Identifying Impacts Of Mass Digitization: A Case study of Google project

The access of electronic books by library users has increased among university students (Shelburne 2009). This circumstance encourages libraries to provide the digital collections. As the result, libraries digitized their book collections on a massive scale.Many libraries cooperate with commercial organizations in the digitizing book project, due to a lack of budget (Nielsen 2008). However, in the view of some experts, the project infringes the copyright law as these commercial partners use the digitizing books for commercial purpose. This essay will first describe the trend toward mass digitization and then identify problems due to effect of mass digitization on the right holders’ protection, particularly the copyright of orphan books. It the put forward arguments that government should protect the copyright holders of orphan books due to mass digitization.

On one hand, the digitizing books give advantages for libraries and its users. One of the advantages is that these books make accessing information easier. Digitized books have a compatibility with modern devices, such as smartphones and tablets. As the result, they can be accessed wherever and whenever by users. In addition, digitizing books have an added value, compared with printed books. The reason for this is that these books provide audio visual features, such as audio books, downloadable text and audio, electronic braille, so the disabled have an opportunity to access information (Myhill 2002). Furthermore, another benefit of digitizing books is to provide an opportunity for libraries to preserve information more economically and effectively. The digitizing books would need a less storage spaces as libraries deposit these books on the computer server. Compared with a conventional storage, computer servers might deposit millions of digitizing books in on square meter and this might prevent digitizing books from damage by insectsor natural disasters. This leads to reduction in the expenditure of book maintenance. Thus, most libraries digitize their printed book collections to improve accessibility to information in books and to preserve their collections.

On the other hand, the mass digitization project caused problem of copyright infringement by threatening right holders. This problem was caused by cooperation among public libraries and commercial organizations. In fact, the first project of mass digitization, which involved a commercial institution, was called the Google 5 projects and five of the largest libraries, namely Harvard University, University of Michigan, New York Public Library, Stanford University and Oxford University were involved. This project became concern among scientists and practitioners of Library and Information sciences due to effect mass digitization on copyright law. According to Hanh (2006), the project digitization of books began in 2004 and this project succeeds to digitize approximately 15 million of books.  In this project, Google, which was a commercial partner, would give one copy of digitizing books to these libraries. Meanwhile, Google also would redistribute these books through the company website. The site would provide snippets, which displayed only three lines, for digitizing books, so these features would make retrieval information on digitizing books easier for users.The increasing number of users, who were access digitized books, encouraged Google to obtain financial benefit. Thus,the Google 5 earns money from advertisements and subscriptions. However, the Google 5 project was sued by Author Guild America and Association of America Publisher. These plaintiffs point out that those authors had a privilege on derivative advantages, which included electronic rights from their books. Although they had privilege, they would have lost their financial gain because the Google 5 did not ask permission to use their books.

Another problem of mass digitization was orphan books licensing. A preliminary study of United States of Copyright Department indicates that orphan books licensing would become obstacle for mass digitization. According to Office (2006), orphan book can be defined a book which required permission from copyright holders, but the right holders cannot be located or found by the parties who wishes to use this book. The obstacle of orphan books came from extending the length of copyright holders from 20 years to 70 years from the author death, so parties who want to get author permission cannot get licensing to redistribute orphan books because the difficulty of getting license of orphan books is to find the right holders, who might be die but the their copyright have not already expired. In addition, the number of orphan books increased year by year due to copyright holders’ extension. According to Clair (2006), the extension implied on increasing number of orphan books with around 90 per cent of books published from 1923 to 1950. Furthermore, the cost of re-licensing orphan books was expensive. The expenditure to re-locate original author of orphan books and to register these books were included into re-licensing cost.

Turning to the question of why government should protect the copyright holders of orphan books due to mass digitization. There are two reasons to answer this question. The first reason is the right holders of orphan books contribute to enlighten societies by disseminating knowledge through their books. The second reason is the more challenging issue on the orphan books protection because the right holder would meet the books piracy due to mass digitization. The  books piracy is concerned by some experts. According to Kevles (2013), the advantages of mass digitization project for equality accessing information cannot be a justification to occupy the copyright of orphan books illegally. The difficulties to find the right holders of orphan books is not a justification for use their books without their permission. Although the right holdersmight bedie , they still deserves to receive the copyright protection for their books.

In conclusion, this essay has described the trend of mass digitization cope with the problem and its solution. It cannot be denied that mass digitization gives advantages for societies. The project of mass digitization provides indexing of digitize books, so societies can use these books for education and research purpose. However, the mass digitization caused problem for threatening right holders.This situation might be happen since the Google 5 project tends to earn money from advertisement and subscription, while the project did not ask permission to right holders, whose books were digitized by Google. Another problem of mass digitization is orphan books licensing. The extension of license books published from 1923 to 1950 made obstacle for the project to get permission. To cope with these problems, it is suggested thatgovernment should protect the copyright holders of orphan books because the right holders of orphan books have a contribution to enlighten societies and they have met a weak position to against books piracy due to mass digitization.

 Top of Form

REFERENCESBottom of Form

Clair, G.S (2006). Mass Digitization Projects: Celebration and Challenges: 3. Retrieved from www.ulib.org/conference/2006/4.pdf

Hahn, T. B. (2006). "Impacts of mass digitization projects on libraries and information policy." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 33(1): 20-24.

Kevles, B. (2013). Will Google Books Library Project End Copyright ?. AAL Spectrum May: 36. Retrieved from http://www.aalnet.org/

Myhill, C. E. (2002). "ICT for access to information services for disabled people: an overview of projects and services at Gateshead Libraries Service." Program: electronic library and information systems 36(3): 176-181.

Nielsen, E. K. (2008). "Digitisation of Library Material in Europe: Problems, Obstacles and Perspectives anno 2007." LIBER Quarterly 18(1): 20-27.

Offices. (2006). Report on Orphan Works: A Report of Register of Copyright: 15. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov

Shelburne, W. A. (2009). "E-book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and behaviors." Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 33(2-3): 59-72.

Continue

Should Government Protect the Right Holders of Orphtan Books?

The access of electronic books by library users has increased among university students (Shelburne 2009). This circumstance encourages libraries to provide the digital collections. As a result, libraries have begun to digitize their book collections on a massive scale. Many libraries cooperate with commercial organizations in the digitizing book project, due to a lack of budget (Nielsen 2008). However, in the view of some experts, the project infringes the copyright law as these commercial partners use the digitizing books for commercial purpose. This essay will first describe the trend toward mass digitization and then identify problems due to effect of mass digitization on the right holders’ protection, particularly the copyright of orphan books. It then puts forward arguments that government should protect the copyright holders of orphan books from mass digitization.

On one hand, the digitizing of books gives advantages for libraries and its users. One of the advantages is that digitizing these books makes accessing information easier. Digitized books have a compatibility with modern devices, such as smartphones and tablets. As a result, they can be accessed wherever and whenever by users. In addition, digitizing books have an added value, compared with printed books. The reason for this is that these books provide audio visual features, such as audio books, downloadable text and audio, electronic braille, so the disabled have an opportunity to access information (Myhill 2002). Furthermore, another benefit of digitizing books is to provide an opportunity for libraries to preserve information more economically and effectively. The digitizing books would need less storage space as libraries deposit these books on computer servers. Compared with a conventional storage, computer servers can deposit millions of digitized books in on square meter and this might prevent the works from damage by insects or natural disasters. This leads to reduction in the expenditure of book maintenance. Thus, most libraries digitize their printed book collections to improve accessibility to information in books and to preserve their collections.

On the other hand, the mass digitization project has caused problems of copyright infringement by threatening right holders. This problem was caused by cooperation among public libraries and commercial organizations. In fact, the first project of mass digitization, which involved a commercial institution, was called the Google 5 projects and five of the largest libraries, namely Harvard University, University of Michigan, New York Public Library, Stanford University and Oxford University were involved. This project became concern among scientists and practitioners of Library and Information sciences due to effect mass digitization on copyright law. According to Hanh (2006), the project digitization of books began in 2004 and this project succeeds to digitize approximately 15 million of books.  In this project, Google, which was a commercial partner, would give one copy of digitizing books to these libraries. Meanwhile, Google also would redistribute these books through the company website. The site would provide snippets, which displayed only three lines, for digitizing books, so these features would make retrieval information on digitizing books easier for users. The increasing number of users, who were access digitized books, encouraged Google to obtain financial benefit. Thus, the Google 5 earns money from advertisements and subscriptions. However, the Google 5 project was sued by Author Guild America and Association of America Publisher. These plaintiffs point out that those authors had a privilege on derivative advantages, which included electronic rights from their books. Although they had privilege, they lost the financial gain from their electronic right on digitizing books because the Google 5 did not ask permission to digitize their books.

Another problem of mass digitization is the orphan books licensing. A preliminary study of United States of Copyright Department indicated that orphan books licensing would become obstacle for mass digitization. According to Office (2006), orphan book can be defined a book required permission from copyright holders, but the right holders cannot be located or found by the parties who wishes to use this book. The first problem of orphan books licensing comes from extending the length of copyright holders from 20 years to 70 years from the author death. Consequently, number of orphan books would increase year by year. The data provided by Clair (2006) showed that around 90 per cent of books published from 1923 to 1950 to become orphan books. This situation would exist because the right holder might be die but the their copyright were not already expire. Furthermore, the second problem of orphan books licensing is a high cost of re-licensing orphan books. The cost includes the expenditure to re-locate the position right holders of orphan books and to register these books in the Copyright Office. Thus, the Google 5 project prefers to digitize these books without the right holders permission.  Because the Google has difficulty to find the position of right holders and the Google will spend enormous money to re-license these books.

 Turning to the question of why government should protect the copyright holders of orphan books. The reason for this is that authors relied on brains rather than brawn and they spend considerable time to write books.  Considering this situation, books can be classified into intellectual property of the authors. Thus, the authors have a right to gain long term benefits, such as earning royalty and receiving public acknowledgement. A close analogy for the author of orphan books is The second reason is the more challenging issue on the orphan books protection because the right holder would meet the books piracy due to mass digitization. The books piracy is concerned by some experts. According to Kevles (2013), the advantages of mass digitization project for equality accessing information cannot be a justification to occupy the copyright of orphan books illegally. The difficulties to find the right holders of orphan books are not a justification for use their books without their permission. Although the right holders might be die, they still deserves to receive the copyright protection for their books.

The question, then, is how can orphan copyright holders be protected?

In conclusion, this essay has described the trend of mass digitization cope with the problem and its solution. It cannot be denied that mass digitization gives advantages for societies. The project of mass digitization provides indexing of digitize books, so societies can use these books for education and research purpose. However, the mass digitization caused problem for threatening right holders. This situation might be happen since the Google 5 project tends to earn money from advertisement and subscription, while the project did not ask permission to right holders, whose books were digitized by Google. Another problem of mass digitization is orphan books licensing. The extension of license books published from 1923 to 1950 made obstacle for the project to get permission. To cope with these problems, it is suggested that government should protect the copyright holders of orphan books because the right holders of orphan books have a contribution to enlighten societies and they have met a weak position to against books piracy due to mass digitization.Top of Form

REFERENCES

Bottom of Form

Clair, G.S (2006). Mass Digitization Projects: Celebration and Challenges: 3. Retrieved from www.ulib.org/conference/2006/4.pdf

Hahn, T. B. (2006). "Impacts of mass digitization projects on libraries and information policy." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 33(1): 20-24.

Kevles, B. (2013). Will Google Books Library Project End Copyright ?. AAL Spectrum May: 36. Retrieved from http://www.aalnet.org/

              

Myhill, C. E. (2002). "ICT for access to information services for disabled people: an overview of projects and services at Gateshead Libraries Service." Program: electronic library and information systems 36(3): 176-181.

               

Nielsen, E. K. (2008). "Digitisation of Library Material in Europe: Problems, Obstacles and Perspectives anno 2007." LIBER Quarterly 18(1): 20-27.

Offices. (2006). Report on Orphan Works: A Report of Register of Copyright: 15. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov

               

Shelburne, W. A. (2009). "E-book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and behaviors." Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 33(2-3): 59-72.

Continue

Identifying factors of restricted accessing clean water in developing countries

bitshare.cm

Water is becoming a valuable resource in recent years. The demand of water has increased since over the past decade because of the growing population. This demand will lead to a difficulty accessing water. This essay will find and discuss the reasons of a lack of access to the clean water in developing countries. It will be argued that a political issue may become the main cause for restricted access of water in the third world.

The first reason insufficient water supply is caused by water’s privatisation. The concept of privatisation leads to a monopoly practice because the authoritative control to manage water is delegated by the government to commercial institutions. These institutions make a profit by charging fees for a water supply. According to Mukheibir (2010), privatisation creates a barrier between the poor and the rich due to water pricing. This situation leads to inequality for obtaining water supply because both the poor and the rich will compete to get water services and the commercial institutions will give a privilege for selected parties who can pay higher than others. As a result, the rich who have money power get wider accessing water services, while the people living in poverty are suffering from insufficient accessing water due to the privatisation.

Another cause of accessing water is a political issue. Politics influence the development of water programmes. These programmes will not well-develop, if the government cannot put a water management plan at the top of the list of political agendas. In the developing countries, government struggles with internal conflict and this conflict affect the political situation. Massoud et al. (2010) states that a long duration of internal conflict created insecurity and instability of the politic situation in Lebanon. This condition effect on the slow progress of water management plan and lead on the government’s failure to provide water access to the residents.

 Furthermore, a low-level of public participation causes a lack of access to water. Actively public participation of the public will put the government on the pressuring situation in the policy making process. Chattopadhyay & Duflo (cited in Sorenson, Morssink and Campos (2011) points out that a low-level of women’s political participation in developing countries became an obstacle to allocate budget for the development of water’s infrastructures. Consequently, government do not put capital investments on the development of water management plan at the top priority in decision making process. Thus, the infrastructures of water supply do not well-developed.

In conclusion, the reasons insufficiency accessing water have different perspectives. In one side, the privatisation creates a gap accessing water because of water pricing, so the poor living in developing countries lost their accessing water. On the other side, insecurity and instability of political condition gave effect on the progress of water development. Because the government will focus on to solve conflict rather than develop water supply plans. In addition, political issue becomes a key reason of limited access of water because the government cannot develop the infrastructure of water supply due to a lack of capital investment.

REFERENCES

Massoud, M, Al-Abady, A, Jurdi, M & Nuwayhid, I 2010, 'The challenges of sustainable access to safe drinking water in rural areas of developing countries: case of zawtar el-charkieh, Southern Lebanon', Journal of Environmental Health, vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 24-30.

Mukheibir, P 2010, 'water access, water scarcity, and climate change', environmental management, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1027-1039.

Sorenson, SB, Morssink, C & Campos, PA 2011, 'safe access to safe water in low income countries: water fetching in current times', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 1522-1526.

Continue

Environmental Protection Should Be a Higher Priority than Economic Development

The issue of whether environmental protection should be prioritized than economic growth has been widely debated recently. It is an important issue because it is concerned with poverty reduction, quality of life improvement and provide valuable products. This essay will examine arguments supporting unrestricted economic growth and some problems with the views. It will then put forward reasons why environmental protection should be a higher priority than economic growth.

It has been claimed that the key aspect of poverty reduction and quality of life improvement is economic growth. (Department of International for Development, 2014).  This is supported by the reason that a growing economy creates many opportunities, such as jobs and businesses, which raise people out of poverty. In addition, a strong economy enables the development of infrastructure, such as roads, ports, schools and hospitals. This development enables people to improve their quality of life as they get better access to health and education. However, economic growth also creates wider social problems, such as social and income gaps, and does not always directly to reduce poverty. The reason for this is that growing economy encourages capitalists to generate monopolistic business and this situation causes problem of inequality wealth among the poorest people and the richest people. Furthermore, the environment greatly influences the quality of life. This is proved fact that in a damaged environment, quality of life is severely diminished. For example, the massive industrialization causes the air and water pollution. This situation causes problem of health and social, such as respiratory disease, overcrowding population and rising stress level in urban areas. As the result, people who live in a damaged environment should increase their health expense.

It has been argued that prioritising the environment would be a hugely expensive policy.  It is claimed that to halt global warming, for example, this action would cost of around 1 percent of global gross domestic product (Biello, 2007). Furthermore, avoiding deforestation would cost approximately US$ 4 billion per year (Grieg-Gran, 2008). However, the environment, in its original state, actually provides valuable products. Both of marine life and forest biodiversity, produce economic sustainable resources, such as fish, timbers, rattans and agarwoods. It is argued (Food and Agricultural Organization, 2008) that fisheries industries  involve a thousand of workers and these produce the products whose are worth billions of dollars per-annum. Also the further evidence is that the forest products, such as plywoods and agarwoods are valuable commodities in a global market (Jensen, 2009). In addition, protected environment enables people to use its sustainable resources. According to Nepstad and Schwartzman (1992), sustainable resource management will support environment to produce these products so people can use this resources continuously.

In conclusion, proponents of economic growth assume that it can reduce poverty and improve quality of life. However, a protected environment has much more benefits, such as its supporting quality of life and providing economic sustainable resources. Therefore, the government has to prioritize environmental protection than economic growth since environment provides valuable products which can be used for people’s welfare

REFERENCES

Biello, D. (2009). Is combating climate change worth the cost?. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post/is-combating-climate-change-worth-t-2009-01-14/?id=is-combating-climate-change-worth-t-2009-01-14. Retrieved date 16 July 2014.

Department of International for Development (2014). Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity In Developing Countries. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedkingdom/40700982.pdf Retrieved date 08 July 2014.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2008). World review of fisheries and aquaculture. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e01.pdf retrieved date 16 July 2014.

Grieg-Gran, M. (2008). The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation Update of the Report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02489.pdf Retrieved date 16 July 2014.

Jensen, A. (2009). Valuation of non-timber forest products value chains. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(1), 34-41. Retrieved date 08 July 2014.

Nepstad, D. C., & Schwartzman, S. (1992). Non-timber products from tropical forests: evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. Retrieved date 08 July 2014.

          

                     

Continue