On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Kyle Banerjee <banerjek_at_uoregon.edu> wrote:
> At the risk of being the odd man out, I'm not yet convinced that deals like
> this are a bad idea. Regardless the merits of the deal, I think clinging to
> the principle that all information should be treated the same is a
> disservice.
When you say this are you just talking about treating information in
the context that it's all served up the same way? My concern is that
boiling this conversation down to just a discussion of structural
byte-shifting is a mistake. There are important civil rights issues
surrounding these decisions that are going to have an impact.
> Our professional paranoia is a major contributing factor to our
> marginalization.
I guess I'm ok with being professionally paranoid when it comes to
securing access to the open web for library users. A large majority of
digital content being created and provided by subscription services
isn't even available for libraries to buy because of EULA's and other
licensing restrictions. Do you think a tiered internet will be
different?
If someone takes a bunch of freely available government information
and serves it with enough bandwith to be accessible on an open web
faster than the speed of the turtle in those comcast commercials and
Google/Verizon have released govinfo.google.com for $9.95/mo (no
institutional subscriptions, thank you) and they are the only folks
who can decide who is infringing on their non-discrimination clause,
do you think they'll sit around and be ok with that?
>We are obsessed with g-men coming in to find out what books
> someone checked out, but we don't sweat the fact that the vast bulk of the
> information people use (i.e. google, amazon, netflix, FB, meebo, just about
> everything else on the web, their CC transactions, etc) is far more
> extensive and contains far more interesting info because they need it to be
> able to provide what people actually want.
Are you saying that we should care more about protecting patron
privacy *outside* of the library? I think assuming people don't care
about or aren't interested is just not true. People do care about
their online privacy.
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/07/students-finally-wake-up-to-facebook-privacy-issues.ars
And as librarian, I certainly care about and talk about this kind of
thing with my students/patrons....while I think we have an important
voice in the future of the net neutrality discussion, I just don't
think that in this regard we are holding ourselves back and being
marginalized.....
Letting corporations drive and control this conversation isn't goingto
be good for anyone except their stock holders.
Kathleen DeLaurenti
UW Bothell/CCC Library
> kyle
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:29 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Lovins, Daniel wrote:
>>
>> I haven't studied it closely enough myself yet, but here's Larry Lessig's
>>> take, courtesy of the New York Times:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/a-deregulation-debacle-for-the-internet
>>>
>>
>> Here's a tiny url for that and its several associated links:
>> http://tinyurl.com/23w6c5u
>>
>> IMHO, everyone is overlooking the basic issue that the legal system
>> addresses, i.e. the interests of economic expansion [i.e. profit generation]
>> always override personal concerns (e.g. the "good" to society of the former
>> override the non-economic "rights" [e.g. freedom of expression] of the
>> latter).
>>
>> IMHO (do I have to keep saying that?), it is time for the provision of
>> information to be considered a vital public service, rather than a form of
>> entertainment or data being a restrictable commercial commodity, and for
>> ISPs to be designated "public utilities" subject to the same levels of
>> government oversight as other "utilities." Or, maybe the Government can be
>> the ISP for the US and we can receive Internet access as a "right" via our
>> tax forms.
>>
>> Still there will always be the problem of who controls the corporations
>> and/or the governments at any particular time. We seem to be evolving
>> toward some sort of restructuring of both those concepts, which, I suspect,
>> will do a great deal of harm in the process until the madness of
>> misdirection is recognized.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> jgm
>>
>> John G. Marr
>> Cataloger
>> CDS, UL
>> Univ. of New Mexico
>> Albuquerque, NM 87131
>> jmarr_at_unm.edu
>> jmarr_at_flash.net
>>
>>
>> **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside the
>> box."
>>
>> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
>> sharing is permitted.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Kyle Banerjee
> Digital Services Program Manager
> Orbis Cascade Alliance
> banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 503.999.9787
>
Received on Wed Aug 11 2010 - 14:10:46 EDT