Comments on: GoogleBooks http://madisonian.net/2006/03/25/googlebooks/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ben Vershbow http://madisonian.net/2006/03/25/googlebooks/comment-page-1/#comment-21427 Ben Vershbow Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:46:04 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=606#comment-21427 As you can see from the two posts — mine on Google ebooks and Dan's on nostalgia for objects — we at the Institute for the Future of the Book are trying to grapple with this from all sides. I agree that physical books continue to exert a great pull, and that in certain respects they can never fully be replaced by digital innovations. As much as certain kinds of print books are likely to endure — perhaps for a long, long time — (and I personally hope they do) I think it is fairly certain (and perhaps this is where we differ) that the primary arena of intellectual discourse is moving online. And so we are going to want to be able to have online the sorts of bounded, structured intellectual experiences that books afford, although expanded to live fully in the networked, media-blending environment of the web. That assumption stated, I'm concerned that companies like Google and Amazon are defining the next generation of electronic publishing, all too willing as they are to comply with the stipulations of the current copyright cartel. My basic point is that the books they offer abrogate our right to read in a critical, engaged manner — or at least make it prohibitively difficult to do so. I in no way mean to imply an inherent passivity of readers — my ideal model of reading is in fact incredibly active and social (as I enumerate in the list of restricted behaviors). I do, however, fear that people are increasingly passive (or perhaps too busy) in the face of companies like Google, who are building the information architecture of our future. The picture I paint at the end with the mention of "trusted computing" is admittedly dire, but my intention is to draw attentions to the dozens of small shifts that are occurring, without much debate or discussion, in the area or privacy and readers' rights, and which could soon add up to a situation that we don't much like. You're right to point out that Google and Amazon are not the only social software on the web, but who do you see out there that has comparable clout to make deals with the publishing industry? And with what seems like the impending deregulation of the network infrastructure and a move to tiered service, where big companies can pay for packets to be prioritized, it will be increasingly difficult for smaller alternatives to compete in the struggle for bandwidth. I think that in the coming decades we'll be living a kind of dual existence, going constantly back and forth between print and digits. And perhaps, ironically, the combined effect of overreaching copyright law and broadband deregulation will sufficiently screw up the net that print media will enjoy a renaissance. But more likely we'll just learn to live with the new constrictions, unless, that is, we vigorously debate the changes as they approach us. That's what we're trying to do. As you can see from the two posts — mine on Google ebooks and Dan’s on nostalgia for objects — we at the Institute for the Future of the Book are trying to grapple with this from all sides. I agree that physical books continue to exert a great pull, and that in certain respects they can never fully be replaced by digital innovations. As much as certain kinds of print books are likely to endure — perhaps for a long, long time — (and I personally hope they do) I think it is fairly certain (and perhaps this is where we differ) that the primary arena of intellectual discourse is moving online. And so we are going to want to be able to have online the sorts of bounded, structured intellectual experiences that books afford, although expanded to live fully in the networked, media-blending environment of the web. That assumption stated, I’m concerned that companies like Google and Amazon are defining the next generation of electronic publishing, all too willing as they are to comply with the stipulations of the current copyright cartel. My basic point is that the books they offer abrogate our right to read in a critical, engaged manner — or at least make it prohibitively difficult to do so.

I in no way mean to imply an inherent passivity of readers — my ideal model of reading is in fact incredibly active and social (as I enumerate in the list of restricted behaviors). I do, however, fear that people are increasingly passive (or perhaps too busy) in the face of companies like Google, who are building the information architecture of our future. The picture I paint at the end with the mention of “trusted computing” is admittedly dire, but my intention is to draw attentions to the dozens of small shifts that are occurring, without much debate or discussion, in the area or privacy and readers’ rights, and which could soon add up to a situation that we don’t much like.

You’re right to point out that Google and Amazon are not the only social software on the web, but who do you see out there that has comparable clout to make deals with the publishing industry? And with what seems like the impending deregulation of the network infrastructure and a move to tiered service, where big companies can pay for packets to be prioritized, it will be increasingly difficult for smaller alternatives to compete in the struggle for bandwidth. I think that in the coming decades we’ll be living a kind of dual existence, going constantly back and forth between print and digits. And perhaps, ironically, the combined effect of overreaching copyright law and broadband deregulation will sufficiently screw up the net that print media will enjoy a renaissance. But more likely we’ll just learn to live with the new constrictions, unless, that is, we vigorously debate the changes as they approach us. That’s what we’re trying to do.

]]>