![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.
For someone who can only get on the computer a couple of hours each day, I use it for an awful lot. I keep in touch with people over email and Facebook.* I express myself on LiveJournal. I keep abreast of topics that interest me both personally and professionally by reading blogs. I share and look at pictures. I look up recipes and repair tips. I discover new music. I even watch TV. It's my one-stop electronic media stop!
My Internet access comes through a cable, which is through the same company (and cable) as my (theoretical) TV access. Said cable company is always pushing its On Demand TV packages, whereas we have only the most basic TV package. It seems silly to get more, when with Hulu and Netflix and individual networks streaming their shows, not to mention Pandora and a million streaming radio stations instead of the music channels on cable, we already have the same thing on the computer.
Of course, it'd be more COMFORTABLE to watch such stuff on the big screen in the living room. BUT, we COULD, theoretically,** get one of those high-tech gaming systems that connect to the Internet. If we had a Wii, we could GET Netflix "Watch Instantly" right on TV! AND watch Hulu and streaming videos and YouTube for that matter! It's like, why bother with a separate TV contract at all! Why not make our TV a MONITOR screen?
I want the same thing from a smaller-screen, personal electronic media reader. If I'm going to have an eReader, it had better be able to read ANYTHING. Pdfs and word processing documents, sure. But also email and HTML pages, and, you know, WHATEVER. Also the ability to play games. I would LOVE to have an eReader, actually, but not one specifically designed for purchasing eNovels. Because I'm not GOING to be purchasing eNovels. As I said yesterday or the day before, and many other times before then, if I'm going to purchase a book, I want a bound copy that I can KEEP. But I probably will READ some eNovels-- most likely public domain classics that I suddenly get a hankering for (like I did-- on my regular desktop computer-- with Pride and Prejudice once before I got the copy I now have for my birthday), or downloaded from a library that's actually got them (ours doesn't. Well, not really)-- even if I primarily stick with paper. But I'm even MORE likely to use it for reading the manuscripts of online critique partners (which I have a lot of trouble doing now, with my lack of desktop computer time). And I'd LOVE to read blogs on it-- GeekMom is my parenting magazine of choice anymore: it would be nice to read it in comfort on the couch like I would a proper magazine. There's so much stuff-- FREE stuff-- already available online that would be much more convenient to read in a comfy chair (while my kids are AWAKE) than at a desk (in my two hours of naptime). So what I, personally, REALLY want is a handheld computer, an iPad, or "tablet computer" which I guess is the generic term-- not a separate, affiliated with a bookstore, eReader.*** So, folks who think eReaders will make paper books obsolete, you're wrong already: the iPad will make EREADERS obsolete long, long before then!****
But we're back to socioeconomics, and I have two different issues to address. First issue, one more relevant to the slightly more comfortable classes: paying for content. Piracy is a huge issue with electronic content, way more than it ever was with hard copies of things. Partly this is because it's so EASY to pirate electronic content. But I suspect part of it is psychological: we're USED to getting electronic content for free. Or at least, we're used to paying a basic access charge-- for an Internet connection, for cable, for a Netflix subscription-- and having unlimited access. What makes an individual song or movie or novel so special that you have to pay for it to view it? You don't have to pay for the REST of the Internet.
I'm not saying somebody's well-edited years-of-labor novel is no better than somebody's spur-of-the-moment-and-not-even-spellchecked blog. But it FEELS no different. You still read it the same way. So maybe we need to rethink how people pay for electronic content, to make it feel more natural. I, personally, like the Netflix model: a subscription service where you maybe pay monthly for full access to high-quality writing-- the subscription money goes to the distributor/publisher, who pays royalties to the author based on views of the document, or something of that sort. I personally would be more willing to shell out money for a subscription (I do, after all, get Netflix, although Jason uses it more than me), than I would for an individual document I might not like and don't even get to physically "keep." There are probably other possibilities for handling the exchange of funds in electronic media, but I'm not a business person. I just think that the people who ARE should start coming up with new models. We're not buying Things to Keep when we access content online. I don't think we should pretend we are by how we pay for it.
But of course, we're still stuck with the REAL socioeconomic issue: no matter how much more convenient we make electronic media from a software standpoint, the hardware is still going to be out of reach for a large part of the population. What's the solution?
LIBRARIES, of course. Libraries are not just book depositories, doomed (say the "print-is-dead"***** folks), to fade away as books themselves fade. No, libraries are the Center of CONTINUING EDUCATION, the curators of knowledge and culture in our communities. Whatever format that knowledge and culture takes, it's up to LIBRARIES to make sure ALL PEOPLE have access to it. The HARDER it is for people to access it, the ABSOLUTELY MORE VITAL LIBRARIES BECOME. It is imperative that electronic media systems can work with libraries, so that libraries can serve the people. It is imperative that REAL LIBRARIANS can ORGANIZE electronic media, to make sense of it all, to highlight the best, weed out the worst, and make sure people can find what they really need. MORE THAN EVER, society needs libraries. So, you know what to do: SUPPORT YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES!
You knew I'd get around to that somehow in all this, didn't you.
--
*SOMETIMES, I grant you, Facebook-addicts-who-don't-understand-why-I'm-not-more-active-there
**after we pay off the new furnace, and fix the retaining wall, and...
***Also, I want a case for it that has "DON'T PANIC" written in large friendly letters on the front. I'm sure somebody makes those.
****and something else will make the iPad obsolete, and something else will make THAT obsolete, and something else... well, we already discussed that. Anyway, I think I may have hit the limit with asterisks in footnotes. I think I'm supposed to use some other symbol now. I'm not sure why I've suddenly grown so many footnotes. I think I've been reading Robin McKinley's blog too much lately or something.
*****Yeah, five asterisks is really overdoing it, but, anyway, remember Egon telling Janine "Print is dead" in Ghostbusters? In 1984? Hmmm... my sister was born that year. She's all grown up and married and stuff. And print still isn't dead after all! Curious, that....
For someone who can only get on the computer a couple of hours each day, I use it for an awful lot. I keep in touch with people over email and Facebook.* I express myself on LiveJournal. I keep abreast of topics that interest me both personally and professionally by reading blogs. I share and look at pictures. I look up recipes and repair tips. I discover new music. I even watch TV. It's my one-stop electronic media stop!
My Internet access comes through a cable, which is through the same company (and cable) as my (theoretical) TV access. Said cable company is always pushing its On Demand TV packages, whereas we have only the most basic TV package. It seems silly to get more, when with Hulu and Netflix and individual networks streaming their shows, not to mention Pandora and a million streaming radio stations instead of the music channels on cable, we already have the same thing on the computer.
Of course, it'd be more COMFORTABLE to watch such stuff on the big screen in the living room. BUT, we COULD, theoretically,** get one of those high-tech gaming systems that connect to the Internet. If we had a Wii, we could GET Netflix "Watch Instantly" right on TV! AND watch Hulu and streaming videos and YouTube for that matter! It's like, why bother with a separate TV contract at all! Why not make our TV a MONITOR screen?
I want the same thing from a smaller-screen, personal electronic media reader. If I'm going to have an eReader, it had better be able to read ANYTHING. Pdfs and word processing documents, sure. But also email and HTML pages, and, you know, WHATEVER. Also the ability to play games. I would LOVE to have an eReader, actually, but not one specifically designed for purchasing eNovels. Because I'm not GOING to be purchasing eNovels. As I said yesterday or the day before, and many other times before then, if I'm going to purchase a book, I want a bound copy that I can KEEP. But I probably will READ some eNovels-- most likely public domain classics that I suddenly get a hankering for (like I did-- on my regular desktop computer-- with Pride and Prejudice once before I got the copy I now have for my birthday), or downloaded from a library that's actually got them (ours doesn't. Well, not really)-- even if I primarily stick with paper. But I'm even MORE likely to use it for reading the manuscripts of online critique partners (which I have a lot of trouble doing now, with my lack of desktop computer time). And I'd LOVE to read blogs on it-- GeekMom is my parenting magazine of choice anymore: it would be nice to read it in comfort on the couch like I would a proper magazine. There's so much stuff-- FREE stuff-- already available online that would be much more convenient to read in a comfy chair (while my kids are AWAKE) than at a desk (in my two hours of naptime). So what I, personally, REALLY want is a handheld computer, an iPad, or "tablet computer" which I guess is the generic term-- not a separate, affiliated with a bookstore, eReader.*** So, folks who think eReaders will make paper books obsolete, you're wrong already: the iPad will make EREADERS obsolete long, long before then!****
But we're back to socioeconomics, and I have two different issues to address. First issue, one more relevant to the slightly more comfortable classes: paying for content. Piracy is a huge issue with electronic content, way more than it ever was with hard copies of things. Partly this is because it's so EASY to pirate electronic content. But I suspect part of it is psychological: we're USED to getting electronic content for free. Or at least, we're used to paying a basic access charge-- for an Internet connection, for cable, for a Netflix subscription-- and having unlimited access. What makes an individual song or movie or novel so special that you have to pay for it to view it? You don't have to pay for the REST of the Internet.
I'm not saying somebody's well-edited years-of-labor novel is no better than somebody's spur-of-the-moment-and-not-even-spellchecked blog. But it FEELS no different. You still read it the same way. So maybe we need to rethink how people pay for electronic content, to make it feel more natural. I, personally, like the Netflix model: a subscription service where you maybe pay monthly for full access to high-quality writing-- the subscription money goes to the distributor/publisher, who pays royalties to the author based on views of the document, or something of that sort. I personally would be more willing to shell out money for a subscription (I do, after all, get Netflix, although Jason uses it more than me), than I would for an individual document I might not like and don't even get to physically "keep." There are probably other possibilities for handling the exchange of funds in electronic media, but I'm not a business person. I just think that the people who ARE should start coming up with new models. We're not buying Things to Keep when we access content online. I don't think we should pretend we are by how we pay for it.
But of course, we're still stuck with the REAL socioeconomic issue: no matter how much more convenient we make electronic media from a software standpoint, the hardware is still going to be out of reach for a large part of the population. What's the solution?
LIBRARIES, of course. Libraries are not just book depositories, doomed (say the "print-is-dead"***** folks), to fade away as books themselves fade. No, libraries are the Center of CONTINUING EDUCATION, the curators of knowledge and culture in our communities. Whatever format that knowledge and culture takes, it's up to LIBRARIES to make sure ALL PEOPLE have access to it. The HARDER it is for people to access it, the ABSOLUTELY MORE VITAL LIBRARIES BECOME. It is imperative that electronic media systems can work with libraries, so that libraries can serve the people. It is imperative that REAL LIBRARIANS can ORGANIZE electronic media, to make sense of it all, to highlight the best, weed out the worst, and make sure people can find what they really need. MORE THAN EVER, society needs libraries. So, you know what to do: SUPPORT YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES!
You knew I'd get around to that somehow in all this, didn't you.
--
*SOMETIMES, I grant you, Facebook-addicts-who-don't-understand-why-I'm-not-more-active-there
**after we pay off the new furnace, and fix the retaining wall, and...
***Also, I want a case for it that has "DON'T PANIC" written in large friendly letters on the front. I'm sure somebody makes those.
****and something else will make the iPad obsolete, and something else will make THAT obsolete, and something else... well, we already discussed that. Anyway, I think I may have hit the limit with asterisks in footnotes. I think I'm supposed to use some other symbol now. I'm not sure why I've suddenly grown so many footnotes. I think I've been reading Robin McKinley's blog too much lately or something.
*****Yeah, five asterisks is really overdoing it, but, anyway, remember Egon telling Janine "Print is dead" in Ghostbusters? In 1984? Hmmm... my sister was born that year. She's all grown up and married and stuff. And print still isn't dead after all! Curious, that....
