Book To The Future

Back when I wrote my book, I was surprised at the lack of sophistication in the publishing industry. I had always figured that the desktop publishing revolution would have streamlined the publishing industry – I envisioned elaborate templates and tools that would enable a publisher to easily choke down text and automatically pump out a finished book. Instead, the tools provided by my publisher consisted of a Word template that rendered everything (titles, headings, body text, etc.) as monospaced Courier – all of which was later laid out in Quark Express by hand.

Rewind to last week at Web 2.0: Brewster Kahle presented the seductive vision of universal access to knowledge that could be achieved by scanning the entirety of the Library of Congress for a pitiful $260 million. This revelation followed the announcement of Google Print, Google’s answer to Amazon.com’s Search Inside the Book feature, will enable users to find information in books as part of their Google search experience.

While I applaud both Google and Brewster’s vision, I sense a gap: Brewster’s proposal will give a digital access to books from the past; Google’s service will give (limited) digital access to books from the present. All I can wonder is: who will give digital access to books in the future?

While it is obvious that digitizing the Library of Congress is a manual procedure, it might come as a surprise that Google’s efforts are equally manual. Google generously offers to scan publisher’s content, thereby making it available via the Google Print service while protecting the publisher’s content. Scanning. Just like Amazon.com. By hand. This means that 75 years from the date of an author’s death in the future, Brewster’s organization will have to scan the author’s books by hand – books that Google will already probably already have in a digital form.

All of these undertakings smack of massive amounts of physical (i.e. non-digital) labour. So, if Amazon.com and Google are both doing it, why not cut out the middleman? Why not just have the publisher’s provide the PDF’s (or whatever is the appropriate digital format) of their content directly to Google or Amazon.com? Or, better yet, why not have the Library of Congress solicit electronic versions of books directly from publishers and escrow them for the time when they enter the public domain, just as they do for physical copies? Aside from the efforts of the Library of Congress to digitize rare books, I’m not aware of whether or not they do this already – does anyone know?

My fear here is that Google and Amazon.com will amass a digital library of scanned books that will remain gated off from the public even once the books within it have entered the public domain. Do we really want to still be running Project Gutenberg in another hundred or so years? Probably not.

If the Library of Congress isn’t already cooperating with publishers to escrow electronic copies of books, wouldn’t it make sense for Google and Amazon.com to pledge to release the electronic copies to the public, the Library of Congress, or Brewster Kahle’s organization once they’re in the public domain? After all, it’s not like they even have to fulfill the pledge for another seventy-five years.

Does anyone know if this is already part of Google/Amazon/Brewster’s plans?

Cue The Violins

There I was, sitting through a mandatory pre-movie advertisement marathon, wishing a plague upon the house of the advertising executive who came up with that “innovation” (“Hey, they’re here anyway, why not show’em some more ads!?”), when I saw an advertisement for this website. Yes, the great battle for the hearts and minds of audiences in the battle against piracy has finally begun in earnest, and Hollywood is pulling out all its dramatic tricks.

In the ad, we see a lowly set painter explaining his job, what he loves about doing it, and why piracy is a threat to his livelihood. Hmm, plausible. Except, when you really think about it, the set painter is one of hundreds of people involved in movies that are way down the totem pole – are they really the ones who are taking a big hit when a movie is ripped off? I’m guessing the lead actor, pulling $20 million, the studios, and the merchandisers are probably the real ones taking the big hit. Note to Jack Valenti & Company: boo-freaking-hoo.

The launch of this campaign coincided with a similar action this week by the RIAA, who issued some 911 subpoenas recently to ISPs of suspected file-sharers. Besides the occasional embarrassing screw-up, the motive behind the RIAA’s actions is also starting to seem a little suspect:

“Verizon, which has fought the RIAA over the subpoenas with continued legal appeals, said it received at least 150 subpoenas during the last two weeks.
There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation’s largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group. Earthlink Inc., another of the largest Internet providers, said it has received only three new subpoenas.”

What is the likelihood that there isn’t a single AOL user running Kazaa? Can you say “zero”? Hmm, dirty games at the RIAA? Say it ain’t so!

The big point that both of these actions are missing is really quite simple: you’re going to lose. Why? Because you’re too slow to stop the technology – you had your chance, you dragged your heels, and now the cat is out of the bag. Heck, some of the major players in the RIAA are electronics manufacturers who are building technology to make it easier to enjoy stolen music and videos!

There’s one other reason that the genie won’t go back in the bottle: the tech-heads creating the digital rights technology are usually the same guys that are ripping off the most music. Even they don’t believe technological countermeasures will succeed – one IBM researcher I talked to at the Financial Cryptography 2000 conference noted: “On the record, SDMI will be the greatest anti-piracy technology ever invented – off the record, it’s a piece of crap, and will probably never see the light of day.” Chances are, as these guys create the technology, their close buddy is working on a way around it.

The next generation of technologies will be no different – the only hope for the RIAA and MPAA is legal pursuit. If the technology community is really smart, they’ll devise technologies that perform the same functions, but operate within the law. How? How about:

  • Digital License Exchange Technology: What we need is a technology that will allow users to do with digital copies what they currently can do with physical media. Say I have a copy of “Hootie and the Blowfish” to which I never listen. You, on the other hand, are a huge Hootie fan, with no cash to buy any of their records. With a system to allow users to list licenses they hold, you could “check out” my license for the “Hootie and the Blowfish” songs you downloaded either from me, or through Kazaa, listen to your heart’s desire, and then “check in” the license once you’re done. Seems to me this would be all nice and legal, provided that nobody circumvented a digital copyright protection technology in the process.
  • Finely Segmented and Shared Content: Systems like Freenet use schemes such as RAID-5 to segment data across multiple drives (or peers in the case of file-sharing systems) to ensure data redundancy. Usually data is split over three to five different peers. But why stop there? Why not split the content into very small pieces, excerpts, if you will, that are protected by fair use provisions of copyright law? It’s not illegal to share a 6-second excerpt of a song or movie, is it?

All of these legal and technological cat-and-mouse games avoid an even simpler solution: create content for which people are willing to pay. I went to see the Cirque du Soleil last weekend, and Phish the weekend before. Incredible shows – I’d buy their CDs or movies without a second thought given to pirating them. Why? Because they’re unique, they’re doing something interesting. The movie and record industry has morphed into a giant cookie cutter, modifying the recipe slightly from time to time, but never so much as to invent something completely original.

The sooner the entertainment industries remember their original purpose, i.e.: to entertain, and move to develop true artists for the long-term benefit, the sooner the problem of piracy will go away. People want something new, something that makes them feel that child-like sense of wonder at what they’re seeing. And frankly, the latest incarnation of tired stories starring the flavour-of-the-week actress/singer/clothes-designer just ain’t cutting it with the audiences these days.