- Tech Sharecase, 8 December 2017
- Technology Sharecase, 10 November 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 20 October 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 8 September 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 5 May 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 21 April 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 18 November 2016
- Tech Sharecase, 23 September 2016
- Tech Sharecase: 28 July 2016
- Tech Sharecase on 10 May 2016
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- November 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
Tag Archives: Copyright
Frank Donnelly, Stephen Francoeur, Ellen Kaufman, Rita Ormsby, Ryan Phillips, Linda Rath
How Much Information
We watched this video featuring Martin Hilbert, a researcher at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism who recently co-published a paper in Science that estimated how much information we can store and compute. We also listed to an interview with Hilbert that was done on the journal’s podcast. The overwhelming scale of information available can be seen in this press release’s overview of the paper’s findings:
Looking at both digital memory and analog devices, the researchers calculate that humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information. (Yes, that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it.)
Put another way, if a single star is a bit of information, that’s a galaxy of information for every person in the world. But it’s still less than 1 percent of the information stored in all the DNA molecules of a human being.
2002 could be considered the beginning of the digital age, the first year worldwide digital storage capacity overtook total analog capacity. As of 2007, almost 94 percent of our memory is in digital form.
In 2007, humankind successfully sent 1.9 zettabytes of information through broadcast technology such as televisions and GPS. That’s equivalent to every person in the world reading 174 newspapers every day.
On two-way communications technology, such as cell phones, humankind shared 65 exabytes of information through telecommunications in 2007, the equivalent of every person in the world communicating the contents of six newspapers every day.
In 2007, all the general-purpose computers in the world computed 6.4 x 10^18 instructions per second, in the same general order of magnitude as the number of nerve impulses executed by a single human brain. Doing these instructions by hand would take 2,200 times the period since the Big Bang.
From 1986 to 2007, the period of time examined in the study, worldwide computing capacity grew 58 percent a year, 10 times faster than the United States’ gross domestic product.
Telecommunications grew 28 percent annually and storage capacity grew 23 percent a year.
We also took a quick look back at a well known study from 2003 by Peter Lyman and Hal Varian about how much information existed.
We took a spin through Art Project, a new service from Google that uses its Street View technology to map out the interiors of art museums around the world (such as the Frick Collection) and that lets you zoom in incredibly close to art in those institutions (see, for example, Rembrandt’s “The Nightwatch” at the Rijksmuseum).
We talked about who owns copyright for works of art held in museum after reading this copyright notice on the FAQ page for the Art Project website:
Why are some areas or specific paintings in the museum Street View imagery blurred?
Some of the paintings and features captured with Street View were required to be blurred by the museums for reasons pertaining to copyrights.
We talked briefly about patron-driven acquisition of ebooks and about how services like Portico will allow us to access ebook content that we’ve licensed even if the provider goes out of business. Since Mike Waldman was unable to attend today’s Tech Sharecase, we agreed to hold off until a later meeting any discussion of the criteria that a librarian might use when deciding which format to purchase a specific book: ebook vs. hardcover vs. paper.
We took a look at how book records in the catalog for Johns Hopkins University connect to various web services that enhance the information normally available in a record: a search box for Amazon’s Search Inside the Book service, links to ebook versions that are freely available at Hathi Trust, Google Books, and much more. These enhanced records are powered by a piece of open source middleware called Umlaut.
A second edition of Planet Hong Kong: Popular Cinema and the Art of Entertainment was also a subject of discussion, as the author, David Bordwell, was selling the PDF directly after the university press that published the first edition let the book go out of print.
We poked around in SSRN, a repository of papers in the social sciences, to see how it ranked Baruch among other business schools whose faculty have contributed oft-downloaded papers.
Arthur Downing, Stephen Francoeur, Ellen Kaufman, Mike Waldman, Kevin Wolff
Barcode Scan Apps for Phones
We talked about a blog post from Boing Boing detailing how one used book dealer uses barcode scanning app on his phone to identify profitable items in thrift shops.
Copyright and Course Reserves
There was some discussion about recent decisions in the course reserves case at Georgia State in which three publishers alleged that the library had infringed copyright. We looked at the blog posts on the LibraryLaw Blog and the ARL Policy Notes blog about the case.
We went over the business model that Flat World Knowledge offers in its e-textbook service. Relatedly, in future meetings of the Tech Sharecase, we hope to have more discussion of online learning objects that might supplement or replace altogether textbooks in certain classes.
In my LIB 1015 class this week, we had a really lively conversation about fair use, copyright, and the public domain after watching RIP: A Remix Manifesto (the library owns a few copies of the DVD). Here’s the trailer for the film:
You can also check out the film’s official website.
Another good film that I considered using (and which the library also owns) is Copyright Criminals. Here’s the trailer for that:
You may also want to check out the official website for Copyright Criminals, as well.
These tools complement two others that the OITP developed in the past few years:
In addition, Baruch College just published this summer its Interactive Guide to Using Copyrighted Media in Your Courses.
Recently a few articles have highlighted the ongoing Google Book Search controversy. The CNET article linked below does a good job of outlining the competing interests as pertaining to the copyright issues/proposed settlement and the monopolistic implications of the Google Book project.
One article I find really interesting is the second below from Reuters. This article glosses over the finer details of oppositions arguments to defend Google Books. The argument the author presents is that Google is advancing human knowledge, granting access to information where there was none, and in light of this the opposition concerns are either invalid or outweighed by Google’s lofty goal.
Shankland, Stephen. “Google’s digital-book future hangs in the balance.” CNET. 15 June 2009. Web. 24 June 2009.
Gimein, Mark. “In Defense of Google Books.” Reuters. 24 June 2009. Web. 24 June 2009.