tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post8284201505127864244..comments2024-03-28T07:23:23.408-07:00Comments on DSHR's Blog: Who's looking after the snowman?David.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-80689041636061973232007-10-16T11:16:00.000-07:002007-10-16T11:16:00.000-07:00Should we be sanguine about any one entity preserv...Should we be sanguine about any one entity preserving content, even if that entity has absolutely guaranteed resources and procedures to do the preservation? Even if that company is relatively well liked and has happy slogans like "don't be evil"?<BR/><BR/>What if their idea of "evil" is different than someone else's? What if their expanded profitability depends on playing along with other powers that might be, arguably, evil?<BR/><BR/>I don't think these scenarios are all that far fetched considering the major search engines agreeing to censor themselves in trade for making economic inroads in China (<A HREF="http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060130-080248 " REL="nofollow">Comparing image search results for Tiananmen Square</A> gives a graphic example). How about phone companies supplying information to the US government without warrants?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps some individuals with copies of a video on their hard drives can supply a memory that has become unpopular or profitability-destroying for a company.<BR/><BR/>I'd rather see some robustness against political, social and economic whims institutionalized, rather than having to rely on a diaspora of individuals to allow access to ideas or a cultural heritage, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-80975724311869749962007-10-16T04:19:00.000-07:002007-10-16T04:19:00.000-07:00And meanwhile, Google themselves just made the rig...And meanwhile, Google themselves just made the rights management issue harder. If you got those snowman clips from CNN or another provider that claims copyright, well . . .:<BR/><BR/>Google Takes Step on Video Copyrights <BR/>By MIGUEL HELFT<BR/>Published: October 16, 2007, New York Times<BR/><BR/>"SAN BRUNO, Calif., Oct. 15 — Google is seeking to put an end to the copyright wars over online video. <BR/><BR/>"On Monday, the company unveiled a long-anticipated system that, if effective, would allow media companies to prevent their clips from being uploaded to YouTube without permission.<BR/><BR/>"Whether the system will work well enough to satisfy media companies who have been irked by the proliferation of unauthorized copyrighted clips on YouTube is not yet clear. But if successful, the system, which Google is offering to all media companies, could usher in a detente between them and Google."<BR/><BR/>Jim O'DonnellJames J. O'Donnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08948035119291652474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-70725226866872858742007-10-15T22:49:00.000-07:002007-10-15T22:49:00.000-07:00I should have used Google earlier. It turns out t...I should have used Google earlier. It turns out that a <A HREF="http://www.ils.unc.edu/vidarch/" REL="nofollow">team at the University of North Carolina</A> is in fact selecting and collecting YouTube video of the 2008 Presidential campaign. They describe their system in <A HREF="http://www.ils.unc.edu/vidarch/Shah-IWAW07.pdf" REL="nofollow">this paper (PDF)</A>.<BR/><BR/>However, their focus is on the process of identifying and selecting suitable videos. Their paper ignores the issues of preservation.<BR/><BR/>The paper also fails to make the economic case for expending resources on collecting and preserving video that there is no convincing reason to believe won't be available from YouTube indefinitely. To steal Eugippius's words from the comment above, they don't think the snowman is lucky. I should stress that I believe <A HREF="http://blog.dshr.org/2007/06/why-preserve-e-journals-to-preserve.html" REL="nofollow">the case can be made</A>, but it is not a slam dunk and it does not depend on knowing whether Google will continue to make the video available. Maybe you trust a single archive to control history. Or maybe you are worried about future Winston Smiths, whether corporate or governmental.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-88200453692770087932007-10-15T04:09:00.000-07:002007-10-15T04:09:00.000-07:00David well outlines some of the issues that face p...David well outlines some of the issues that face preservation efforts, wherever they come from. Let me highlight one more.<BR/><BR/>YouTube is interested in page views and maximum number of page views and links through whatever video you happen to be looking at. Well and good, and good luck to them: if I enjoy seeing the stuff that attracts my attention, then I'm happy to play along with this, remembering Richard Lanham's work on *The Economics of Attention* in the process.<BR/><BR/>But the traditional library function recognizes the original commercial value of information objects *and* goes on to something else. Looking at 2007 YouTube 20 years from now doesn't play along with that original business plan, but has a historical and spectatorial purpose. Not, hey, what a cool snowman; but, hmm, and just why did snowmen become important icons in politics in 2007 and how were they used? The library function is one of a place where all sorts of originally commercial objects get used in ways that go beyond the business plan of the original producer.<BR/><BR/>Now, if we believe the long tail argument, then YouTube may have a business plan 20 years from now in keeping this old stuff around and accessible. Or perhaps not. The question for the snowman, poor abused snowman, would then be: do you feel lucky? If so, trust YouTube. But I think the snowman got on that screen because he wasn't feeling especially lucky, wasn't feeling that he can just trust the aggregate collection of economic impulses of his contemporaries to make things all work out for the good.<BR/><BR/>Jim O'Donnell<BR/><BR/>(Eugippius was a sixth century scholar and monk, in case you wonder.)James J. O'Donnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08948035119291652474noreply@blogger.com