Slashdot Mirror
Major Textbook Publishers Sue Open-Education Textbook Start-Up
linjaaho writes "Three major textbook publishers have sued a startup company making free and open textbooks, citing 'copyright infringement,' as the company is making similar textbooks using open material. From the article: 'The publishers' complaint takes issue with the way the upstart produces its open-education textbooks, which Boundless bills as free substitutes for expensive printed material. To gain access to the digital alternatives, students select the traditional books assigned in their classes, and Boundless pulls content from an array of open-education sources to knit together a text that the company claims is as good as the designated book. The company calls this mapping of printed book to open material "alignment" — a tactic the complaint said creates a finished product that violates the publishers' copyrights.'"
Since you can't copyright facts and figures only their presentation and form, as long as the arrangement, structure and alignment is different, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Plagiarize,
Let no one else’s work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don’t shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
Only be sure always to call it please research.
Who didn't expect this to happen?
From the Article:
To illustrate this claim of intellectual theft, the publishers’ complaint points to the Boundless versions of several textbooks, including Biology, a textbook authored by Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. The Boundless alternative, the complaint alleges, is guilty of copying the printed material’s layout and engaging in what the complaint calls “photographic paraphrasing.” In one chapter of the printed book, for instance, the editors chose to illustrate the first and second laws of thermodynamics using pictures of a bear running and a bear catching a fish in its mouth. Boundless’s substitute text uses similar pictures to illustrate the same concepts—albeit Creative Commons-licensed images hosted on Wikipedia that include links to the source material, in accordance with the terms of the open license. (The end of each Boundless section also includes links to the text’s source material, which often includes Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of Earth, and other Web sites.)
The complaint goes on to allege that Boundless’s choice of bear photographs in that chapter reflects “only the previously made creative, scholarly, and aesthetic judgments of the authors and editors of Campbell’s Biology.”
(Bolded by me)
So... is that wrong? I don't get it. If it's Creative Commons, doesn't that allow this sort of thing, by definition?
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
It's bad enough that profs happily write textbooks and have a partner do a quid pro quo arrangement (each prof in a pair requires the other's pricey textbook in a given class to get around the rules forbidding you to require your own). It's worse that textbooks "change" from year-to-year (often with no substantial content changes at all) in order to keep a revenue stream coming in. It's worse still the practices used to hamper the used textbook markets...
Now students have to deal with crap like this?
Glad I left academia years ago. :(
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
From the article: Those "Thieves" just copied our work, reworded stuff so it's not a direct copy, and now give it away! The question is how much do you have to re-word factual content in order to not be copyright infringement. There is a limit to how far they can differ and still cover the same (factual) material.
I thought educational use was exempt from copyright restrictions.
"Waitress I need two more boat-drinks..."
Buggy whip manufacturers.... bye bye
... pulls content from an array of open-education sources to knit together a text that the company claims is as good as the designated book ...
A noble intention but I am suspicious of "as good as". Pulling stuff from various sources and slapping it together quickly is not a strategy known for producing "as good as" products. Perhaps a "good enough" product though.
However is the "knitted together" text better than, or even different from, just googling and reading some of the top sites, reading various topics on wikipedia?
Also with respect to "as good as" I am *not* counting the missing homework problems against it.
The publishers are Pearson, Cengage Learning, and Macmillan Higher Education.
I'm glad they explained that they are publishers.
I always thought of them as failed investment bankers.
how long is it going to be before the state and local governments figure out that commissioning a single book that they own the rights to as a group starts becoming more cost effective? Would it not make sense that there isn't anything particularly new in geometry or algebra that forces the need for a new rewrite of textbooks every 2-3 years? Or to avoid the $100/book charges being made for dead tree editions of textbooks? Would it not make sense to have one definitive book on the subject, and holding the copyright in common for all to use? As the cost continues to rise at rates exceeding inflation on textbook materials, it becomes more and more attractive to own your own curriculum materials so you don't continue to pay for them over and over again. I feel it is just a matter of time before this happens, particularly give the finanical squeeze occuring in state and local governments.
citing 'copyright infringement,' as the company is making similar textbooks using open material.
You're textbook has 1+1=2 in it?
Ours had it first, so we're going to sue you now.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I don't know whether this lawsuit will succeed or fail, but many open source and open materials are based on proprietary materials.
For example, much of Wikipedia is graduate students and college students taking ideas from their textbooks, compiling them and putting them into their own words.
Linux is based on a commercial operating system, and many of its best software packages are either clones of popular Windows software packages, or enhancements to academic projects (like Apache and Mozilla).
The two need each other it seems.
The point of that is that it makes sense for us to keep a profit motive for development of new proprietary materials, and over time, to migrate older knowledge to the realm of free and open learning.
The companies are complaining not because the textbook is actually copying them (which would be a violation of copyright), but because the free texbooks are copying their ideas. The example TFA gives is that the copyrighted textbook uses a picture of a bear to illustrate the laws of thermodynamics, and the open-source version uses another different but similar picture of a bear (properly licensed under a CC license).
Basically, the companies are claiming they hold the copyright to the idea of using a bear to illustrate a law of thermodynamics. I call that "bullshit." They don't have a leg to stand on under copyright law, IMO (well, they shouldn't, IANAL so I cannot say for certain). Ideas can, infact, be freely copied: you cannot copyright them, and you never could.
Now, if they'd patented that idea, it'd still be bullshit, but maybe they'd have had a case legally speaking.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
...a market competitor! Kill it George!
I had not heard about boundless before. Thanks to this litigation, I can now sign up. This is fantastic. But seriously, a math book has questions that the teacher assigns. That is the only reason I paid $280 for my used Calc book. I use the web to actually learn the stuff.
You helped me greatly in knowing who to ignore when it comes to any sort of information, regardless of the content in question.
These 3 companies can join the list of "Dead To Me" that seems to be accelerating in growth each year.
Notice how these types always go after the ones "nobody knows about", rather than the ones that already exist and have a following.
Absolute cowardice of the worst kind. It is like picking on a baby because it was just born.
Who wants to bully those at their own age? Old and busted. Bullying the young'ins is the new hotness.
I hope they get help from a large group. Surely he EFF would step in? This covers their mission I'm sure.
What's funny is that this sort of "alignment" has been taking place for *years* in dead-tree textbooks.
An example: Back in the 80s I was taking a class in differential equations and was having some trouble. So I went down to the library to see if different textbooks might have different approaches that could help me out. I pulled down four textbooks (different authors) and sat down to read. Turns out EVERY SINGLE ONE of them presented exactly the same concepts in exactly the same order with pretty much the same descriptions. Didn't help me one bit, but it shows how a math professor can make a few extra bucks for very little effort... #include
I'm a college student. I hate that my textbooks are hundreds of dollars, and would love open textbooks.
But it seems like the companies arguing that the stuff in the book, in the order it's in, is copyrighted - which seems reasonable to me. If true, it doesn't matter if you use libre text and images - you're still "filling in" the template provided by the textbook. It's similar to a song cover - you're reproducing "your" version of the song, but it's still copyright of the original artist.
They do actually pay people to come up with the best stuff to include, and the order in which to present it...
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Basically the lawsuit is because the text books company's don't want to lose massive amounts of profit. Textbooks are the biggest profit business in the worlds, for instance almost every year a new calculus and physic book gets published and for what reason?
there should be a mod down "your, you're, there, their, they're mistake"
That's called common sense and compromise. I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT, THANK YOU. It's either everything or nothing, just like every other aspect of life, right? Remember that most choices you make are absolutes in black and white, and never shades of gray. Right?
as long as the arrangement, structure and alignment is different
They seem to be claiming that the structure is copied though i.e. you select one of their texts and the site collects "open source" information which covers the same material in a similar fashion. What is so ironic about this is that, at least where 1st year physics text books are concerned, the publisher's text books have almost exactly identical structures - sometimes even down to the level of chapter and section numbers. So, since I am certain that these publishers would never do what they seem to be accusing this company of doing, I can only presume that they must all pay a licensing fee for use of this format.
Perhaps this just shows how useless textbooks are today. A bear to illustrate thermodynamics?
Just have the students read the Wikipedia page.
If they find something they don't understand, that's what the teacher is there for, right?
To begin with, I needed basic kinematic data on African and European bear species.
No brain, no pain.
The long and the short of it is: if they didn't copy your stuff, then you can't sue. FULL STOP! Kinda close and kinda similar is what *all* the text books look like, because topics taught to the lower grades haven't changed in a long time. Only when you get to high school does it begin to really matter. You can change it up to keep it topical, but the material hasn't differed in a long time. The differences between the open book and their proprietary books are about the same as the differences between two proprietary books (and they haven't gone out and started to sue each other). This is all about money, and dying business models.
Yea, is the start-up actually using any of the text from the established publishers?
According to the article, the start-up is accused of non-literal copying. The plaintiff's textbook illustrates thermodynamics with a non-free photo of a bear running and a non-free photo of a bear catching a fish. The allegedly infringing textbook illustrates thermodynamics with a free photo of a bear running and a free photo of a bear catching a fish. The claim is that apart from the copyright in the particular photographs, the choice of a bear to illustrate the laws of thermodynamics is itself sufficiently original.
1+1=2 is now copyrighted?
Hundreds for text books that sometimes professors don't even assign for your coursework. Plus, I have to lug around these heavy-assed things when an electronic version would be SO much more convenient. Add to that classes like Calculus and Physics that aren't really changing much fundamentally, yet still manage to mandate new textbooks every few years so that you can't even get by w/ used texts.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I'll reply to you, because besides all the usual textbook games, you hinted at the *really nasty* copyright theme brewing - one so ugly the media has managed to distract us from even talking about it!
Entry Level Lectures in College/University.
Those are famously just "3d Videocasts" with Talking Heads writing things on White/Black boards. A "Class" consists of 25 "Episodes", plus the 1-3 course books, plus a "certification that you know the material". Price: Some $10,000.
If you can just get an alternative certification process down to validate people knowing their materials, then parts of the educational engine will crash, badly. I know, there's other parts of the "experience", but from the content side, Big-Ed has a really wrenching shakedown coming, maybe in five-seven years.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
This. This. This.
See what Khan Academy and CK-12.org are doing to K-12 teaching materials? K-12? HAH. College courses are next. The last nails in the coffin is an open certification body where you can go for testing without getting gouged, and an open marketplace for tutors/subject matter experts to work with you online.
As the SCO history has demonstrated, the Linux kernel is not based on a commercial operating system. It is a implementation of a POSIX style operating system with a clean source history. POSIX itself is an open standard. The user space is a mix of many packages some based on POSIX standards (e.g. shell, file utils) others based on common application needs. Many of those are indeed based upon open industry standards. Wikipedia material is not as well vetted IMHO and given the volume of material, there is a greater possibility of something being copied incorrectly. But much of the material we are discussing is basic scientific fact and could reasonably be based heavily on material available via sources like Project Gutenberg. Other material would be newer and likely could reference open sources. As for organization, the courses follow standard outlines so university programs can receive accreditation. And building up material from basic to advanced concepts in a framework that could only allow 8-16 chapters per semester doesn't allow that much variation.
I believe that fair use provisions of copyright law include works deemed in the public interest and/or educational works.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
that is all
AccountKiller
Knowledge is intellectual property and no one has the right to it without paying. Down with freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge! /end sarcasm
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Car, ship and airplane manufacturers are suing each other over alleged similarities between their competitors in each vehicle category. One anonymous insider said, "This is stupid. All we're doing is copying nature."
Industry spokespersons have also announced their intentions to include "God, Mother Nature, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster" in their actions.
THIS is why we can't have anything nice!
He meant unix, Linux is not an original concept in any way and is based on Unix even if there is no code sharing
However is the "knitted together" text better than, or even different from, just googling and reading some of the top sites, reading various topics on wikipedia?
The difference is that this upstart publisher claims to do the googling for you and to organize the results. It would be difficult to do it yourself since you would have to first borrow the book from a classmate and create an outline so that you would know which topics will be discussed in class and in what order.
The camera in a modern cell phone is sufficiently good that you can take an image of the table of content pages. Its trivial to snap a few images in class. Or you can go old-school and get the library's limited loan copy of the book and photocopy the table of contents.
I did the camera thing. I knew a friend was working on a paper on a particular topic. I was coincidentally reading a book that had a paragraph I thought he might get a good quote/citation from. I took cell phone pictures of the paragraph in question, the book's copyright/publisher/ISBN info and emailed the two images. It worked out great, the resolution was far in excess of what was needed.
Isn't this the same as any other product that says comparable to? If it's good enough for shampoo text books should be good to.
Linux is not based on a commercial operating system. It emulates some of the behavior of UNIX, but is built from scratch. The software you are speaking of is usually Gnu, not Linux. I disagree with your assesment of "best software packages", but that is personal preference.
I also disagree with your generic assesment of open source. Emulation of behavior is different than "based upon" and I believe the evolution of features flow both ways.
Perhaps it's time to start an open courseware defend fund which people can donate to. As long as the course materials are free (I don't mind if there's a premium package that would offer personal tutoring, etc.) a publisher should be able to draw on this fund when faced with copyright (or copyright-like) litigation.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
The US southern states could save quite a bit by commissioning history books where nothing happened between 1860 and 1970!
The last thing the US needs is to accelerate the balkanization happening at the regional / state levels where science and historical facts are already being converted into 'culture war' footballs.
Agreed!
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
Locking up common human knowledge in print media is more corporate welfare.
The present Out-of-Business/Bankrupt (OoB/B) book publishers' models need a refresh. Copyright of common human knowledge is equivalent to patenting a math equation. IOW: More stupid/silly demands for corporate welfare, real capitalism says change your business model. Collecting court ordered and government mandated welfare from the public (just another form of taxes for failures).
Competition among school book publishers is close to non-existent and dominated by one or two states biased curriculum. Open education textbooks must directly compete, because textbook publishers' mediocre products are religious and revisionist history biased.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
..you want to bring copyright into education, you want to make money off of education? Fuck you.
So....everyone involved in the education industry should be working for free? Really?
If a bunch of publishers get together and lobby aggressively I wouldn't be surprised if a court found that a sufficient degree of similarity existed, thereby violating copyright. And if the court didn't find it, well, Congress can amend the copyright law and I think the US Copyright Office can regulate matters a bit.
But what if some of the Creative Commons work had been published before the textbook whose revenue stream the publishers are trying to defend. Parts of the textbook would then be infringing on the CC material. Ah, there's the rub.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I certainly hope that the EFF sees fit to take up this group's fight. The situation seems perfectly aligned with the EFF's mandate, and doubtless Boundless Learning will need all the help, legal as well as financial, as they can get.
I hate occasions when both the new 'international' (read identical but guaranteed metric units) paperback and many used copies of the most recent edition of a textbook are available for ~$20 on amazon, but the electronic copy is priced at $60+, just under the new US hardcover price.
I'd prefer the electronic version, but not at 2-3 times the price and with zero resale value!
I'd be interested in learning if actual different textbooks have similar content, such as the example of the thermodynamic bears. Also, I think it would be funny if the publishers were found to be infringing. What if the original authors stole the thermodynamic bear image from someone else?
FUCK YOU
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Do you really think people would care about facts that Linux kernel is a monolithic operating system and GNU project software or any other project software (like Mozilla Firefox, KDE, digiKam, Krita) does not belong to that operating system?
And that Linux is Unix-like operating system, based to original monolithic operating system architecture and implements most (not all) Unix API's and ABI's but adds even lots of own interfaces?
...screw it. FUCK YOU, you pricks. Hey... I didn't read the article first... Well hot damn! I'm finally a slashdotter after so many years!
As someone who teaches first/second year college courses at a community college, let me be the first to say that I am disappointed in this, but I can't say surprised. Open source textbooks stand to completely destroy traditional publishing as we know it...and that isn't an overstatement...so it's no shocker than publishers would try to stymie their growth.
In my field (a science) its pretty obvious that indeed there is no real reason for textbooks to be updated in the usual 3-year cycles (even 10 years would be questionable). The model of doing so is patently unfair to students and just plain ridiculous....if it made sense, then there would be clear and meaningful "revisions" other than the re-numbering of exercises so as to maintain a need for current-editionism among textbook users.
As far as this particular case goes, based on the summary contained in the article, this sort of "using the same analogy to illustrate an idea" pervades science. Shroedinger's cat, for instance. In fact, they are particularly important and efficient at summarizing key concepts...for example, many physicists knew exactly the concept I was referring to by mentioning Schroedinger's cat, and students are more likely to remember the analogy than the textbook concept by itself. Anyway, IANAL, but I like to think analogies shouldn't be copyrightable (although perhaps the actual words/figures used should be...but that wasn't happening here AFAIK).
It should also be mentioned that recycling lesser-known analogies and other types of "similarism" are very common in the textbooks I see. For example, in an undergraduate algebra textbook, "functions" are often explained visually using the "function-machine" analogy...you can think of a function as a "machine" that takes a number in, "works on it" and then spits out a finished number...I've seen several algebra books use this analogy, even more than one showing picture of a maching with a conveyor belt rolling out the "finished" number. What's the story there? Does someone "own" this analogy? Do I have to license it from them if I want to use it in my book?
I think publishers are going to have a little difficulty if they keep suing open-source textbook groups over these issues. Faculty like me make the decision over what book our college adopts. Some of those decisions result in *thousands* of purchases. If publishers want to stay relevant, they need to justify the huge markup their $$$ books have over free books. Now, tangentially, I think they finally are starting to do so with online homework systems, which are available for almost every textbook we review these days. They aren't perfect, but they are beginning to get very good, and many faculty are starting to view homework software as being more crucial than the textbook...even in my online courses, students can do very well with a mixture of my notes and the online resources/homework exercises we use...physical textbook not required.
With all of the educational institutions paying over-and-over again for the same books year after year, it seems extremely feasible for them to pay a qualified author to write one "open source" book. Then the schools would just need to pay the cost of printing new copies.
The virtual re-creation of a particular textbook is really a very small step toward fixing the aggressively broken scam that is textbooks. The textbooks change WAY too much already, and IMO it's only done to prop up the industry. Consider how many subjects could be taught using a 50-year-old textbook, with maybe a small supplement; math, basic physics, basic biology. Even history - it would probably be much more educational to read a 100-year-old history book, then a 50-year-old book covering, say, the Hundred Years' War, or the Renaissance, to see how current Zeitgeist affects the way such things are perceived, than to read some shiny new PC version of history.
Nevertheless, three cheers for Boundless. After many decades, I still remember the outrageous prices for (usually crappy) textbooks.
It's called "testing out of the class". Few people currently try it.
One of the textbook authors involved in this is a friend of mine, and he explained the situation in a little more detail.
These companies tell the students that in a course that requires Book A (at a cost of $100), they could buy open Book B (at a cost of $5) and that not only would all the same information be covered, but the page numbering will be exactly the same. The offset example boxes would be the same. The exact order of headings and subheadings, illustrations and charts would be the same. If the prof says, "Turn to page 256 and look at illustration 3," you will not spend minutes trying to find the correlating page in your cheaper book. It will BE page 256, and the illustration will be what the prof is referring to.
Textbooks are pricey. Sure. But this guy works hard putting out the best in his field every year. He and his staff spend a lot of time and effort creating the best product. These companies are blatantly violating copyright on a level that I think few slashdotters would be able to justify.
Lurker
Last I checked, there is a remarkable correspondence between textbooks on a given subject between multiple supposedly independent publishers. But I guess that isn't "copyright infringement" until someone tries to undercut their business model?
After I patent the idea of using open source to create textbooks, those guys are really going to be hurting.
I recall Westlaw in the 1980s was successful in asserting copyright over the way they organize public domain legal information. This sounds similar to textbook publishers trying to assert that the organization of their particular book is covered by copyright. This can only bee settled in court, but it seems there is enough precedent there for the textbook publishers to bring the challenge.
If an open source data aggregator (my bad if that's the wrong way to phrase it) can use open source and non-copyrighted material to product almost the exact same result as a copyrighted textbook does that mean the copyrighted textbook is infringing on open source and non-copyrighted material? Seems to me that unless they can prove that they came up with those facts themselves then they're just gathering up the same information.
"Look and feel" is another concept entirely. Ask Lotus how that one worked out for them.
... pulls content from an array of open-education sources to knit together a text that the company claims is as good as the designated book ...
A noble intention but I am suspicious of "as good as". Pulling stuff from various sources and slapping it together quickly is not a strategy known for producing "as good as" products. Perhaps a "good enough" product though. However is the "knitted together" text better than, or even different from, just googling and reading some of the top sites, reading various topics on wikipedia? Also with respect to "as good as" I am *not* counting the missing homework problems against it.
You're making an assumption that there must be some kind of standard of quality to commercial textbook publisher's products. Sure, there are probably standards set by some accreditation body somewhere, but nonetheless I strongly suspect that "pulling stuff from various sources and slapping it together quickly" is probably a pretty good description of how most of the pros go about it. I can easily believe the free product described in TFA is "as good as" the average commercial offering. Remember, these are introductory courses we're talking about here, not advanced topics. The fact is, at this level the freely available online stuff is probably as good as anything else, and the publishers know it, which is why they are turning to lawsuits. We've all seen this kind of thing before, it's just the final dying spasms of dinosaurs who don't have the brains to recognize their own imminent extinction.
A ship sunk long ago. About 1500 people died. Get over it.
Meanwhile millions have died from wars, malaria, starvation, etc.
Priorities are misplaced.
Sink the whole topic of the Titanic.
... I strongly suspect that "pulling stuff from various sources and slapping it together quickly" is probably a pretty good description of how most of the pros go about it ...
That is not what I saw. I once had a small role in the development of a chemistry textbook. To avoid duplication: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2774887&cid=39620651.
...are greatly exaggerated, since the valuation of a college degree is in direct correlation to the unwillingness of employers to hire anyone without some acronymic degree/certification into preferred positions, for the simple fact that well-meaning social-engineering progressive equality laws have forced them to have some legally objective standard (i.e. nothingGEDhigh school diplomasome collegeassociatestechnical certbachelor'smaster'smaster's + technical certdoctorate) by which to justify hiring Candidate A over Candidate G. May God have mercy on your soul if you hire Candidate A (unprotected class) over Candidate B (member of a protected class) without having a CYA C.V alphabet soup of "achievements" to justify your choice.
So long as employers need a "Qualification Theater" on-paper justification for hiring the best person for the job rather than a protected idiot, the college degree will maintain its value. Indeed. as government regulation and legal exposure have increased over the last 50 years, so has there been a corresponding arms race in educational qualifications for various jobs. The 1980s Bachelors is now required to hold ridiculous entry-level Word/Excel paperwork jobs, and a Masters is what you need to have a hope of management, with all those previous Masters folks going back for eMBAs or a Ph.D, J.D., Ed.D, etc.
The educational market will not crash hard until the job market crashes hard. Fact is, with modern efficiencies we have way too many bodies being employed to do way too little work. The Information Revolution has not truly even begun. You'll know it has begun when, like all revolutions, masses of people are left with their lives evaporated overnight, or perhaps lined up against the wall. This is not that. Yet.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
These people are producing content to assist in the education and betterment of people for FREE! This injustice cannot continue. Only those with money deserve education.
You have some good ideas. For the record, I was just trying to say it shouldn't affect a comment's score and the poster's karma the way "mod down" does.
Given the argument they are going with, if a team of monkeys ever did manage to reproduce the works of Shakespeare, rather than heralded they would get sued into extinction.
IANAL, but I have ready many books on copyright, and passed 5 law courses with all As.
Legally speaking, they really don't have anything to worry about, as long as they didn't actually copy test from the textbooks in question. I can write a book about a couple who die in a boat that sinks, and the author of Titanic can't sue me. (Copyright protects only the "expression" of ideas, not those ideas themselves).
What I worry about, if that they might end up with a judge who is impressed with all the big companies and their fancy lawyers and decided that "This scrappy start-up must be doing something wrong". If that happens, and the judge mis-applies the law, then it will be a very dangerous situation, because the publishers will use the ruling to push for all kinds of other settlements against lots of other innocent people/companies until the ruling is overturned.
Who NOT to buy from:
Pearson including Penguin, SAMS, Addison Wesley and Financial Times
Cengage Learning including National Geographic Learning, Gale and Brooks/Cole
Macmillan Higher Education -- a major ebook publisher
Cengage Learning in Australia have changed their name to 'Open Colleges'
After this, I'll be avoiding them.
[Rent This Space]
So, unless you want to presume that all books are infringements of other books, you're not going to get anywhere here.
There's a HUGE difference between the design patent (the actual real world equivalent of the "copyright of an arrangement of facts") of a car interior and "It must have a steering wheel, accelerator, brake in front of the drivers seat and a handbrake to one side".
And since it's the ***structure*** that these knobheads are bitching about (the arrangement of facts is the god damned structure), then your notes are copyright infringement.
Worse, since there's no attribution, it's plagiarism.
You bloody thief.
Heh - funny/insightful analogy!
I personally got trapped in a Moebius Loop of the transfer credits game. I quote: "We'll give you the numerical quantity of credits from your night school, but we won't give you the credit for actually having taken the intro class." Wait for it ... "You now must declare a major because you have too many credits, but you are not allowed to declare a major because you're missing the Intro prerequisite class for your major."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It will be a sad day and a major downhill slide when courts allow intelligence to be copy written. Oh wait they have started on the slide already.
This is the first time that I heard about them. This is a great idea, they have my full support.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
I agree. To use an analogy, what if I made a start-up that downloaded a paid copy of today's New York Times, then provided customers with a ten-cent version that used freely-sourced content, but slotted into topically equivalent spaces inside today's NYT layout, effectively 'reproducing' it?
Firstly, these 'freely-sourced' works (blogs, etc.) are likely to be derivative in some degree to the original articles (taken from AP or Reuters, etc.) Secondly, the replaced op-ed columns would be filled with 'free' pieces that are likely to be inspired by the originals. The content would effectively be merely paraphrased. You may as well do the text in software, and use Flickr to slot in 'equivalent' images out of CC-licensed sources.
Would this be legal? Heck no. It's counterfeiting!
Indeed, when you translate this concept from textbooks to newspapers, it quickly becomes quite obvious that there is infringement, since the form is an inherent part of the work, and the replacement work is quite likely to be derivative.
Now, I don't like paying $100 for a book either, but this isn't the way to go about lowering prices. Making cheaper books, and marketing them to over-stressed student loan schemes is. Convincing educators to create internet-based lesson plans is. But this is counterfeiting, pure and simple.