The Commons - Kate

1. To quote the end of Bollier's remarks, "Ecologists often speak of 'keystone' species; if they die off or go extinct, a whole arc of other species will die off or go as well. I regard libraries as a 'keystone' institution of American democracy. Take it away and many other institutions and traditions of our democracy will suffer." Public domain - or "cutural commons," as it is referred to by Bollier, is essential to continue to build upon knowledge. If each person had to start fresh, and couldn't build upon the ideas and inventions of others, our world would cease to exist. It is because of this commons that our society has grown to where we are today. Those who agree with copyright theory think the commons is a bad thing because it doesn't offer monetary value to anyone. They want to see everything put into a market of consumers to generate capital; the commons are for a community to build knowledge, culture, lifestyles, and so on. Public libraries relate to the Internet in the respect that they are both commons. Yes, they are overseen by people - "trustees" as they are referred to by Bollier. The commons are not a free-for-all. There has to be some sort of management in order to keep things together and under control. However, the libraries and the Internet are in danger of being in control of companies or organizations that seek to control and make money from them, rather than be there for the good of the communities.



2. Vaidhyanathan says that, "Anarchy is radical democracy" (xvii). He also says that, whether we are a fan of it or not, we need to understand it because "anarchy matters" (xvi). He is describing anarchy in the library because we have entered this digital age where information is just too easy to find. You name it, the Internet can probably provide it. Vaidhyanathan had a great section in the introduction where he talked about the fact that, while this obscure and sometimes dangerous information has always been there, now the masses can find that information with relative ease. He called this the "collapse of inconvenience." I love that phrase. I don't know that you could find a better phrase to express what has happened. While our society should want this generous sharing of information that is going on, he acknowledges that people are seeing the potential ramifications and are panicking and cracking down. He argues that, if laws and rules are going to be put in place, our society should do so only after much sober deliberation and only after weighing all of the pros and cons. Bollier and Vaidhyanathan are both proponents of allowing this mass of information that we learned and sharing it with the populace for the greater good of humanity - not for the love of capitalism.