Opening up

I'm excited by OpenDocument, I know it has been around for years. It was developed by Sun, Microsoft, IBM and Corel to be an XML based standard for office suites. It hasn't caught on in huge numbers because most people use MS Office even though there are 3 revisions to the .doc standard that are incompatible with each other.

It is picking up steam with support from Massachussets. Mexico, Peru, Brazil, China, Japan, the EU and other states are considering it. I like it because it can prevent vendor lock in and promotes document portability and retrievability. Retrieval of old Office documents can be a chore after you've made a few upgrades in versions.

While Microsoft's new Office format MS XML Schema has some potential I think they would do better to look into adding OpenDocument support. The same goes for Apple's iWork suite. The ISO is received the OpenDocument schema for consideration as an international standard. If it gets approved there will be very little standing in the way of international bodies supporting it wholeheartedly. Unlike America there is little interest in using the current de facto standard of .doc for much longer, especially when MS XML will soon replace it and render it obsolete and may be altered to be less backwards compatible in the future.

Microsoft is hoping to stonewall governments into sticking with MS Office by not supporting the standard. The switch would mean that Microsoft would have to compete in an area they thought they won with Office 97.

The worst part about it from their point of view is that they could not just create a new document standard with a few bells and whistles that was incompatible with the competition. They could implement various schemas on the underlying OpenDocument XML structure to add various bells and whistles. The problem there is the same that Apple would have there is no guarantee that others won't figure out a way to get the same look and feel.

Sun sees ODF the same way as HTML a standard that can allow users to communicate despite thier choice in browser (if all pages are written to W3C specs). Microsoft is seeing only the lose of control and missing the fact that most people who use Windows will continue to use Microsoft products like Office because of preconceptions that it is better. If the governments make the change and MS is not there for it those preconceptions will be significantly challenged. Especially with the radical layout changes that Office going to go through when it hits Windows Vista. While interesting in concept and kinda cool in motion it may be a steep learning curve for casual users. OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice and NeoOffice all look relatively like standard Office.

Microsoft is taking a large gamble that people won't try out a low cost or free office suite instead of sticking with a $300 suite that doesn't work with government documents. Apple is missing a huge opportunity to be totally compatible with these government documents without relying on MS.

For librarians the implications are obvious, a standard XML document format will make digital libraries a lot easier to manage in the future.

OpenDocuments closed minds

Slashdot has a posting pointing to Fox News retraction of an earlier report by James Pendergast, executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership. An earlier article on Slashdot pointed out that one of the founding members of his organization made his position look suspiciously like shilling for Microsoft.

The argument in essence is over whether Massachussetts is right to make all documents it produces available in an open source document format and PDF. If they do they would be the first state government to use OpenDocument for things like unemployment forms and anything else that is shared electronically between agencies.

The reason why it is a good idea is the reason Microsoft is so oppossed to it. OpenDocument is an open standard that anyone can use in a similiar way as PDF, you can find many apps besides Acrobat that will open PDFs. While some apps will open Word documents they do not display it properly in many cases and the new document formats Microsoft is creating for the next Office are proprietary XML. The planned change will require that all old Office documents, spreadsheets etc. be converted to the new format which may change at any time.

Office is not great at backwards compatibility when moving to a new or different version of Office (Mac to PC) reformatting often has to take place. The new Office will also require a much faster PC than most governments have so updating the office suite means updating the office PCs as well. Let's not forget that while Windows PCs dominate most of the government market there are still Mac, Linux and Sun systems out there.

Microsoft had and has a chance to use OpenDocument it is an open standard that is set forth by committee. If a Microsoft programmer sees a way to do things better in OpenDocument they are free to submit their modifications for all to use. Microsoft is also free to use OpenDocument along with their new Office document specs. They don't even have to pay a liscensing fee. The real concern is that given the ability to move to another office suite without losing their past work people may choose to do so. That choice takes away a big roadblock for most people thinking of switching from Windows.

Frankly, I think all state governments and commonwealths should move to OpenOffice or the OpenDocument format, I'm looking at you Pennsylvania. It would save taxpayers a lot of money in licensing fees and could spur competition in the office suite world which has grown stagnant.

For the curious OpenOffice runs on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X (in X11). NeoOffice is a native port of OpenOffice for OSX users who don't want to delve into the Unix goodness that lies at the core of the Mac. There are a number of other products that use the OpenDocument format but these are free and easy to install.

Fair Use and the IP Rental Model

Fair use is on the way out as the licensing of rights gains industry acceptance. This has huge implications for libraries, information professionals and the general public. This can also put the kibosh on projects like Google Print and Google Scholar. But first some background.

In the old days, back in the early 90's when dinosaurs roamed the earth, if you bought a CD you owned the CD and were entitled to fair use privileges. You could sell it, trade it, re-record it for personal use, play it at parties or destroy it. Most people didn't partake in the last freedom of fair use but used CD stores, clubs and personal music players can still be found. They exist only at the pleasure of media companies, however.

With the Digital millennium Copyright Act, which President Clinton signed into law while America was focused on "The Dress", media companies can license media content in a similar fashion as computer companies. They could also use Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) to protect the content from being copied. That's how CSS and Macrovision could be put on DVDs that would not work unless the user had the licensed decoder. Fortunately for anyone who has a ton of DVDs and likes the option of looking at them on her Linux boxen there shortly appeared DeCSS which effectively broke the encryption algorithm.

That's not going to happen as quickly with the next wave of media devices. Windows Vista will use HDCP for content protection which has raised some concerns. The realistic concern is that people may be drawn into purchasing a Blu-Ray Disc movie and find that it is no better than a regular DVD. This is because of the way protection is implemented. Typically the rule is if you can see it you can capture it but HDCP allows for a protected stream on top of the other mechanisms such as encryption. In essence you need a trusted player and a trusted display. Depending how things shake out when the spec is finalized people who've just bought a HD monitor may be getting screwed shortly.

Windows, Macs and any of the other operating system producers who wish to pony up the cash will be fine but Linux will likely need some enterprising user to crack the protection. HDCP needs to be commercially licensed and while Linux has many distros it doesn't have a central company to make such deals. It'll be every distro for itself. There is the added cultural problem that KDE ran into how are you going to distribute a free operating system with closed code. Even without the source are the distros going to include a HDCP tax? If they include it at all I'd say yes.

Buying a BD-disc or a HD-DVD disc and not being able to play it properly is a future problem that won't hit home till next Spring CD protection has already been a problem. Some bands have taken the unusual step of telling fans how to circumvent copy-protection. The technical details of how to bypass the copy protection on most Sony discs is to just hold down shift when you put the CD in the Windows PC so it doesn't auto-load. For Macs and Linux you don't have to do anything since the copy protection only works on Windows. This is an improved version of the protection that crashed PCs when it was included in Celine Dion's CDs in 2002.

At this point one might ask how this effects libraries or Google. Well if one were to look here or here, they might get a clue. The key is that from the media companies view playing a CD in a computer is not a right it is a privilege that can be taken away when it interferes with their profitability. The thinking boils down to the belief that sluggish sales are a sign that piracy is running rampant. Piracy is a problem but most people aren't buying CDs or DVDs to share with their closest million friends. Most of the people who rip CDs are transferring them to their iPods, iRivers or some other digital music player. The fact that some CD players will not play some of the DRM schemes out there is only worse.

This impact libraries in the event a patron checks out media that is DRM protected and they do not have the means to play it. Libraries could carry devices for loan but that can be expensive or have large placards telling patrons to get a new media player. The problem is that most people would not see the DRM sticker unless told where to look and wouldn't understand what it meant regardless. after all, the exploit to bypass Sony's DRM does nothing to stop Macrovision. Should telling people how to bypass copyright protection be part of the job of a librarian? As much as the ALA would say the opposite is true, within reason there are reasons to think that circumventing copyright isn't all that bad.

Opening the can of worms that is intellectual property rights, they are by definition limited so that there is a fair use right. Copy right has expanded to the point where fair use is an endangered species. Since in the digital world everything is a copy and despite giving you a copy I can still keep my copy rules like the DMCA were established to limit the spread of the copies. A case can be made that this is proper but preventing me from copying a CD I bought so that I can listen to it in my car on my iPod is a little over the top. It only works because of the licensing of content instead of the purchase. The switch happened so rapidly people didn't even see it. When you buy a CD now you are merely buying a license to play it in locations and on devices considered acceptable by the copyright owners.

I find this kind of ridiculous myself, the legal exception made for copying for educational purposes or personal use can slowly be eroded by the prohibitions on technologies to circumvent DRM. If you have an old recording that is no longer available and you wish to preserve it you are in a bit of a gray area depending on the number of copies made and in what format the original and copies are in.

This is similar to something Google found out the hard way. Despite the fact that Google Print allows authors to opt out the Authors Guild thinks they are not going far enough. Google Print they fear, will allow ne'er do wells to avoid buying the book and instead read a brief excerpt of their work online. The Authors Guild should lose the case but that is not guarantee that they will. This raises the specter of litigation facing any library that co-operates in this project or any other project like it to make their collections available to patrons who can not physically come into the library. Even a librarian that would ensure that circumvention of DRM was not allowed could be at risk. The Authors Guild has more money than many of the already struggling major metropolitan libraries. There are also publishers and other content companies who see digital media as a means to reestablish control over content.

Authors Guild v. Google has the potential to be another universal Studios v. Sony Corporation let's hope that Google stays in the fight and prevails.

Banning Baldwin and Woolf

Every year for one week the American Library Association has Banned Book week from late September into October. In conjunction with the posters and essays on the importance of intellectual freedom they publish a list of books that were banned from schools or are frequently challenged. It's probably going to be a longer list than usual this year. All because of a failed political stunt by Alabama State Rep. Gerald Allen.

He came into the national scene in 2004 by supporting a gay marriage ban in Alabama. He tried to follow that up with a bill that I can only believe was intended for buzz it would create. The bill would have prevented public money being used to buy materials that portrayed being gay as an acceptable lifestyle. It was pretty poorly worded and would have had the effect of not only banning books like the The Color Purple (not a bad book to have in a collection by the way) but also The Fire Next Time because James Baldwin was gay.

Alabama leads the country in challenges to books but it is not just the Bible belt or the former Confederate south that wants to dictate what books are appropriate to read. There are plenty of challenges leveled at The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn every year by African Americans in the north who object to the use of the word nigger and the depiction of the escaped slave Jim. Book banning has become organize with the American Family Association and others making local fights national.

There seems to be a new tinge to the idea of book banning and challenges. Outright bans are not asked for as much since that makes the groups look extreme but moving the books behind desks are done in order to have the same effect. Political organizations and publications make lists of books that they consider to be dangerous, such as Human Events List of the 10 Most Harmful Books. I looked through the list and some books you could make a case for being harmful such as Mein Kempf but Sexuality in the Human Male was a survey of what men were doing sexually and Kinsey did not make the logical leaps that Hernstein and Murray made in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.

He also did not ignore uncomfortable facts in order to make his argument such as Murray in his latest Human Accomplishment which suggests that most advances were made by White European Christians. This is controdicted by the historical fact that agriculture began in Mesopotamia (Iraq), large ship building, telescopes, gunpowder and advanced metallurgy were invented in China, Muslims created astronomical charts, modern hospitals, sanitation and modern navigation. I could go on in this tangent; but it is odd that Human Events calls this books necessary Fall reading for conservatives when it is filled with inaccuracies but chides Kinsey for a possible interpretation that others have made of his work that children having sex may be beneficial.

I have seen an attmpt by people on the left to come up with their own list of harmful books such as The Bible, The Koran, and The Fountainhead. The case can be made that these books drove on fanatics just like the list that Human Events put out but as Eye Weekly points out they are not in and of themselves harmful. The books on both lists and those that are frequently challenged are merely meme delivery systems. The power of any idea is how it reacts in your own mind when it comes into contact with the other ideas that you have. For some people reading Mein Kempf inspired them to seek out genocide of an entire people, for others in a different time it can be used to raise compassion and try to bring about equality. The same can be said of the Bible or the Koran.

Gay men on loan at the library

A library in the Netherlands will be loaning people out 45 minutes at a time to further understanding. The loanees in question are gay men, lesbians, gypsies, muslims, asylum seekers and a poor peson on government assitance. I think this is a wondeful idea that should be spread to other places around the world, even here in Philadelphia. It is hard to hate somebody when you see them as a human being.

Some have pointed out that sex is likely the biggest motivator for checking someone out but gay Turkish men can touch lives in many ways. Nobody should be surprised at the possible video date quality of the meetings. It is unlikely a neo-nazi skinhead would sit across from a gay man or a muslim for 45 minutes. No matter how it turns out most of the encounters will likely be preaching to the choir but sonetimes they are the ones who need the most preaching. They do not recognize their own prejudice because they are too busy pointing it out in others.

Despite its potential flaws at least it is an attempt at dialogue unlike Gerald Allen's prescription for Alabama. I say bring on the young Turks.