Slashdot Mirror
The Great Library of Amazonia
theodp writes "Amazon had a dream. To bring the world a modern-day Library of Alexandria. Apparently they had a second dream. To own the patents on it. Interestingly, fears of lost cookbook and reference text sales voiced by the Author's Guild are echoed in Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos's patent application for the Suppression of features in digital images of content and a9.com CEO Udi Manber's follow up Access to electronic images of text based on user ownership of corresponding physical text, which discuss how one might block content from viewers who have no proof-of-purchase for a book on file with booksellers."
Oh my. Hypocracy in corporate America. I'm shocked.
Yes, there's a reason why I don't buy anything from amazon.
Pirahnas?
I never can fully understand these patent writeups but I want to know if this will only allow you to search through full-texts of books you have proven you own.
;)
Why can't you be shown a snippet of the text through fair-use? You should be able to retrieve that information freely w/o restriction IMHO but IANAL.
What about libraries that own these books. Could they setup a link to this searchable database so their patrons could look through books that the library owns? That sounds like a good idea to me
"...discuss how one might block content from viewers who have no proof-of-purchase for a book on file with booksellers."
Because this was an issue back in the day in the library of Alexandria too, with those pesky raiding marauders burning books without a proof of purchase on file from booksellers!
But it seems to me that if they were supressing images and images of text to people who didn't own a proof-of-purchase, it would defeat the purpose of having that information available.
At the time it was published, it was easy to look on Richard Stallman's story, The Right To Read, as dystopian hyperbole. It was easy to believe that he was writing about an exaggerated worst case that could never come to pass. Sadly, with each passing year it looks more and more like the only thing he was wrong about was how quickly it could happen.
So what?
If you don't like what Amazon is doing then vote with your feet and walk away from them. If enough consumers make the same free and voluntary choice that you do then Amazon will have to change or close their doors for good. Remember Amazon only exists because they give people what they want.
I wonder how this will work if you give an Amazon-bought book to someone? As the registered buyer of the book, the gift giver would, presumably, have access to the electronic copy even as the give up the physical copy.
That way you can give the book and read it too.
I suppose the solution is a transferable ownership certificate (paper receipt with code or online transfer process -- yay, another claim for a patent), but I wonder how many people will actually bother to keep/give/input the certificate.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
If Amazon can pull off a successful digital rights management for text, then I'm all for it. As long as it's the publics right being protected more than the copyright holder. I think that is the biggest glitch with DRM for entertainment media - no one can figure out how to do it so the public rights are not infringed upon. With music downloading, there is no real way to determine if you own a copy or not. I know some movie/music publishers have tried to include some sort of access code along with purchase, but it is all very cumbersome.
The thing is, a company as large and with such a dominating internet presence as Amazon, has the both the $$$ and the desire to invest in good old fashioned R&D, which is something the MPAA/RIAA has been to stubborn to do. They would rather pay lawyers and elected officials to do their bidding.
The bottom line is, if Amazon can pull this off, then they will have created a succesful model for others, which just doesn't exist right now.
I didn't read the whole article, but, it seems that this tool is going to require you to already own books to be able to search them? How is this anything like the Library of Alexandria?
Unfortunately I don't trust Amazon to do anything for the public good. Well, I don't trust most corporations to do such things. A repository of all the world's knowledge is awfully stupid if it requires you to pay for it. It will simply create another case where you have the haves and have nots.
I think all the projects on WikiMedia are probably the most likely to present us with a repository of knowledge that is accessible to everyone.
I don't want to look at pictures of books anyway!
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
I tried. The response (a good 3 years later) was:
So, like the rest of government, get a lawyer. There's no room in there for common folk.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
My take on this patent application is to "sell" access to reference books - probably more for trade books than the the casual "Idiots Guide To XP".
I can see a subscription service that allows you to browse through some medical text seeing bits and peices relevant to your search, but, not the entire page. To see the entire page, you gotta "buy" the page. The implication that you must first own the physical text is a red-herring - its really about rights to use the book in "whole, or in part".
I can see it being useful to ME for access to pages from the Chilton manuals etc.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
and rightly so -- the world he writes about is very alarming -- and we are flirting with such a world. By calling him "not an alarmist" you're degrading those people who rightfully raise red flags. People who were right about bad trends that happened to take a bit longer than they predicted. Stallman was smart, he made his predictions far far off into the future (yet, a bit less than the term of a copyright...)
Quite frankly, you're not going to find [m]any public libraries with the resources to digitize their entire collections and the desire to actually manage something like that. It would almost certainly be cheaper for them to license the books from the copyright holders for electronic use. And most of them aren't going to have the funds to do that, either.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
"We live in an open society in which the concept of widespread knowledge is embraced as a goal of governance,"
Maybe in the overall big picture that is true but in the current political environment that statement is most certainly not true.
The current administration has done and continues to do everything in its power to suppress the flow of knowledge and information. Witness the recent suppression of an EPA-funded study conducted by Harvard which found that the recent changes to rules regarding mercury emissions from U.S. power plants would have health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA said it would .
Why the difference? Because according to the EPA and the Bush administration, more stringent controls would cost too much to industry compared to the public health benefit. Thus the analysis was stripped from the final report even though the findings of the analysis were used in a briefing by the EPA to the Washington Post on February 2nd.
Even outside the administration the flow of knowledge is under attack. Witness the current effort by the Florida legislature to pass legislation which would allow students to sue professors who the students claim were punishing the students for their beliefs. Included would be a situation when a professor challenges a student to explain their theories by using the Socratic method. In other words, simply state you have a belief but you don't have to provide any evidence or rationale to support this belief.
Let us not forget the fiasco in my home state where Intelligent Design is being taught alongside Darwinian Evolution as a valid scientfic theory.
Along those same lines, this very site posted a story yesterday about some IMAX theaters not showing a film because it contained references to evolution.
While Kahles overall sentiment is correct the current political environment is not conducive to the flow of knowledge and won't be for a fairly substantial time.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The library of Alexandria was so extensive (and so important) precisely because they didn't do anything like this.
Back in the day, any ship entering port at Alexandria had to declare any books, maps, written works, etc they were carrying as part the customs process. Anything that wasn't already held by the library was taken over and copied by hand, then returned.
The library also allowed others to copy works that they held.
The idea was that ships would create and add to star charts and other navigation tools that could be quickly (for the day) shared with other ships, who would then add their own observations. Everybody benefited, and the Mediterranian became a whole lot safer.
The hoarding and guarding of knowledge didn't become popular in Europe until the Age of Discovery, when nautical charts and chronometer designs were the most closely guarded state secrets.
Having all the books in one place (virtual or otherwise) certainly does make the knowledge more accessible for purchase, but locking down the contents is not quite what Alexandria was about.
I may not be happy in thirty years when I can't obtain a copy of a book because its out of print but still in copyright but I'm not going to hold that against the author who wasn't involved in making the law.
Really? The author signed the contract granting perpetual exclusive rights to a given publisher. Authors who know what they're doing insist on clauses that should the work go out of print, the publisher's exclusive rights become nonexclusive rights.
Maybe its because I expect more of people and am simply fed up with all the lies this particular administration throws about and then tries to justify that it seems like I'm a leftist.
For example, five days into his first term, Bush was told by Richard Clarke that an immediate meeting was needed to discuss the Al Qaeda threat. Clarke told both Bush and Rice about this meeting and gave them memos stating the urgency of the meeting.
Both Bush and Rice denied ever having been informed of such a meeting. Too bad the memo was released on February 10th of this year proving that Clarke was correct when he said during Congressional hearing that Bush was warned about the threat.
Am I giving Clinton a pass? No way. The dingbat had his own issues. I am merely harping on the current officeholder because he's the one doing the stupidity. When the next person comes into office, I'll rail against them as well.
Don't automatically assume that because I or anyone rails against Bush that they are leftists. You'd be surprised how many Republicans are just as disgusted by his antics as the Democrats are.
As a side note, your final comments echo almost exactly what the morons in the Florida legislature were saying about leftists. I guess when people can't back up their arguments it's easier to shoot the messenger than disprove the message.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Lets say for a moment they can create another Alexandria, this time digital.
Then most print books go out of style..
Who is to stop someone from changing the text, to fit their needs/views/beliefs and claiming its 'always been that way'.. With no hard paper evidence to prove them wrong it gets accepted as fact.
This already happens with book 'revisions' over time.. Subsequent generations get different 'facts', all twisted to fit the views of who is currently in control.
Or even ought ban of information. "sorry, you don't need to know this" and poof it no longer exists. This is harder to do if people still own the hardcopy..
Ok, so I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And I'm old enough to have seen it happen in the schools.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Rather than saying that they block images from people who don't own a proof a purchase to saying that they allow you access to the electronic images of the text if you purchase from Amazon, then you get a completely different picture of the meaning of such a patent.
Basically, Amazon would be able to give people who purchase through Amazon more than their competitors. When you purchase a book through Amazon, you get both an eBook and the book. While if you purchase through the quaint bookstore down the street, you get just the book.
Giving both an ebook and a book when you purchase through Amazon.com, and using a patent to essentially block other dot coms from doing the same could really firm up Amazon's position in the book selling industry.
This looks a little bit like the Beam It Up case that cost MP3.com its hide. MP3.com said that if you owned a copy of a CD, then that entitled you to add it to your MP3.com playlist. The record industry quickly extracted the soul from MP3 for its beam it up technology. I doubt the author's guild has sufficient power to extract Amazons.com's soul. First, the pirating of music on Napster made it easy for the RIAA to paint the punk kids using MP3.com as anarchists. Books are often purchased by staid and true baby boomers. There are even some Republicans who read books. Amazon.com is probably smart enough not to put their technology forward as something that will move the earth. MP3.com seemed convinced they were transforming the enire culture.
At least not all publishers are adverse to the idea of open access to electronic versions of their publications. Check out the Baen Free Library at http://www.baen.com/library/ Baen is a publisher of Science Fiction and Fantasy literature.
"Shark" jokes and such aside...
I think the reason why the grandparent poster would be upset by refusal of a patent because he didn't use a lawyer is that, if he had done it right in all other ways, requiring a lawyer is an arbitrary barrier to entry. If the response he got had said "This is wrong, that is wrong, this other thing is wrong. We recommend you seek a patent lawyer", then that would be one thing; but saying "This is wrong, that is wrong, and you need to use a lawyer" puts using a lawyer as a neccesary prerequisite even with all the other requisites of proper application. What if [this] and [that] were fine? Would he have gotten a response "Author did not use a patent lawyer. Application rejected."?
To use your doctor analogy, it would be like if you accidentally cut yourself and, unless you went to the hospital and had it professionally treated (when a simple bandage would do), your insurance would refuse further treatment of that limb because it was not treated by an authorized medical professional, even if you treated it perfectly well yourself. Or say, if you got a fix-it ticket for your car for something simple that you know how to fix yourself, but you were *required* to have the dealer fix it.
Such arbitrary barriers to entry are fascist constructs in the literal sense of the word (fascism has corporatism as a major componant). It's the government enforcing the use of certain industries' services even when the individuals could perform those services themselves; a cartel between the public and private behemoths, in essence.
As a personal aside, to touch on some of your comments about lawyers being needed due to the complexity of law: I consider that a sign of a fundamentally flawed system. Any government whose laws necessitate the use of lawyers is too complex and opaque. An average citizen of a country should reasonably be able to understand the laws he is expected to obey in full; otherwise, he cannot justifiably be held accountable for the infraction or violation of those laws.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, as our government claims it to be, then the law should be so simple and obvious that we can teach it in its entirity to our children in school, so by the time they are adults and held responsible, they know in full what they are responsible for.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."