First, there’s “privatization.”
Here’s the quote (from an article that’s appeared in NYT and IHT):
“Google could be privatizing the library system by offering a large, but private interface to millions of books,” Kahle said.
Brewster Kahle’s certainly not the only one to misuse the language this way–just the latest.
I’m not in love with Google by any means. I think OCA is a great idea (although I wonder where the “alliance” has gone, given Yahoo’s almost-total silence and Microsoft’s diverging effort).
But “privatizing the library system” or, which I’ve also read, “privatizing the public domain”–I’m sorry, but horespucky.
If Google negotiated exclusive contracts, maybe.
Otherwise, that language is like saying that, if I check a book out from my library that happens to be in the public domain, scan it, and return it to the library, I’ve “privatized” the book.
Google is borrowing books from libraries (in large quantities thanks to special arrangements), scanning those books, and returning them to the libraries with the promise that the books won’t be damaged. Its deals are nonexclusive. Google’s scan does not in any way modify the terms under which the book itself can be used.
Google Book Search absolutely expands findability for books and in no way restricts anyone else from building and maintaining book-search systems. Google Book Search for public domain absolutely expands access to the text within books, and in no way restricts anyone else from providing similar access. (For that matter, Google’s silly first-page “conditions” are suggestions for use of their PDFs, not legal restrictions.)
How can expansion be viewed as contraction? How can improved access be regarded as privatization?
Want to attack Google? Fine. But is it necessary to debase the English language to do so? Or does it just make a great soundbite?
Then there are the Wesch videos. Oh, you know them: The absolute must-see videos that will transform your thinking about…
whatever.If you love them, that’s fine. More power to you.
On the other hand, if you find some of them nearly incomprehensible and generally think they’re mostly form without much content…well, you’re not alone.
Hey, maybe I’m just not a visual learner, particularly with this particular kind of visual.
Not that I’m ever going to “get on the cluetrain,” but I sometimes find it amusing to read “world-changing” books and those renowned as representing the true future a few years after they’re published. (Yes, I know, the general absurdity of Being Digital
hasn’t hurt Negroponte’s rep as The Man–in general, being boldly wrong seems to work as long as you’re wrong at least three years out. Now cheap computers are more important to the children of third-world countries than sanitation, medicine and actual teachers. Maybe so.)So I finally checked out the cluetrain manifesto: the end of business as usual
a couple of weeks ago, fully intending to read the whole thing so I could critique it.
I gave up halfway through, since I wasn’t going to scribble notes in the margins of a library book and my notecards were filling up too rapidly. Noting the apparently self-loathing Apple marketer decrying (a) marketing (b) companies that keep their futures secret, noting the more recent history of one of the authors, noting that…well, I’m sorry, but most business in 2007 is pretty much like most business in 2000 (when the book came out): As usual. Most marketing in 2007 is marketing, again pretty much business as usual. If you think you’re having a conversation with your bank or your supermarket or your fast-food joint or at least 80% of those from whom you buy things…well, you’re welcome to your beliefs.
Of course, I never have been much for manifestos.
And just for the giggles, here’s a blast from the past, courtesy of Cites & Insights 2:7
, May 2002. In addition to one of Negroponte’s famous quotes (1996: “we will probably not print many [words] on paper tomorrow,” I picked up one of Wired Magazine
‘s “bets on the future” from 2002:
Hereâ€™s one $1,000 bet: â€œBy 2010, more than 50 percent of books sold worldwide will be printed on demand at the point of sale in the form of library-quality paperbacks.â€ Thatâ€™s Jason Epsteinâ€™s bet (with NYPL getting the proceeds); he sees PoD as â€œthe future of the book business.â€ Opposing: Vint Cerf, who bets that â€œby 2010, 50 percent of books will be delivered electronically.â€
I wonder who gets the $2,000 in the remote possibility that, two years and just over two months from now, the vast majority of the books sold worldwide are (a) physical objects that are (b) printed in large quantities using traditional methods? A remote possibility that I’d guess has about a 99% chance of being the case.
Now that this obviously Luddite individual has put together this blog post, time to go do some other work that happens to involve wikis and other web software. I don’t live on the web, but I sure do take advantage of the good tools and media available there…when they suit my purposes.