I'm no expert on this subject. But it seems to me that if you want to digitize yr own library for yr own personal use you should be able to do that. But if you make use of the material in ways that are no longer personal (uploading material to a website or blog for example), you might have copyright issues. Also, OCA costs 10 cents/pg. for scanning. That's a significant cost for a 10,000 volume library.
Don't know if this answers yr question or not.
I didn't mean to claim in my original post that MS or Google were trying to prevent libraries fr going with OCA though I wouldn't be surprised if they did they quietly out of public view. But an important distinction for the commercial ventures is their restrictiveness in not allowing competing search engines to access their digitized content. That's why OCA's mission is so important & why it's important that OCA become the digitization method of choice for all libraries. I don't care if GOogle or MS digitize books, even all the world's books. But I want OCA or some other system to do the same & make it freely available to all & for all.
These projects mostly include works "out of copyright." They also include some works still in copyright but which are out of print. THey can't include books in copyright & in print unless the copyright holders authorize this.
No, it's not "censorship" but it is churlish, small-minded, petty and a bad business decision. OTher than that, it's great.
We have another example of someone who similarly totes up black marks against those who are good or bad for his company & its interests & who never forgets a slight: that man is Bill Gates. Does Schmidt want to become as thin-skinned as Gates? If I were Schmidt I wouldn't want to go that route.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no expert on this subject. But it seems to me that if you want to digitize yr own library for yr own personal use you should be able to do that. But if you make use of the material in ways that are no longer personal (uploading material to a website or blog for example), you might have copyright issues. Also, OCA costs 10 cents/pg. for scanning. That's a significant cost for a 10,000 volume library. Don't know if this answers yr question or not.
I didn't mean to claim in my original post that MS or Google were trying to prevent libraries fr going with OCA though I wouldn't be surprised if they did they quietly out of public view. But an important distinction for the commercial ventures is their restrictiveness in not allowing competing search engines to access their digitized content. That's why OCA's mission is so important & why it's important that OCA become the digitization method of choice for all libraries. I don't care if GOogle or MS digitize books, even all the world's books. But I want OCA or some other system to do the same & make it freely available to all & for all.
These projects mostly include works "out of copyright." They also include some works still in copyright but which are out of print. THey can't include books in copyright & in print unless the copyright holders authorize this.
No, it's not "censorship" but it is churlish, small-minded, petty and a bad business decision. OTher than that, it's great. We have another example of someone who similarly totes up black marks against those who are good or bad for his company & its interests & who never forgets a slight: that man is Bill Gates. Does Schmidt want to become as thin-skinned as Gates? If I were Schmidt I wouldn't want to go that route.