Do you own your library?

After having packed most of my books into boxes, physically transported them to their new home and placed them haphazardly in the bookshelves to await the slower and more pleasurable task of re-arranging my books I feel a strong sense of ownership, property and belonging. My books are part of who I am. Their physical appearance and their content are telltale clues to the identity of their owner.

I have previously written against the e-book but there is a specific issue which is important to point out. Cory Doctorow has written a short note entitled In the age of ebooks, you don’t own your library. The note points out the tendency of e-books to limit the rights previously held by the book reader. Today when buying files for the e-book reader the transaction is often termed as a license and may (this needs to be tested in the courts) limit the ways in which we can buy, sell, borrow and copy our books. In the worst case scenario licenses such as these will spell the end of borrowing books from friends and become another nail in the coffin of the second hand bookstore. Cory writes:

It’s funny that in the name of protecting “intellectual property,” big media companies are willing to do such violence to the idea of real property — arguing that since everything we own, from our t-shirts to our cars to our ebooks, embody someone’s copyright, patent and trademark, that we’re basically just tenant farmers, living on the land of our gracious masters who’ve seen fit to give us a lease on our homes.

The physical property we own will be dependent upon our behavior towards the content we require to fill it. Television requires the shows and we must pay the cable company, computers require software and we must license it, e-books will require us to subscribe to the rules of those who own the content.

Unless we stick to the old fashioned paper versions of course…

Interior decoration frustration

Aaaah, right now with the move days away and I am struggling to figure out the furniture solutions needed for the new place. Writing a thesis seems easy compared to all the decisions needed to finish a home. Just take a look a these choices available for bookshelves. Some of them are nice but I still have not found anything I like. Bah, its easier to write a paper…

brace-case.jpg

From Ljubljana to London

The coming week is hectic and filled with a bit more exciting travel locations than the recent train trips I have taken. On Monday I fly to Ljubljana in Slovenia for a conference with a focus on content licenses and copyright. Then on Thursday I am of to London to give a lecture at the London School of Economics and to have discussion with a group of Andrew Murray’s PhD students.

So this week promises to be an exciting mix of locations and content. I have never been in Ljubljana and so I am looking forward to the half day off planned for sight-seeing. London is an old favorite and I have already booked dates with friends – I just hope that I will manage to squeeze in some of my second-hand bookstores. All I need to do is to start packing…

The fish in you

Sometimes we focus too much on the advantages or perfection of evolution so that we forget the bits that are left behind. Neil Shubin, head of the University of Chicago’s anatomy school, argues in his new book Your Inner Fish (great title!) the rason we have hiccups is because we’re descended from fish. Here is a quote from a review of the book:

Spasms in our diaphragms, hiccups are triggered by electric signals generated in the brain stem. Amphibian brain stems emit similar signals, which control the regular motion of their gills. Our brain stems, inherited from amphibian ancestors, still spurt out odd signals producing hiccups that are, according to Shubin, essentially the same phenomenon as gill breathing.

(via Collision Detection)

40130968_7f5708d9d0.jpg

Photo: Ålesund Aquarium blue 2 by mrjorgen (CC AT-NC-SA)

Hopeful news

My living problems may soon be resolved. Today I live in a very small place (30 square meters) on the bottom floor of an ugly concrete high rise (not too high though) surrounded by other concrete buildings. It’s a one room affair so I can lie in the bed and listen to the fridge humming away. My current living situation is depressing but reasonably cheap.

Things I miss in my living situation today:

  • Sofa (actually a whole living room)
  • Ability to open the curtains without passers by looking in
  • A view
  • Waking-up without seeing the washing-up
  • Having my books in shelves inside rather than in boxes in storage
  • Ability to invite people over

The operative word is maybe – so I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Paperless? I think not.

The New York Times has published an article about the demise of paper. The article suggests that the change is not only imminent but it is already here. The usual approach of quoting experts is used in an attempt to show that paper is gone and that only wasteful employees are still printing.

The biggest expert is the family of an engineering director at google and the chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The latter however sort of diminishes the general upbeat article by admitting that scanned books are not as pleasant as the old fashioned alternative.

So yes we like paperless tickets and nobody understands why we need to kill forests to print telephone books (but not many seem to be complaining about the Ikea catalogue) but does this mean we are paperless? Looking around my desk I think not. Maybe I am not representative. Looking around the office I still don’t think so. Maybe we are not representative? Looking around the places I live and hang out – I still don’t think so…

Somehow the paperless office still has not made it. It never did. And I doubt that it ever will. Yes, lots of people are prepared to read books on their palms but not all (read excellent article on this here). Lets face it, paper is here to stay. It simply has the best traits…

The article is not all bad though and it does bring up the environmental issues involved with changing from paper to all the electronic gadgets.

Others who have commented on the article are Question Technology, Treehugger and LifeHacker

Pictures, lots and lots of pictures

Flickr has an amazing amount of pictures – last year they hit the 2 billion mark! The pictures are organised by names, tags, groups and more. This makes it one of the more amusing site online to search for the unexpected. Some of the groups are really fun. Some of the interesting ones are the voyeuristic What’s in your bag, moleskinerie, walls only walls and your books

my contribution to What’s in your bag

Oh, and don’t forget to check out interestingness.

The future of street art

A Banksy murial on Portobello road was sold on ebay for £208,100 (approx. $400,000) the price did not include removal costs. The wall belonged to Luti Fagbenle who felt that he could not “really justify owning a piece of art worth as much as it is.”

The Banksy mural on Portobello road

(Photo by Cactusbones) (CC by-nc-sa)

Street art has been growing for a long time and Banksy must be seen as one of the most widely known artists in the genre. But he is not alone. As Art Threat reports the world’s first Urban Art auction at Bonhams Fine Art Auctioneers will be held on February 5th.

What does this mean for the future of Street Art? Art Threat has written an interesting comment on street arts ephemeral nature as an important feature and Banksy has added a comment on the his webpage:

“Aren’t street art auctions a bit lame?
I don’t agree with auction houses selling street art – its undemocratic, it glorifies greed and I never see any of the money.”

So the artists don’t get paid and the artwork is ripped, literally sometimes, out of their context – how will this effect the art? Previously the most exploitative use of graffiti has been street art photo books. These products raise exciting questions about copyright and graffiti (blogged about this issue earlier here and here) but selling the works raises other exciting questions.

The person buying the work will most probably remove it to display it elsewhere. This de-contextualizes of the art but it also adds a disincentive to the artist. Now it is not enough to know that your work will be painted over but it may also be removed and sold to enrich someone else. Your work may become a commodity to be regularly bought and sold without the artists control or permission. Should the artists be concerned?

(Story on BBC & Observer)

Against Intellectual Property

A new version of the book Against Intellectual Property by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine is out now (download it here). The print version will be published by Cambridge University Press (around July 2008).

Reviews: Stephen Spear November 2007 review in the Focus

It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty.

Credits (pdf)
Chapter 1: Introduction (pdf)
An overview of the central theme: intellectual property is in fact intellectual monopoly and hinders rather than helps innovation and creation.
Chapter 2: Creation Under Competition (pdf)
Would the world be devoid of great or lesser works of art without copyright?
Chapter 3: Innovation Under Competition (pdf)
What would happen to innovation without patents?
Chapter 4: The Evil of Intellectual Monopoly (pdf)
Why are patents so bad anyway?
Chapter 5: The Devil in Disney (pdf)
What is the big deal with copyright?
Chapter 6: How Competition Works (pdf)
How would artists and innovators get paid without copyrights and patents?
Chapter 7: Defenses of Intellectual Monopoly (pdf)
What is the conventional wisdom and why it is wrong.
Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation? (pdf)
This is the heart of the matter: there is no evidence that intellectual monopoly serves the purpose that both the U.S. Constitution and economic logic dictates. There is no evidence it “works” to increase creation and innovation.
Chapter 9: The Pharmaceutical Industry (pdf)
But what about life-saving drugs?
Chapter 10: The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly (pdf)
A look at various policy options.
References (pdf)