Does anyone want to split a subscription to TimesSelect with me? I've lost a hunk of good time-passing reading material for work when the New York Times stopped publishing the opinion columns for free online. Funny how the Internet makes one feel as if they have an intrinsic right to free access to any kind of information. In the end, it's a good thing, and why those
authors suing Google for its mission of digitizing the world's libraries are, in my opinion, incorrect. While they say they're insulating the creativity of writers by protecting copyrights, aren't they really gouging the boundless opportunity of having one's writing available to anyone, at any time? Certainly there the question of how the writers will get paid. But it isn't as if Google is handing out all this information; they have a good system in place. Still, how long can this corporate system remain effective? There are now self-publishing houses, and bands that gain a wide listening audience and showing up on critics top ten lists, without even have a label. What would happen if those bands demanded that their music be removed from peoples' hands because they wanted to put it through some antiquated corporate system? Obviously, they'd rather have people listening. They'd rather have that information available to anyone.
It's mind-boggling to consider the possibilities of having all information centralized and accessible. Things like Google Earth make it possible for one to travel via satelite photographs anywhere in the world. Eventually the detail will be impeccable, and one will have the ability to virtual-travel anywhere in the world. At some point, all of this would cause us to run up against the basic fact of our physical bodies, our physical limits. If one can know anything and see anything virtually, the limits of perception and experience will come into relief. Our minds can't keep up, we can't know everything. Of course, people have always understood that, but there have always been limits to how we experience and record information. What if all that experience is available instantly? All information? It's like a parabola opening out exponentially into infinity--equally parts intoxicating and frightening. Nothing will ever replace our basic sensory experience, a conversation with somebody over tea and
madeleine cookies. But with all of these blogs and podcasts and things, it does feel a bit like the world is exploding.
Sheesh. And all I wanted was to read was Paul Krugman.
Published Thursday, September 29, 2005 | E-mail this post
Well why don't you go work for Google!
Great blog, and not simply because you brought up an important issue and succeeded in pulling me over to your side.
Hot.
Is Google the end of the public library? Its a very real debate. People don't want to fund public libraries any more because they can just "google it." But what happens to the people that can't buy a computer, or don't know how to access the internet? Or, better yet, the people that can't tell the quality information on the internet from the shit. Sure, in an ideal world artists would want more exposure, but what happens when, after they gain an audience, the audience is pissed that they have to pay for the art? What happens to the artist when she/he can't live off her/his life's work? "Starving artist" isn't just a cliche.
test comment