Web 2.0 technology has allowed a whole new level of social interaction with networks such as MySpace and Facebook. I joined Facebook about two years ago to have another option for my daughter, then still in high school, to communicate with me. A wonderful example of the expanded opportunities that Web 2.0 has created via these websites is something that happened just yesterday because of this class. Checking into Facebook, I changed my status because I was gratified at having succeeded in creating this blog. The status change said, "Morgan may be an old dog, but she has a new trick." Within the hour, my daughter responded, "Oooo, what is it?" and I replied, "This dog can blog!" No visit, letter, phone call or other intentional message needed to be relayed.
But the results did not stop there: a friend of my daughter commented that I wasn't a dog, and two friends in my generation posted congratulatory comments. Before the 2.0 technology, I would have had to announce a minor accomplishment like this in at least three conversation, emails or a holiday letter in order to get these reactions, and it would have taken weeks, not hours. In fact, because it was a rather small feat, I probably would not have mentioned it.
Collaborative projects are easier than ever because people can get their ideas to one another via words, pictures and even videos--all without knowing much at all about computer code or hiring a programmer. From planning an international conference to developing a knitting pattern, the transfer of information is substantially easier because the correspondents need worry only about the content of the message, and don't need to know anything about formatting or coding the message.
Question 2
It is inevitable that copyright and authorship will take on new meaning with the development of new technologies. This has been demonstrated clearly in the past few years by changes in the perception of those involved in the recorded music business. The creators, owners, regulators and users of copyrighted materials have differing and evolving understanding of what it means to own recorded music, and what profits are due to the various parties involved. Gone are the days when a producer could be sure of buying rights to a song or recording and being assured that anyone who could play the music at home would have to buy a product, generating profits that would be funneled through the producer's corporation. The music industry fought tooth and nail to retain its control through technology evolutions such as Napster, but continuing development forced changes in the whole industry as well as its legal regulation.
Where I noticed this in my library work was mostly in recorded books, where one element of the book had been lost or damaged. If the recording was a bit dated, it was sometimes not possible to replace the tape or CD from the publisher because it had gone out of print. But even if we had two copies of the item, according to copyright law it was illegal for us to reproduce the damaged element for replacement purposes. Often the entire book (or opera or video series) had to be withdrawn. Now, because much of this type of information is digitally stored, it can be accessed and replaced through subscription services.
Authorship can also be an issue for libraries. The sheer volume of information and the speed with which it is disseminated make it impossible for an author--or a library--to keep track of where a body of writing has gone or how it is being used. In libraries, there are usually copy machines available for patron use. The machine will have copyright warning posted, so someone copying pages at least has been offered the relevant legal information. As more and more information is digitized and available online, the opportunity to shove copyright information in front of a user diminishes. Cut-and-paste functions, and now links or embedding, make it so easy to transfer information, it can be done with very little thought. Sometimes, in reading Internet postings, it is hard to find the original source, so that authorship can be difficult to determine. In these cases, present copyright law would have little impact on illegal behavior or legal restitution.
Question 3
Commerce, while not always directly pertinent to libraries, is another concept undergoing a change due to Web 2.0. My shopping habits are very different than they were even five years ago. We have traditionally relied on Consumer Reports and similar publications for product information. We rarely needed it the past several years, and now I never access it in the library or online. The customer reviews on commercial websites such as amazon.com, made possible by Web 2.0 technology, usually give plenty of information to make a decision about a purchase. A further effect has been a decline in the number of physical retail businesses relative to their online counterparts. Internet shopping has developed into an easy, expedient and reliable alternative to retail stores. This ability to post ratings may affect the choices I make at the library as well; it could influence which items I decide to borrow.
Identity has become a more nebulous concept with the development of the technology. With sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and VibrantNation, as well as the proliferation of blogs, people can develop identities that are true to their personalities, that are based on only part of their personalities, or are a complete fabrication. I have an account with Facebook and also one on VibrantNation. (VN is a social network for women over 40.) While there is no intention on my part to deceive or wear a sort of virtual mask, I think my perceived identity on each of these could be a little bit different just because of the type of information and social support I seek or share from the two sites. Does this mean I have three distinct identities or simply that I wear different "hats," as we used to say? The change in "identity" is a result of differing goals and completely innocent.
The incidence of identity fraud and identity theft have increased enough to alarm us all. The ease with which these, especially the fraud, are perpetrated is astounding. Even I, with my limited computer knowledge, could fabricate a fraudulent identity quickly and seamlessly by creating a Facebook page for a fictional person, and then to communicate and forge relationships with others who might or might not be real people. The possibilities for this type of activity are so numerous that there are even terms for subclasses of the fraud, such as "identity cloning" and "identity concealment." A person's signature used to be a keystone for identity validation, but handwritten signatures are moot for online commerce.
The cartoon at the top of this post describes beautifully one of these problems with Internet identity. (By Peter Steiner, published in The New Yorker July 5, 1993.)
On the other hand, some critics point out that with expanded storage capabilities and tracking, our Internet activity leaves traceable evidence that can be followed, and cannot be erased, to verify our true identities. See http://jackatcet.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-internet-everybody-knows-youre-dog.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment