Copyright Laws and Google

First of all, there's no doubt in my mind that the United States' system of using copyright laws to protect intellectual property is simply outdated in the age of the Internet. Never before has information flowed so incredibly fast that an entire book can be transferred as a .pdf in less than a minute. Google's controversial book project seeks to allow users to search for a string of text contained within the contents of an entire book, and allow limited viewing of the piece if the work is still contained in the private domain. The controversy lies in Google's inclusion of snippets of copyrighted work, presented in a user's relevant search results. Google claims that the inclusion of these snippets falls under the legal category of "fair use", implying that the work is scholarly in nature and therefore permission is not needed from the respective authors. As far as this is concerned, I agree with Google. As long as Google Inc. is not making ad revenue based on generating traffic via copyrighted snippets, it indeed should be deemed a scholarly project and not subject to scrutiny. Certainly, this will not be enough for some authors (and most publishers), as they will seek to squeeze every bit of profit out of their projects. The delegation of authors and publishers is facing an uphill battle; the inevitable reality of technology increasing to the point where intellectual property laws are no longer relevant is a very real one. If Google gives up on its project (unlikely given the large amount of capital invested so far), there will no doubt be another party willing to host the material. Google needs to find a way to please all of the parties involved, without resorting to settling in court over every single instance. One way could be to utilize Google's advertisement system, giving the publishers a percentage of the revenue derived from specific copyrighted pieces.

Facebook

It is true that Facebook is enjoying mega-success by appealing to the interpersonal relationships formed by people in real life and in cyberspace. Its niche University market has exploded wide open, offering accounts to anyone who is willing to agree to the privacy policy (I admit, like most privacy policies, I skipped over Facebook's). Tom Hodgkinson's article on why he despises Facebook brought some new information to light; specifically the philosophy and intentions of the key financial backers such as Thiel. Hodgkinson's claims are partially grounded in truth; Facebook is the most evolved form of capitalism currently available. Advertising partners must be truly excited to be a part of Facebook, as they can target consumers with precision and accuracy never before seen on any other medium. It seems that Facebook & co. were so excited that they foolishly misjudged their actions and implemented the Beacon system without warning. My girlfriend was affected by this.. after purchasing a pair of shoes on Zappos.com, the Beacon system set up a space on her profile showing the whole Facebook world exactly what shoes she had just ordered, without ever so much as even notifying her this would happen, let alone offering the option to opt-out. Although legally, Facebook is entitled to do this (read the privacy policy), this was a very poor decision. Think about how many holiday surprises were ruined by Facebook.. for example if a guy buys $100 furry Ugg boots, they clearly are intended for a ladyfriend (who is now aware of his purchase). The fact that Facebook never let its users know the extent to which the system monitors users activities is really frightening.