I understand the enthusiasm of big corporations interested in digitizing and using so-called "orphan" works to pad their lists without paying the creators. I'm not sure how this legislation enforces the constitutional protections of the rights of the creators to their works of science and art.
I understand why libraries interested in digitizing and making available books are for it, and I understand the enthusiasm of big corporations interested in digitizing and using so-called "orphan" works to pad their lists without paying the creators. I'm not sure how this legislation enforces the constitutional protections of the rights of the creators to their works of science and art.
EarlyWord.com
Today in Shelf Awareness:
"How Libraries Buy: Librarians Reveal Their Methods for Collection Development, Saturday, May 31, 9:30-10:30 a.m. A panel of librarians will discuss how they buy books, what they're looking for, how publishers can best reach them and more. Moderated by Nora Rawlinson, founder of EarlyWord.com, the Publisher/Librarian Connection."
I was excited, until I took a look at EarlyWord.com. It's okay. Basically a clearing house of links and "how-tos" for beginner and/or non-MLS librarians. I was interested to see that they have a publisher-catalog links page. Then let down with their disclaimer, "This list is NOT in alpha order. Use “find on this page” to locate specific catalogs." To be fair, the sidebar links are alphabetized. I would love to see some programming and/or innovation in presentation on this site. Alphabetizing would be good, too. Of course, I'm not working as a librarian.
"How Libraries Buy: Librarians Reveal Their Methods for Collection Development, Saturday, May 31, 9:30-10:30 a.m. A panel of librarians will discuss how they buy books, what they're looking for, how publishers can best reach them and more. Moderated by Nora Rawlinson, founder of EarlyWord.com, the Publisher/Librarian Connection."
I was excited, until I took a look at EarlyWord.com. It's okay. Basically a clearing house of links and "how-tos" for beginner and/or non-MLS librarians. I was interested to see that they have a publisher-catalog links page. Then let down with their disclaimer, "This list is NOT in alpha order. Use “find on this page” to locate specific catalogs." To be fair, the sidebar links are alphabetized. I would love to see some programming and/or innovation in presentation on this site. Alphabetizing would be good, too. Of course, I'm not working as a librarian.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Google Health (AHHH!), NYTimes
Why, Google, why?
Do I want my private health records held by Google, who I do not see as being terribly responsible or responsive when it comes to accuracy? No!
Do I want my private health records held by Google, who I do not see as being terribly responsible or responsive when it comes to accuracy? No!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)