Alan Morton-Smith
Mindreign.com
17/09/2009
With general elections due imminently in Germany and within nine months in the UK, politicians in both countries are in the process of setting out their policies, and trying to distinguish themselves from the opposition. This is proving to be relatively difficult in Germany, where an uneasy “grand coalition” between the two major parties — and the resultant joint responsibility for the last four years — have restricted their ability to criticise each other. Early surveys of those who watched last night’s TV debate suggest that the challenger, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had swayed more people than Chancellor Angela Merkel, leader of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU). That said, 48% considered it to be a draw.
In Britain, Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for Business and one of the most powerful members of Gordon Brown’s Cabinet, has been setting out the Labour Party’s economic strategy. In a speech today, he defined Labour as being “wise spenders, not big spenders”, with a view to bringing the party into line with public opinion, which polls reveal as being more in favour of the opposition Conservative Party, and their more strident approach to cutting public spending.
Prospects
Continuing a trend seen across Europe in the recent European Parliament election, polls in both countries suggest that the centre-right parties hold double-digit leads over their social democratic rivals. But voters in Germany and the UK could arguably have trouble distinguishing between the policies of the two main parties. The most potent reason for this is as a result of being constrained by large budget deficits, with existing stimulus packages and bank bailouts having already added a considerable strain to government finances. In Britain, the Conservatives have attempted to shed their image of being the “nasty party” — a phrase coined by former party chairman Theresa May — by pledging increased spending on health and international development, with a view to wooing more liberal voters. As a result of this, and other initiatives by party leader David Cameron to “decontaminate” the Conservative party brand, he has brought his party’s policies more closely into line with the incumbent Labour party. In a way this mirrors Labour’s strategy before winning the general election in 1997: in trying to assuage fears of financial mismanagement which they had been associated with in the past, they promised to keep to Conservative spending plans for their first two years in government.
One consequence of there being little substantive policy differences between both major parties is that the political debate tends to centre around who would be better stewards of the economy. Mr Steinmeier, who leads the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) argues that the CDU would pursue the kind of market liberalism that created the current financial situation, and furthermore that “the thinking that got us into this crisis can’t get us out of it”. Ms Merkel however, argues that her coalition would lead Germany to faster economic growth and lower unemployment. The only major foreign policy difference to emerge in the TV debate related to Afghanistan, with Mr Steinmeier making a stark departure from previous remarks, where he insisted that Berlin should not set a date for departure of troops from the country. Instead, he called for the withdrawal of the roughly 4,200 German troops deployed in Afghanistan by 2013. This policy has the potential to resonate with the public, after a controversial German-ordered air strike last week (which is still being investigated by NATO) resulted in dozens of casualties, many of whom may have been civilian.
Polling day
The prospects of the Labour party at the next general election are poor. They will have been in power for thirteen years by June next year, and have been racked by in-fighting and plots to replace Gordon Brown as party leader. In the vein of President Obama’s campaign, David Cameron is pressing the issue of “change” rather strongly, and the recent by-election win in Norwich North might suggest that the changes he has made to party policy are bearing fruit. That said, a struggling government can turn things around and achieve a surprise victory. A recent precedent in British politics can be found in John Major, who managed to steer the Conservative party to victory in 1992, despite numerous polls suggesting that they would lose. Similarly, Gerhard Schröder managed to turn what looked like a likely defeat for the SPD into a victory in the German election of 2002. This year’s federal election, however, could prove to be unpredictable. Both the CDU and the SPD fared badly in recent state elections, and if similar results were to be seen at a federal level, this could result in another “grand coalition”. However, the most likely result remains a victory for Ms Merkel.
Google: The World’s Librarian?
Alan Morton-Smith
Mindreign.com
21/09/2009
Google Books is an ambitious project, for which the ultimate goal is create a comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalogue of all books in all languages. To that end, they have already digitised about ten million books and made them discoverable online. It’s a key plank in the company’s strategy to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”, as their mission statement has it. Launched towards the end of 2004 in partnership with several high-profile university and public libraries, it now also incorporates the in-copyright books of thousands of publishers as well.
This process has not been without controversy, and there have been a multitude of allegations, lawsuits and protests about the company’s actions since its inception. One of the main points of contention are so-called “orphan” books — that is, books still protected under copyright, but which belong people who cannot be traced. A group of authors and publishers in America sued in 2005, citing “massive copyright infringement”. In October 2008 a settlement was reached, in which Google set aside $125 million to resolve outstanding copyright claims, and said it would share any future proceeds. It would also provide the means for copyright owners of out-of-print books to submit claims to Google, and lead to the establishment an independent Books Rights Registry. Both parties are currently seeking judicial approval for this deal.
Several rivals, including Microsoft and Yahoo!, Google’s major competitors in a number of fields, are vehemently opposed to the settlement. Indeed, Microsoft has gone so far as to say that it is “an unprecedented misuse of the judicial system”. They started their own book digitisation programme in 2005, but wound it down less than three years later. Amazon, the principal retailer of books online, is similarly against the agreement, labelling it “dangerous”, and noting that it could give rise to a “cartel structure that leaves the public susceptible to abuses”. All of these firms, in conjunction with such organisations as the British Library, are members of the Open Content Alliance. This group is pushing for Congress to intervene, as they feel that this would lead to a more equitable solution than the settlement.
Across the other side of the Atlantic, the European Union is in the process of reviewing copyright law, to establish whether it is still fit for purpose in the digital age. The picture in Europe is much more complicated than in the US, with each of the 27 member states having their own varying rules. Earlier this month, the EU started a round of hearings on the Google project, which is interesting in the context of already having their own publicly-funded digitisation project, in the guise of Europeana. There is a fear that should the agreement between Google and the authors and publishers be given the go-ahead, it could put European education and research institutions at a significant disadvantage to their American counterparts.
For Google’s part, they argue that the nature of a class-action suit means that it is impossible to open up the deal to other parties. They also note that the project actually increases competition in the market for digital books, and significantly expands online access to works, with its initiative offering a counterpoint to such services as Amazon’s Kindle, which is currently the dominant player. There’s also a significant gain to be made in resolving the status of books whose owners are proving difficult to trace, as well as the issue of excessively long copyright periods. Millions of in-copyright works, including hard-to-find out-of-print books would be made available, providing them with greater exposure, and potentially generating new revenue.
Google would also offer very extensive access to its digitised library, including being able to view free, full-text online editions at American public libraries. This would be at no charge to the library or the reader. In addition, universities and other organisations would be able to obtain institutional subscriptions to collections from some of the world’s most renowned libraries, including Harvard and Oxford. The firm is also making conciliatory gestures, such as the recent hint that they would let other internet companies sell digital copies of their out-of-print books. The previously mentioned Book Rights Registry, which was created with an initial $34 million from the firm, is an independent, not-for-profit organisation which would seek out copyright holders, maintain accurate contact information for them, and provide a way to opt in or out of Google Books.
Whilst this is clearly a deeply contentious issue, and Google’s creed of “don’t be evil” has not always been upheld (in their censoring of search results at the behest of the Chinese government, for example) the greatly increased access this project offers to researchers across the globe is a boon for human knowledge, and benefits us all. On a slightly more prosaic note, the potential for the firm emerging with an unfairly dominant position in the book business can also be said of Amazon at the moment. The establishment of a major alternative would be most welcome. Sony, for example, is in favour, and has said that it would have “numerous and significant pro-competitive effects”. On the issue of finance, Google will be paying 63 percent of royalties generated to the copyright owners, in addition to the initial financial settlement. There is also the potential for added revenues for these owners via library access, in the form of per-page printing fees. The firm’s approach has drawn the ire of many, but the end result will be free access to great collections of the written word.