Slashdot Mirror
95 (thousand) Theses (for sale)
"I am shocked that that this company is engaging in what amount to piracy of my work. Actually, it's worse than that since they are offering it for sale. Imagine the lawsuits and jailtime I would get (a la FBI Warning) if I burned a few hundred CDs of the latest movie release and sold them on the Internet.
"I imagine a great deal of Slashdot readers have completed graduate work. I just wonder what they make of this?"
Well, we'll see. Contentville is funded by CBS, NBC, a huge book distributor and a database aggregator - it launched last month. These companies are in Congress right now lobbying for a law to protect databases - that is, to make re-using information from places such as Contentville illegal. Not just copying the information, but even using any of the data or facts from databases would be illegal. A number of database-protection bills are in Congress right now, and if one of them passes (very likely), the poster above won't be able to make use of his own thesis without paying Contentville - since Contentville went to the effort of compiling their database, and the law would protect that effort.
Steven Brill, so-called "media watchdog", is just in the process of settling with thousands of freelance writers whose work he also, uh, appropriated.
It looks to me like a crystal-clear violation of the No Electronic Theft Act, passed a few years ago. Will Steven Brill go to jail for not more than three years? No. He's a "media watchdog", and only "pirates" go to jail. (Aside to Steve: if the NYT or Washington Post start referring to you as a pirate, best flee the country - the FBI will take an interest in the case then.)
Contentville. We get our Content the old-fashioned way - by stealing it.
I understand some Universities get you to sign over copyright or
other rights: the University of Alblerta requires the following
University of Alberta Library release form -- this is verbatim
and in full from my MA thesis:
Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Library
to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell
such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research
purposes only.
The author reserves all other publication and other rights in
association with the copyright in the thesis, end except as
hereinbefore provided neither the thesis nor any substantial
portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any
material form whatever without the author's prior written consent.
That certainly does not sound like I have given away rights for third
parties to print and sell my thesis -- it sounds like I assigned that
specific right to the University of Alberta Library, and no one else,
nor does it appear to entail the U of A the right to transfer
reproduction, distribution, or resale rights to other parties. Yet,
UMI, and thus, contentville have it listed for sale.
Or do I misunderstand the relevant rights and laws in play here?
Some would go farther to say that record labels are evil and the actual artists don't get any money anyway, blah blah blah, and with dissertations it's actually people stealing from the little guy, not the evil corporation. I don't know if that argument is valid or not, but just because napster (or gnutella, or whatever) allows people to distribute illegally copied materials doesn't make the technology itself illegal.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I have to be alarmed whenever I see bits of legal boilerplate like 'X owns all content on its (aggregated, database, pirated) website and use is prohibited unless you get licensing from us'. Common sense would seem to indicate that if they just gathered up public stuff they can't really do that- but common sense doesn't always describe the world around us, and good faith is in even shorter supply. I honestly thought the people holding mp3 patents were going to only go after software authors- silly me! Turns out they are only overlooking me, the musician-type person- and will happily clobber me with lawyers and demand $15,000 and one cent minimum per download if I'm seen making mp3s of my own music available on my own website. But CD rippers can do that free, because they're not a business! ;P
furrfu... furrfu phoo phoo...
Because you only paid $50?
(Kidding.)
--Threed-Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!
Mind you, if someone asked, I'd be reasonably willing to pass on a copy. This has happened, exactly once.
If I were relucant to do so, or someone interested in the MCNF problem couldn't find me, then it might well be worth $30 to them to get a copy of the thesis.
I would consider that price fairly outrageous, at around $0.21 per page, but while the price is fairly high, it's not likely to be a spectacular "profit centre" that I'd expect personally to rake in money over.
If I "went into business" selling copies of theses, printed as one-offs, $30 per thesis isn't an outrageous rate; I expect it would cost $15 a pop to search the microfilms and set it up for printing.
It's undoubtedly legal; it's not a "Napster-like" situation. And if my thesis proved to be a "best seller," I do have copyright so that I could sell it for a price undercutting UMI's pricing.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From the UMI agreement form I have to sign to get my PhD:
etc. etc.
Seems pretty clear cut to me - nothing illegal is going on here. If you signed the UMI agreement when you submitted your diss, then contentville are free to distribute it.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Of course not. The author of a particular change is always responsible for that change, they can't just call their changed version the same with a different version number, they can only make a derivative work which is also under the GPL but they are the responsible "owner". That means they only own their own parts for which they are responsible while the rest is unchanged. The original creator and owner of the original has nothing to do with their changes. That should be obvious.
If it was different, Microsoft could just rewrite the latest Linux kernel as a Visual Basic/Virus Builder script, and claim Linus Torvalds and the Linux community to be responsible for the next Outlook problem... ;)
-- Eavy (: Linux Is Not UniX
Really, though, it is a stupid site. I don't care one way or the other if it stays up or not, but anyone who buys from there is utterly and completely stupid. Most doctors will send you their thesis for free, and those who don't will send you their thesis for the cost of reproduction. If not, then this really would fall under the "abandonware" article that Slashdot posted recently.
The GPL would be protected from being sold? What kind of glue are you on?
Hey, mine's only $29.95 unbound ($24.85 for Citizens Club members)! I feel so insulted!
By the way, if anyone buys the hardbound edition ($69.50), I'll autograph it for you.
-----------
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
When I saw this article, I looked at Contentville and found their disclamers about UMI. I then asked my boss (a Ph.d. in acoustics) what the real deal was. Here's his answer:
The way it works, your Ph.D. must be "published", and open to anyone who wants to see it. That usually means that you pay to have it bound, with a copy for yourself, one for your advisor, one for your university's library, and one copy sent
to the University of Michigan's "University Microfilms", where it is dutifully imaged and saved. The thing started because, let's say you saw a
reference to my thesis, maybe in a journal article I published, and you want a copy. It would be a pain in my backside to make a copy for you, and
everyone else that asked, even if you did offer to pay for my copying costs. So... University Microfilms (UM) was established a number of years
ago, so that when you called me, I could just send you to them, giving you the reference number to my thesis. In exchange for reducing my hassle, I
assigned UM the right to copy the thesis and sell it to you, at a small carrying fee. I get no royalty on what is my copyright work, but I also get
no hassle. Now just because someone buys a copy, they don't have license to plagiarize, only to use, etc. It also allows people to always get a copy of your thesis, even if you're dead or unreachable. The guy who complained doesn't realize what the deal is, unless he specifically refused to have
his work submitted, but most universities require it as part of the process, because they also, don't want the hassle. This just looks like the e-commerce version of something that has been in place for years (at least 35-40).
That settled it for me, at least...
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Actually...
Depending on the state, any such policies may be unenforceable. My Assignment agreement with my employer (governed by the State of California), not only cites, but quotes section 2870 of the California Labor Code:
a) Any provisions in an employment agreement which provide that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
ii) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
Since I actually live in Minnesota, I thought I'd look up our (similar) assignment law:
Chapter Title: EMPLOYMENT; WAGES, CONDITIONS, HOURS, RESTRICTIONS
Section: 181.78
Text:
181.78 Agreements; terms relating to inventions.
Subdivision 1. Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer shall not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, and (1) which does not relate (a) directly to the business of the employer or (b) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (2) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
Subd. 2. No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by subdivision 1 as a condition of employment or continuing employment.
Subd. 3. If an employment agreement entered into after August 1, 1977 contains a provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to an employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, and (1) which does not relate (a) directly to the business of the employer or (b) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (2) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
HIST: 1977 c 47 s 1; 1986 c 444
I also looked at my alma mater's policy, I didn't sign anything over (current policy, not the one while I was there).
Now, IANAL, but I'd like to think that MN and CA's employment agreement laws could be extended to academia, especially because students generally pay for their education, rather than get paid for it. In fact, since no pay occurs, I'd like to think that those assignments would also be null and unenforceable.
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
It looks like they simply pass the order to someone else.
At UIUC, one of the hoops you jump through before they finally slap the degree on you is that you must -- yes, must -- sign the form granting UMI the right to keep a microfilm copy of your work, which they are allowed to sell. You retain copyright, but they get reproduction and some sales rights. If they sell more than 7 copies in a year, they must pay the author (that is, you) royalties of some fairly trivial amount.
I would expect that most institutions have a similar agreement with UMI and that most graduate students either don't care about the implications of the forced signature or (like me) figure that getting the PhD is a damn sight more important than having some guy pay a few bucks ten years down the road to see what a moldy dissertation about persistent neutron chains says.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Interesting. You can't access the site without accepting their cookies.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I looked at the website. It says:
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
From this I conclude:
1. Contentville are actually selling stuff that was already for sale off-line.
2. If your thesis is there, and you did not license it, presumably you gave a license to your University, which did. This is not unusual. Its generally in the agreement you sign in a hungover stupour during freshers' week.
If you read the fine print on their site, it appears that they are just reselling the data for a company called UMI. Seems to be owned by Bell & Howell. They also have a page that links to 2 other sources for dissertations. Seems to be something that has been available for awhile via the web and other means.
I'd be curious to see if kkkalen's dissertation is in all those places too. I would assume so.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
They are charging a fee for providing a service. They are collecting all the dissertations in one place, maintaining a library of them, and providing copies for people on request. The charges are to cover the expense of running the database, and distributing the materials.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I don't think that a $30 charge is too unreasonable. The data has to be stored, possibly many of the thesis are being stored and will never be purchased. Fullfillment is going to cost a significant amount, as credit card processing isn't free. And there is a large amount of infrastructure to make the system available at all. Plus I'm sure that the companies would like to make some money off the money that they are investing to make this distribution company run.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
They are not selling the works themselves. They are selling the service that makes the works available. It is a distribution company, not a content company at it's core.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Was that Time Warner, et al. worked to put all this information in a readily accessible location. They took the database that apparently was already out there, and slapped a web font-end on it. So that the papers can now be easily accessed.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
They are building a significant infrastrcuture to support the distribution of these papers. Ask Taco, putting a server online that can distribute information isn't cheap. Making it 100% reliable is more expensive yet. And there are costs associated with the fullfillment of orders, processing and whatnot. And the advertising that they apparently plan on doing to make the site better known. It all adds up to some serious bucks.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
This is the mighty slashdot. Where IP laws and corporations are denounced at every turn. I think the main reason that stories like this get posted on the main page, is becase the editors and readers here have a strong anti-corporatist bent. I can hardly wait to see how Katz will describe this company as commiting a heinous act, while he wholeheartedly supports Napster, et al.
And don't think for a moment that Napster doesn't have some plan to make money off what they do eventually. They are funded by VC's, and VC's are not known for their charity when it comes to fudning decisions.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Unfortunately, many PhDs DO get compensation -- they get stipends and teaching assistantships. Not too many people out there actually pay cash on the barrelhead for their PhD program.
Let's see... The site is owned by Time-Warner, which is represented in the DeCSS suit by the MPAA, who doesn't like all this here piracy that exists on the web.
Heck, these are OUR copyrights that are being trodden upon!
Let's get the EFF to sue them, and force them to settle for something reasonable... like sending $100 PER THESIS SOLD to a fund that will help 2600 in its legal battles...
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
It's legal because thesis papers and the like are usually published into the public domain without expectations of any royalties. This has been the tradition of the academic community for well over 300 years.
Well, tradition aside, since the copyright laws were rewritten in 1978, everything anyone writes is automatically copyrighted the moment it is put down on paper, or disc. They have no right to publish those theses unless they sign contracts with the people who wrote them. Plain and simple.
Your thesis is not your property. It is (C) your university. If your university has sold it to them you are stuffed. And unleashing the lawyers of war will not help. At all...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I think most people are mad because these big media companies are claiming we are the pirates for sharing things for free yet they are selling our work without our consent and making laws to protect their angle. I personally don't care if you copy every thing I've ever coded, written, drawn, whatever but if you sell it I'm going to be pissed. That is why I like GPL over BSD. This is even worse, they aren't even asking the authors.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I thought ./'ers didn't believe in copyright?
You know, information wants to be free, free to be sold, repackaged, used, and anything people can come up with no matter what the original author's wants are.
Je ne parle pas francais.
No matter what the original author's wants are? Who do you think assigns the GPL to a work in the first place?
By wanting something to be free it means you want it to always be available. If you modify it you must make your modifications available under the same license.
In this case a company has assumed control over a work and is placing restrictions on it, not to mention refusing to turn it over without having you pay for it. The problem here is not that we want our copyright, but that we don't want some other entity claiming copyright and restricting the information.
Finkployd
In fact, I have no problem granting UMI, my university, or a journal a transferable right to publish my thesis or papers. For me, the problem occurs when those institutions want to prohibit me from distributing or reusing my own work.
I saw a Moneyline interview with the head of Contentville a few weeks back. The guy turned my stomach in general, but two particular phrases/concepts in particular stuck out:
..." somewhere else.
1) He claimed that they are not actually selling copyrighted materials. What thay are selling is the convenience of being able to easily obtain materials that are available (often for free) elsewhere. You, the cusomer, pays for the convenience of the fact that you don't have to look as hard as you otherwise would.
This point is total BS, since a search engine like Google is quick and accurate, and keeps the $5 (approx) dollars in my pocket. BTW: In the case of non-freely available materials, they're going to buy them on your behalf, and pass the cost on to you, along with the 'nominal fee'. Afterwards, I'm sure they'll keep a copy of the materials - so they don't have to re-buy them next time - but will charge the next customer the same 'acquisition + nominal fee' amount.
2) The attitude that customers can buy the articles/papers/whatever from Contentville for a nominal fee, or they can go and "... buy it for free
"Buy it for free" elsewhere? That right there defined the character of the man for me. He's about money. He's not trying to do the right thing, or change the world, or even make research simpler for others. He's in it to get rich, and for some reason I found such a blatanly greedy attitude repugnant.
Crash and burn, ContentVille! Die!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
There are two issues here.
1. In general, anything you say, do, write, think or produce is protected under the Berne convention.
2. However, #1. doesn't apply to those who have given up those rights either by posting on a forum with a TOS that includes implicitly giving up rights to postings or pysically signing some sort of document giving up those rights.
The Berne convention allows you to collect reasonable damages and (I believe, but don't quote me) reasonable attorney's fees. Copyrighting your work entitles you to $5000 per violation (and I believe other remedies, but I don't recall right now).
From what I have read in the above posts, many students have actually signed their Berne rights away. It all depends on the wording of that document they signed...
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
According to this link: Here They will track you down and give you your money, but it sounds like they will do this after they sell things.
This link..
CONTENTVILLE.COM COPYRIGHT POLICY Contentville.com will block access to and/or remove any material that it believes in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and submitted to our site. This policy shall cover all aspects of Contentville.com, including, but not limited to user comments or other content submitted to our site. What to do if you think a copyright is being infringed: -- Identify where or whom the material is from. --Tell us how the rightful owner may be contacted. -- Give us a statement of good faith belief that the material is infringing, and that the information provided is accurate and the complaint is authorized by the copyright holder. -- Send the notice of Copyright infringement to the following Designated Copyright Infringement Agent for Contentville.com: Catherine Seda Copyright Agent of Contentville.com Contentville.com 1230 Avenue of the Americas 16th Floor New York, NY 10020 212-332-6400 or via email to: copyright@Contentville.com Once we receive this information, we will: -- Block the infringing material or site -- Notify the infringing user -- In the case of a first time offender, the infringing material will be removed. -- In the case of repeat offenders, we will endeavor to remove them permanently from the site.
Please see this link:
http://www.contentville.com/c ontent/dissertations.asp
*from the page*
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
--Brandon
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
> If they just distributed all these works via Napster or Gutella, et.al., no one would care... right?
Actually, that would be the ideal way of disseminating research, provided that you had an easy + effective way of searching for the subject matter you need.
Combine that with a system that builds and maintains a "reverse bibliography" (i.e., who quotes this paper), and you would have a killer app for the research community.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> How applicable would the GPL be to essays and thesis papers?
FSF introduced a "content" license last year; it would probably be applicable.
> Would anyone be willing to GPL their research the same way they GPL their source?
Academic research has for the most part been "free" for centuries. You write your theses with the expectation - nay, hope - that thousands of other people will get a free copy out of their library, read it, and quote it extensively in their own work. And that their work will build on it.
What is not expected is that they will appropriate the whole thing, or major chunks of it, and stick their name on it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I second this. Contentville or whatever has legally acquired distribution rights for the theses, so there's no problem there. Most universities don't steal the copyright away when you turn in a thesis; they just require a royalty-free right to distribute the thesis (which is perfectly reasonable). So I would urge everyone to first contact the author of a thesis and ask for a copy (which the author can legally supply) before resorting to other methods of getting a copy of a thesis.
I don't think what they are doing is legal. If it is, it shouldn't be.
Yes, anyone who wants to can get my thesis from a library through an interlibrary loan.
But they should not be allowed to turn around and sell it without even notifying me or paying me a dime.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Hmmm. I overreacted in my previous post where I said I would demand they give my thesis away for free.
I have a better idea now. On the details page where they list the options for purchasing from them ($30 for PDF, up to $66 for bound copy) I want them to put a link that says something like:
"The author of this thesis has made it available for free download from (my site)".
I think that is the best solution, and true to the spirit of the scientific method and the GPL.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
I have mixed feelings to find that my masters thesis on Cache Scheduling is available there.
It's nice in some ways - I can easily link to it from an on-line resume, for example, and it might help some researcher find my work.
But overall, I don't approve of Contentville's use of my copyrighted material: in particular, selling it for a profit.
It's not that I don't want people reading it. After all, I wrote it with the expectation that other researchers would use it and hopefully benefit from it. That's the whole point of the scientific method.
My thesis is copyright by me. I have allowed the University of Victoria library unlimited rights to make FREE copies of it for the purposes of interlibrary loans and whatnot - that's part of the deal with publishing it at UVic. But I'm sure that no-one is supposed to profit from copying it except (optionally) me.
I'm going to check the details of the copyright on my thesis tonight. Then I'll be writing a letter to Contentville demanding that they give my thesis away for free (or at most the cost of copying and postage).
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
I think the Open Content license would be more appropriate for everything outside CS thesi. But a better question is why you would want to. The academic community has no desire for collaboration on a single paper, instead they cite other works within existing copywrite law. Rather than making your thesis Open Content, it would be a much more beneficial act to ensure that it's available on-line (for free) so that everyone could read it to enhance their own work.
I have a PhD from UC Berkeley. To get my PhD I had to write a thesis. When I turned in my thesis, I was required to publish it by signing an agreement with UMI allowing them to sell copies. Every other grad school I'm familiar with is similar.
I keep the copyright, and if UMI ever sells more than a few copies, they pay me royalties. (Although I'd be shocked if they ever sell another copy after the one my mom bought) Contentville is forwarding orders on to UMI, so I'd get paid if someone bought my thesis through Contentville.
The reason for requiring theses to be published is to ensure that the research they contain is always accessible. Sure, I'll send you a copy of my thesis if you ask me, and so will most other academics, but it's nice to have a central repository where theses are always available. Sometimes it's hard to find or get in touch with an author (try getting Ted Kaczynski's thesis directly from Ted!).
Basically this story seems like someone writing a book and then complaining when they discover Barnes & Noble selling it.
If they just distributed all these works via Napster or Gutella, et.al., no one would care... right?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Hell most people on here will talk you til their blue in the face telling you there shouldn't be any IP rights anyway...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
This "you are a hypocrite and he is a hypocrite" logic is flawed at the root. What do we owe to our employers? To our contractees? To our Universities? To our government, or parents, or even to humanity?
What I see is two groups:
1.Corporations try to maximize profits by selling everything they can get their hands on, and trying to own (by forcing artists to contract to them) all works.
2.Slashdot people trying to maximize their freedoms by trying to make everything free, cheap, and easy to obtain.
Obviously, this is a cyber-punk world already. Where is the Government? Shouldn't it be trying to strike a balance between these obviously flawed sides? 1. Makes you broke, as you will pay to monopolies all your money and then some just to get what you need. 2. Is unstable, and makes darn certain artists and engineers alike won't be paid. If you got rid of society's engineers and artists, would you be left with a free internet, but a job at a factory or a farm? Not likely, a company will just step in over the powerless free-thinkers and take a big, monetary bite out of the whole thing and institute a #1 all over again.
I own copyright on this statement.
-Ben
I can''t speak for your school, but at mine we do not own the work. The school does (PhD) thesis. I am in the process of writing as we speak (should not be reading this) and have to sighn the copyright assighnment sheet to turn the thesis into the library. It is similar to when we publish papers in refereed journals, we also lose that copyright.
I am in biology (molecular immunology), so your field/school may be differant (sounds like it is) but I would not say the blanket statement that all of these thesis's (?thesi?) are taken without permission.
Gavin Fischer
Do you really want this?
If you GPLed your thesis, anyone could then rewrite the whole thing, change your conclusions to something you don't agree with, change the rev number, keep your name on it, and republish it without your permission. That would truely suck.
All of a sudden anyone could attribute any quote to your work by just reving the docutment.
Quack
I am working on my thesis, and it will be (well, what I have done already IS) under the FSF FDL - Free Documentation License. It is much better suited to writings than the GPL. GPL was written to protect code, FDL was written to protect writings.
FDL takes some approaches that it would be very hard to take on programs. It contemplates invariant sections, which should always appear. It also provides for invariant texts which should appear at the cover, back or first/last pages of the book.
Napster = GOOD
My.MP3.com = GOOD
Contentville = BAD
Have you ever heard of something called 'consistency'? The sad thing is I do get it. If its a big corporation, its bad, but if its the 'empower user' its good. Even if the 'empowered user' is backed by millions and millions in venture capital. I seriously doubt this DB protection law would make it illegal for the guy to use his own thesis; he does have a copyright on it. I don't think that any sane person would believe that he couldn't. So why did you write it? why did you say it? Flame bait? I'd say so. A baseless appeal to all the brain-dead slashbots out there
Copyright is dead, deal with it.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
-1 I dissagree
-1 I didn't get the joke
-1 Stupid
-1 Individual thought
----------------------
+1 I agree +1 Bitting commentary on the state of slasdot +1 I'm modding myself up with another account +1 Stupid, but then so am I.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Check out this short science fiction story by RMS called 'The Right to Read'.
An interesting take on where things are headed, it's over three years old and remarkably prescient...
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
I don't know what the fuss is all about. I'm actually disappointed that I couldn't find mine in their database. I kinda feel left out. :-( I certainly would not have been annoyed or felt robbed if they were to sell copies. This was work done through a UNIVERSITY! That's one of our last "pure" academic entities. If the work I did there shouldn't be made public, then what should!? Free sharing of ideas, concepts, and the research involved in getting there are all fundamental elements of academia. What's the problem? The fact that these people are making a profit off this effort? Bah. They're providing a service no one else is, so I say more power to them.
Maybe Slashdot should lobby congress, it seems that the editors of this site give their opinions often enough. I'd be happy to volunteer as slashdot/Andover's representative in Washington....
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
My Ph.D. thesis is there. I'm going write them a note telling them they cannot sell it.
They may not be selling it. UMI makes available abstracts for papers they can't (and don't) sell.
UMI is at http://www.umi.com. They have answers on their site to a lot of questions that are coming up here. It might be worth peoples' time to do a little research before flying off the handle...
Hmm.. So stealing is okay, but stealing for a profit isn't?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Ever since I posted my resume on my web site a few years ago, I have received several e-mails from companies to the effect of "Thank you for submitting your resume to our web site!" even when I never visited their web site. I'm sure that many more have spidered the web, found my resume and thousands more like it, and charged businesses for the use of their list. All the while, I don't see a cent of this income. (I have received some interesting job offers, though.)
I can't completely blame them, though. I didn't put a robots.txt on my site, so all of this content is up for grabs. Sad, in a way.
For more information, click here.
The ever-popular Fucked Company awarded viewers 189 points for picking this company -- turns out that they have been accused previously of selling content they don't own. What a way to make a business: take stolen content and slap a horrible interface on it. Then bring on the venture capital.
For more information, click here.
OK, here's the deal:
:-)
1. dissertations are being offered to interested folks. This is GOOD.
2. those interested folks have to pay for them, money which flows into the pockets of some company which probably adds ZERO value (apart from offering a database service, but we'll get to this). This is BAD. Science can only progress when there are giants (and midgets and everything in between) on whose shoulders we can stand. There's no need for a toll booth here, in fact it will only hinder the advance of science.
3; the people behind companies like this one are trying the same old buy-me-a-law trick which gave us laws like the DMCA and aberrations like UCITA. This is BAD. Very BAD. Money talks...
Well, I think the copyright holders for the dissertations (the authors) mostly agree with the fact that this information really wants to be free. So why not make it available for free? If everyone were to add their dissertation to an on-line database (like dmoz.org), and offer the service of mailing it (for some low fee to cover expenses) to interested parties, the information really IS free. And sleezes like contentville will find a dry well where the once suspected an oasis. This is GOOD (tm)
If dmoz.org is not sufficient, maybe someone with a server to spare and a few gig's worth of diskspace can put them online, run htDig:: over them, and offer full text search capability?
Maybe Andover is interested? It'll give a lot of page impressions...
--frank[at]unternet.org
Well then, I suppose if I find some way to collect all of my works, that would be a database.
.edu's). So then if this database protection law goes into effect, wouldn't our good friends at Contentville have broken their own law?
If a University decides to have its student's works collected before going out, that would be a database as well.
I'm pretty sure that this already goes on to some extent (at least with
Of course, it's after the fact.
And, the ubiquitous IANAL =)
Well, I went to the site, and looked at their wares. Basically, all they're providing for free are the abstracts, which are taken from the UMI database. Most university libraries have this type of database available for student research. If the abstract indicates the paper may be useful for your own research, you either try to get it through interlibrary loan, or you buy a copy.
I don't see how this is any different from before, except that it's on a web page.
No cookie.
To access this site your browser must be accepting cookies.
This even after I specifically told Lynx to accept their cookie. Looks like someone needs to learn how to properly construct a web site.
-- $SIGNATURE
From http://www.contentville.com/c ontent/dissertations.asp
Where do Contentville's dissertations come from?
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
UMI is a Bell & Howell" company (I think that's the company that makes educational film strips, and slide projectors). All I can find on copyright from UMI, is how they are will to act as your agent in applying for a copyright. (see this) But on a page linked from there, they say:
UMI publishes dissertations and theses only from accredited institutions and only with a signed publishing agreement from each author. We offer free informational packets with comprehensive details about the publishing process and other UMI services, along with the forms to fill out.
So my guess is that only the abstracts have been 'stolen', and that if you haven't signed an agreement your dissertation isn't really available.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Sorry, did I short-circuit your brain on that one?
But then again, "Dog bites man" isn't news, but "Man bites dog" is.
Wah!
first things first -- put your money where your mouth is, and post your papers on your sites, tonight. devalue this thing.
but wait, there's more:
look, www.contentvillefree.com is available. So here's what we do, and i'll pay the $35 if i can get some help building it.
I buy it. You mail me your thesis, to which you've attached the gpl that refers to content, just to be safe. I post the thesis. Then, we put a link to contentvilleFree on all of our pages, we word-of-mouth, hey, maybe some or the more daring out there even break contentville and re-direct it to our site.
Then, contentville is worthless. Why would anyone pay them when they can get the same info for free? We'll allow for micropayments or paypal or something. Suckers.
Then, and this is the best part, I get sued. And i go on tv, and i tell everyone how much Time-Warner wants creators of IP to get paid, unless the creator isn't paying *them* 50% of album sales. Then, see, they don't mind.
I'll close down the site, of course, cause i've got a job and better things to do, but it gets this on tv.
I only need a couple of papers to get myself sued. I can get them up within the week. Let me know if you have any interest in either helping or contributing a paper. They're so effing good at manipulating images, i think that it's time that we brought it to them, poor, exploited academic style -- "it's my life's work -- i can't pay my rent -- and time-warner's charging $29.95 for it! so sad, so sad!" tv will love it.
seriously. shit. i've got some vacation time coming. i'll get sued.
god is just pretend.
I have no problem with other folks using my papers for research. This is why I put my good stuff in the university library, so that other folks can use it for free (Well, I guess that's 'Free' as dictated by the UC Regents). I also put them up on my webpage, and said "Use em, they're free!"
If a private institution wants to profit off (An unbound copy of my works is $29.95 -- Which seems like alot).
Do I need to attach a friggen license to my papers now?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I looked for my thesis as well as those from people in my Masters program (UCL Linguistics - class of 1998) and couldn't find any of the titles or authors. Seems to be only a US thing; almost makes me glad I went to the UK for my degree :)
just my blog and pix
I just got off the phone with the people at Contentville and this is not quite what it has been portrayed on Slashdot. It turns out that Contentville is a retailer selling copies of these works published by Bell and Howell. Do you remember Bell and Howell? They are the people you paid $150 bucks to print up 5 copies of your thesis or dissertation. Two typically go to the author, two to the university library, and one to the Library of Congress.
In their standard agreement they make everyone sign, they set themselves up as technically being a publisher and they reserve the right to distribute your work in printed and electronic form. They say that if your thesis generates more then $10 in sales in a calendar year, they will pay you a 10% royalty. The ownership of the copyright remains entirely with the author. This is the same agreement they have used for a long time when theses are ordered by other libraries and sometimes by individuals. The only part that's new is the aggressive marketing.
They are running this as an opt out program. If you do not want them selling your thesis online you can call 800-521-0600 x2873 and they will remove your work from the database.
In all, this seems to me like it is not theft. They are taking advantage of the small print in an existing contract to sell books. This isn't too different from conventional publishing except they didn't inform the authors that they were cranking up the marketing machine. They were not able to give me any cases where they had actually generated sales through Contentville or where they had paid any authors, but they have only been up about a month. The woman I spoke to also said that they will only be issuing royaly statements to authors who generate more than $10 in sales.
Because of the minimum sales requirement and the lack of accounting statements for all writers, this gives them the opportunity to underreport sales and steal from people if they want. Time will tell how they will handle this part
That this may have been done just so the companies involved in the big lawsuits right now (which certainly have relations to those running contentville) can point to it when angry users shut it down and then say "why don't we have those rights?" Food for paranoid thought, heh.
Diehard
If Contentville is selling you copies of a thesis, and they've acquired rights to distribute it either from UMI or because it's public domain, it's similarly just fine for them to charge zero or reasonable or truly outrageous prices for the friendly (?) PDF download or the dead tree version. On the other hand, if they assert that they own copyright on the copy they sent you, they'd better have done a really careful job of checking their UMI contracts, you're doing a public service by suing them
On the other hand, providing abstracts is fair business, and a useful service to the community.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
My Ph.D. thesis is there. I'm going write them a note telling them
they cannot sell it. If they continue to sell it, they will be
hearing from my lawyers. Hypocritical corporate bastards!
On Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,38203,00. html.
Writers to Recover Millions from Uncover: Ruling in favor of authors as copyright holders, U.S, District Court Judge Fern Smith last month awarded $7.25 million to a group of five freelance writers. The class action suit claimed that Uncover, an Internet-based document delivery service, illegally sold magazine and scholarly articles without obtaining permission from, or compensating, the authors.
A few choice quotes from the CEO of UnCover, too, about authors who are unreachable, as well as getting rights on multiple authorship works.
[
I can't seem to find my paper on their site. What do I need to do (or what did I need to do) to get it listed? I have no problem with their profiting from the work, since I never really cared for the subject matter that much (what does a device driver programmer care about groupware?!?!), and I doubt they'll make any serious money from it.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Having finished my dissertation roughly a year ago, I remember pretty clearly how it worked here. I keep the copyright, but the university required that I grant it and UMI the right to publish it at they see fit.
It's legal because thesis papers and the like are usually published into the public domain without expectations of any royalties. This has been the tradition of the academic community for well over 300 years. What Contentville is doing is compiling an index of all the published papers and making it easy to search and get them. Think of it as a value-added service. I have no problem with this because there's nothing forcing you to download the paper (you could easily ask for a copy from the author).
Now if Contentville suddenly started suing people for distributing and copying papers (even ones downloaded from their site) then there would be a problem. However, as long as Contentville is charging for the priviledge of searching through their database, then it okay by me.
your university ultimately owns the intellectual property for you dissertation (why are they giving PhDs to idiots who can't read the fine print). Universities contract with other businesses to make dissertations widely available (UMI is the biggest).
Leave it to idiots at slashdot to think this is some big deal.
It's one thing to distribute freely something that is not meant to be distributed freely (i.e. music) under current copyright laws (*), as in the Napster case, and it is another thing to distribute for a price something that is meant to be distributed for free.
I've read your post probably a six or seven times while reading this article and the above sentence still makes no sense at all.
People like you who are pro-Napster just because you want free music have missed most of what the Napster argument is about. The reason musicians are mad at Napster and why some slashdotters were originally mad at Contentville is because people are distributing works they have no right to distribute. Whether they are making money or not is incidental.
Question: If I go into an Arts and Craft store and shoplift some hand crafted items, then distribute them on street corners for free, am I suddenly right because I didn't sell them?
Your +4 Insightful post seems to say so.
The Queue Principle
First of all, Napster plans to make money off their service. Venture capitalists have thrown millions of dollars at it and the company is merely in the loss leader-gaining mindshare phase. Eventually they'll either run banner ads or they'll become a pay service. Either way they will be making money off people who are downloading/distributing music that they have no right to download or distribute. Buy an issue of Fortune or Forbes sometime and hear what the CEOs and VCs have planned.
Secondly, so what if someone makes money off creating a website where people can easily find theses? After all your not making a living of it. Also they are providing a service by giving people an easy way too locate theses and are supporting this by charging for them. Do you think running websites costs nothing?
Now contrast this with you're Napster arguments that it is OK to give away music that musicians depend on to make a living.
Twisted isn't it?
The Queue Principle
So, it might benefit you more this way because it'll be easier when doing research to track down dusty theses chock full of unpublished results.
If I recall, the UMI agreement works out to something like $7 for every thesis sold if more than 5(?) are sold in one year. OK, the chances of my seeing dime of $$$ is slim (although my thesis was a big hit in Russia and Eastern Europe, so I"m told :-), but it's
not the rip-off that was initally portrayed
although it WOULD have been nice if Contentville
had had a FAQ explaning things.
If I learn more, I'll post it.
A free software group should compile a databse of MP3s. Then that data would be protected and the artists would have to pay to sing thier own songs. That would certinaly illustrate how foolish this is.
Government is the abdication of your responsibility to a faceless bureaucracy. Anarchy(absence of government)is the a
How did this place get your Thesis? Why is it for sale and did ContentVille get the copyright tranferred with it?
Post the name of the ContentVille Villiage Idiot(tm) in an update, so I have a scapegoat if I find mine there...
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Actually, I saw this discussed on a writing group a little bit ago and and it was clear that while some of the work was there from that sort of "he said they could reproduce it and then they said these other guys could too" other work was there that they had absolutely no rights to. They are stealing work, not just of phd students or whathaveyou but of freelance writers and others.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
No offense, but this is naive. I first saw this site discussed on a freelance writers group - the kind of people who know exactly what rights they have and haven't given. And while some of their work that people found they had signed "electronic rights" to someone who then passed them along, other work they knew for a fact that they had sold only "first serial".
To assume that because some people have sold rights to their dissertation, all dissertations there are legal is just silly, especially considering the other copyright violations on the same site.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
...yeah, nuthin' quite like the smell of a phat class action lawsuit.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
How applicable would the GPL be to essays and thesis papers? Would anyone be willing to GPL their research the same way they GPL their source? After all, for the majority of Linux hackers, hacking is as much about learning new stuff (research) as it is producing a finished product.
It seems when there are articles talking about music everyone here on slashdot is of the opinion it should be free and that things like napster are ok. Yet when we are talking about work that some people on slashdot create actually being distributed everyone screams bloody murder? Is it just me or does this seem a tad hypocritical? I mean, sure - this webpage is trying to make money - but then again so is napster (hence the reason investors have given them millions of dollars).
Mine is there and I never gave them permission to sell it. As far as I know, I am the sole owner of the copyright on my thesis.
How many musicians on napster gave their permission for their work to be distributed? Why do people on slashdot complain about *their* copyrights being violated, yet vehemently defend their right to violate the copyrights of musicians? It all seems silly to me...
I see it like a Red Hat thingie. You can get it free, but you can pay a bit to get them "easier" format. (THough I doubt anything is easier than me eamiling them a latex document :)).
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Who would be very very happy to send you a copy!
:) ), ping me and I'll be more than happy to send them a copy.
:).
I've asked for theses from the original authors before, and they are always happy to oblige by sending a copy.
Academic people have given up their rights to a thesis,which is owned by the university (who provide them happily too).
So what the heck are they trying to do?
If anyway is interested in my thesis (when I am done in a few years that's it
Why the generosity? Research is sponsored mostly by public funds, so the research goes back to the public.
Besides, it's always gratifying to know your thesis is interesting to some people
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Steven Brill, so-called "media watchdog"
"so-called"? Maybe our kneejerk cynicism is getting a little out of hand. While I don't agree with everything he does, Brill's Content is one of the few magazines I find worth reading. It's also one of the few places where you can get a good, hard look at how the media operates, and probably the only such place that would qualify as mainstream press (as in you can find it in most well-equipped bookstores).
--
I find it a bit rich anyway to think of Brill as a Watchdog as at least in the UK any official Watchdog or Ombudsman would be expected not to actually operate commercially in the business area that he is meant to be overseeing. So at best he is a business leader.
It seems to me that commercial and intellectual property laws in the US are being seriously undermined from the point of view of the actual creator of any content. They are being biased to favour large companies who can afford to gather everyones work together and then litigate the little guy into oblivion.
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
I suggest that you yourself give up the habit of setting up Straw Men (use of inconsistant, irrelevant, or just plain untrue information) to try and justify your arguments. If you can't prove your argument legitimately then maybe you are wrong.
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
What makes me mad about all of this is the following:
My university required me to have my thesis "published" by UMD
UMD requires that you hand over to them the right redistribute your thesis
You have to pay for this, out of pocket, the university passes the charges to you
UMD will then gladly sell you a copy of your dissertation at a 10% discount.
and UMD gets to sell these things to other people, hence UMD is making money off of Contentville.
Besides, the bastards are slow (my thesis is not online yet there but you can find it here. At least they have my my moms online....
I would like to point out that Napster is a service connecting other peoples computers together, they are not hosting contene or avocating piracy in any way. Contentvil is hosting material they do not own, charging for it and not giving proper due to the authors.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
It's similar to the arguments for open source software's security: if you think there might be something sketchy inside, open it up and take a look. You don't neccesarily even have to have the right to change or copy it, but you should be given the opportunity to see exactly what's in there, if only to check for security risks, illegaly copied code, etc. With big, aggregated databases protected, we will lose the ability to know exactly what kind of data is being collected about and from us, and from where.
The sad thing is, this company will probably do quite well. They're using the most realistic model for online publishing that I've seen in a long time, and I don't see Congress going against the combined will of just about every major media company, advertiser, and retail company in the nation just to protect trifles like consumer rights or privacy.
PS: I'll sell anyone the same thesis, rights and all, for $20 Australian (which is about $2.50 Amerikan).Thats heaps cheaper than "contentville".
We've seen several different articles on /. recently about intellectual property and the rights/responsibilities that come along with it. Some people are pushing for programmers to be responsible for how what they create is used, and some are pushing for abolution of intellectual property as technology makes copying and distributing such works easier and easier. Both viewpoints seem to get a fair amount of backing in the form of court rulings and new legislation.
Is anyone else seeing a catch-22 developing here? Force the creators to stop people from using their creations negatively, but take away their ability to decide how and where their creation can be distributed/used.
Personally I think the Napster case will have it's greatest impact, not on the music industry, but on the computing industry. We're seeing our future being ruled and legislated right now. I'm going to keep a close eye on this and contact my representatives if I see something that concerns me, it may not work, but I'd rather try to stop stupid laws from making my livelyhood impossible than just leave the country when the stupid laws get passed.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
from Copyright and Trademark
We would like you to know about the terms and conditions under which Contentville.com provides its services to you.
COPYRIGHT
Except for materials in the public domain, all of the content on Contentville.com is the property of Contentville.com or its content suppliers and is protected by copyright laws. This includes text, graphics, logos, icons, images and software. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Contentville.com and is also protected by copyright laws. The content and software on this site may be used for shopping, searching and selling. Any other use, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, display, or performance is prohibited.
TRADEMARKS
CONTENTVILLE.COM; the CROSS-CONTENT SEARCH services; ALL STAR NEWSPAPER; BEHIND THE CONTENT; and READERS REJOICE are service marks of Content Commerce L.P. Our logos are also service marks. Content Commerce L.P. service marks may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not ours, or in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, or in any manner that disparages or discredits Contentville.com.
USE OF OUR CONTENT
This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, or used for any commercial purpose that is not expressly permitted by Contentville.com. We reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, and/or cancel orders in our discretion, including, without limitation, if we believe that user conduct violates applicable law or is harmful to our interests.
VISITORS' POSTINGS
When you post anything on Contentville.com you grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, distribute and display such postings throughout the world in any media. You also grant us the right to use any name that you submit with anything you post. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the materials you post on this site and that their use by Contentville.com will not infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party.
CONTENTVILLE.COM COPYRIGHT POLICY
Contentville.com will block access to and/or remove any material that it believes in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and submitted to our site.
This policy shall cover all aspects of Contentville.com, including, but not limited to user comments or other content submitted to our site.
What to do if you think a copyright is being infringed:
-- Identify where or whom the material is from.
--Tell us how the rightful owner may be contacted.
-- Give us a statement of good faith belief that the material is infringing, and that the information provided is accurate and the complaint is authorized by the copyright holder.
-- Send the notice of Copyright infringement to the following Designated Copyright Infringement Agent for Contentville.com:
Catherine Seda
Copyright Agent of Contentville.com
Contentville.com
1230 Avenue of the Americas
16th Floor
New York, NY 10020
212-332-6400
or via email to: copyright@Contentville.com
Once we receive this information, we will:
-- Block the infringing material or site
-- Notify the infringing user
-- In the case of a first time offender, the infringing material will be removed.
-- In the case of repeat offenders, we will endeavor to remove them permanently from the site
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
This seems to be yet another over-reaction by the Slashdot community. I would rather that slashdot posted a handful of more accurate stories than post a dozen flawed stories each day.
I wish that the story posters would realize that half of the stupidity and misinformation in comments seems to directly result from something that is flawed in the original posting of a story. Keep in mind that a good many people would rather spout something inane rather than actually read a link. For that reason, if you post a story, please try to keep it accurate. If you cannot be neutral and feel you must make a statement for freedom or some other cause then try to say something intelligent. Otherwise it is just so much trolling and flaimbaiting right on the homepage! (Last time I posted something like this, I got modded down as flamebait. But I am going to put my karma on the line yet again because I am not a coward.)
It's going to be said, so I may as well say it first ... *insert gratuitous Napster comparison here*
Seriously, though, I'd be surprised if this site stays up long -- all it takes is one high-profile, deep-pocket post-grad seeing his material on this site.
Can anyone post details on these Database protection bills? I want to lay the smack down but I need the details first...
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
I mean really, if you annoy EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has ever written a thesis with your website, do you really think those people, a ton of whom ARE YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE, are going to shop with you?
I get the feeling the market is going to decide Contentville's fate long before the court system are done with them.
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
And if anybody really wants a copy of Integrodifference equations applied to plant competition and control, I suppose I could dig up the (LaTeX and
==Jake
You can also order reprints from the university (and probably from the archival services - theses are usually archived on micro-fiche).
The question in my mind is, whether Contentville is paying royalties (or whatever) to the universities or did they just grab the theses, and are re-selling them. The former seems ok, the latter is of dubious legality in my mind.
ShoutingMan.com
Mine is there too, but anybody who pays 60 bucks for it is a sucker! ;-)
"Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
I would be very, very surprised if any of the authors of the listed dissertations failed to give permission to distribute their work. Almost everyone routinely signs over the rights to distribute their work to UMI. Contentville is just providing a front end to UMI. By the way, when I graduated, I explicitly denied UMI the right to distribute my dissertation, and my dissertation is not listed. The following appears on their website: Where do Contentville's dissertations come from? Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.