You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.
Skip to content

Obama: “Books are a big scam”

According to the New York Times’ The Caucus blog, Barack Obama was speaking with financially struggling students in in Edinburg, Texas, and had this surprising bit of advice:

“Books are a big scam” he said.

Say what? There were some slightly startled chuckles from the students.

“I taught law at the University of Chicago for 10 years,” he explained. “One of the biggest scams is law professors write their own textbooks and then assign it to their students, and they make a mint.

“It’s a huge racket,” he added.

I’ve spoken now to quite a few law professors who write casebooks, and very few are making a “mint.” But, while “big scam” and “huge racket” seem a bit strong, I do think that textbooks don’t need to be as expensive as they are. Obama’s attack on textbooks is more accurate in the K-12 and college markets than the one he specifically referred to (law); see, for example, the PIRG’s campaign to lower textbook costs.

Which is not to say that law school casebooks aren’t expensive or that they can’t be cheaper. We hope that the eLangdell project will not only produce better and more customized casebooks (our first priority) but also more affordable ones.

Lewis Hyde on Fair Use for Educators

Lewis Hyde outlined the “Encroachment on the Commons” now underway in the academy.

A basic dilemma facing educational fair use is that it’s stuck between too much specificity (cutting out potentially fair uses) and too much vagueness (leading teachers to avoid risk by stopping far short of fair use). To the extent that specific guidelines are available, they’ve been shaped by the publishing industry and drafted without serious input from users (input letters not published), lack legal standing (court in a coursepack case argued need to go back to the copyright statute itself), unclear if they are minimum or maximum allowed (NYU, under litigation threat, treated guidelines as max, now followed by 4 of 5 universities.

What can be done?

  1. Give up on fair use altogether
  2. Create guidelines: The status quo
  3. Develop best practices: Get use communities to articulate their discipline’s norms around fair use. See the documentary filmmakers.

Lewis now advocates the third path, putting emphasis on the process of involving community rather than the legal requirements imposed by the law. The point would be that the community develops its own norms and establishes common-sense fairness before checking for legal acceptability. The next critical step would be winning buy-in from the entire community, especially those who might otherwise stand in the way.

John Wilbanks of Science Commons suggested reframing the issue as “The Right to Teach,” which strikes me as an incredibly powerful way to assert the positive value of fair use (which, after all, is a negative cutout of copyright).

I mentioned that for eLangdell, a legal education commons at CALI and backed by Berkman, would love to be part of a pilot project to identify best practices and be protected by any litigation defense system that can be set up in connection with these practices.

I’m presenting at International Conference on the Future of Legal Education

Matthew Bodie (St. Louis University School of Law), Christian Turner (University of Georgia School of Law) and I will be presenting at this year’s International Conference on the Future of Legal Education about the future of the casebook, including the eLangdell initiative now underway between CALI and the Berkman Center.

The conference is taking place at Georgia State University, Feb 20-23. Our panel, “E-Langdell – The Future of the Casebook,” will take place on Thursday, 2:00-3:15pm. Register now.

Matt’s paper, “The Future of the Casebook: An Argument for an Open-Source Approach,” is available for download from SSRN

Revision: BAD Blogging is undermining the NY Times’ credibility

With feedback from my colleagues at Berkman, I have some major upgrades to my rather testy post yesterday. I think I’ve distilled my critique of the NY Times’ (and other MSM newspapers’) foray into blogging, or perhaps better to say into the Internet, into the following points:

  1. Journalists’ professional integrity depends in part on public perception. Letting them blog their opinions about the news or readers poses the same risks as letting your CEO blog about her customers: it’s a high-risk sport. Some training would be advisable.
  2. Parallel to this individual credibility is institutional credibility. In its online incarnation, the NY Times fails (perhaps on purpose) to adequately distinguish opinion from straight reporting or analysis (the inclusion of the opinionator’s name in the title doesn’t cut it, IMHO). The site design exacerbates this problem by blending in articles of both types within the graphics-heavy featured section (“Inside NYTimes.com”) and the “Most emailed” list. These design issues have only arisen recently as a problem because of the abolition of Times Select, which had hidden most opinion pieces behind the membership wall.
  3. Thus, while opinion-writing has traditionally been an important function of newspapers, I would argue that it’s a vestigal one that is doing more harm than good, at least in its current form. Short-term gains from driving eyeballs through personalities with a following will eventually (a) erode away as these individuals realize they can do better as freelance bloggers, and (b) undermine the newspaper’s own long-term of credibility. Witness the consternation (whether unfounded or not) over Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of the Wall Street Journal.
  4. However, if it’s not feasible — my Berkman colleagues suggest opinion article are a major driver of revenues — to sever opinion-writing from other MSM functions, it’s important to erect and maintain a strong and visible firewall between the opinion editors and the reporters. Although it aims at a different purpose, Wikipedia demonstrates that transparent rules of “objectivity” can increase objectivity. I take articles there more seriously when I can see that some of them are flagged as “disputed” or “inaccurate.” Something similar but appropriate should be possible for journalists to adopt as well.

In any event, here’s my much more moderate final note to the New York Times:

Stanley Fish’s attempt to take seriously the comments responding to his piece “All You Need is Hate” (“A Calumny a Day To Keep Hillary Away”) illustrates why opinion blogging is not an amateur sport. Apparently ignorant of Web culture, Fish naively engages in what bloggers call “flamebaiting” (posting a piece that invites vitriol) and “feeding the trolls” (rewarding bad behavior by acknowledging it).

Likewise, if Paul Krugman spent enough time exploring the blogosphere — a curse I wish upon no one — he would discover that opponent-bashing is endemic not to Obama supporters (“Hate Springs Eternal”), but opinion blogging in general.

The blogosphere does a fine job of partisan name-calling. The Times should stick to higher-minded professionalism, whether in articles or blogs, because there are still some readers like myself who believe in such things as journalistic objectivity.

NY Times: your experiment with blogging has failed

When blogging first erupted into the World’s Wild Web, practitioners declared a revolution in media affairs: bloggers would bring journalism to the people. No longer would MainStream Media hold magical sway over our minds, because (1) MSM had been revealed to be biased and unfair, and (2) journalists’ “professionalism” actually stands in the way of honest reporting. Utopians declared the end of journalism as we know it, and a string of blog scoops — especially the one that toppled Dan Rather — seemed to secure that victory. Reeling, MSM struck back by converting its journalists into amateur bloggers.

When you parse the concept of “amateur blogger,” you begin to see the outline of the problem that the MSM would be courting.

Today’s column by Paul Krugman, which calls Obama supporters “dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” without citing to any evidence, casts a spotlight on the dangers awaiting respectable newspapers that decided to play in the muck. If a national election weren’t at stake, the sight of respectable writers confronted with the gale-force emotions that wrack the blogosphere would almost be amusing. Witness Stanley Fish amatuerishly treating Hillary-haters posting to his earlier (amateur) blog post about Clinton-bashing as if they were rational thinkers deserving of a response. (Presumably, Krugman drew his conclusions from the same sources, but if so, he lacked the courage to admit it). Those of us who’d lived through the early days of blogging, of discussion boards, of Usenet have terms for what these two otherwise respectable, but in-over-their-heads, writers were engaged in: flamebaiting and feeding the trolls.

The fact that Krugman wrote a column while Fish wrote a “blog post” is irrelevant. Both can appear on the New York Times’ “Most emailed” list (both did, in fact). And ever since the abolition of Times Select made opinion pieces open to all, such articles have, needlessly, dominated the list.

It’s time to end the sham distinction between journalism and blogging. More appropriate lines should be drawn among reporting, analysis, and opinion-shaping. And it’s pretty clear that, if they are to keep their souls, professional journalism needs to repudiate its improperly inherited role in this last category.

Let me be blunt here: if they are to survive as America’s Fourth Estate, newspapers must fire their columnists — liberal and conservative, pro-Obama and pro-McCain, pro-vegetarian and pro-SUV — all of them. Their roles are adequately filled by bloggers. In fact, most MSM columnists’ skills of shaping opinion through biased fact selection and unsubstantiated innuendo pale in comparison with Drudge, Huffington, and their ilk. Cut them loose from the journalistic equivalent of welfare and let them compete in that unfettered marketplace of fetid opinion.

MSM also needs to learn from the very deep experience of its cyber-predecessors when it comes to keeping the communities around its content civil. Showing up at an official New York Times page — whether labeled “blog” or not — and seeing readers viciously maul each other using cheap rhetorical tricks not only degrades the NYTimes brand, but erodes our belief in Truth.

And I believe Truth still matters, even in these murky days of postmodern self-awareness. That most Web2.0 of websites, Wikipedia, makes Truth the cornerstone of its existence. Global Voices shows the value of local blogging all across the world. Closer to home, Off the Bus project shows that promise in letting fact-minded political bloggers report from the ground, although a stronger editorial hand in weeding out the puff pieces, as well as disassociating with the unabashedly pro-Obama Huffington Post, would help significantly. (Full disclosure: both projects are run by current or former colleagues of mine at the Berkman Center).

Journalistic integrity — whether practiced by professionals or amateurs — underlie our ability to make decisions in a democracy. If newspapers are islands of truth in a sea of raucous opinion, they can’t afford to turn up the heat without being washed away by a rising tide of cacophony.

Mixed Realities wrapup

Well, that was a fun panel we just had — we managed to hit most of the topics on our list and had some lively exchanges among panelists and with the audiences. There was a surprising interest among the audience about virtual “black markets” — it was unclear whether they were curious about activities online that would normally be illegal in real life, or activities that are illegal by the rules of the virtual world, or the interplay among the two.

I’m not sure if the video of the discussion is going to be available — I’ll link to it if so.

Preview of Friday’s symposium @ Mixed Realities

The panelists for Friday’s symposium, “Real World Implications of Virtual Economies,” teleconferenced this afternoon to plan our discussion. We’re abandoning the usual format of having 20-minute individual conversations and instead, after a very short primer on virtual worlds and their economies, jumping straight into panel discussion and then open audience discussion.

UPDATE: Second Life location (Emerson Island); Backchannel

Here’s a tentative outline of the topics we’ll be covering:

  1. Introduction
    1. Panelists introduce themselves briefly
    2. Primer: What’s a virtual economy? MMOs: Drew Harry. Web: Burak Arikan. Second Life: Scott Kildall/Victoria Scott.
    3. Primer: Virtual property and currency. Drew.
    4. Primer: Making real-world money in virtual economies. Scott/Victoria.
  2. Where, in virtual economies, is value generated, and by whom? Who’s capturing that value?
  3. How is value flowing from the real into the virtual? How is value flowing from the virtual to the real? What do you see in the immediate future of these flows?
  4. How would you place virtual economies on a historical scale? In what ways do they reflect feudal, capitalist, communist, or other ideal types of historic economies? In what ways are they sui generis? How might a legal regime premised on the physical economy hinder the development of a virtual one?
  5. Talk about the labor market within virtual economies. What does it mean for participants to be generating “immaterial labor”?
  6. Is value shifting from traditional products (property) and services to the relationships themselves? What does that mean for participants in the economy — both individuals and the corporate entities? Is “alienation of labor” giving way to the potential for “alienation of relationships”?
  7. Is our language of “production” and “consumption” outmoded in a virtual economy? If so, what language should we be using?
  8. What issues arise at the intersection of economics and politics, particularly given that virtual worlds, unlike most modern real-world states, do not have direct accountability mechanisms to their inhabitants?
  9. How does the real-world business model of the company running a virtual world interact with the virtual economy itself? Have we found the “right” way to match these two systems?
  10. Normatively, how do you think a fair economy would operate in virtual worlds? What’s missing in them now, and what steps need to be taken to get to a fairer relationship between world-manager and user?

Hub2 at Technology, Knowledge, and Society (Northeastern University)

Looks like Eric and I are on the docket to present Hub2 this Friday at Northeastern’s 4th annual Technology, Knowledge, and Society conference. Problem is that I’ll be on my way to South Carolina, so I guess Eric is on the hook:

Friday, 18 January 2008
Northeastern University
Curry Student Center (building 50)
360 Huntington Ave
Boston MA 02115

I’m moderating a panel at Mixed Realities @ Emerson College, Feb 8

Mixed Realities is an exhibition and symposium that explores the convergence—through cyberspace—of real and synthetic places made possible by computers and networks. Mixed Realities links and overlays the Huret & Spector Gallery (Boston), Turbulence.org, and Ars Virtua (Second Life).

I will be moderating the morning panel on February 8, Real World Implications of Virtual Economies, with panelists Burak Arikan, Drew Harry, Scott Kildall, and Victoria Scott. Virtual economies — and economics in general — are not my strong suit, so I look forward to learning quite a bit from the experience.

Mixed Realities homepage

worth reading: The Future of the Casebook

Prof. Matthew Bodie’s article, “The Future of the Casebook: An Argument for an Open-Source Approach” [SSRN], has finally been published in the Journal of Legal Studies. (The electronic version, of course, has been out for some time). The article outlines the case for not merely digital or networked casebooks, but open source (or at least Creative Commons) casebooks.

Prof. Bodie (St. Louis University School of Law) is on the advisory board of eLangdell and helping to turn his idea into a reality.