Harper Collins limits library eBook use to 26 lends before repurchase

There's lots of interesting debates going on about ownership at the moment.

Are the products and content you buy and enjoy owned by you? Do you have the right to switch formats, modify hardware, install software or make a personal copy?

Sony has been fighting for years to prevent customers from modding their Playstations, arguing that customers do not have the right to install unauthorised hardware or software (even accepting you void the warranty).

Movie and music distributors have long held the position that if you bought a cassette tape or video you have no right to the DVD version of the movie or song at simply the cost of the medium. You must buy the content again. Equally, in moving from DVDs to online, people in Australia do not have a legal right to download a movie or music they have already bought.

As more content is digitalised, this ownership debate is spreading, with the latest areas of contention being ebooks. It seems that at least one book publisher is arguing similarly that libraries may not enjoy unlimited lending rights to ebooks they purchase, despite being allowed to lend out a paper copy as many times as they like.

In response to fears that people will simply borrow these ebooks online, thereby cutting into book sales (which are already heavily moving online), Harper Collins has locked ebooks sold (via the OverDrive service) to libraries in the US and Canada. After 26 lends each ebook becomes unusable and the library must repurchase it to keep lending it out.

This move has prompted outrage amongst librarians across North America, and a number of libraries have already boycotted Harper Collins, refusing to buy any further books they publish, in any format, until the policy is changed.

If Harper Collins' decision is upheld, it may have major cost implications for public libraries in the future - as well as for organisations that maintain their own libraries, that buy business books for staff training purposes or even for citizens.

Imagine only being able to read a book, watch a movie or listen to music you'd purchased a publisher-designated number of times before being forced to re-buy it.

Oh - and I didn't mention that Harper Collins also wants to collect information on all readers borrowing ebooks from public libraries, so it can better understand and market to them.

That's not a particularly open or transparent world.


Here's some further articles discussing Harper Collins' decision:

• HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations
• Publishers Move To Limit Library E-Book Lending
• HarperCollins Seeks to Limit Digital Lending, Access Patron Data, Generally Piss Off Readers
  
• ALA President Criticizes HarperCollins Ebook Lending Policy
• Petition Protesting HarperCollins's Ebook Circulation Policy Takes Off

And there's also now a petition with over 60,000 signatures opposing the plan.

Read full post...

View summary...

Public Service 2.0 - reflections on Terry Moran's latest speech

The Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Terry Moran, gave a speech last week to the Graduate School of Government, University of Sydney. Titled Surfing the next wave of reform, his speech discussed the public service's critical role in supporting and enabling government reform and good governance, and what would be expected of the APS into the future.

Without mentioning Government 2.0, Moran's speech touched on many of its elements. He argued that the public service needed to improve how it engaged with citizens - particularly through the use of new tools enabled by technological improvements in IT and communications,

The bedrock of government engagement with citizens is through the institutions of our representative democracy. At its simplest, citizens vote every three years or so to elect Members of Parliament who choose a government to make laws and decisions.

But that alone is far from the extent of the links between citizens and government. Governments will achieve their goals better if they also use other ways to engage with citizens to complement and reinforce our fundamental democratic institutions.

The remarkable advances in information technology and communications over recent decades have changed and expanded citizens’ expectations, but have also given governments much better tools for engaging with citizens.

We need to do much better at this task.

Moran said that the public service had to improve its use of technology in policy and program delivery to service citizen needs,

Second, in implementing and delivering the decisions of Cabinet, we need to do better at designing policies and programs in ways that take full advantage of modern technology and that are designed with flexibility and creativity, to meet citizens’ needs. The NBN will permit a step forward in this area.

And he said that the APS needed to become better at listening to citizens, particularly through the use of modern technology,

Government needs to empower individuals and communities in ways that allow it and public servants to have effective exchanges with citizens.

Perhaps most telling - and most personally exciting to me - Moran said that,

Our processes should allow the community to provide input throughout the policy and service delivery process. Information technology can play a crucial role facilitating communication between citizens and governments.

I understand this as Moran saying that to meet the challenges in the APS's future, the Australian Public Service needs to use appropriate tools and techniques to collaborate with the community throughout the policy and service delivery process, not just consult them at the beginning and deliver to them at the end.

Moran finished with the statement that,

To be successful, the reform agenda will need to embrace the best, frank and honest strategic advice, and it will have been based on the fullest engagement with citizens. I am confident we can meet the challenge.

The proposal put forward by Moran is a vision of a Public Service 2.0, one trained and equipped to embed a citizen-focus into their work, to be strategic (as well as frank and fearless) in their advice to government, to design policies and services that take full advantage of the technology at our disposal, making appropriate use of Government 2.0 tools and techniques to achieve the goals of the duly-elected government.

I believe it is a vision that will serve Australia well.

Read full post...

View summary...

Does the personalisation of the internet threaten citizen participation in democracy?

Yesterday evening I watched an interesting TED talk by Eli Pariser, Beware online "filter bubbles".

The talk discussed the increasing personalisation of search engines, news sites and social networks, using algorithms to selectively present or hide search results, content and comments based on a user's actions.

Pariser raised the importance of the flow of information and news in enabling democracies and questioned whether the fragmentation of the internet into individual views would likewise erode democratic society.

I share his concerns over this trend. When our major news sources only show us the news we wish to see and our social networks only highlight comments from people who share our views it becomes much harder to have inclusive discussions, debates and decisions.

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Are these concerns misplaced? If not, what can or should we be doing individually or collectively to defend our right to be presented with information and news which makes us a little uncomfortable, but well-rounded and able to participate effectively in our democracy.

Read full post...

View summary...

Is this the first eGovernment research paper? Published 1954

I've been reading the excellent blog post by Richard Heeks in ICTs for Development on The First e-Government Research Paper.

He discusses a research paper by W. Howard Gammon on "The Automatic Handling of Office Paper Work" published in 1954 that looks that the impact of ICT on government - noting at the time that there were approximately 40 computers in use by the US Federal public service.

What I find very interesting is that many of the points raised in Gammon's article - and highlighted by Heeks - reflect the situation we are in today with eGovernment and Government 2.0.

In a most insightful paper, Hammon identified the importance of understanding how and when to employ technology over understanding how to create or maintain technology, the need to re-engineer business processes rather than simply automate existing processes, the importance of 'hybrid' skills that combine an understanding of the ‘business’ of government with knowledge about the application of technology and the need for top management support, particularly to resist the politics of entrenched interests.

These factors remain of overwhelming importance today in government. We still have to contend with individuals and groups who struggle to effectively employ technology in the service of organisations, siloed business units who seek to protect their current practices out of fear of the consequences of change and there is an ongoing need to expand the ranks of strategic thinkers who can use their combined understanding of government business and technology to create positive change.

It is worth reflecting on why, after more than 50 years, we're still dealing with the same people issues despite having completely changed our environments.

Perhaps we need to collectively spend more time focusing on how we educate and empower our people to bring them along with us into the future.

Read full post...

View summary...

Dumbing down or lifting up - writing in plain English respects your readers

It makes me really upset when I visit a government website and find it written in dense technical or bureaucratic language.

I can appreciate the desire of public servants to be precise and accurate in their choice of words, but often the language chosen is incomprehensible to people without two degrees and ten years experience in government.

I've heard about - and witnessed - instances when experienced writers or communication professionals have translated complex text into plain English and been told 'you're dumbing it down'.

No they're not. They're lifting the language up.

Writing in plain English is about respecting your readers - writing for them, not for yourself or your boss.

When writing complex multi-syllabic diatribes, the writer is not demonstrating their intellectual superiority or eloquent grasp of sophisticated phraseology.

The writer is showing they don't have the writing skill and experience to lift their language out of government-speak to a level used by society, by their audience - a level used every day to share and explain some of the most complicated concepts and thoughts imaginable.

The writer is hiding behind their words, using them to conceal a lack of appreciation and respect for their audience and a lack of understanding of their topic. They are revealing their limits and fears - and they are not getting their message across.

One of the core capabilities for the Australian Public Service is to 'Communicate with Influence'.

'Influence' doesn't mean using big words, it means using effective words - words that can overcome the gaps in communication between writers and readers to convey meaning and understanding.

So when writing your websites and developing your documents, think about the invisible people in the room - your readers. Is your choice of words appropriate for their experience and education?

Will they be uplifted by your simple and clear language or left feeling 'dumbed down', lost and frustrated by your turgid turns of phrase?

Read full post...

View summary...

AGIMO announces finalists for 2011 Gov 2.0 individual innovator award

On Monday AGIMO announced the finalists for the 2011 Gov 2.0 individual innovator award, building on the award originally issued by the Gov 2.0 Taskforce last year.

I'm very proud to see the three finalists have all made significant contributions to Government 2.0 practice in Australia.

It is interesting to note that all three finalists are from state governments (not having seen the full list of entrants), however two have had roles which took on significant national interest - both through disaster management (Victorian bushfires and QLD floods and cyclones).

I feel that in the last year there hasn't been the same stand-out performance from individuals at a Federal level. While there are some fantastic Gov 2.0 projects and innovators in Canberra, often projects are quite large, requiring teams all doing their part, have long timeframes, or can face significant approval and scrutiny hurdles that may dilute of defy individual innovative activities.

Local government also struggles with scale, being smaller and more resource limited innovators often have a broader range of duties and may struggle to find the time to innovate, plus many innovations impact on a local level and, while often very significant, often don't attract a broader level of attention.

In my view state government in Australia is in a 'sweet spot' for many innovative Government 2.0 activities - large enough to be resourced and focused on direct citizen engagement to a greater extent than Federal - though, as always, time will tell.

Read full post...

View summary...

Australian internet users more social, connected and politically aware than non-users

As reported by ARN in the article It's official - the Internet is good for you: ANU poll, the eighth ANUpoll, The Internet and Civil Society (PDF), shows increased use of the Net is leading to a more politically engaged and socially inclusive Australian society.

The report asked whether virtual contacts (made over the internet) are less important than personal ones in building a strong society, and whether a reliance on virtual over personal contact had implications for the quality of citizenship.

In his foreword to the report, ANU vice-chancellor, Professor Ian Young, stated that,

“The results from ANUpoll are largely positive, and counter the pessimistic view that the Internet is undermining effective social relations and good citizenship.

Frequent Internet users are not more socially disengaged than their counterparts who rely on personal interaction. They are at least as good citizens, and report similar or higher levels of social capital."

Some of the key findings from the report included:

Household Internet use

• A total of 82 per cent of respondents reported having broadband access with only two per cent saying that they have dial-up access (2 per cent did not know and 12 per cent did not have internet access at home)
• Around two-thirds of respondents said they use the Internet at least once a day.
• Nearly two-thirds of Australians reported knowing how to use the Internet to download audio,
  video and image files.
• 21 per cent of respondents indicated they had used the Internet to design a webpage or a blog.

Internet use and social capital

• 35 per cent of respondents said that the Internet helped them interact with people of a different race from their own.
• Just over half (54 per cent) of respondents said that the Internet helped them interact with people from other countries.
• A relatively small percentage of respondents (15 per cent) felt the Internet helped them interact with people who share the same political views.
• 59 per cent of respondents felt the Internet helped them interact with people who they shared hobbies with.

Internet use and good citizenship

• The report concluded that frequent Internet use does not necessarily lead to a more atomised and individualistic society.
  
• 70 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was very important to support people who are worse off than themselves.
• 86 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was very important to report a crime if they witnessed one.
• Only 15 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was extremely important to be active in politics, compared to 25 per cent of infrequent users and 21 per cent of rare users.
  
  However:
• Frequent Internet users were less willing than infrequent Internet users to accept that traditional norms of citizenship such as obeying laws and regulations, serving on a jury if called and being active in voluntary organisations are very important in order to be a good citizen.
  
  For example, only 38 per cent of frequent Internet users believe that to be a good citizen it was important to always obey laws and regulations, compared with 51 per cent of infrequent Internet users.

Internet use and political involvement

• Those who use the Internet more frequently are more likely to be involved in offline political activity such as contacting a local politician, signing a petition or buying products for a political reason. The findings showed that Internet use was linked with promoting offline and online political engagement.
  
  On that basis the report drew the general conclusion that online political activity complements, rather than replaces, traditional forms of political activity.
  
• Around one in four (27 per cent) respondents said they had visited the websites of political organisations or candidates and one in five said that they had forwarded electronic messages with political content (28 per cent of frequent Internet users).
  
• Those who use the Internet frequently are significantly more likely than those who use the Internet sparingly to be involved in political activity through virtual interactions.

Read full post...

View summary...