Group items tagged

Very interesting article about publishing houses' efforts to keep up with the e-book world. Ties in nicely to some points Hayles made in "Print is flat; code is deep." 

Interesting in terms of our discussion on the democratic nature of electronic literature.

This blogger makes some really great points extending Joseph Reagle's ('The Argument Engine' in Wikipedia Reader) ideas of the filter than publish principle of academic publications. Haranguing the filter than publish operation, this author writes how the peer review system adulterates the author's real content writing, "In the conventional peer review system, you seek to please the reviewers who in turn try to please the editor who in turn is trying to guess what the readers want."

The author argues that Word has too many workarounds, and especially when it comes to publishing on the web. There's another nice example of the code Word throws in there, too.

Interesting in terms of issues of ownership. Once our identities are "published" online, who owns them? Who "owns" our search histories? Google owns most of mine, I'd say, but it also allows me to supposedly delete items. Are our search histories too public now to be hidden? And who ever said we had a right to privacy on the world wide web? It does seem contradictory to the nature of a "web."

Publication of Simon Morris's retyping of Kerouac's On The Road. I find this interesting because I wonder how Goldsmith's discussion of Morris's retyping of the text onto the blog might change now that the text is found within yet another context (the published, printed book). I'm considering buying a copy. . .

This article (which mentions the Manning situation that is the focus of the video I posted earlier today) outlines the pros and cons of prosecuting Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, for publishing and disseminating thousands of classified State Department cables on his site. The First Amendment is at the crux of this debate: "How do you draft a law that targets WikiLeaks but leaves intact our system of press freedoms?"

Oddly enough, one of my favorite bloggers, Nathan Bransford, tackled the concept of the blog bubble bursting, which is interesting. His argument isn't as important here as the massive conversation below it.

What strikes me as especially interesting about this book review is that it emphasizes and leads with the buzz surrounding its predominantly digital publication instead of the controversy about the popularity of hardcore erotic literature for women.

This guest post by Richard Price (founder and CEO of Academia.edu) addresses a bill called "The Research Works Act" intended to "restrict public access to publicly-funded research." Price points out that over 5,500 academics have signed a boycott of Elsevier, the largest academic publisher and one of the main sponsors. Several companies in the journal industry, however, argue that they've historically supported themselves by charging for access to research papers and that the government's open access mandate threatens their industry's sustainability by encouraging research institutions to stop subscribing to the journals and just wait to get the research for free.

This title made me think, "Duh," but apparently 8% of survey participants thought that posting photos or videos of other people without consent should be illegal. One person said the issue "should be regarded the same as it is for printed materials." Another person pointed out that it's actually illegal to record people without their permission, but that photos/video taken in a public setting tend to fall under public domain. I usually create a private folder and then let the people in the photos review them and consent to my publishing them first. What do you think?