shimenawa - Latest comments on Monetizing libraries

In response to: Monetizing libraries

pbrantley [Member] — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:39:22 +0000

I am at a conference, so this is very brief. I think the OUP post is rather drastic. I fully support the vision of GBS. I think the dispute with libraries demonstrates the stunning inadequacies of current copyright regimes and CR expectations in the U.S. and overseas. There is a huge mass of book material that publishers cannot speak for, because they do not even know who owns it. Registries, contractual agreements, and shifts in copyright legislation are all part of the solution. I thought the OUP post too one-sided.

In response to: Monetizing libraries

Rebecca [Visitor] — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:12:31 +0000

In light of this dicussion I was curious to see what your thoughts were on this post, http://blog.oup.com/2007/06/google_library/. Evan talks about the best way to punk Google.

In response to: Monetizing libraries

Peter Hirtle [Visitor] — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:31:39 +0000

I am one of those who was surprised by your assumption that it was Google, and not the CIC, that came up with the escrow option. I am willing to bet that a lawyer at one of the CIC institutions drew the not unreasonable conclusion that receiving a copy of a scanned in-copyright work pushes the boundary of fair use too far and might place the institution at some risk. A reasonable alternative is presented by the CIC contract - that Google must provide the public free continuing access to the scanned works (see 4.3.B), but that ownership of the digital files will only pass to the CIC schools when it is clearly legal. Since most Google partners don't seem to know what they are going to do with the scanned works, and since it is very unclear what, if anything, a school could legally do with a scan of an in-copyright work, this doesn't seem like a major problem.

The important thing is that the public is going to get improved full-text access to probably 8 million volumes (if we assume 80% of all works are protected by copyright). This seems like a great thing, and the CIC should be applauded.

In response to: Monetizing libraries

pbrantley [Member] — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:50:12 +0000

Since this post was written, I have heard renewed speculation that the escrow clauses were actually placed by CIC counsel to mitigate the risk of litigation. Although I personally find this speculation odd, as CIC is still contributing In-Copyright material, and only IMHO a stilted, conservative, and deeply risk-averse, read of the current copyright regime failing any vestige of normative insight might lead them to this averment, I never cease to be amazed at the actions of universities and libraries (that I love, oh with so much hurt). Still, I withhold judgment in the hope that a semblance of rectitude still persists in the American Midwest.

2007:06:20. Confirmed.
A sense of rectitude still persists in the Midwest.

In response to: Monetizing libraries

Adam Corson-Finnerty [Visitor] — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:50:58 +0000

I am not sure quite what to make of your informative post. It sounds like Google partner libraries are wasting a lot of time in cooperating with in-copyright scanning. Just taking the books off the shelves, transporting to the scanning site, and then putting the books back involves many hours of staff time. And in return the libraries don't even get a digital copy until all the legal kinks are worked out?

Your second concern, about paying for online monograph access--well, that's going to happen anyway. Publishers like HarperCollins are moving their own stuff online, in addition to whatever Google gets its hands upon.

We can already purchase digital downloads of books, through SONY Reader, and this traffic will increase as the readers get better, notes can be taken, passages highlighted, etc.

We can purchase POD copies of scanned books, in and out of copyright. We can even scan our own out-of-copyright material and upload it for printing, or print in the library.

So what exactly is the problem? Is it that we are going from an ownership model to a license model? From pay once to pay per drink? That movement is already far along.

In response to: Monetizing libraries

K.G. Schneider [Visitor] — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:17:09 +0000

Thank you for posting these important links and your analysis of the agreement. I was asked at my NASIG keynote why libraries buy into Google's agreements if they do not benefit their users in the long run, and I was at a loss for words. I can't really believe librarians don't read what they're signing, but as one of "everyone else," I too am worried.

In response to: Monetizing libraries

Michael W. Perry [Visitor] — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:06:45 +0000

I'm delighted by the news that Google is showing a willingness to be flexible and negotiate a deal with publishers. Google has never had a legal leg to stand on. Digitized, searchable databases of books are derivatives in the same sense that abridgments and movies are. Any suggestion that they can be done without the copyright holder's permission is absurd. Quite a few movie derivatives show less of a book's plot (and far more added creativity) than Google does and yet they still require permission.

The real potential losers in what Google has been doing are authors of helpful 'how to' and recipe books with limited sales. If anyone online can scan and post up to 20% of those books, they make buying them pointless, and those authors don't have the money to sue. Also, authors who'd like to escape an unhelpful publisher and bring a book back into print elsewhere may find themselves locked to a publisher who's happy to pick up pennies from Google's digital copies for doing nothing. That issue needs to be addressed.

The real answer probably doesn't lie in the courts, which as noted can take years, or in private agreements, which leave everything in legal limbo. The real answer lies in comprehensive legal reform. Strong copyright protection needs to be linked to registration with constantly updated contact information required that sharply reduces the cost of tracking down the copyright holder. (Those who don't register get only limited rights defined by law.) And with copyright terms in the US now absurdly long, passing on literary rights needs to be part of the boilerplate of every will probated in this country. I'm planning to publish a book in the near future that'll lean on the slender reed of having all the children of the author orally agree to the publication. No rights to a literary estate were passed on. What if one disagrees or changes his mind?

Unfortunately, today's Congress doesn't seem to be up to the task of hearing all parties and coming up with a fair balance of interests. With control of Congress on a razor edge, both parties seemed locked into winning a majority by dealing out pork to special interests. The Republicans were bad. The Democrats now in power seem to be vying to be still worse.

But seeming miracles do happen. Just yesterday Bowker sent me an email informing me that their Books in Print database has been radically improved. I checked, and they are right. What I've been telling people was "the worst online database on the Internet" is now quite easy to use.

If Google really wants to put access to information online, information I use quite extensively in my editing, they should consider offering to create powerful rights and texts databases and giving them gratis to the world--databases that don't tilt the results toward any one source or distribution model. A good example of how that could be done in another area is the OCLC Worldcat database at:

http://www.worldcat.org/

It's a marvelous tool for locating books in libraries. We need a similar one stop source for locating rights holders and for locating published books and etexts, either commercial or free, online or elsewhere. No pure business seems able to pull that off. Amazon, for instance, no longer sells ebooks in any format but their woefully inadequate proprietary one. All the pdf books I had there--historical texts that can't be adapted to their quirky format--are now gone, ebooks that I'd created as an alternative to our more pricey printed versions for students and researchers in a hurry or a tight budget. There should be a place where both the printed and ebook versions are displayed side by side.

Haste makes waste. Google's hasty attempt to put copyrighted books online when non-copyrighted texts are still in limited supply has wasted a lot of 'Internet time.' They need to listen more to their critics, pontificate less, and be a bit more creative and helpful, not equating what's good for Google with what's good for everybody. These recent moves are a step in the right direction.

--Michael W. Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
Author of Untangling Tolkien

In response to: Monetizing libraries

Jerome McDonough [Visitor] — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:48:32 +0000

While I'm in agreement with your analysis on the likely outcomes, I agree with Adam that all will not be lost if this comes to pass, but for slightly different reasons. Copyright law is just that: a set of laws. And they can be changed. So, I'm sticking with my position on this one. The outcome we're seeing unfold is unfortunate, but predictable (and in my not particularly trustworthy opinion, legally correct) under the current copyright regime. If we want to change the outcome, we work to change the copyright laws. That will, of course, put the library community at war with publishers of all kinds, but probably not with Google and the rest of the search companies. If we want the freedom to do what we want to do with this material, the law is going to have to change. End of story.