o5. "Fair Use" for Who?

Google Book Search is a tool from Google that searches the full text of books that Google scans and stores in its digital database. The service formerly known as Google Print has caused some contraversy.
View the following video on YouTube(the newest addition to google), read about it and try it out for yourself at http://books.google.com/
View the video: Is Google Book Search "fair use"?
Read about it: http://books.google.com/googleprint/library.html
In your journal answer the following questions:
1. What effect will this library-based digitization have on Google’s relationships with publishers?
2. How have Google’s competitors, such as Yahoo! or Microsoft, respond to this challenge?
3. What impact could this project have on the access to information?
4.Will librarians be threatened by the new development?
5. What do you think?

1. Google's foray into a digital library database will undoubtedly affect its relationships with publishers for the worse. Publishers may feel that their jobs will be put in jeopardy because of the digital library. With access to books available online, it will take away from the need to view these books in person, thus resulting in a decrease in publishing and, ultimately, revenue. The amount of people visiting libraries and bookstores will decrease because the books can be found at home on the Internet via Google Book Search. Who would choose to make a trip to the library or bookstore when the book needed can be found at home without even having to rise from your favourite chair? Google Book Search would cause its relationships with publishers to become severely damaged and nearly irreparable.
2. In response to this challenge, Yahoo! has come up with Yahoo! Print and, similarly, Microsoft has started Microsoft Book Search. As assumed, all three parties have the same goal in mind: provide a digital library database for the human population. The way each party goes about achieving this, however, is entirely different. Microsoft only scans material that is non-copyright and only from the collection of the British Library, The University of California, and The University of Toronto. In doing this, Microsoft minimizes the chance of public criticism, controversy, and - most importantly - law suits. Any copyright material that Microsoft adds to its database shall only be added with the explicit permission of the publisher to avoid any arguments. Yahoo! also takes another approach. Yahoo! scans the whole text, but has a much more limited database as compared to the other two competitors.
3. The impact of the access to information that these digital-based libraries offer will certainly have a large impact on everyone. It not only becomes easier to access books, but it also becomes easier to plagiarize that work as well. The fact that students would have to manually write down every letter of what they want to plagiarize when using books usually discourages them from doing so. People are naturally lazy (the fact that plagiarizing exists is a testimony to that) and usually try to find the easiest and quickest way to do things. Making books accessible on the Internet is practically equivalent to shoving plagiarism into a person's (especially students) face! No hand cramps that result from manually writing for too long, no ink stains, no travelling... the project eliminates every factor that discourages people from plagiarizing. One must remember that while Google Book Search does not give the full text of most books, students do not need the whole book to gather their information. Taking snippets from the book manually is essentially the same thing as reading the snippets off Google Book Search. Sure, it offers people access to a larger access of information to develop a more in-depth knowledge of their topic, but when have we ever not abused the access to information that the Internet offers?
4. When considering that libraries will be affected, one must also consider the effect it has on those associated with the libraries: librarians. It's no secret that libraries aren't exactly the most popular places these days, so any decrease in visitors could spell doomsday for some libraries. If they were to close down, that would put the librarians working at that library out of a job; no cause is good enough to justify job-loss. It is already a hard enough job for librarians to try to entice the majority of the youth back to the library without the added obstacle that Google Book Search presents. At least the youth will come in to check out the occasional book for research in school projects, but Google takes away even that with its Book Search Engine. With all the obstacles facing librarians, their task seems to look more and more like trying to moving mountains.
5. I personally feel that Google Book Search will not aid the cause which librarians have taken up. In fact, I feel that Google Book Search will slowly replace libraries for most of the population. Most people only visit the library in order to search for books for research for their projects. That fact alone eliminates most adults, leaving the youth and the elderly as the main visitors to libraries. Like I said before, it's no big secret that libraries aren't exactly the most popular places for the youth. However, with Google Book Search, those ocassional visits will disappear completely because students don't need a whole book for their research - only snippets. I personally love reading and the library, so I dibn't quite like Google Book Search for taking away the modest business that a library gets. It's such a great place, with so much to offer in terms of information and leisure yet not many people even remember that they have a library in their community. It is indeed a sad state in which we find ourselves now a days.

Wii Why?

There has been quite a bit of hype surrounding the new Nintendo Wii gaming system. Some say that the Wii's ability to "democratize" gaming for people of all ages and abilities is revolutionary. Do you think this is a true technological revolution or just hype? Please defend your opinion.

The Nintendo Wii certainly has ventured off the beaten path of most gaming systems, choosing to take the yellow brick road in an attempt to separate itself from the rest of the competition. Whether that separation was for better or worse is the question being asked about the Wii.
Creatively, the Wii has certainly beat all other gaming systems, hands down. However, that's all I can really say that impresses me about the Wii. The graphical capabilities of this gaming console are, indisputably, not up to par with its competitors like the PS3 and Xbox 360. In the world of gamers, graphics count as one of the most important aspects to a great game and a great console; it is what keeps players glued to their television screens for days on end. Let's face it, for each genre, the essential plot will always be the same - there's no variety there. For example, all action games have the same plot; something happens to the main character, he seeks revenge, kills everyone in his path on his quest for revenge, and then finally gets his revenge. Sure, a console that looks attractive and sleek will capture attention, but won't do much else if it doesn't have the graphical capabilities to back up that pretty-looking facade. After all, who buys a console simply to look at it?
Furthermore, I can't say that the pioneer gamepad, that Nintendo invented, makes up for its graphical failures. I'll admit that the new and creative gamepad intrigued me and even impressed me in the creativity of it. However, after listening to the complaints of this ingenious device being riddled with defects, I tried it for myself and have to concur. As it was advertised in commercials, the Wiigamepad can be made into nunchucks so your arms are free to move around and imitate the actions needed for the game. There's just this tiny problem: the cord connecting the two halves is probably just about the length of our body width-wise. A good game means that the player becomes wholly involved in the game, paying attention to nothing else. Players shouldn't have to keep a part of their attention on the gamepad to make sure they don't break it. It becomes impractical and annoying. With such restrictions on movements, it becomes extremely easy for players to snap the cord if they get too absorbed into the game. If one wants to encourage motion-sensing technology in their gamepads, then make sure that the gamepad is suitably designed for such play.
All in all, I can't say that the Nintendo Wii really is anything more than just hype. A technological revolution would mean that it would have to have broken the bar of all aspects of the existing technology. The Wii certainly hasn't done so in the graphics category, and still has too many bugs to fix with its gamepad to be considered a technological revolution. While it certainly does look revolutionary, its performance proves it to be just another regular - albeit strange - gaming console.