Big Ten Schools Recommit to Google Books Project

CNN reports that twelve major universities around the country have agreed to have substantial portions of their libraries included in the Google Books project. Around ten million volumes are expected to be included in the project. Participating schools include the University of Chicago and the 11 universities in the Big Ten athletic conference: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin. "The committee said Google will scan and index materials 'in a manner consistent with copyright law.' Google generally makes available the full text of books in the public domain and limited portions of copyrighted books. Several other universities, including Harvard and California, already have signed up to let Google scan their libraries. "

Comments

Copyright Law

[LeafOnTheWind]

is just ridiculous now. If Google gets restricted from posting educational information because of copyright law its just going to be pathetic. I mean, isn't that what libraries are for - providing /free/ access to books??

Re:Copyright Law

[marcushnk]

The books have to purchased first.. then you can read them from that physical location for "free" (for a variable definition of free)
The bloody marvelous venture from Google changes that.

Re:Copyright Law

[Score Whore]

You might want to ask Google about their policy on how the scanned public domain works can be used. Part of their usual agreement with the libraries is that they will return to the library the digital version of the book -- but the library is not allowed to let anyone have mass or bulk access to the digital versions. Books that are public domain. Which Google has scanned, eg. has not made any transformative change, but wants to control access to. For those who's disbelieve this, go check it out the agreements for public schools (University of California) are available.

Re:Copyright Law

[znu]

I'd be really interested if anyone against Google's book indexing could advance any kind of coherent explanation for how it differs legally from Google's web indexing, which (almost) nobody seems to have a problem with.

Re:Copyright Law

[NMerriam]

Unfortunately, just scanning a work means that the scan itself has a copyright.

Similarly, you can't bring a camera into most museums because it is only by restricting photography that museums can control who has the ability to reproduce paintings they own (after all, a 400-year old painting is well out of copyright).

Re:Copyright Law

[HuguesT]

I think it's been hashed to death.

We assume the copyright owner is the person/entity who has final say over who can read their work and under which circumstances. We assume we are talking about Google books, were anybody can come, type a book title and start browsing a portion of any book.

1- the information on the web is copyrighted but already mostly freely available. You only have to find it, which is what search services are about. In this case the vast majority of web authors want to be in Google's index because they want to be read. Furthermore there is an easy way by which authors who do not want search engines to index some or all of their work can prevent the indexing from happening : the robots.txt file.

In this case, we can admit the copyright owner of web works still has complete and easy control over the distribution of their work.

2- the information in books is also copyrighted but *not* freely available. You need to purchase the book if you want to read it. Libraries are an exception to this system, but only one person can read in any physical copy of the book at any one time. Google's book index disturbs this system greatly : many people can peruse in books at the same time. Furthermore, there is no easy equivalent to the robots.txt file. If you want Google to not index your book, it's possible, but you have to tell them in writing. If you are a publishing house, this means writing as many letters as there are books in your inventory, or sue.

In this case, we readily see that copyright owners do not have complete and easy control over their work anymore. It's been turned to a third party. This is the issue.

Whether what Google is doing is fair use is a different matter, for the courts to decide at the moment.

If you want, the Google book project is the equivalent of indexing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, without the EB's consent. The EB already has a dual free/for-pay online system, I'm positive they do not want Google to intrude on their service.

Re:Copyright Law

[znu]

I understand the mechanics of each case. You say fair use is a different matter, but I was asking for some sort of legal argument, which would essentially boil down to how the two cases differ in a way that matters in a fair use test. I really still haven't seen that anywhere.

Re:Copyright Law

[nagora]

Unfortunately, just scanning a work means that the scan itself has a copyright.

This is not the case in the UK, and the example of museums making posters for sale in the shop is a particular case where it has been ruled that there is no copyright in the resulting poster. As you say, the reason cameras are not allowed in many well-lit galleries where flash is not an issue is to try to keep those poster/book sales up. However, this rule is not as common in the UK as the US.

TWW

Re:Copyright Law

[cheater512]

Not entirely sure about the US but in Australia, the government provides public libraries.
They buy books then allow you to borrow them for free.

With Google they just let someone else buy the books but they only provide small portions. Cost of access and ease of access is the same.
Heck if they wanted to they *could* buy the books them selves. I think they are aiming for the public domain ones though hence the big library deals.

Re:Copyright Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, you are completely wrong.

In most legislations, a scan by itself doesn't have a copyright. This is most certainly so in the USA, where even non-creative photographs have no copyright.

You most certainly can bring a camera into most museums, if you manage to sneak it past the guards. If you make a photograph anywhere, inside a museum or outside of it, that photograph is copyrighted by you, period. The museum has no rights to it whatsoever, regardless of its policies.

Regarding the grandparent, I'm not sure if the libraries are obliged to respect their contracts with Google. However, what is certain is that anyone else is not so obliged. If you happen to find a CD in a street with scans of books in public domain - you can do anything you want with the scans. If you manage to hack library computers and download scans of PD books - you can do anything you want with them too. You made no contract with Google, you can do whatever you want with images that are not under copyright.

Re:Copyright Law

[ortholattice]

I, for one, would like to see our new Google overlords challenged on its restrictions of public domain works.

As absurd as interpretations of copyright law have become, it is hard for me to believe that an automated machine scan of a public domain book, involving no human effort other than placing the book in the machine and certainly no human creativity, acquires a new copyright of its own. IANAL but I recall reading somewhere that (1) simple compilations of uncopyrighted data, such as a phone book, cannot be copyrighted, and (2) faithful scans of public domain images such as of old paintings, that involve no creativity, cannot be copyrighted.

Even in terms of the amount of labor involved, the library itself has put far more work over the years (possibly over a hundred years) into the cataloguing, preservation, and storage of these books, and yet Google reaps the benefit with the small additional act of placing the book in a scanning machine. Some of these fragile, very old books may even end up damaged as a result, so that they may end up in the restricted archive section that the public will have even less access to, that you'll be allowed to look at under controlled conditions but not copy for fear of further damage.

Why shouldn't the library (and the public that ultimately has provided the support dollars for it) also benefit? This seems like a very one-sided deal, with Google reaping all of the benefit with very little work and providing nothing (or very little, meaning Google-controlled access) in return.

Re:Copyright Law

[Anonymous Coward]

in US they have subverted the meaning of the "library" from its original to now it being understood as "rent service".
The result of it is very clearly seen - degradation of public literacy

Re:Copyright Law

[The_Wilschon]

I'm all for the book indexing, but still, you can't put a robots.txt on a book. This is an important difference which allows website operators to opt out of web indexing. Book copyright owners are apparently being denied the privilege of opting out of having their books indexed. Of course, the fact that most website operators don't opt out is salient as well...

Re:Copyright Law

[Kijori]

You most certainly can bring a camera into most museums, if you manage to sneak it past the guards. If you make a photograph anywhere, inside a museum or outside of it, that photograph is copyrighted by you, period. The museum has no rights to it whatsoever, regardless of its policies.
Just to clear things up - since there's a bit of contradiction between the things you said - any faithful representation of a two-dimensional object is exempt from being copyrighted in the US. If you use your camera in the museum to take an accurate photo of the picture, and the picture is not copyrighted, then there is no copyright on the photo either. If you take a photo of the corner of the room, you could try to assert copyright on it, however.

Re:Copyright Law

[Echnin]

I don't know about that. IANAL but Bridgeman v. Corel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_v._Corel) was a US case where the court ruled "that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality". And according to the Wikipedia article, the plaintiff argued "that under English and Welsh law, such reproductions seemed to be protected by copyright", (though "recent events have thrown further doubt about the validity of the original rulings under UK law").

Re:Copyright Law

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We assume the copyright owner is the person/entity who has final say over who can read their work and under which circumstances.

Basing your argument on a false premise is not a good start. Copyright law decides who can make copies of copyrighted works, not the copyright holder. In some cases only the copyright holder can authorize some reproduction/republishing, while in others they have no legal right to restrict others.

In this case, we readily see that copyright owners do not have complete and easy control over their work anymore.

They never did have. I can take excerpts of their works and republish them without consent and that has always been the case. You might note that I can do this whether or not some Web page author has set the robots.txt file.

Whether what Google is doing is fair use is a different matter, for the courts to decide at the moment.

Fair use is inherent in what Google is doing. They're making complete copies for the purpose of providing excerpts. Since that has been ruled fair use in numerous precedent setting cases, it seems fairly clearly to be fair use. The only thing Google is doing differently is they are copying text, as opposed to source code (machine readable text), images, and audio all of which have been ruled to be fair use.

Re:Copyright Law

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm all for the book indexing, but still, you can't put a robots.txt on a book. This is an important difference which allows website operators to opt out of web indexing.

Respecting robots.txt is a courtesy from those crawling the pages. Some engines ignore them. Legally, robots.txt means very little. Google is providing a way for book publishers to opt out of Google books, and many people criticize them for their method of so doing, without realizing they do so as a courtesy. Legally, they can tell book publishers to go bugger themselves and index them anyway, if they are so inclined.

Book copyright owners are apparently being denied the privilege of opting out of having their books indexed.

No, book copyright owners have slightly more work to exercise their privilege (not this is a privilege not a right, legally, they do not have this right). Beggars should not try to be choosers.

Re:Copyright Law

[rtb61]

Also there is the privacy aspect. Google is developing a real reputation for poking it's beak, where it really doesn't belong and for keeping and mining way to much private data. It might be better if the Universities created their own shared digital library and protected their students from the ever more invasive nature of the googlites, especially with the negative aspects of a government monitoring what you study, what you learn and what you teach, and censuring individuals for when it doesn't agreed with the ruling parties political agenda.

Oh yeah, we all know google won't hand it over, for FREE?!

Re:Copyright Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? Google scans their entire library and gives them digital access for free, and won't let them sell the scans in bulk to Google's competitors? What bastards!

Re:Copyright Law

[HuguesT]

Thanks for your input, but I believe you haven't read what I've written ;-)

You are confusing copyright and publication. Generally speaking, the copyright owner of a work has complete control over their work. If I write a book in my house or compose a symphony, this is my intellectual property, and I can decide who can read/listen to it, and when, to a very large degree.

As an example, J.K. Rowling is widely believed to have mostly finished writing the last book of the Harry Potter series, yet few indeed are the ones who have been allowed to peruse her work.

Now, if in return for some compensation (tangible or not) I decide to *publish* my book in paper form, then it enters the published realm, where I still have some very clear rights over my work (such as no one can take it and pretend they've written it), some that are accepted usage (like some small portion can be copied for study purposes, that it can be parodied, and can end up on libraries shelves where people can read it), and some usage which haven't been clarified.

Nowhere can you find in accepted usage or law that a whole book can be scanned, its content OCRed and published on the web for all to see without the copyright holder's permission.

Yes Google does obscure some portion of the book, but this is a unilateral, unnegociated decision, over which no one has any say, and the fact remains that Google still holds multiple unauthorized complete copies of that work and that they are using these copies to commercial ends (advertisements). The purpose of Google is not to selflessly provide excerpts like you wrote, it is to generate revenues using other people's work.

Compare that to indexing a standard web page already in electronic form, that people put on their site for all to read for free. This is not the same situation at all.

Google is trying to change the accepted rules to their advantage, good on them, however I personnally know of no clear precedent that legitimize what they are doing.

My bet is that eventually Google will negociate with major publishing houses, because I believe what they are doing is not fair use, but at the same time it is in everybody's best interest.

Off-topic: Big Eleven

[AcidPenguin9873]

Yes, we know - there are eleven schools in the Big Ten. The conference logo even acknowledges it with an embedded "11" on either side of the "T". So please, no "OMG!!!!!!!11eleven" comments.

Re: Off-topic: Big Eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Come now. The fact that they acknowledge it diminishes the utter retardation of it not one iota.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[MisaDaBinksX4evah]

These schools go to eleven.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[Paktu]

That has to be the first time I've ever seen a post containing OMG!!!!!!11eleven modded insightful...

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[catmistake]

for that extra push over the cliff

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[TheoMurpse]

Of course it would be an athletic conference which allowed 11 schools into a group named for ten universities (Penn was not a member before 1990).

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[hwyengr]

And a historical note, the University of Chicago was a member of the original group which later became the Big Ten.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[moosesocks]

What I don't get is how an athletic conference has any bearing whatsoever over academic matters (and I find that fact somewhat troubling). Ditto for the Ivy League.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[Dersaidin]

Didn't you know Reading is part of track and field?

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[sjstrutt]

Of course it would be an athletic conference which allowed 11 schools into a group named for ten universities (Penn was not a member before 1990). Penn is a member of the Ivy League. Penn State is a member of the Big Ten Conference.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

That means that the Big Ten logo sucks the big one. Two times.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[dargaud]

They must have counted with a C program: for (i=0; i=10; i++) printf("School #%d", i);

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why. You cannot argue that this makes a great deal of sense. It is good for universities to work together in academic affairs, but sadly, many universities do not always want to play nice with each other. It just so happens that the 11 schools of the Big Ten are in a good geographic region with each other and happen to be some of the largest universities in their states.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[pantalanaga]

The big ten (although centered around athletics) is not just an athletic conference. As a student at PSU I had access to the other school's libraries. I beleive there is also some sort of faculty cooperation, guest lecturing, and cross University research opportunities among the schools. And just to clarify, Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1990 (Penn != Penn Satate)

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[Ogive17]

Conferences are a great way to group universities. You can typically accomplish more when you work as a group than if you work alone. The schools cooperate and compete in things other than athletics, you just don't see that stuff on ESPN.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[johny42]

Oh, that happened to me quite a few times. The Big Ten have my full understanding.

Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven

[AeroIllini]

(Penn was not a member before 1990) Penn is not a member after 1990, either.

You're thinking of Penn State .

Google Books wouldn't be the one to do it...

[Bongo Bill]

...but isn't it about time that the concept of the public library was taken online? And I don't mean just public domain works, like Project Gutenberg is doing (though of course, if the copyright term weren't so long, public domain only would be viable), but for-real honest-to-god reading books, promoting public literacy, online.

Re:Google Books wouldn't be the one to do it...

[Lesrahpem]

All of the libraries which are part of Clevnet, a large network of libraries in Ohio, do this already for books, music, and movies. Have a look here: http://dlc.clevnet.org/E5AA2452-2F88-4EA9-8F8F-F1E B267C0553/10/210/en/Default.htm

Re:Google Books wouldn't be the one to do it...

[interiot]

A lot of libraries are making digital checkouts available... the larger ones my do it themselves, but smaller ones partner with places like netlibrary/mymediamall/tumblebooks/etc. They perhaps don't fulfill your entire vision, because they're heavily DRM'd. Libraries have never been able to just make copies of normal books and hand them out, they have to pay for every copy that's in circulation. In the same way, libraries need to pay for a fixed number of digital copies, and make sure that users actually return them at the end of the checkout period, and DRM unfortunately seems to be the way to implement that...

Consistent with copyright law

[Bender0x7D1]

I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law when the article also mentions there is a lawsuit pending regarding the appropriate use of copyrighted material.

I may think Google is using it in a legal manner. You may think it is a legal manner. Google may think it is a legal manner. The schools and libraries may think it is a legal manner. However, until the court rules in the pending copyright case, no one really knows what is legal.

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[pembo13]

Sounds like a terribly flawed system to me if no one knows what is legal/illegal.

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[tmjr3353]

Yes, because the law should obviously cover every possible scenario, in specific, direct from its creation. Really, the goal is to create laws defined enough that they can't be abused and loose enough that they can be interpreted in their spirit to pertain to new situations. This is one of those times when we have a new situation that the spirit of the law needs to be defined for. The system's working as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law when the article also mentions there is a lawsuit pending regarding the appropriate use of copyrighted material.

It's pretty simple, really: Google and the participating universities are right, and the AAP and the Authors Guild are wrong. Next question?

(I will note for the record that while I'm not a member of the AG, I am a member of SFWA, which has worked hand-in-hand with the AG on a number of occasions; I have made Real Money(tm) off my writing, and I am 100% in favor of digital access to as much written work as possible. So there.)

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[NMerriam]

I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law

I think the whole point of going to these large academic libraries is that they have books that are unquestionably in the public domain -- entire rooms full of books 100+ years old of which only a handful of copies exist worldwide, and are available only in very limited contexts even when they are already digitized. Using the tools and distribution of Google, these materials can actually be shared easily to anyone who wants to research the differences between the many translations of the Bible in the 18th century.

Let's face it, if Google wants to post a John Grisham novel, they don't exactly need to get Harvard to scan it for them.

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[Anonymous Coward]

However, until the court rules in the pending copyright case, no one really knows what is legal.

Horseradish. You have a naive view which neatly supports your own biases. Unless it is written in law (I.e. their is a clause that clearly states you can not scan and provide samples of a book online) or until a judge rules that it is not legal, it is totally and utterly legal.

The only "gray area" is that one group of people want to make it illegal.

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[MMC Monster]

If they say that access is available in a manner consistent with copyright law, will they allow bulk digital download of stuff that is no longer under copyright and is under public domain?

Re:Consistent with copyright law

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law when the article also mentions there is a lawsuit pending regarding the appropriate use of copyrighted material.

Would it be fair to say that your post is consistent with decency laws in the US? Yet, I can still sue you for emotional damage I received when you used the word "material" after the word "funny" which I find to be obscene and evil. I can bring a lawsuit against you for anything I feel like. That does not mean I will win said lawsuit, nor does it mean that your post is of questionable legality until the courts rule on my pending suit.

Eleven?

[Red Mage 13]

That's ridiculous. Not even funny.

Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[fishthegeek]

You know, this could be the most ideal time in history to start a publishing company. If you assume (rightly) that most of the current publishing houses are going to restrict use of the scanned books to the point of uselessness thus minimizing the opportunity for Google to indirectly sell some treeware then it stands to reason that a new company that isn't being lead by dinosaurs could seriously take advantage of the opportunity to sell much more treeware just by letting Google have at it.

The riaa and mpaa never did seem to get it, and it seems like the publishing companies are going to miss it too which is really good news for a start up.... how much for a printing press operation these days?

Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[Admiral Ag]

I don't think that's good enough. For the betterment of humanity, everyone needs to have free access to every academic book ever written. I'm not saying that authors should not be paid, because hardly anyone would write books if they weren't paid, but that an alternative funding scheme needs to be found... and soon. Most academic books are funded by salaries paid from the public purse, so why not go that extra bit further? Anyone who has had to trudge around a research library or request books on interloan knows what a pain this is. Copyright as it is serves as an impediment to the furtherance of humankind. I'm not asking for Harry Potter to be provided free of charge, or the latest paperback porn, but I think it is reasonable to ask that all academic books have free access enabled.

There's no reason why, when I sit down at my computer, that I should not have the sum total of human knowledge at my disposal. Providing this would be a direct benefit to many and an indirect benefit to all, so there is a good case for public funding.

Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[megaditto]

People already have online access to 'the sum total of human knowledge,' provided you are able to pay for it (usually through your university or R&D company account). Those who need it (scientists, doctors, students, researchers, etc.), already have access.

Using public funds to pay for universal access is a horrible idea, however, since some incompetent asshole will invariably be in charge of deciding what gets funded. If you are not convinced, consider the example of Soviet Union and their funding of genetics (aka the Imperialist Whore science) and cybernetics (aka the pseudo-science of bourgeois lackeys).

Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of writing books todays except for entertainment and distributing stories?

Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be so cool, like a massive encyclopedia. Maybe you could do it in wiki format, too, so it can update on-the-fly as changes happen.

You could call it 'wikipedia.'

Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

People already have online access to 'the sum total of human knowledge,' provided you are able to pay for it (usually through your university or R&D company account). Those who need it (scientists, doctors, students, researchers, etc.), already have access.

I understand where you're coming from, but your assertion is patently false. There are repositories of literature on certain subjects, but the truth is the vast majority of copyrighted works from the last 200 years, are no longer available for purchase or rental anywhere. In many cases the last copy of a work has been lost or destroyed, or only a few copies remain in private collections. The library of congress has not collected reference copies for a long, long time. Looking at the example of music performances, take a look at Motown records. They have copyright on something like 90% of all american soul music ever published, yet have only a few percent of that catalog available for sale. A few private collectors might have recordings, but that art is lost to the american people because of the way our copyright system works.

Using public funds to pay for universal access is a horrible idea, however, since some incompetent asshole will invariably be in charge of deciding what gets funded.

I agree for the most part. I think works created with public funds (from the federal government or publicly funded universities) should be public domain. Aside from that, we need the innovation and good decision making and motivation of capitalism for the creation of works. What needs to be reformed, in my opinion, is the aftermath. Copyright durations are absurdly long. 99% of all copyrighted works don't make any money after the first 4 years. A tiny fraction of those are making money after 10 years, and most are not even available for purchase. We need to shorten copyright durations to 10 years at the maximum and we need to add a clause that says any work not currently for sale by the publisher, at a normal market value, enters the public domain 1 year later.

This would make a small blip in the profits of publishers, but make a huge difference to our society.

Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!!

[Jonathan]

People already have online access to 'the sum total of human knowledge,' provided you are able to pay for it (usually through your university or R&D company account). Those who need it (scientists, doctors, students, researchers, etc.), already have access.

Wrong. I'm a scientist (check my link) at a research institution and we can only subscribe to a small fraction of the journals out there. Practically daily I come across an article I can't read because of this. The whole thing is nuts. The government pays scientists like me to do research, and yet the results are published in private journals published by parasitic companies like Springer-Verlag and Elsevier which do nothing but sell the taxpayer-funded science created by scientists to other scientists.

Won't somebody think of the books?!

[DrEldarion]

I'm appalled! Who does Google think they are, acquiring and retaining information on millions of books!? Frankly, I don't trust Google enough to properly keep this data private.

Boycott Google! They don't have any respect for literary privacy.

Is it up to the libraries?

[Zouden]

I thought Google's biggest opponents were the publishers. Are the libraries really allowed to dictate what happens to the books they hold?
If that's the case, it really highlights a major difference in the attitudes regarding copyright on books VS music and films.

Re:Is it up to the libraries?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google were to send employees to these libraries and take out the materials a few at a time, I'm sure the library would have no say in what happens to them. However, that would take ages. In order for this to work, Google would need to get these materials by the truckload. This requires cooperation of the libraries, which requires a formal contract, which means the libraries can negotiate whatever they want.

If the library says that it will only send Google truckloads of books on the condition that Google restrict the usage of those books, Google has to do so. Failure to do so would not mean Google is infringing copyright, it would mean that Google is in breach of contract with the library.

Perhaps a better question is why a library would want to restrict use of any of its collection.

dom

Google reVinged Books

[Veni Vidi Dormi]

Well, at least it isn't as bad as Vinge envisioned. The libraries are still here.

Re:Google reVinged Books

[HappyEngineer]

Ah yes, that's what this reminded me of. I was thinking it was one of the stories in Analog, but you're right. This is from Vinge's latest book.

For those who don't read Vinge, one part of the story involves an impatient company using destructive scanning methods to scan books electronically. They were essentially putting the books through a high tech wood chipper which scanned each shredded piece of paper, reoriented it to match it back to its original page, and then reconstructed the book from that. Apparently that was far faster than using hardware that flipped pages and scanned one page at a time.

Some people were outraged by this because they really liked physical books. Besides which, if the machines made a mistake, the information was lost forever. Others didn't see what the big deal was because they thought having physical books was an anachronism in any case.

It was a good book although I still enjoyed Deepness in the Sky the most.

Re:Google reVinged Books

[monkeyGrease]

Vinge is generally superb, but Rainbows End (the book with the book shredding)
is not his best. It is still good enough to read, but not representative of
Vinge.

All the bobbles stuff or the Tines are much better.

I know he has played with the 'singularity' a bunch, but I think there is
still more exploration to be had there. Other ways it could go down. I
would not mind if he went back to the singularity well one more time.

PHIL DEAD,PAULEY HAS WORDS WITH CAT,TONY LIVES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning Soprano's spoiler in subject

Re:PHIL DEAD,PAULEY HAS WORDS WITH CAT,TONY LIVES?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the worst damn series finale in television history. Did they run out of storage for the last few frames of Meadow entering the restaurant?

implentation

[moneyning.com]

I'm sure this has been posted before but I'd like to see how Google plans to implement this as in some form of beta.

Brigham Young University?

[mr_stinky_britches]

BYU wasn't interested in participating? They have a super mega huge library..

--
wi-fizzle research

Re:Brigham Young University?

[Daengbo]

If Google digitized BYU's library, you'd be able to see all the revisions the "Doctrine and Covenants" went through. They won't let that happen.

Re:Brigham Young University?

[OxaOxa]

"super mega huge"?? Hmm . . . With 3.6 million volumes, it's dwarfed by the smallest of the Big Ten libraries (Iowa at 4.6 million). Collectively, the Big Ten libraries hold about 75,000,000 volumes. See:
http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet /alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm

My question is:

[thegnu]

Do we REALLY want their books?

While under the safe shade of the off-topicness of the parent comment, let me say how disturbingly natural it has just recently become for me to add HTML tags.

Re:Universities like Harvard and California

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's very common to refer to "University of X" schools as just "X" when it's clear from the context. I agree that in the case of California, it's a little confusing since UCLA, Berkeley (which of course is a city, not a university ...), and UCSD are all major schools. In most states, though, there's only one main campus.

what if...

[EspressoFreak]

What if Google issues their own digital library card, then will that be okay?

Re:Universities like Harvard and California

[statemachine]

California isn't a university. It is a state.

I suspect that you haven't lived in California for very long. "Cal" or "California" refers to UC Berkeley, the original UC. I agree with you somewhat, but millions have gotten used to calling it that. And it isn't the only state with multiple state run universities to adopt that terminology -- Missouri (or "Missou") is another example...

Re:Universities like Harvard and California

[Lemmy Caution]

In this case, "California" refers to the entire UC system: Google's arrangement gives it access to the full MELVYL catalog, which extends across all the UC campuses.

When referring to sports teams and such, however, "Cal" or "California" does denote the Berkeley campus.

Major Schools only?

[WannaBeGeekGirl]

This implies that only "Major Schools" whatever the fsck that means have books worth putting online and/or the technology to do so.

I happen to disagree. Some of the PEW awards for Excellence in Technology went to schools not on that list, that have just as much technology and pending lawsuit results, could offer more diverse titles to put online. For starters, my alma mattar (sp?) contains the Jack Williamson Sci-Fi Library also an incredible array of documented artifacts in an anthro department that uses cutting edge technology to study a local National Historic Landmark--Blackwater Draw Museum which is a draw for institutions and foundations across the US. I don't think its just because I attended this small state university that I believe it has educational publications of it's own to offer the world through Google--as the folks that fly in for the Williamson lectureship series and the researchers at The Carnegie Institute.

I agree, the legal red tape is a huge bottleneck. Perhaps I'm too naive and romantic, but I'm hoping that common sense will come into play and the greater good of making education easier to get to will cause cooler heads to prevail, working out a deal where no one gets ripped off or insanely rich. (who am i kidding?)

Funny thing, Contracts-

[purduephotog]

A friend of mine was hired by a company that was doing this work for Google. When the schools pulled out, out went his job.

The camera system they had was great- using Canon 1Ds with a mirror, a page flipper, and no book was opened past 45 degrees (I believe- I'm doing this from memory).

Would have been a nice job....

Lawyers are expensive

[tepples]

the goal is to create laws defined enough that they can't be abused and loose enough that they can be interpreted in their spirit to pertain to new situations. But if individuals and small businesses cannot afford competent legal representation to get such an interpretation, the law is still broken. There's a reason why they call it a law-suit: too many district court judges seem to decide close cases on which side's counsel is dressed better.

Universities should get raw data too

[mattr]

I can't tell but it seems to me the universities ought to be able to receive the raw scan data (or cleaned up pre-OCR) for use by the university (or university group). The question then is whether they can show the digital copy to more than one person at a time, and if they can still do so when the book is checked out. Many books say no reproduction for any use but it seems to me that libraries may require some additional legal protections so they can advance into the 20th century. There is a conflict also between limited budgets, and the scarcity of the printed media version which can only be viewed by one person at a time, but which would become prohibitive if the library had to pay the publisher for more concurrent copies. What is the solution? Perhaps a "site license" from publishers? What about textbooks, do libraries even carry up to date versions? They could if it was electronic but then kids wouldn't have to buy the $100 things or lug them around necessarily. Maybe buy a license to extra workbook problems online for your edition?

Re:Universities should get raw data too

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The question then is whether they can show the digital copy to more than one person at a time, and if they can still do so when the book is checked out. Many books say no reproduction for any use but it seems to me that libraries may require some additional legal protections so they can advance into the 20th century.

What a book says you can do, and what the law says you can do are different things. If I publish a book and the first page says "you cannot copy excerpts from this book in the states of California or Idaho" nothing legally stops people from doing so. As for legal protections for libraries, they are actually pretty extensive. The problem is, the fair use doctrine is very vague and interpretable, and our court system is very wealth dependent. According to most precedent, if you're providing a work for educational purposes, there is not a lot you can't do, including large scale, public presentations of the work (multiple viewers online).

Re:Universities should get raw data too

[mattr]

Thank you, very interesting. I have long wondered what was the obstacle to a real online library. Presumably a library must buy at least one copy of each book it has but is that even required?

Google Books "Full View" is a treasure

[dpbsmith]

Regardless of the maybe-not-so-unimportant details, let me just say that Google Books, with "Full View" turned on, is a treasure. I haven't had so much fun since I graduated and moved and lost access to my university library.

There's just amazing stuff in there. Look at this peek at what Princeton University was like in 1818. Before peeking, guess how many professors you think Princeton had in 1818.

How about Horseless Age, full of spiffy ads on all the hot automotive items of 1903?

How about The Boston Road Book, which lists, describes, and rates all the best roads and routes for cyclists as of 1899?

Yes, I wish Google gave access to the OCR text (they must have OCRed it in order to index it) and I wish they were a little more forthcoming with respect to your rights to use this material (can Google really stop me from reusing material that's in the public domain? Does scanning a book constitute a transformative use or whatever?)

But don't let arguing over it stop you from enjoying this fabulous resource.

The link to "Horseless Age"

[dpbsmith]

SIgh... must press preview... What I meant of course is that I used to have marvellous fun wasting time prowling around for things in the university library that weren't very relevant to whatever I was supposed to be doing.

And I meant to provide a link to Horseless Age.

Re:Universities like Harvard and California

[Ogive17]

University of Cincinnati is the "original" UC. Founded 49 years prior to Cal.

finally

[dmitri3]

Finally communism is possible with the help of Internet!

Organizing world's information

[Lightlord]

Google is currently talking with Mysore university, India to digitize and protect thousands of very ancient manuscripts. God knows what deals they are making in other parts of the world. Seems Google is single minded on fulfilling its vision.

The Country

[Graywolf]

...twelve major universities around the country have agreed...

Around what country? Oh, THAT country...

Legalese "Save my butt..."

[bikin]

IANAL, but I think it is pretty straightforward. If the Universities didn't include this clause they could be be sued as an "accomplice" in violating copyright law. However, with this clause, if Google is found to be breaking the copyright law, they can state that Google didn't comply with their agreement and be quite safe.

Re:Universities like Harvard and California

[DragonWriter]

I suspect that you haven't lived in California for very long. "Cal" or "California" refers to UC Berkeley, the original UC.

I've lived in California for about 3 decades. "Cal" refers to UC Berkeley, "California" almost never does except that there are a few particular phrases where it sometimes, rarely, used in place of "Cal" (the only example I can think of that I've seen or heard more than once is "California Bears"). At any rate, the Google Books deal is not with the Berkeley campus, anyway, but with the University of California, which is consistently referred to as the University of California or UC, so even if "California" were an acceptable way of referring to the Berkeley campus of the UC system, that would be irrelevant.

Anyhow, I suspect that CNN wasn't using a colloquial name reference when they referred to UC as "California", they were applying a "since we said 'universities such as', we should drop 'University' from the names" rule. Had they had a competent editor, they wouldn't have done that for UC, but clearly CNN is aspiring to the level of editorial negligence for which Slashdot has become famous.

So what.

[milatchi]

So what.

Michigan has already been part of this...

[magicchex]

Google has had their book scanning office open here in Ann Arbor for over a year now at 1100 Eisenhower Ave. They have strict security and hide behind a fake corporation name, but anyone in the food industry that delivers there can tell you what it is. I'm not sure why Michigan is included in this list of new members because the fact that this was happening has been public news since it started. The location isn't public but easily found information when talking to the right people.

Re:Universities like Harvard and California

[Capt'n Hector]

I've lived in Berkeley my whole life. (oh snap) Nobody hear calls it "California". To talk about the individual campus, we say "UC Berkeley", or if the context is clear, just "Berkeley" or "Cal".