Napsterization?

More of the same: Will Online Piracy Become a Problem for E-Books?

I think the term (and I use that 'word'* loosely) 'Napsterization' is kind of dated to begin with, but I suppose it's the case most widely shouted about, so fair enough.

Will people stop buying books if they can just download them? Where is the line between library and download?

I think there's less of a case for book sales dropping than there is for music sales. Many reactions to stories like Cushing Academy's move to a 'digital' library go on about how people like reading books better, and the smell of them and memories of comfort and safety and all that. Which I am not denying; I have lots of good memories of books and being contorted while propping them up somewhere to read. The point is, book lovers love books as much as they love stories, while music lovers don't love CDs, at least not to the same extent (though record collectors can be pretty outspoken). Affection is more likely to be applied to whatever device plays the music, and one device plays a lot of music whereas one book only contains so much text. So let's kill some more trees, stack them up on shelves, and not let anyone else read them without paying the author.



* I did it again!

Like This

I want to be a librarian like this. When I was younger, I wanted to be a teacher. I still do, I like helping people. Librarians do that, too. I think I would like to make a difference in someone's life. Probably in not such a dramatic way, but still. There are worse things to aspire to.

Social Media Policies

Do you really need a policy at your library or school regarding social media? Twitter. Facebook. Blogs. LiveJournals. There are all kinds of ways you can get yourself in trouble on the internet, yes. People have been fired over things they've posted, even.

Here is a simple rule: if you have something to say that might not be well received by the parties in question, do not say it online. Just don't. As secret as you think your Twitter account, Facebook page, blog, or LiveJournal is, you don't know for sure that someone can't find something incriminating online. That's just for personal stuff, like saying something snarky about your sister-in-law.

When you work for an organization and can be recognized, do not badmouth that organization. Don't post about it. If you simply must tell a story, give everyone a fake name or don't name names at all.

Be careful what you sign your real name to. Nothing on the internet ever truly goes away; you can write something that can get pulled up years and years later, and things that seem like a good idea when you're seventeen don't really reflect well on you when you're twenty-seven. Anything you post can be used against you. If you're going to use your real name, you had better be very professional.

Some of the suggestions in the article include:

• Use a disclaimer. Agreed. The opinions expressed do not reflect on BigNameCompany.
• Don’t share secrets. Agreed again. You do not want to be breaking news.
• Be yourself. Not really agreed for all situations. You can 'be yourself' in the way your mom told you to be yourself without using your real name. There's always the option to reveal your real name later, but there are no takebacks. You may not want the kind of attention you can get.
  
• Respect copyright. Don't pass someone else's stuff off as your own. Not articles, not blog posts, nothing. Always give credit when you can.
  
• Respect your colleagues. And your friends. If your best buddy you went drinking with and got trashed with that one time and took pictures of can't friend his dear old Aunt Petunia when she asks, you need to take that stuff down. Or at least take it down if asked.
• Avoid online fights. Debates? Mostly okay. Fights, definitely not. No matter how angry or annoyed you get, don't get into personal things with your opponent. And don't pick fights with people you don't like; the internet is full of opportunities for deception that might seem tempting but have serious consequences.
  
• Post accurate information. Ever played the telephone game? One small bit of misinformation can turn pretty weird. See what happens when you don't get your facts straight. Bloggers get annoyed!
  
• Consult the employee manual. Handy anyway. Really, I can't photocopy my rear end? No kidding.
  
• Use good judgment. Well, yeah.
• Provide value. It's not necessary. There are people who are happy talking about what their cat did that day and there are people who are happy to read it. If someone doesn't think what you're saying is valuable, they can choose not to read it. I personally hate Twitter. I choose not to read Twitter posts because I find the majority of people post just to post.
  
• Accept responsibility. Seriously, this is an 'all the time' thing. If you mess up, admit to it. Apologize to offended parties. This one really annoys me.

I suppose policies are a good idea. Common sense just isn't common enough. Remember, lots of employers will put your name through a search engine before hiring you. So will people you date! Then again, maybe it's a good thing to know that nice guy you met is into wandering around in a fur suit before you get too attached to him. Or, you know, maybe that's attractive to you. I'm not judging you, as long as you're not hurting anybody.

Harvard Raises the Bars

One of the Harvard dormitories abruptly decided to bar their books. Nearly every shelf has two brass bars fixed to it lengthwise, preventing anyone from stealing the books on the shelf. Or, you know... reading them.

Apparently, some of the old, valuable books were being stolen, so the University needed a cheap way to secure the books. They've promised to move the less valuable books off the barred shelves. I can see bars being cheaper than chaining the books to the shelves, but I agree maybe some locked glass doors that a librarian could open would work well enough and actually allow the books to be read. I guess that doesn't happen with e-books.

The best part is how Harvard went about doing this without telling anyone they were going to. Like maybe the students wouldn't notice the brass bars or something, or would think the brass bar fairy left them there overnight.

Maybe the whole library was part of an elaborate heist and all the books on the barred shelves are just quick mock-ups, like furniture store displays! The university, having been robbed of millions of dollars worth of books, decides to save face by maintaining a ruse that the books are still there! I think I could almost respect that more than the real reasoning. Also, how cool a heist movie would that be?

Discovery Interface is Kind of a Crummy Name

Ever wish library catalogues worked more like Google*? You're not alone. Some libraries are trying to find better search software. More power to them! However, there are 'pockets of resistance':

'Some argue that new search products—sometimes called next-generation catalogs or discovery interfaces—amount to a dumbing-down of catalogs.'

What? A library catalogue that would help users actually find something? Horrors!

Very cool idea, but very expensive, and it seems another argument for librarians being computer savvy. (I don't mind that. I'm comfortable around computers. I think computers plus libraries equals brilliant.) Adjusting to a specific library's needs will require better strategies for organizing the information in the database and knowledge as to how to make the searches relevant. The article gives an example of how searching for a book on Thomas Jefferson got someone papers from a conference in Brazil. Not so useful.

Adjusting systems to specific needs instead of trying to cram it into the one-size-fits-all standard isn't new; my current course instructor told us about a project organizing aviation materials. If it's all aviation, standard cataloguing doesn't work so well.

It seems that computer know-how is becoming a lot more important in the information sciences; I think programming experience could be of immense help and now I'm kind of interested in pursuing that avenue to help with my future librarianing.


* Again with the Google. I know.

UK Libraries and the Generation of Now Now Now

In a pleasant little news snippet, More than four thousand public libraries across the UK, Wales, and Northern Ireland now allow anyone with an existing library card or proof of address. If you have a library card in London, you can now use it in Cardiff and so on. (Assuming you want to go to London or Cardiff - any Doctor Who fan can tell you that's where all the aliens invade or attack or just horrible things in general happen.)

This is a pretty cool idea, and one I think will work. They're also considering allowing people to return the books at a library other than the one they took it from, the logistics of which make me twitch. If I'm looking for a book in Belfast, I really don't want to be told I have to go to Derry. I don't even like it if I have to go to two places in the same city. Does the second library ship it back to the library of origin? Is it limited to libraries in the same city?

The article mentions the system is very similar to British Colombia's existing BC OneCard. BC OneCard allows you to return a book in any participating BC OneCard library, which still makes me antsy about waiting times.

And really, isn't that a product of my generation? If I have to wait for anything, it's unbearable. Everything has to be instant or I'm unhappy. People used to (and still do) hand write letters and send them through the postal system. Now we're all about e-mail; we call regular old mail 'snail mail'. Even the instant world of computers and the internet make me fidget; my computer needs to load quickly. My connection speed has to be fast or I'm sitting there impatiently tapping my fingers and rolling my eyes. Maybe I should just slow down and read a book or something.

Internet Longevity and the Treehouse

Quentin Hardy writes for Forbes,

"If Google's actions seem entirely wrong, consider how we would feel if, in response to all the criticism, Google simply destroyed the 10 million-volume corpus. We would feel an almost irrevocable loss."

I would, I really would. I've only used Google Books once to poke around in it, but it's one of those things I intend to go back to, to poke at whenever the urge strikes. I think the immediate gut reaction to the notion of that database being erased is about on the same level as hearing about a fire in a library. The initial action, mind you. Buildings burning are lamentable in their own way as well.

Another part of me thinks that database that's already scanned in isn't going to go anywhere. One thing I liked about Tad Williams' Otherland series was its depiction of the Treehouse, a site with no set address, a networking of machines set up to be the last true place of freedom on the internet. Is the database too big to be stored elsewhere? I don't know. I just know that once something's out here, it seems like it's out here forever. And that is why I am very glad cell phones didn't have cameras when I was in high school, because the embarrassing stuff that happened to me that would have been captured and posted would never, ever go away. And that is why we all heed the tragedy of the Star Wars Kid.

As an aside, Jonathan Zittrain's TED Talk 'The Web as Random Acts of Kindness' mentioned that it's been agreed on not to post the real name of the Star Wars Kid on that Wikipedia article. You can find it easily enough, but just not on Wikipedia. The discussion page of the article points to a policy regarding the biographies of living persons.

"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so... Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

On the other hand, I bet 'Star Wars Kid' isn't even in the Encyclopedia Britannica.