Argument: Like previous studies concerning disruptive technologies, we may find that pirating of movies, books, and games through the internet may not have an adverse affect of the profits of the producers.
Evidence in support:
In 1999 researchers Shapiro and Varian, authors of Information Rules, concluded that book publishered made more money because of book lending and also movie production companies make more money because of rentals.
In 1985 S.J. Leibowitz found that "the unauthorized copying of intellectual properties need not be harmful and may actually be beneficial" after studying the copying of journal articles.
Many content producers claim a severe loss of revenue due to piracy (a total of 250 billion); however, many claim those statistics are non accurate and often exaggerated.
Evidence against:
Content producers and organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America claim substantial loss due to piracy.
The think tank Institute for Policy Innovation claims that copyright infringement not only causes substantial loss for producers but for the entire U.S. economy in terms of lost economic output, jobs, earnings, and tax revenue.
Balanced discussion: Pirating happens. However, whether it is too extensive or morally wrong is a different issue. The question is does it effect the profits of those who produce the content (which is generally their largest complaint). As a producer it's an easy conclusion to come to that unauthorized access to your content is losing you money. However, there is historical evidence that that is not always the case. "Free" access to content can generate interest in that content which can lead to future sales not only by the the original infringer but by others that the infringer introduces the content to.
However, the digital world is a different beast. It's much easier now to avoid paying for content. In the past, getting illegal copies often included a trip somewhere and then making an imperfect copy. Now we can have near-instant, perfect copies. So it would make sense that it would happen more often.
There are extreme arguments on both sides: either piracy is killing the economy or piracy is good both economically and ethically. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and we should keep observing and researching to find the true effect of piracy. Despite the effects, it's a safe bet that we won't eliminate it completely and it would be wise for companies to learn to cope by changing business models to thrive in the new digital information age.
What I liked most: I enjoyed starting the class off by exploring the current technological context of rapid change. It's exciting and concerning at the same time. Technology and new media are being used to bring information to people more efficiently and to bring people closer together. However, as an information professional, (or any worker, really) it also signifies the need to keep up with new technology or have an obsolete set of skills.
A lot of economics goes over my head most of the time, but I found it interesting that Google has developed its own price index to measure web transactions. I like the idea that some of the largest and most forward-thinking companies are making efforts to better understand and measure the new information economy.
I also found the discussion of "disruptive technologies" fascinating. I'm interested in the issue of digital piracy and its effects, and I think it is valuable to see how similar issues played out in the past such as the effect of photocopying on the profits of academic journals.
What I agree with: I agree that the new and evolving information based economy will neccessitate changes in business models. Due to the nature of digital information, how its, acquired and emerging consumer expectations businesses will need to adapt or fail. Newspapers are a prime example of this.
What I disagree with: I don't think that all information needs to be priced. I understand that as our economy shifts toward information, people will want to monetize the work that produces information, but I think that at least some information should be free. I may just be scared of the idea of having to pay a blogger because their post inspired me to some economic benefit. At some point monetizing information becomes absurd. I encourage working out how to economically value information, but I don't want that to be put into practice by monetizing ideas or knowledge spillover.
I'm still curious about: A lot, really. However I'm most interested in how we will decide to handle current disruptive technologies, particularly entertainment piracy. Is there a way to stop piracy? Should we? Is piracy ethical? Will it get worse or plateau? Is DRM worth it? Does piracy hurt or help producers? I think these are good question to ask about this issue that could have major effects on the future of the information economy.
Argument: Crowdsourcing elements of collective cataloging should be utilized in traditional cataloging environments.
Tim Spalding, creator of LibraryThing, gave a presentation at the 2008 ALA conference explaining LibraryThing and highlighting its collective cataloging elements. Here is part 1:
In the video, Spalding points out several interesting elements of LibraryThing. Starting at 4:08 he mentions the "common knowlege" section of a books record that displays information not commonly in a traditional catalog including places, characters, awards the book has won, and unique series information. This information allows access and collocation of works not previously possible in a catalog. On LibraryThing, one can retrieve a list of books that have the character Darth Vader, a legitimate and natural choice of access point for Darth Vader fans.
Then at 4:42 we see the series page for Star Wars books that collocates all the books from the Star Wars universe. Thanks to the collective cataloging of information not found in traditional catalogs, unique series information and relationships between the books are able to be shown. One section of the Star Wars series page on LibraryThing shows the list of Star Wars books according to when they take place within the Star Wars timeline. This information is very valuable to an interested reader of Star Wars books, but something that doesn't happen in library catalogs. Spalding states, "This page encapsulates more accurate information about the Star Wars books and how they relate to each other than...has ever been assembled."
Spalding makes a third point that is perhaps the strongest element of collective cataloging: "Who is the expert when it comes to the Star Wars books? It's these guys." Experts on the works and their aboutness are those that read the works. Catalogers cannot read every information item they catalog so they assign subject headings according to supplementary material often provided by publishers. One example in the video shows subject headings assigned to a book based off the flap copy don't accurately reflect the work. Cataloging done by those who read the books are much more likely to accurately reflect the subject of the work.
Tags and tagging are also a big part of the collective cataloging model of LibraryThing. Through tags, users are able to create unique access points to collocate works. The video shows some of the effects of tagging: unique genres (paranormal romance), more natural language (cooking vs. cookery), "tagmashing" for complex subjects (France+wwII), & built in relevancy due to # of tags. About some of the more non-traditional genres on LibraryThing, Spalding says, "This is as real as anything in the Library of Congress".
Part 2 of the presentation:
Part two of the video points out some of the shortcomings of current, physical-based cataloging:
limited subjects (3-6)
all subjects are equally true
subject headings never change
only librarians add subjects: only one interpretation
classification must be hierarchical
only items are cataloged (as opposed to works, expressions, or series)
must be done in a library
libraries aren't good at sharing metadata (but are good at getting metadata from a central source)
Clearly, traditional cataloging in non-ideal in many ways. New methods of collective cataloging and tagging can help to overcome many of the short comings and help users to search in more ways and retrieve information objects more effectively. Libraries would benefit from adopting some collective cataloging practices. Traditional cataloging has many strengths, so I'm not at all advocating getting rid of MARC and/or AARC2 (soon RDA), but instead we should either change specific cataloging rules integrate crowdsourcing into the current systems.
What I liked: "An attitude, not technology" This adage brings into focus the essence of library 2.0. Library 2.0 isn't about what technologies libraries have adopted but how they apply the philosophies of web 2.0 into a new service model. It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees" situation that I, myself, have a tendency to slip into. Instead of being concerned with what tech fads to jump on, we should be continually aware of how to incorporate the concepts of openness, sharing, participation, content creation, and user-centeredness. Technology isn't the goal, it's the medium.
What I agree with: I very much agree with the idea that libraries are in the midst of a necessary change, and that libraries that do not change become obsolete and risk closure. Libraries have always been an information provider, a place to serve information needs. For a long time, libraries enjoyed the security that came from relatively unchanged information behavior and environment -- wanted to learn something? Then you needed to go to the library to get a book.
But now, thanks to a new information environment through the internet, information behavior has drastically and irrevocably changed. Libraries are now a secondary (or tertiary) source of information - but that's OK (it has to be). Libraries now have to adjust their missions and find their new service models, not to compete with the internet, but to compliment it.
What I disagree with: Even though libraries should adopt new library 2.0 service models, I don't think it should completely eschew traditional services. The libraries brand is still books and we should not forsake that perception. Even though there is a definite shift to digital, there will always be at least some demand for traditional services. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm still curious about: Libraries are still in midst of change, so like most library professionals, I'm curious what the library will look like when the dust settles (or if it ever does). From now on will libraries be in a constant state of flux due to continually adjusting to meet evolving information needs or will it find a relatively stable niche?
Argument: Microfinance isn't always a good thing, but it's not bad either. It can have have both positive and negative effects, varying greatly by context.
Microfinance is good: MFI's have done well in establishing that microfinance is a boon to the poor. It is fairly easy to see and is basically the popularly accepted position:
Most MFI's report positive effects and extol the virtues of microfinance. See the Grameen Bank, Bandhan, or Kiva websites to get an idea of the noble intentions behind the service as well as some positive figures. For instance, Grameen points out that over 9.4 million people have been helped through their MFI partners and that more than 1.1 million micro-loans have been generated.
Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank anda major innovator in microfinance won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.
Microfinance is bad: No one is really arguing that microfinance is bad, but several have questioned it's effectiveness:
In their paper "The miracle of micro…nance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation" Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, and Kinnan conclude "While microcredit succeeds in affecting household expenditure and creating and expanding businesses, it appears to have no discernible effect on education, health, or womens' empowerment."
In another randomized evaluation, Karlan and Zinman has a few surprising finds: marginally creditworthy microentrepreneurs who randomly receive credit actually shrunk their businesses, access to credit increased profits for male but not for female microentrepreneurs, and increased access to credit didn't improve subjective well-being
Chuck Waterfield's research points out the difficulties in understanding microfinance prices due to misleading information and how lenders can end up paying far more than is initially apparent.
Media reports including this Boston Globe article draw on research to paint a negative picture of microfinance, saying things such as "by most measures, microcredit does not offer a way out of poverty"
Balanced approach: Generally speaking, providing financial services to people is a good thing. However, it may not be effective as some theorize and may even have negative consequences in some circumstances. Even though research may call into question the effectiveness of microfinance, the same researchers point out the difficulty of generalizing the results and the need for more long term evaluation. The 2010 Grameen Foundation report "Measuring the Impact of Microfinance: Taking Another Look" provides a balanced look at the current studies concerning the impact of microfinance and encourages further research by posing important unanswered questions:
Do the business investments evidenced in the existing research lead to additional development outcomes over a longer time? Will incomes rise and poverty rates fall as borrowers continue to operate their businesses? Will new studies be able to replicate earlier positive results about social outcomes?
To what extent do loans and savings programs alleviate the day-to-day uncertainty of life below the poverty line?
Will additional studies in alternative settings find similar positive results of microsavings programs?
Can insightfully designed lending programs lead to positive outcomes for the very poorest borrowers?
What about the macroeconomic effects of microfinance program? Is there convincing evidence of effects on poverty rates, rates of inequality, and economic growth in a variety of settings?
What I liked: As someone who is financially stable in a developed country it's easy to take financial inclusion for granted. Checking, savings, direct deposits, debit cards, online, and mobile banking are all a fixture in my life. Class this week helped me to understand the severity behind the widespread issue of being "unbanked". 2.9 billion people in the do not hold bank accounts, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in the economy. However, in class we didn't just discuss the problem, we also took a look at an innovative solution: microfinance. Through small loans and other financial services coupled with innovative collection techniques, microfinance institutions have been able to extend financial services to those in poverty who did not previously have access. I enjoyed being introduced to these innovations.
What I agree with: I agree that those in poverty can (and should) benefit from financial inclusion. Being able to save, loan, and electronically send money is economically empowering and may be one way to improve the condition of the poor on a large scale. I also agree that providing financial services to the poor in remote areas can also be a challenge for finance institutions who need incentives and profitability to expend the resources on "last-mile" services.
What I disagree with: Many hold the opinion that microfinance should not be a charity and that developing countries do not need the benefaction of the West for microfinance to be viable and effective. This sentiment was made popular by C.K. Prahalad in his book "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid". I agree that microfinance can stand on its own apart from charity, but I think microfinance through a charitable lens is also a good thing. I understand that for sustainability and longevity microfinance needs to be a financially viable investment, but charitable giving can also have a large positive impact on the poor. Pride may also be a factor in the eschewing of charity, but pride shouldn't get in the way of helping more people. Besides, low to no-interest loans are only a small form of charity, unlike traditional charitable donations.
Before this class, I was aware of Kiva, a charitable MFI, and the way they have been enabling individuals to provide loans to people in developing nations is inspiring. I am hard pressed to criticize their methods.
I'm still curious about: I'm still curious about the overall effectiveness of microfinance. Financial inclusion is a good thing, but does it lift people out of poverty? Microfinance is most prevalent in developing countries (where there is the most need), but is microfinance in effect here in America? Also, why are women the primary targets of microfinance? Does is just happen that way or are they the intended recipients? I would have thought that men, who traditionally are the ones to pursue business ventures would be more likely to take advantage of micro credit.
Branch, a new discussion-based social network from the creators of Twitter is set to be released soon. According to Biz Stone, one of the creators:
"[It] enables a smart new brand of high quality public discourse. Curated groups of people are invited to engage around issues in which they are knowledge[able]. This service holds the promise of a new platform for dialogue on the web – a necessary departure from the monologues we have grown so accustomed to reading online."
This innovation has to potential to positively influence the way people communicate and learn online and it's worth keeping up with in the coming months. For more information on Branch, check out the official Branch statement.
I attempted to formulate an argument this week based on e-governance issues, however, I struggled. I'm usually later in posting than my classmates and they made the same arguments I was thinking of discussing (in a much better way than I would have). I wanted to explore how governments need to respect the freedom of its citizens before social media protests could be effective, but L. Khoury already made a thought-provoking post on that topic. I also wanted to point out that the digital divide needed to be solved before e-governance could be effective, however, Laura Buell already brought that issue to light. I encourage the reading of both my classmates' blogs.
Instead of drumming up an academic argument, I want to share the results of my personal reflection. In my reflection I explored why I didn't participate in e-government more often. From that thought, I set out to find out how I could participate, and now I want to share the resources I've found in my research. So, I guess my argument is "You should take this opportunity to participate in your government by accessing these resources"
E-government Participation Resources:
Register to vote: Register to exercise your basic civic duty. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission
This week we talked about issues related to electronic governance. Much of the focus of the class was from an technical perspective: technology decisions, failures, and lessons. However, for me, its hard to talk about political participation without considering my role in it. Political participation is certainly a social issue, but it's also deeply personal.
It was shared that around 80% of government electronic initiatives are failures (similar to the amount of initiatives that don't make it to market - is it too easy for government initiative to "make it to market", perhaps?). This statistic leads us to examine the reasons behind the general failure of e-government to take hold. No doubt the major reason is lack of participation. No doubt the reasons why most Americans don't participate can be complex, so I start by examining myself.
I'm a young, tech-savvy person who votes and is generally interested in politics (I'm no die-hard, but I like to know what's going on). I don't participate much in the political process offline, where it's considered a bit more time and energy consuming. However, I don't really "participate" in the political process online either. I semi-frequently use government provided information and statistics services online, but I don't communicate with my representatives online, I don't follow politicians or government organizations through social media. I guess the reason why is I'm busy doing other things, or not necessarily busy, but I find more value in doing other things. Whether its working, schooling, or just watching T.V., I'd rather be doing that than e-mailing my representative or checking the governors twitter.
In a way, that's OK. That's partly the purpose of a representative system: we send people to represent us in the political world to free us up to do other, oftentimes productive things. On the other hand, thanks to the internet it's easier than ever to be connected. So traditional excuses don't hold up so well, anymore.
Whether I have more of an obligation to participate politically, it's good to know that when I want to, it's there. Perhaps I (an other people) just need to get fired up about something before I jump.
