Send Medianews mailing list submissions to
medianews@twiar.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://twiar.org/mailman/listinfo/medianews_twiar.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Medianews digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. The Turntables That Transform Vinyl (Monty Solomon)
2. Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be. (Monty Solomon)
3. Once Given Up for Dead, Comcast Defies Its Obits (Monty Solomon)
4. The iPhone: Second thoughts (Monty Solomon)
5. Once Given Up for Dead, Comcast Defies Its Obits (George Antunes)
6. Could this be the final chapter in the life of the book
(George Antunes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:55:20 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Medianews] The Turntables That Transform Vinyl
To: undisclosed-recipient:;
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
NOVELTIES
The Turntables That Transform Vinyl
By ANNE EISENBERG
January 21, 2007
LONG-PLAYING records are gathering dust in the homes of many music
lovers, who hope to hear their contents one day on a CD player or
iPod.
Now, an updated version of another audio relic, the phonographic
turntable, may provide a fairly inexpensive way to do that. Two new
consumer turntables on the market at $200 or less connect directly to
computers to transfer cherished vinyl to MP3 files and CDs.
The machines aren't for audiophiles who have the skill to rig their
own systems with special cables and preamplifiers. But they may offer
a doable way for nontechies to thrill again to their favorite bit of
analog Beethoven or Dylan.
Learning how to use these systems takes time - up to three or even
four hours. The turntable has to be assembled, and the LPs cleaned
carefully to remove the dust of ages - two jobs that those over 30
might remember well.
Then the recording software, which comes on a CD, takes about a
half-hour to set up properly - or three times that if you skip the
"frequently asked questions," as I did, and then sheepishly return to
them when you get stuck.
The software requires some attention even after you learn its ways.
For example, it can't automatically detect the end of each track
between two songs or movements of a symphony. You have to mark these
spots yourself in the program before burning a CD or making an MP3
file.
Still, once the learning curve is vanquished and the sounds of
much-loved old recordings fill the air, you may wonder why you waited
so long.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/business/yourmoney/21novel.html?ex=1327035600&en=51ecbd5f051d2da3&ei=5090
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:34:22 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Medianews] Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
To: undisclosed-recipient:;
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
YOUR MONEY
Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
By DAMON DARLIN
January 20, 2007
The fears of the direct marketing industry came true. Once a
do-not-call list was created, people did register, in droves.
The list was created in 2003, not as a way to protect privacy, but to
remove a powerful irritant from the lives of Americans. The Federal
Trade Commission, which administers the list, says that more than 137
million phone numbers have been placed on the list by people tired of
interruptions during dinner or their favorite TV show.
The popularity of the do-not-call list unleashed a demand for other
opt-out lists. A consumer can now opt out of the standard practice of
their banks or loan companies selling their information to others.
Other opt-outs stop credit card companies from soliciting consumers
or end the flow of junk mail and catalogs.
While most of the opt-outs are intended to make life less annoying,
they can also have the side effect of protecting personal information
that can be misused by identity thieves or unscrupulous merchants.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20money.html?ex=1326949200&en=3efc9e8515a9ea4a&ei=5090
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:12:19 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Medianews] Once Given Up for Dead, Comcast Defies Its Obits
To: undisclosed-recipient:;
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Once Given Up for Dead, Comcast Defies Its Obits
By GERALDINE FABRIKANT
January 21, 2007
THREE years ago, with the cable television industry in the doldrums,
the Comcast Corporation's chairman, Brian L. Roberts, approached Mel
Karmazin, then the president of Viacom, with a modest proposal: give
Comcast the right to show programming from such Viacom properties as
CBS and MTV on the cable company's channels so it could have a leg up
on its rivals.
Mr. Roberts was accompanied by one of his senior managers and he
vividly recalls Mr. Karmazin's reaction. "He scrunched up his eyes,
looked at us and said, 'So you want us to give you all this stuff for
free and people will use it on video?' " Mr. Roberts recalled with a
laugh. "And we said, 'Yes, that's what we want.'
"No, no, no. Let me tell you want I would like to do," Mr. Karmazin
responded. "I would like to put my head down on the desk, close my
eyes, and when I count to 10 and look up, I want you both out of my
office."
Mr. Karmazin, who now runs Sirius Satellite Radio, confirmed the
story. "We were a content company with valuable content, and every
opportunity we had to charge for my content, I would do it," he said.
"It was not in my DNA to give away valuable content for free."
Even today, Mr. Roberts recalls Mr. Karmazin's reaction as typical of
those misguided souls who fail to realize that consumers increasingly
have the ability to record and watch programs where and when they
want. "A person who wants to watch 'CSI' or 'Desperate Housewives'
when the programs are not on, they are going to do it anyway," he
observed. "As a content owner, you should want them to watch your
show."
Brian Roberts has always conducted himself thus - with a
straightforward, plain-spoken, that's-the-way-the-world-works
approach to his company, his customers and his competitors. Those
qualities have stood Comcast in good stead as it emerges from a
gloomy period in which (even though it was making scads of money,
thank you) some analysts had written it off as a moribund, wire-bound
behemoth doomed to be eclipsed by more nimble telecommunications
concerns.
Today, the entire cable business, and Comcast, the country's largest
cable company, are sitting pretty. Amid the scramble that will decide
which companies provide consumers with the flood of new media,
entertainment and communications services, cable suddenly looks to be
the winner. Analysts now say cable operators are better positioned
than their rivals. Until quite recently, however, that wasn't a
foregone conclusion because Wall Street - even discounting the myopia
that often distorts its vision - had good cause to be pessimistic.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/business/yourmoney/21comcast.html?ex=1327035600&en=fec526072daf064f&ei=5090
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:33:44 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Medianews] The iPhone: Second thoughts
To: undisclosed-recipient:;
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
mac.column.ted: The iPhone: Second thoughts
Ted Landau
January 2007
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20070118081519896
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:36:09 -0600
From: George Antunes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Medianews] Once Given Up for Dead, Comcast Defies Its Obits
To: medianews@twiar.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
January 21, 2007
Once Given Up for Dead, Comcast Defies Its Obits
By GERALDINE FABRIKANT
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/business/yourmoney/21comcast.html?ex=157680000&en=3747917c784e645f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
THREE years ago, with the cable television industry in the doldrums, the
Comcast Corporation?s chairman, Brian L. Roberts, approached Mel Karmazin,
then the president of Viacom, with a modest proposal: give Comcast the
right to show programming from such Viacom properties as CBS and MTV on the
cable company?s channels so it could have a leg up on its rivals.
Mr. Roberts was accompanied by one of his senior managers and he vividly
recalls Mr. Karmazin?s reaction. ?He scrunched up his eyes, looked at us
and said, ?So you want us to give you all this stuff for free and people
will use it on video?? ? Mr. Roberts recalled with a laugh. ?And we said,
?Yes, that?s what we want.?
?No, no, no. Let me tell you want I would like to do,? Mr. Karmazin
responded. ?I would like to put my head down on the desk, close my eyes,
and when I count to 10 and look up, I want you both out of my office.?
Mr. Karmazin, who now runs Sirius Satellite Radio, confirmed the story. ?We
were a content company with valuable content, and every opportunity we had
to charge for my content, I would do it,? he said. ?It was not in my DNA to
give away valuable content for free.?
Even today, Mr. Roberts recalls Mr. Karmazin?s reaction as typical of those
misguided souls who fail to realize that consumers increasingly have the
ability to record and watch programs where and when they want. ?A person
who wants to watch ?CSI? or ?Desperate Housewives? when the programs are
not on, they are going to do it anyway,? he observed. ?As a content owner,
you should want them to watch your show.?
Brian Roberts has always conducted himself thus ? with a straightforward,
plain-spoken, that?s-the-way-the-world-works approach to his company, his
customers and his competitors. Those qualities have stood Comcast in good
stead as it emerges from a gloomy period in which (even though it was
making scads of money, thank you) some analysts had written it off as a
moribund, wire-bound behemoth doomed to be eclipsed by more nimble
telecommunications concerns.
Today, the entire cable business, and Comcast, the country?s largest cable
company, are sitting pretty. Amid the scramble that will decide which
companies provide consumers with the flood of new media, entertainment and
communications services, cable suddenly looks to be the winner. Analysts
now say cable operators are better positioned than their rivals. Until
quite recently, however, that wasn?t a foregone conclusion because Wall
Street ? even discounting the myopia that often distorts its vision ? had
good cause to be pessimistic.
On one side, satellite broadcasters like DirecTV and EchoStar
Communications were stealing video customers by offering lower rates and
other benefits. On the other, telephone companies, led by AT&T and Verizon
Communications, were eager to use cash harvested from their shrinking
land-line services to push into growth businesses like high-speed Internet
access and video. Cable companies had to fend off these interlopers by
investing heavily and continuously in expensive system upgrades to remain
competitive. Critics worried that these costs would devour cash and
profits, without any certainty of a return on the investments.
?The telephone companies were out there all the time talking about how they
were going to kill cable,? recalled Mr. Roberts, whose unsolicited bid for
the Walt Disney Company in 2004 led many investors to conclude that even
the strongest cable companies were worried about the future. Fortunately
for Mr. Roberts and his shareholders, the Disney bid fell apart. Comcast
continued to focus on its cable business: expanding revenue and increasing
cash flow by offering digital cable, high-speed Internet access and,
starting in 2005, digital telephone service.
Money rolled in. Comcast?s cash flow per subscriber, a common industry
measurement, has risen at least 10 percent a quarter for 25 consecutive
quarters, Mr. Roberts said, and Wall Street has noticed. After falling 22
percent in 2005, Comcast?s stock rose more than 60 percent last year, and
it has climbed an additional 5.4 percent so far this year. From an intraday
low of $25.35 a little more than a year ago, the shares now trade at $44.61.
Comcast is by far the industry leader, with 24 million cable subscribers,
of whom 11 million also pay for high-speed Internet and 2.1 million also
have telephone service. Smaller rivals are also getting a new measure of
respect from investors. The board of Cablevision Systems, based in
Bethpage, N.Y., rejected an $8.9 billion buyout offer from its founding
family, the Dolans, just last week, saying the bid undervalued the company.
Institutional investors, meanwhile, have been scooping up Comcast stock:
Marsico Capital Management has acquired about 60 million shares, or 5.2
percent of the company, for example. Dodge & Cox funds of San Francisco has
accumulated 109.5 million shares, and Geico, a subsidiary of Warren E.
Buffett?s Berkshire Hathaway, owns 11 million.
Satellite services and telephone companies are still vigorously competing
for cable?s subscribers, but cable companies, led by Comcast, have taken
charge by using competitors? new technology against them. They took
advantage of the fact that it is easier to add phone service to cable
systems than it is to deliver video over phone lines, and easier and
cheaper to add video-on-demand to a cable system than for satellite
services to make their signals interactive.
Lo and behold, phone, pay-per-view and high-speed Internet revenue at
Comcast have all been rising smartly. To maintain that pace, Comcast has
aggressively expanded its video menu and now offers roughly 8,000 movies
and television programs on demand. Most of that programming is (don?t read
any further, Mr. Karmazin) free.
Free, says Mr. Roberts, works. It persuades subscribers to try new things
and encourages them to graduate to paid services. ?If the consumer loves
what we do, they will use it a lot and eventually they will pay for it,? he
said. ?We have seen a big increase in our pay-per-view business because
people got in the habit of being able to watch programming on demand.?
IN recent months, Comcast?s leaders have gone out of their way to reassure
shareholders that they will remain focused on expanding and improving the
cable business, and that their dreams of Disneyesque diversification are
behind them.
That approach was tested last November, when Comcast agreed to buy Disney?s
39.5 percent share of E Entertainment Television, a cable network, for
$1.23 billion. Comcast?s stock fell on news of the deal, which gave the
company full control of the network, although it did not rattle big
investors like Tom Marsico, of Marsico Capital Management.
?There had been an issue among shareholders about what Comcast would do
with its cash flow,? he said in a telephone interview. ?I don?t think they
will make a significant acquisition. That is our impression.?
Aryeh Bourkoff, a cable analyst at UBS Securities, said that Comcast faces
some competitive factors, but that they are not meaningful enough to stop
its growth this year.
Not long ago, such confidence was in short supply. From 2002 through 2005,
James Chanos, the short-seller who had presciently bet that Enron was in
trouble long before Wall Street saw a problem, was quoted as being negative
on Comcast?s stock. Mr. Chanos did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Comcast shares did indeed slide, to as low as $18.64 in October 2002. But
several big investors ? including Chieftain Capital Management, Dodge & Cox
and Geico ? believed that the market was wrong. They did not see Comcast as
seriously threatened by rivals or by its debt levels, and some urged it to
buy back as much as 15 percent of its stock.
Comcast has bought back 10 percent of its stock since the end of 2003, but
it didn?t buy more because ?they were scared,? said one investor, who still
has a relationship with the company and spoke only on the condition he not
be named. ?They were too worried about the press and the stock price,? the
investor added.
After the failed $54 billion bid for Disney, some investors also believed
that Mr. Roberts wanted ?to keep his powder dry because he wanted to make
another acquisition,? as the investor put it.
Mr. Roberts shrugged off such backseat driving. ?I am happy to be accused
of being too conservative,? he said. ?I would disagree with the argument
that I wasn?t bullish. We bought AT&T Cable and spent $10 billion to buy
back our stock.?
Mr. Roberts also helped engineer a deal that gave Comcast access to MGM?s
library, and teamed up with Time Warner Cable to buy Adelphia. The
companies split up Adelphia?s customers and swapped some of their own
systems to give them greater control in certain markets like south Florida
and Los Angeles.
Mr. Roberts?s confidence may seem unsurprising from a son of the company?s
founder and scion of the family that still owns a controlling stake in it.
As the only one of Ralph J. Roberts?s four children with an interest in
cable, Brian was a natural successor to his father, who at 86 remains on
the board and runs its executive and finance committees.
As he has settled into the roles of chairman and chief executive, Brian
Roberts has earned investors? confidence. Compared with James L. Dolan of
Cablevision Systems ? whose public squabbles with his father, Charles F.
Dolan, the company?s founder, have been extensively chronicled in the
tabloids ? Brian Roberts and his family appear singularly united.
Ralph Roberts founded Comcast in Tupelo, Miss., in 1963. The elder Mr.
Roberts, who began his career as a belt salesman, still comes to work four
days a week and has his office next to his son?s. Brian Roberts says he
often consults with his father. When the elder Mr. Roberts has advice to
give, the son said, he is always discreet. ?My father will say, ?Have you
thought about doing it this way?? ? he said.
That is not to say that Comcast is completely conflict-free. While its
overall performance has been good for investors, there are caveats. Glass
Lewis & Company, a research firm that advises institutional shareholders on
governance issues, argues that Brian Roberts, his father and three other
top managers were grossly overpaid in 2005.
Altogether, the group reaped $84.9 million in salary, bonuses, other
compensation and the value of restricted stock and stock-option grants,
Glass Lewis said. It named Brian Roberts as the sixth-most-overpaid
executive among companies in the Standard & Poor?s 500-stock index, with a
compensation package valued at $24.9 million.
Several investors said privately that they were particularly annoyed that
Ralph Roberts continues to receive a lucrative pay package when he is no
longer chairman. Glass Lewis valued his compensation at $18 million.
In rebuttal, a Comcast executive vice president, David L. Cohen, said that
more than half of Ralph Roberts?s compensation ? $11.7 million ? was in the
form of a pension, life insurance and tax relief that the board agreed to
pay him when he was still chief executive. Nearly $19 million of Brian
Roberts?s compensation, he added, was performance-related pay based on
growth in operating cash flow.
While some shareholders grumble about executive pay, Brian Roberts has won
praise for assembling a respected management team, led by Stephen B. Burke,
whom he hired away from Disney in 1998.
Mr. Burke?s skills as the operations chief complement Mr. Roberts?s talent
for strategy, and Mr. Burke has shown no signs of chafing as Comcast?s No.
2. He might be following the example of his father, Daniel B. Burke, who
served deftly as second-in-command at Capital Cities/ABC under Thomas S.
Murphy.
?I watched my dad for 30 years work with Tom,? Mr. Burke said. ?I know they
had a wonderful time and a wonderful relationship, and Brian is the same
way with me.?
The way Mr. Burke sees it, the cable business is like a layer cake: the
bottom layer is TV, the next is high-speed data, and then come digital TV,
telephone and, finally, commercials. ?The bottom layer is growing maybe 4
or 5 percent a year,? he said. ?If you want to be a company that grows 13
percent to 15 percent a year, you have to keep adding layers.?
To keep the video layer competitive, Comcast has aggressively pursued
video-on-demand, seeking to use free videos to entice customers to pay for
more expensive digital video packages. It offers HBO?s older shows
on-demand free, for example. Time Warner, which owns HBO, until recently
charged $5 a month for HBO on-demand service on its cable systems and now
offers it free.
Other media companies are also skeptical of giving away premium
programming, whatever the presumed payoff down the road.
Of course, his company does not make its money by producing programs or
movies; it earns a living by delivering them. But since that meeting, even
some ?content? companies have agreed to make their programs more widely
available, often without charge. Just last month, CBS, which was spun off
by Viacom in 2006, said it would no longer charge 99 cents every time a
viewer wanted to watch an old program; now they are free.
COMPETITION has still taken its toll at Comcast. ?We had our satellite
assault years ago and they took 10 percent of the business,? Mr. Burke
said. ?Now that has stabilized.?
Today, there are more than 28 million satellite subscribers: 15.6 million
for DirecTV and 13 million for EchoStar. Comcast, with its 24 million cable
subscribers, is fighting for more. Two months ago, for example, it said it
would offer some movies to its cable subscribers on the same day the DVD
version arrives in stores, rather than 60 days later, as had been the custom.
?This is the first time the studios have done this,? Mr. Roberts said, ?and
it is partly because they are worried about the death of DVDs. Our theory
has always been that simultaneous release won?t hurt DVDs. You could go to
Blockbuster and rent the film the same day.?
Still, Comcast and other cable providers are in for a long fight with phone
companies and satellite services. As the cable companies have branched into
telephone service and other products, the phone companies and satellite
services have cooperated to offer comparable ?bundles.? The phone companies
offer wireless service in their bundles, too. To counter, Comcast has
struck a deal with Sprint to offer cellular service as part of a bigger
package.
However the race plays out, Comcast executives say, they think video
delivered over high-speed cable will remain central to their business.
?Technologies don?t just disappear,? Mr. Burke said. ?Ten years from now,
when you watch TV you will have a big screen and you will be watching
through a big pipe in your house.? That pipe, or delivery system,
?hopefully will be ours,? he added.
================================
George Antunes, Political Science Dept
University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204
Voice: 713-743-3923 Fax: 713-743-3927
antunes at uh dot edu
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:49:52 -0600
From: George Antunes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Medianews] Could this be the final chapter in the life of
the book
To: medianews@twiar.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
The Sunday Times [UK]
January 21, 2007
Could this be the final chapter in the life of the book
By Bryan Appleyard
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-525-2557653-525,00.html
The world's libraries are heading for the internet, says Bryan Appleyard.
If this means we lose touch with real books and treat their content as
'information', civilisation is the loser
?The majority of information,? said Jens Redmer, director of Google Book
Search in Europe, ?lies outside the internet.?
Redmer was speaking last week at Unbound, an invitation-only conference at
the New York Public Library (NYPL). It was a groovy,
bleeding-edge-of-the-internet kind of affair. There was Chris Anderson,
editor of Wired magazine and author of The Long Tail, a book about the new
business economics of the net. There was Arianna Huffington, grand
panjandrum of both the blogosphere and smart East Coast society.
But this wasn?t just another jolly. There were also publishers and Google
execs, two groups of people who might one day soon be fighting for their
professional lives before the Supreme Court.
For Unbound was another move in a strange, complex and frequently obscure
war that is being fought over the digitisation of the great libraries of
the world. The details of this war may seem baffling, but there is nothing
baffling about what is at stake. Intellectual property ? intangibles like
ideas, knowledge and information ? is, in the globalised world, the most
valuable of all assets. China may be booming on the basis of manufacturing,
but, overwhelmingly, it makes things invented and designed in the West or
Japan. Intellectual property is the big difference between the developing
and developed worlds.
But intellectual property rights and the internet are uneasy bedfellows.
Google?s stated mission is ?to organize the world?s information and make it
universally accessible and useful?. The words ?universally accessible?
carry the implicit threat that nobody can actually own or earn revenue from
any information since it will all be just out there.
Furthermore, Redmer?s point indicates that, for Google, the mission has
barely left base camp. Himalayas of information are still waiting to be
conquered. And the highest peaks of all are the great libraries of the
world, the repositories of the 100m or more books that have been produced
since Johann Gutenberg invented movable type in the 15th century.
In December 2004, Google announced its assault on these peaks. It had made
a deal with five libraries ? with the NYPL and at the universities of
Stanford, Harvard, Michigan and Oxford ? to scan their stocks, making their
contents available online via Google Book Search (books.google.com).
Ultimately, it is thought, some 30m volumes will be involved. Microsoft,
meanwhile, has made a deal with the British Library to scan 100,000 books ?
25m pages ? this year alone. Google has now scanned 1m books.
The first thing to be said is that Google Book Search, though still in its
?beta? or unfinalised form, is an astonishing mechanism. Putting my own
name in came up with 626 references and gave me immediate access to
passages containing my name in books, most of which were quite unknown to
me. Moreover, clicking on one of these references brings up an image of the
actual page in question.
But the second thing to be said is that I could read whole passages of my
books of which I own the copyright. At once a huge intellectual property
issue looms. The Americans are ploughing ahead with this, scanning in
material both in and out of copyright. The British ? at Oxford?s Bodleian
Library and the British Library ? are being more cautious, allowing only
the scanning of out-of-copyright books. This may, of course, mean nothing,
since the big American libraries will, like the Bodleian and the British
Library, contain every book published in English, so they will all
ultimately be out there on the net.
American publishers are not happy. Before its 2004 announcement, Google had
been doing deals with individual publishers to scan their books. But
digitising the libraries would seem to render these deals defunct.
Furthermore, since Google is acquiring copyright material at no cost, it
seems to be treating books quite differently from all other media. It is
prepared to pay for video and music, but not, apparently, for books. The
Google defence is that their Book Search system is covered by the legal
concept of ?fair dealing?. No more than 20% of a copyright book will be
available, the search is designed to show just relevant passages, and it
will provide links to sites where the book can be bought.
Unimpressed, the Authors Guild, supported by the Association of American
Publishers, has started a class action suit against Google. A deal may yet
be done, but neither side sounds in a compromising mood, and it looks
likely that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, whose ruling on
this case may prove momentous.
But still, we are only in the foothills of the library digitisation issue.
When Google made its 2004 announcement, Jean-No?l Jeanneney, president of
the Biblioth?que Nationale de France, experienced ?neither distress nor
irritation at the project. Just a healthy jolt?. He welcomed the idea that
?a treasure trove of knowledge, accumulated for centuries, would be opened
up to the benefit of all,? but he was also ?seized by anxiety?. Driven by
this anxiety, he wrote a short book, Google and the Myth of Universal
Knowledge.
Though he declines to talk of ?a crusade or a cultural war?, the book is a
clear case of ?aux armes, citoyens!? The citizens in question are, in this
case, European rather than just French, for Jeanneney sees the Google
project as an act of American cultural hegemony. He has won the backing of
Chirac for a project to develop a European search engine to rival Google,
the so-called ?Airbus solution? ? the creation of Airbus was a deliberate
attempt to combat the ascendancy of Boeing in aircraft manufacture.
Jeanneney says that Google is not what it seems. Its search results are
biased by commercial and cultural pressures. He has a point. Try this: go
to Google Book Search and enter Gustave Flaubert. The first results are
full of English translations of Madame Bovary.
The books of the English-speaking world are given overwhelming priority.
Equally, Google?s main search engine produces paid-for sites. Google is a
profit machine. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we don?t delude
ourselves into thinking it is an entirely neutral source of information.
But there are even deeper issues revolving around the distinction between
information and knowledge. ?A search engine,? says John Sutherland,
professor of English at UCL, ?is not an index.?
An index is the work of a mind with knowledge, search engine results are
the product of an algorithm with information. Parents will already have
seen the power of the algorithm. Google has supplanted the textbook as the
source of homework research.
Furthermore, with the advance of library digitisation, students will
increasingly get through their degrees on screen rather than in libraries.
Indeed, Bill Gates expects in the very near future that Microsoft will be
able to give all undergraduates a $400 hand-held device that will contain
all the text books they need for their course. We are, it seems, about to
lose physical contact with books, the primary experience and foundation of
civilisation for the last 500 years.
Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the British Library, refuses to see this
in apocalyptic terms. With 100,000 of her books being scanned by Microsoft
this year, she regards the ultimate digitisation of the library?s entire
150m-item collection (journals included) as ?a wonderful outcome, though I
suspect I?ll be long dead by then?.
Brindley disagrees with Jeanneney about having to fight off American
hegemony. She points out that search engines are still in their infancy.
Google has competitors that are bound to eat into its monopoly.
Furthermore, improved technologies will make search results more like
indexes, working more precisely as knowledge providers than simple
information dispensers. The British Library has no choice, she believes,
but to go with this technological flow. The alternative is to become little
more than ?a book museum?.
Back at the NYPL, David Worlock of Electronic Publishing Services said,
?Ultimately it?s not up to Google or the publishers to decide how books
will be read.
It?s the readers who will have the final say.?
No, it is the teachers who will have the final say. They will determine
whether people will read for information, knowledge or, ultimately, wisdom.
If they fail and their pupils read only for information, then we are in
deep trouble. For the net doesn?t educate and the mind must be primed to
deal with its informational deluge. On that priming depends the future of
civilisation. How we handle the digitising of the libraries will determine
who we are to become.
Link: www.bryanappleyard.com
================================
George Antunes, Political Science Dept
University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204
Voice: 713-743-3923 Fax: 713-743-3927
antunes at uh dot edu
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Medianews mailing list
Medianews@twiar.org
http://twiar.org/mailman/listinfo/medianews_twiar.org
End of Medianews Digest, Vol 160, Issue 1
*****************************************
