Google Sites is a free service that allows you to easily create websites and gives you a place to put them online.  Since it is web-based, it works on any computer platform, and it does not require you to purchase or download any software.  Consider this as an alternative to Dreamweaver or iWeb.

DUBLIN, Ohio, USA, 19 May 2008-OCLC and Google Inc. have signed an agreement to exchange data that will facilitate the discovery of library collections through Google search services.

Under terms of the agreement, OCLC member libraries participating in the Google Book Search^TM program, which makes the full text of more than one million books searchable, may share their WorldCat-derived MARC records with Google to better facilitate discovery of library collections through Google.

this blog posting "Philadelphia Bicycle News: Schuylkill River Trail Map"

has a link to a good detailed google map of the trail, side trails, train stations etc

More on using the Google Book Search cover images

More on using the Google Book Search cover images

"Ten things Google has found to be true".  Is there a message for libraries?  

This article covers the immediate response the YouTube had to the inital takedown request made to them on Oct 20, 2006 by the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC).

In relation to my project, JASRAC requested through DMCA takedown request procedures that YouTube remove nearly 30,000 unauthorized video files that were uploaded by YouTube users. This furthers my project research into the issue of copyright infringement as it pertains to internet video-sharing service.

 Tanzil, Sarah. "YouTube Deletes 30,000 Files After a Copyright Complaint." The New York Times 21 Oct. 2006: Technology.

This book acts as a guide for understanding the nuances of basic business law. Topics discussed include hypothetical legal pitfalls and fundamental solutions within the legal domain. Issues reviewd in the book range from labor law and contract negotioation to e-commerce and intellectual property. Each chapter includes a Brain Teaser section which allows the readers to test their knowledge of real-world applications and Business Law, including Curry's analysis of current cases.

Pertaining to my project, Curry's answer to whether or not Google should be liable to uploads that link to copyrighted materials is applicalbe (230).

Curry, Ellen. MBA Fundamentals Business Law (Kaplan MBA Fundamentals) . New York: Kaplan Publishing, 2007

Intellectual property is taking on new forms in the digital media market. Consumers are exploring their creative license through the use of multimedia service providers in unprecidented ways. This surge of consumer digital media use is also bringing to a head new conflicts between intellectual property rights Creative Commons, and Digital Rights Management. This book explores this phenomenon and the various ways in which major digital media service providers are being effected by this rapidly changing market environment. Overviews of the business performance, legal goings on, and multimedia services of such industry icons as Google, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sony BMG, Napster and more are discussed.

In reference to my project, the book looks at precident intellectual property cases and gives insights into how the concepts within the 1976 Copyright Act are applicable to the cases. The author also notes that Google has aside $200 million in escrow to deal with inevitable litigation, lists the various number of litigations involving YouTube, and notes that these cases will set important precedents for future review of copyright law as it pertains to Internet videos (253).

Rimmer, Matthew. Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007

"The Information Factories"

by George Gilder

Wired Magazine

October 2006 

 

Google is building a new server farm along the Columbia River in a small town in Oregon called The Dalles. This server farm will be the site for Google's new 30-acre campus and it will be the largest and most powerful server farm Google has built to date. This farm has been located in The Dalles because the town is home to a dam with a 1.8 Gigawatt power station and the next generation of servers revolves around the issue of power. In order for Google to operate its servers the limiting factor is access and the cost of energy. Google currently has about two dozen server farms located around the world and in total, these farms house an estimated 450,000 servers. Yes, this is a description of the network of hard wear that makes up Google. For you tech folk, the Google servers are estimated to have a capacity of 200 petabytes of hard disk space and 4 petabytes of RAM. This would be enough to copy everything on the Net dozens of times. To put the energy consumption issue in perspective, last year, the servers of the major internet search engines consumed just shy of 5 gigawatts of energy. 5 gigawatts of energy is enough to power the Las Vegas Metropolitan area operating at full force on the hottest day of the year.

Why is the article relevant to a discussion about cloud computing? Cloud computing is about using the power of remote computers systems and servers to operate rather than using the hardware and data storage of your personal computer. The server farms, like the new Google farm being discussed in this article, represent the infrastructure behind cloud computing. In order to use Gmail, view and upload videos to YouTube, etc., we rely on these server farms. As server farms grow larger to house more and more data (as a result of cloud computing) and energy costs increase, what will happen to cloud computing? Could the cost of energy to run server farms eventually lead to the end of cloud computing? Not if there is an alternative energy source...Not surprisingly, Google's foundation, Google.org is heavily invested in research pertaining to alternative energy sources.

“Google CEO: ‘Cloud Computing’ Is Key to Patient-Owned PHR’s”
by Don Long
Medical Device Week
March 3, 2008

This article reports on the 2008 Health Information and Management Systems Society’s (HIMSS) annual conference, at which Eric Schmidt (Google’s CEO) was a presenter.   PHR stands for “personal health record,” a term familiar to many in the health care industries, but not so familiar to those outside the industry.  A PHR is essentially a log or journal of an individuals health care treatment, evaluation and laboratory results.  Today, many individuals do not have PHRs, but rather, their doctors and other health care providers individually maintain medical records on their behalves.   PHRs in an electronic format has been referred to as EMRs (electronic medical record), and, “[t]he federal government has been the pioneer in the field of developing standards for universal, interoperable and portable EMR that are often linked to the development of universal health care coverage.” [pg. 1]  Of course the underlying assumption with regard to EMRs is, “that the government would be the one to have, and the one to control, this information.”  [pg. 2]  One of the primary themes of discussed at the conference was the importance of who controls and has access to an individual’s PHR/EMR.  The distinction drawn between the two is that ideally, a PHR would also be in electronic (digital) format, but rather than having the government have access too and control individuals medical records (as would be the case for EMR), each individual would control their health care information.  Hence, the idea is to make PHRs “patient-centric,” as opposed to having the government or health care providers in control of individuals’ medical records.  [pg. 2]  

This is where cloud computing comes into the picture.  Schmidt was at the HIMSS conference to give a presentation on Google Health.  Google Health is a technology that Schmidt says is still in the development phase.  What is Google Health?  According to Schmidt, Google Health is “a system for enabling the creation of PHR, based on ‘cloud computing’ – offering healthcare data that would be completely portable and privacy-protected.” [pg. 4]  The idea is that the system will be “consumer-focused – users can access their data and control who sees it.  The data follows the consumer, wherever they go.  Interoperability is important…[the system]...would not be tethered to a particular health system.” [pg. 4]

This article raises a few important policy issues.  First, there is the issue of creating the informational system necessary to consider providing universalized health care and how individuals medical records should be controlled, stored, and collected.  Second, rather obviously stemming from the prior matter, is the issue of privacy.  Hypothetically, the idea behind using cloud computing (through Google Health) to create and manage individuals’ PHR is so that the individuals have control over their medical records and have the ability to grant a particular health care provider or the government access to their records upon their approval.  If privacy is such an important issue, we should certainly be asking whether we want Google serve as the gateway for establishing and maintaining our medical records and history.

“Computing In The Clouds”
by Aaron Weiss
The Guide to Computing Literature, Networker Magazine
December 2007

In 1943, IBM Chairman Thomas Watson said, “I think there’s a world market for maybe five computer.” [pg. 18] The personal computing industry that began in the 1970’s and current popularity of cloud computing prove that Watson’s statement could not have been more wrong. Weiss defines cloud computing generally as the ability to distribute computer processes over a large number of small computers/servers in order to maximize the efficient use of resources. The idea being if one were to do an internet search through Google, for example, that Google could distribute the work of doing the actual search over a large number of computers rather than one large (and powerful) computer doing the search and returning the results to the user. The relevant question, in this case, is how does Google most efficiently distribute the task of fulfilling the search to many individual computers/servers in order to decrease the time it takes to conduct the search and then return the results to the user.

The article also provides working definitions of SaaS and utility computing in order to understand how they relate or should be considered as part of the larger cloud computing phenomenon. The most important and influential SaaS established to date is the creation of web-based email. While many individuals, organizations and companies do not entirely depend on web-based email service, the trend is quickly moving in that direction. Weiss refers to SaaS, as in the case of web-based email, as merely a revival of an older concept known as “thin client” computing. In the realm of cloud computing, the most relevant concern that emerges is privacy because operating in the cloud and allowing a third party to store and/or process your digital information requires a high level of trust.

This article is relevant because it sheds light on the fact that cloud computing is a popular, “buzzword almost designed to be vague[.]” [pg. 25] One reaction to this piece is to feel that it is not possible to provide a complete definition for the terminology ‘cloud computing.’ Nevertheless, a more appropriate conclusion might be to think of cloud computing as a trend that “draws on many existing technologies and architectures.” [pg. 25]

danah boyd is a doctoral candidate in the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and a Fellow at the Harvard University Law School Berkman Center for Internet and Society.   apophenia is her blog.

In this post, she relates a story from a friend of hers, who centralized virtually all of his online life (and therefore, his life) on Google products, only to have his account erased by Google because of a fraudulent phishing attack.  The story raises concerns about storing all your data in one place and with one company.

Article from Harper's Magazine about how much Google's server farms are polluting a river in the Pacific Northwest.

Google Docs--but at what cost?

You can now make cloropleth maps in google maps

Developer's Guide

The Google Chart API lets you dynamically generate charts. To see the Chart API in action, open up a browser window and copy the following URL into it:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lc&chs=200x125&chd=s:helloWorld

Press the Enter or Return key and - presto! - you should see the following image:

The Google Map Creator is a freeware application designed to make thematic mapping using Google Maps simpler. The application takes a shapefile containing geographic areas linked with attributes and automatically generates a working Google Maps website from the data. It does this by pre-creating all the necessary files and saving them into a directory. Publishing the map on the web is then just a matter of copying files onto a web server, allowing Google Maps to be used with the majority of ISPs.

August 23, 2007

GigaPixel Images in Google Earth

Frank Taylor at the Google Earth Blog has posted a video demonstrating a new layer in Google Earth (v 4.2 required). The layer essentially adds portals to high resolution images on to the map and allows for modal interaction with the image. The interaction starts with a sweep down to the geolocated image which is then aligned with the surrounding 3d space. You can then navigate into the image which is refined like the standard tiling approach seen in mapping sites giving you access to the full gigapixel experience.

Google Mapplets are mini-applications that you can embed within the Google Maps site. Examples include real estate search, current weather conditions, and distance measurement. Mapplets are Google Gadgets that can manipulate the map using Javascript calls that are derived from the Google Maps API.

Mapplets are currently only available in a special Developer Preview version of Google Maps at:
http://maps.google.com/preview

Mapplets are new, so there may be bugs and slightly less than perfect documentation. Bear with us as we fill in the holes, and join the Maps API discussion group to give us feedback.

Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. Order by United States District Court of California. February 2006.

In August 2005, Perfect 10 sued Google and Amazon for displaying thumb nail images. Perfect 10, an adult photography company, makes money by selling rights to copyrighted material. Perfect 10 sought an injunction and compensation from Google on the grounds that Google was illegally displaying thumbnail images of copyrighted Perfect 10 photos and linking to third party sites that further illegally host copyrighted materials. Google asserts that it does not infringe directly because it does not create the image that the image search pulls up and displays.

The court issued a preliminary injunction ruling that the thumbnail images from a Google image search did constitute copyright infringement, but the links provided to the full images did not. Google admitted that it created and stored the thumbnail images on its own servers. Thus, as to the thumbnails, Google distributed infringing copies of Perfect 10’s images. The links to the full size photographs do not involve any creation or dissemination even though there is a local browser caching. This local browser caching constitutes fair use. The court found that the use of the thumbnails was not fair use since Google made money from their creation and the thumbnails were not transformative because P10 also licenses thumbnail images. Thus, users could circumvent P10’s licenses by downloading the free thumbnails. The Court did note that Google does “provide great value to the public” as a search engine, stating that “search engines have become essential sources of vital information for individuals, government, non-profits and businesses….” Ultimately, Google’s thumbnail images did economically harm the value of the P10 images. Thus, the Court enjoined Google from further dissemination of the thumbnail images. In the case of AFP, Google must clearly not host and serve the image. However, the act of organizing the web and making news more readily available to users, perhaps even with leads and headlines seems reasonable.

Belgian Court Order in Copiepresse Litigation in Belgium. 8 September, 2006.

In September 2006, a Belgian Court ordered in response to a suit for copyright infringement brought by Belgium copyright firm Copiepresse that Google had no right to publish online properties represented by Copiepresse. Copiepresse based its suit on the Belgium copyright laws of 1994 and 2005 and the database law of 1998. Google did not appear at the hearing. Further proceedings were scheduled for a later date.

Google News, according to the Belgiam Court, receives search terms from users and returns automated results that ignore whether or not the news item returned is protected by copyright. As a result, the Belgium Court treated Google News as providing news content, not acting merely as a search engine. The Court held that Google News’s use of the copyrighted materials is illegal under the copyright law and database law. Moreover, Google’s caching is reprehensible and literally causing news agencies to “lose control of their web sites and their contents.” In caching websites, according to the Court, Google leverages its massive infrastructure to essentially create a local copy of the Internet. Consequently, if a newspaper publisher pulls an article off the Internet or charges for access to article archives, Google News users might still be able to see the article free of charge through a cached link. The caching process evades the newspaper publisher’s right to control its copyrighted materials.

Ultimately the Court ruled that Google News caused great financial loss to Copiepresse and would cause great harm to news services across Europe. The Court ordered Google to withdraw the cached articles, not to reference any of the five entities Copiepresse represented at all, to post the Court Order on Google Belgium and Google Belgium News, and that if Google did not comply with the Court Order to incur damages of $1 million euros a day.

While this Order addresses the effect of Google News under Belgium law, the case does not address United States copyright law raised in the AFP litigation. Fundamentally, though, this decision and lawsuit raises the question of whether Google News properly should be viewed as a search engine that organizes news or a source of news and whether Google News may be legitimately lawful under the law of one country but not under the law of another country.

**Update: Google appears headed to a settlement with Copiepresse. Neither side has provided the financial details of the agreement. On November 28, the Copiepresse secretary general stated, "The Internet is not the Wild West…We want to be part of Google, but not without control over our content.'' For its part, Google commented that without Copiepresse content, their Belgian news coverage was lacking and insufficient.

Despite the predictions that the Internet would be tool of consensus for the world’s countries, applicable law continue to vary from nation to nation, luckily without impeding the growth of the Internet. Internet traffic, specifically ecommerce and media continue to thrive despite the application of local laws (148). Content providers have adapted to the wants and needs of local users across a variety of cultures and continents (149). There is no concept of universal free speech on the internet – what one country may consider as blasphemy might be the most treasured item of another country (150).

More relevantly, Goldsmith and Wu discuss how a court ruling in one country can be enforced in and intersect with the laws of another country. Using the example of Gutnick v. Dow Jones, in which business man Joseph Gutnick sued Baron’s online magazine, a subsidiary of Dow Jones, for defamation in an Australian court, the authors demonstrate that local law can coexist with the international scope of the Internet. While Gutnick won its defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones in Australia, it did not stop Dow Jones from continuing to have an Internet presence. The decision is not unlike any other decision that impacts a “multinational” business (157). Large corporations that have financial interests across the world like Dow Jones, Google and Yahoo! must be ready to defend their online content and business against the laws of any jurisdiction.

The Internet is not free of regulation just because it does not have the physical tentacles that other aspects of multinational companies do. For example, by operating Google.be and Google.fr, Google has a financial interest and presence in Belgium and France. They must be prepared to either pull their content out of those countries or comply with the laws of these jurisdictions, even if it undermines principles of American law. It is simply the cost of doing business. Smaller companies who have an Internet presence that may reach these same countries but who have no financial assets there will be in a different situation. They will need only to comply with the law of the country where their assets and physical presence can be found. Thus, the copyright law that applies on the Internet is not likely to be uniform but is more likely to reflect the public policies and interests of the local jurisdiction deciding the copyright question.

                In this press release, the Paris based World Association of Newspapers (WAM), representing a membership of eighteen thousand newspapers worldwide, including AFP, seeks to address the issues facing newspapers resulting from new technologies. In particular, in the WAM press release, WAM discusses the ‘Napsterisation' of newspaper content. More explicitly, the group expresses a desire to counteract "the exploitation" by Google News and other search providers of copyrighted news articles. While Google, Yahoo and other search engines hide behind a guise of social benevolence, WAN asserts that these search engines do not represent "Robin Hoods," but rather highly profit oriented organizations that are seeking to misuse the hard work and copyrighted content of newspapers. Ultimately, WAN seeks to craft a relationship between newspaper publishers and search engines that would prove profitable and legal for both parties involved. WAM appears to understand that newspapers must adopt to technology, but at the same time WAM seeks to have that adaptation involve compensation by the search engines to the newspapers.

                As a reflection of WAM's ultimate objective, Google and the Associated Press agreed to a deal in August of 2006 that would compensate AP when Google News used its assets. Google justified the deal with AP in that the AP content licensed Google assets would complement Google News. Google News would remain a news aggregator that linked to news sites, which Google adamantly considers a fair use.

                Similarly, in November of 2006 Yahoo! struck a deal with over 150 United States newspapers. The agreement announces that Yahoo's technological leadership, specifically search, advertising and infrastructure, will be partnered with the leading newspaper content in the United States. The partnership plan will allow Yahoo! users access to personalized local news, such as classifieds.

As evidenced by these deals, the presence of Google News and Yahoo! should ultimately make newspapers more profitable, not less. Users should click through links on Google News and on Yahoo! more frequently than before, thus, raising the page views, revenue and attractiveness of newspapers. Although the recording industry may have been technically correct on the copyright violations Napster committed, ultimately by not adopting to technology changes, the recording industry has been eroded and not been the driver of change. News services and newspapers must consider how to adapt to changes brought on by technology, not merely fight changes technology brings.

Schmidt, Eric. “Conversation with Eric Schmidt Hosted by Danny Sullivan,” interview by Danny Sullivan (9 August 2006) (http://www.google.com/press/podium/ses2006.html) (last accessed 26 November 2006).

In this interview of Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, by Danny Sullivan at the Search Engine Strategies Conference, Schmidt discusses issues facing Google. He addresses everything from click fraud to protecting user private data. Ultimately, Schmidt underscores Google commitment to provide to Internet users the most relevant information, whether it is news, ad-content or search results. He does confess to a new emphasis on profitability.

Most relevantly, Schmidt addresses the pending lawsuit with AFP. Schmidt asserts that Google understands and wants to be sensitive to various conceptions of rights and copyrights. Schmidt also admits that there is an underlying ambiguity associated with fair use but appears to remain firmly committed to Google’s definition of fair use. Schmidt asserts that Google’s use of parts or snippets of copyrighted materials, like books and news, is not only fair use, but a vital research and knowledge tool. In the interview, Sullivan, expressly asks Schmidt about the AFP lawsuit, and whether the deal between Google and the Associated Press was made to “solve a legal issue.” Interestingly, Schmidt answers that for Google, litigation is just another way of making a business deal. In other words, the AFP lawsuit was not unexpected, but rather something Google understood might occur given its new use of technology. The deal between Google and AP addresses these same issues in a different way – a way that attempts to foreclose litigation and to reach an amicable resolution of essentially the same issue.

            Despite its altruistic mission of making relevant knowledge available worldwide, Google is ultimately a profit making corporation. Schmidt’s comments reveal that Google’s rise from search engine to a dominant corporation rests in its aggressive and liberal interpretation of fair use. Thus, the dispute with AFP could be settled if Google could reach a satisfactory monetary agreement with AFP as it did with the AP. No matter what social cause the EFF or other bloggers ring regarding the global importance of Google and free speech and the public’s right to knowledge, Google is just another company trying to impress its shareholders with its profitability.

On August 12, 2005, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) posted a press release on their official website expressing their frustrations with the Google Print Library Project.  The release states that the AAP supports the aims behind Google’s program but objects to Google’s use of copyrighted material without explicit permission.  In addition, the AAP objects to Google’s “opt-out” policy.  Through this policy Google will copy and digitize copyrighted works unless copyright owners specifically exclude their works from the program.  Mrs. Schroeder, President and CEO of the AAP, states that Google’s opt-put policy, “…shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear.”  This August press release sets the stage for the lawsuit filed by the AAP against Google on October 19, 2005. 

The day this lawsuit was filed, the AAP posted a press release on their official website.  The release states that the lawsuit resulted from a breakdown of negotiations between the AAP and Google.  According to the AAP, an ISBN based system can be easily utilized to aid in identifying copyright owners and obtaining proper permission to copy and digitize works.  However, Google’s rejection of this system forced the AAP to file suit.  In this release as well as the August one, the AAP makes a point to state their understanding of the benefits of Google’s program; the release declares, “…authors and publishers know how useful Google’s search engine can be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource.”  Nevertheless, the AAP strongly maintains that these benefits do not trump the fact that Google is engaging in copyright infringement.