UC digitizes even more
Earlier this week the University of California and Google announced that they would work together on Google's digitization project. Thus, UC joins other universities in digitizing its books -- typically subject to the
first sale doctrine.
UC received 2 criticisms: We are violating copyright law. Or Google is. Or perhaps both. I have my own opinion here, but know better than to put it in a public blog. I don't speak for the UC system, but I can say I was surprised to see us join this.
The other criticism I heard was that somehow by working with Google UC will make it
harder to work with open alliances, or harder for other groups to work with open initiatives. I just hope that Brewster was taken out of context, because this makes no sense to me. By working with more than one initiative, UC is showing they can do have many partners. I just hope UC receives copies of these scans so that when UC has other uses for them (or yet another partner) the books do not have to be re-re-scanned. . .
$2.33 & defamation of character: how can we trust individuals?
Posts live forever (I should be careful what I post and you should be careful how you comment). eBay seems to have a
policy that they remove comments only after a court order proves the defamation of character. One person has spent countless hours (and I'm sure a fair bit of money) on having a negative, inappropriate comment removed from eBay from a buyer who spent $2.33. While certainly eBay need not remove appropriate feedback, one needs to question the spread of user contribution sites.
Wikipedia & eBay (among others) are very popular opinion posting sites. There are mechanisms to check on the opinion posters. . how many folks use those? Do we need some individual - credibility "proof" or "certification" sites like we have for privacy, security, etc. for organizations? "Take a 10 step quiz" and prove you are reliable? "Identify 10 great opinions that you have" and earn a certification? Or perhaps librarians, one day, truly will rule the world!
Early stage intellectual property needs validation . . it needs to be proved by others to show it has value. Now individual validation. . across websites. . across topics. . is something we should explore. Otherwise, do we look only to the aggregates?
Who wants to volunteer to be "certifiable"?
Universities and privatization
Yet another book is examining the role of the
private world and public universities. Specifically mentioned is
patents, commercialization of research, contracting services, etc.
I'll be curious to read what the new ideas are in this book. Certainly universities (as a whole) have become more "corporate." Some companies have become more "educational". (Read
The Rise of the Creative Class to see how the "creative types" thrive in open, encouraging cultures.) As more individuals move between company and university employment, more companies interact with universities and desire the elements they usually receive from other companies, and state support decreases, universities are surrounded by corporations.
Universities want to be good citizens, and get along with their communities. They want to find ways to successfully interact. While primarily anecdotal and containing recommendations which do not solve the "problems" nor work well for their communities,
University, Inc. contains an interesting "history" of university - industry relations. There are cycles. There are changes over time.
All corporations (whether for- or non- profit) live in the economic ecosystem. The elements must be examined together.
My 2 cents.
When is original IP "worth" it?
Electronic Arts, a key gamemaker,
announced that they are going to make licensing of existing characters ("others" intellectual property) a less prominent part of their strategy in creating games. Why?
Certainly the expense is one issue. But other reasons point to the lifecycle and perhaps tension in the relationship between IP owners & game makers. Movie (or other characters) have a life
outside of the existing movie. . in other merchandise, and possibly in sequels. That life is not solely in a game. The character owner is controlling the entire credibility and goodwill of that character. Other merchandisers get it -- you don't create Spiderman with a green suit or something. But games are more "action packed" than other merchandise, of course.
What next, then? I suspect there will always be parties who want to "license" a character for game creation, even given the constraints. There is a built-in market. And perhaps there are more creative outlets for tie-ins without licensing.
