Slashdot Mirror

This is exactly what I thought of when I read this headline.

Also see this...

What about translations? What about bootlegged copies from the 18th century? What about languages that have no direct concept of "editon?" The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLAuhas been wrestling with this for a while. Their solution -- of sorts: Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR). http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records Pretty dense and not consistently adopted.

Thank you for pointing out the sensationalist content of the original poster.

As someone else mentioned the works themselves are beyond copyright, but the photographic reproductions carry the copyright of the archival institutions which hold the original works. Archives and libraries purposely protect these reproduction copyrights so (1) it becomes difficult for other people or organizations to claim to hold the original work, (2) the holding archive can charge "use fees" for publication of these photographs, and (3) the "use fees" will fund the conservation efforts of the archives. Believe me, funds for conservation will rarely come from elsewhere.

It comes down to an academic necessity of being certain where your reproduced work exists and that you receive permission to publish that work.

Note that you can quote and translate out-of-copyright original works 'til your heart's content. You can quote and translate currently copyrighted works to the amount protected by fair use; beyond that get permission from the copyright holder. For photographic reproductions of works, the holding archive or library holds the copyright and you will need to receive permission from them to publish or reproduce the image.

For more information regarding how records institutions work, consult the Society of American Archivists. International institutions include the International Council on Archives, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, and the International Records Management Trust.

For a very nice overview see Pamela Samuelson's Copyright law and electronic compilations of data

What amuses and annoys me about Michael Gorman's comments (and yes, I did read them and understand them) is how arrogant they are. Gorman, as President-Elect of the American Library Association, is not just proud enough to say how much smarter he is than other commentators about managing information. No, he's proud enough to dream of telling Google how to manage their money. He's proud enough to characterize a whole class of people intelligent enough to operate a computer as mouth-breathing idiots.

Best of all, he's very proud of how the Universal Bibliographic Control scheme he endorses will solve the world's information access problems. Now please understand: UBC doesn't actually give anyone access to source materials. In point of fact, it seems to be a scheme for trying to assemble a meta-bibliography---in other words, a list of what printed materials you could read if you could get your hands on them. This is unlike Google, an organization crass enough to actually digitize the text of books, to put you one click away from the primary source of the information it indexes, and to maintain backup copies of that information against the loss of the primary source. It is unlike Project Gutenberg, an organization that has already published a huge number of digitized texts that are now available to anyone with Internet access. It is unlike even the bloggers, who at least make their own work fully available online. Gorman apparently has the more limited goal of indexing materials without providing access to them, while mocking the efforts of these other organizations to provide access.

On the offhand chance that Michael Gorman is reading this, let me make my position as clear as possible. I am a scientific research and (if I do say so myself) a fairly literate writer. I use Google, Wikipedia, Citeseer, Project Gutenberg, and other online information resources on a daily basis, because I've found them to be quite effective for me. I read about five fiction novels a month. The last time I used a library card catalog was about 6 months ago. The reasons for this have nothing to do with the comprehensiveness of my University library's bibliography, and everything to do with the paucity of its actual content.

I support our American public libraries, because I think they're an important bulwark in our fight for free speech. In terms of effectiveness in serving my needs and the needs of my family and friends, they are so bad that I fear for their future. Mr. Gorman, please keep in mind that when public library funding comes up for public discussion, your comments, especially given your position, are extraordinarily unhelpful. So, in the jargon of the "blog people" you so despise, please STFU.

Imagine if book paper had a shelf life measured in 10's of years or less[...]

Actually, it has: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/095-114e.htm.

I think you should read this: Some myths about intellectual property

Nope, it's not property. You can't steal it (you can violate copyright restrictions).

See:
US Constitution, particularly Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (the sole justification in the US for all "IP" - and it doesn't name them or call them property).
Thomas Jefferson's Letters, paying particular attention to his comments on copyright and ideas.
IP Myths, posted previously, and
The Copyright FAQ, also previously posted.

Here is a link to the International Fedration of Library Associations and Institutions with a huge bibliography of resources, not a summary but a great source of links to a large number of documents on current IP laws and regulations and some of the problems with the system.

One interesting link is about common myths of copyright.

And here is the copyright FAQ (a bit hard to find since the orignial link from the IFLAI is dead.

Here is a link to the International Fedration of Library Associations and Institutions with a huge bibliography of resources, not a summary but a great source of links to a large number of documents on current IP laws and regulations and some of the problems with the system.

One interesting link is about common myths of copyright.

And here is the copyright FAQ (a bit hard to find since the orignial link from the IFLAI is dead.

or this:http://www .cni.org/pub/NISO/docs/Z39.50-brochure/50.brochure .part01.html

or this: http://www.i fla.org/documents/libraries/cataloging/metadata/gi ls-i.txt

That last link has a lot of very good low level contrast between the 1988 version and the early 90s version. Now all you need is someone to standup and swear they deployed Z39.50 1988 when it came out.

I would suggest that if you were seriously thinking about a Digital Library project, you should familiarize yourself with the "state of the art" and what others are doing in real-world projects in this area.

I find that a lot of the work out there is very research oriented, and conducted by library science folks really, really concerned with "getting it right". It's a little *too* anal for my purposes, but you have to admit, all the 'i's are dotted and the 't's crossed.

I just wrapped up design on an object-oriented framework for a Digital Library project (modeled on my earlier work for Early English Books Online http://wwwlib.umi.com/eebo), and I found the work being done at Cornell very valuable as an inspiration. The Making of America II project is also an excellent overview of a well-thought-out Digital Library project.

So, for those interested in a little theory and practice, check these links out:

Digital Library Links and Resources:
http://www.ifla.org/II/diglib.htm

Cornell Digital Library Research Group
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/cdlrg/

Making of America II
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/MOA2/

FEDORA (an architecture for information storage and retrieval, *very* nice).

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/cdlrg/FEDORA. html