IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but IAAL (I am a Librarian). While I personally agree that there *should* be the ability to digitize these collections and make them searchable, I think Google's in a whole heck of a mess here.
I don't think that this is necessarily fair use. The article linked to in post presents a case which relates to images, and traditionally copyright around images has been dealt with much differently than copyright related to texts, so I'm not sure how relevant the stated case might be. That being said, the one major flaw I see is that the libraries Google is partnering with purchased the books, and Google is 'borrowing' those books. If I borrow a book from my library, I am not allowed to photocopy the entire book. Maybe the Library has the right to do so for preservation (i.e. backup) or other purposes, but I do not. Even though Google is trying to hold to fair use practices through what it offers to its users, Google itself seems like it is likely to be breaking copyright by holding full copies of these works.
Now, should the publishers be making a big fuss? Well, maybe and maybe not. It doesn't appear that Google's effort will harm publishers, and is likely to help them. However, Google is not the only player out there who would be interested in massively copying monographs, and if the publishers let this pass, it might set a precedent which could come back to bite them. It isn't clear to me that the publishers are in the right, or that Google is entirely in the wrong, but if I were a publisher, I'd do the same thing, most likely.
I believe the other crux of the problem is that Google bulldozed its way forward with this project. Imagine if it was Microsoft instead of Google doing this; the slashdot comments would probably be entirely different. I admire Google moxie in pushing this issue, but I also am pained that they lacked the patience to work out some of the issues with the publishers before they pushed forward.
The article mentions that the MPEG community and others are working on open standards. I believe they are talking about using variations of XrML as the standard Rights Expression Language (REL). ContentGuard, a company heavily backed by Microsoft, originally owned the rights to XrML, but has stated that they will not control the actual language. What ContentGuard is saying is that they hold patents which cover any type of implementation of any REL - so that while the actual "standard" might be open (lots of discussion points around this in and of itself), any IMPLEMENTATION of the standard is not open.
So, is a non-open source implementatable standard actually an open standard? I would say not.
As far as I can tell, all that exists is an advanced discussion tool, with a content sharing tool coming soon. Universities need a much richer courseware system, one that handles a variety of tools (discussion, quizes, content management, tools that promote good pedigogical practices, etc.), and performs a variety of administrative functions (like authentication / authorization, grouping, reports & statistics, unified UI across tools, grading, etc.). MIT's Open Knowledge Initiative is another project in the courseware space, and there are other institutions which have developed their own homegrown courseware system. What we need in this space are standards for courseware - metadata standards, tool interoperability standards, etc. The internet2 middleware initiative addresses some of this in terms of authorization (see Shibboleth), but more collaboration around standards needs to take place.
Over time, successfull open source projects which address a particular issue will most likely have fewer bugs; just being open source doesn't mean fewer bugs (or better software). It just means that it has a better chance, if it survives, of being better software.
Oracle uses the same dir^h^h^h tactic with universities as well (and not just with states named California). At the University of Arizona, we purchased a site license for their product line at an enourmous price - during the process, they would not divulge (nor were we able to find out) their deals with other universities. However, I found out from my Dad, who is a dean at a university in the northwest, that Oracle tried to sell them the very same deal, but they turned it down.
Other OS P2P technologies
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've been working with the JXTA project for a bit now, and they seem to be taking a very nice approach to designing a p2p network that is implementation independant (can be implemented on different platforms, devices, etc.). Besides gnutella (and g2), and JXTA, are there other open P2P networks out there? And if there are, what's the best project?
...with the exception that they would like both parties to agree to have the court oversee the implementation of the judgement. IANAL, but it seems that basically the court said that the original penalty was fair, but that the concern about M$ having large oversight of the implementation of the penalty was valid as well. Not sure where that leaves us.
This isn't anything new - for about the last year or so, we've had a mouse just like that for presentations here at my university - in fact, I think we've got one in each of electronic classrooms for instructors to use. And it doubles as a laser pointer!
If only the Librarian of Congress was actually a librarian. He's not - he has no degree in library science. He causes much agnst among librarians because of his rulings on the DMCA, webcasting, etc.
Not exactly a short-term solution, but libraries are looking more and more towards providing electronic copies of information when possible. Currently, this is mostly in the form of journal articles, but I can envision a time in the not-so-distant future that most items in a library will already be in a format that you can just download to your laptop (actually, tablet).
SPARC is a library-led effort to introduce competition into the peer-reviewed journal marketplace. Because of the outlandish rise in peer-reviewed journal prices, libraries and their acquisitions budgets are now not able to afford all of the content their users need. So libraries are now moving into the realm of publishing. Some call this a socialist approach, but I view it as capitalism at its best....
What a perfect example - a really easy to demonstrate abuse that the DMCA allows. Hell, I could show this case to my non-techie relatives, and they'd understand just how wrong it is. Go HP - this type of bullying helps more then 10 highly payed lobbiests.
Open Source Biology isn't limited to biogenetics
on
Open-Source Biology
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
For instance, we're doing an open source phylogenetic project called The Tree of Life, which promotes both the open access to phylogenetic information, and open source software through the code itself. Many biologists are using open source software to further their research - case in point in O'Reilly's recent Bioinformatics conference.
I wonder about the assumption that information needs protection - at least as a default state. Seems to me that information should be free first, and then "protected" on an as-needed basis, and then only as much as is needed.
So, should Don Quixote still be in copyright, because Cervantes created him, and that's the cornerstone of Cervante's work? Copyright only works for far as it is balanced with a broader information commons - by society giving an author or creator a monopoly for a certain period of time on a creation, we also expect in return an inalienable right to have that creation returned to the public commons so that others may use and build upon it. Hence, Disney can freely go and create movies such as Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Mickey Mouse was also not a creation in a void, but formed from prior work. Just because Disney created Mickey Mouse doesn't mean they did so alone. I would put forward that the length of current copyright is now unbalanced with the public good.
So, they use OSS, but then they lock Mickey Mouse up through their continued efforts to lengthen copyright law and broaden the definition of trademark infringement. Until they free Mickey, I'm not applauding....
The linked Miller article is very interesting and insightful - but I wonder, based on its discussion of public and private distribution, how libraries would work with this new definition of copyright. A library by default provides public distribution of a work - would this then be made illegal should copyright reflect distribution rather than reproduction?
So, you release a standard that has a number of patent questions surrounding it...hmmmm, let's see how many people jump at the opportunity to adopt something for which they could be sued or made to pay unknown license fees....
Another thought: Can I patent the idea of patentable standards? Sounds like a business model to me...
I'm involved with eBook standards development (check out www.openebook.org), and I'm not very optimistic about the future of eBooks as they stand. There is really no standardization in terms of reading devices, and no real consumer market for an eBook. What's going to make eBooks run is added-value, not great content - if the Harry Potter eBook contained video, sound, games, etc., THEN I'd be looking to buy an eBook. My guess is that for eBooks to exist mainly as books, their future is going to be in academia and reference - things that really can be better with a searchable interface, or other technological enhancements. Current fiction, unless given some sort of sensory enhancement, won't cut it in the eBook world.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but IAAL (I am a Librarian). While I personally agree that there *should* be the ability to digitize these collections and make them searchable, I think Google's in a whole heck of a mess here.
I don't think that this is necessarily fair use. The article linked to in post presents a case which relates to images, and traditionally copyright around images has been dealt with much differently than copyright related to texts, so I'm not sure how relevant the stated case might be. That being said, the one major flaw I see is that the libraries Google is partnering with purchased the books, and Google is 'borrowing' those books. If I borrow a book from my library, I am not allowed to photocopy the entire book. Maybe the Library has the right to do so for preservation (i.e. backup) or other purposes, but I do not. Even though Google is trying to hold to fair use practices through what it offers to its users, Google itself seems like it is likely to be breaking copyright by holding full copies of these works.
Now, should the publishers be making a big fuss? Well, maybe and maybe not. It doesn't appear that Google's effort will harm publishers, and is likely to help them. However, Google is not the only player out there who would be interested in massively copying monographs, and if the publishers let this pass, it might set a precedent which could come back to bite them. It isn't clear to me that the publishers are in the right, or that Google is entirely in the wrong, but if I were a publisher, I'd do the same thing, most likely.
I believe the other crux of the problem is that Google bulldozed its way forward with this project. Imagine if it was Microsoft instead of Google doing this; the slashdot comments would probably be entirely different. I admire Google moxie in pushing this issue, but I also am pained that they lacked the patience to work out some of the issues with the publishers before they pushed forward.
The article mentions that the MPEG community and others are working on open standards. I believe they are talking about using variations of XrML as the standard Rights Expression Language (REL). ContentGuard, a company heavily backed by Microsoft, originally owned the rights to XrML, but has stated that they will not control the actual language. What ContentGuard is saying is that they hold patents which cover any type of implementation of any REL - so that while the actual "standard" might be open (lots of discussion points around this in and of itself), any IMPLEMENTATION of the standard is not open.
So, is a non-open source implementatable standard actually an open standard? I would say not.
Could CmdrTaco really post 2 dups of a post he originally put up? Gotta be an April Fool's on him...
As far as I can tell, all that exists is an advanced discussion tool, with a content sharing tool coming soon. Universities need a much richer courseware system, one that handles a variety of tools (discussion, quizes, content management, tools that promote good pedigogical practices, etc.), and performs a variety of administrative functions (like authentication / authorization, grouping, reports & statistics, unified UI across tools, grading, etc.). MIT's Open Knowledge Initiative is another project in the courseware space, and there are other institutions which have developed their own homegrown courseware system. What we need in this space are standards for courseware - metadata standards, tool interoperability standards, etc. The internet2 middleware initiative addresses some of this in terms of authorization (see Shibboleth), but more collaboration around standards needs to take place.
Over time, successfull open source projects which address a particular issue will most likely have fewer bugs; just being open source doesn't mean fewer bugs (or better software). It just means that it has a better chance, if it survives, of being better software.
Wha? Wasn't this a review of Channel F?
Oracle uses the same dir^h^h^h tactic with universities as well (and not just with states named California). At the University of Arizona, we purchased a site license for their product line at an enourmous price - during the process, they would not divulge (nor were we able to find out) their deals with other universities. However, I found out from my Dad, who is a dean at a university in the northwest, that Oracle tried to sell them the very same deal, but they turned it down.
I've been working with the JXTA project for a bit now, and they seem to be taking a very nice approach to designing a p2p network that is implementation independant (can be implemented on different platforms, devices, etc.). Besides gnutella (and g2), and JXTA, are there other open P2P networks out there? And if there are, what's the best project?
...with the exception that they would like both parties to agree to have the court oversee the implementation of the judgement. IANAL, but it seems that basically the court said that the original penalty was fair, but that the concern about M$ having large oversight of the implementation of the penalty was valid as well. Not sure where that leaves us.
This isn't anything new - for about the last year or so, we've had a mouse just like that for presentations here at my university - in fact, I think we've got one in each of electronic classrooms for instructors to use. And it doubles as a laser pointer!
Big deal - my Atari 800 with pop-out memory and game cartidges is better technology. Atari Atari Atari!!!
(Hell, as long as we're reliving the past, let's *really* relive the past - you're either pro-Atari or pro-Commode-dore)
If only the Librarian of Congress was actually a librarian. He's not - he has no degree in library science. He causes much agnst among librarians because of his rulings on the DMCA, webcasting, etc.
Here are some links relating to info about him:
His official bio
http://www.deepinthestacks.com/ - some commentary
Not exactly a short-term solution, but libraries are looking more and more towards providing electronic copies of information when possible. Currently, this is mostly in the form of journal articles, but I can envision a time in the not-so-distant future that most items in a library will already be in a format that you can just download to your laptop (actually, tablet).
SPARC is a library-led effort to introduce competition into the peer-reviewed journal marketplace. Because of the outlandish rise in peer-reviewed journal prices, libraries and their acquisitions budgets are now not able to afford all of the content their users need. So libraries are now moving into the realm of publishing. Some call this a socialist approach, but I view it as capitalism at its best....
Bollier also has an excellent book entitled 'Silent Theft', which takes the theme of the article and expands upon it. I highly recommend it.
What a perfect example - a really easy to demonstrate abuse that the DMCA allows. Hell, I could show this case to my non-techie relatives, and they'd understand just how wrong it is. Go HP - this type of bullying helps more then 10 highly payed lobbiests.
My god....BASIC.....
I just drool at the GOTO 50 command
For instance, we're doing an open source phylogenetic project called The Tree of Life, which promotes both the open access to phylogenetic information, and open source software through the code itself. Many biologists are using open source software to further their research - case in point in O'Reilly's recent Bioinformatics conference.
I wonder about the assumption that information needs protection - at least as a default state. Seems to me that information should be free first, and then "protected" on an as-needed basis, and then only as much as is needed.
So, should Don Quixote still be in copyright, because Cervantes created him, and that's the cornerstone of Cervante's work? Copyright only works for far as it is balanced with a broader information commons - by society giving an author or creator a monopoly for a certain period of time on a creation, we also expect in return an inalienable right to have that creation returned to the public commons so that others may use and build upon it. Hence, Disney can freely go and create movies such as Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Mickey Mouse was also not a creation in a void, but formed from prior work. Just because Disney created Mickey Mouse doesn't mean they did so alone. I would put forward that the length of current copyright is now unbalanced with the public good.
So, they use OSS, but then they lock Mickey Mouse up through their continued efforts to lengthen copyright law and broaden the definition of trademark infringement. Until they free Mickey, I'm not applauding....
The linked Miller article is very interesting and insightful - but I wonder, based on its discussion of public and private distribution, how libraries would work with this new definition of copyright. A library by default provides public distribution of a work - would this then be made illegal should copyright reflect distribution rather than reproduction?
Hmmm, no one expects it.....
So, you release a standard that has a number of patent questions surrounding it...hmmmm, let's see how many people jump at the opportunity to adopt something for which they could be sued or made to pay unknown license fees....
Another thought: Can I patent the idea of patentable standards? Sounds like a business model to me...
I'm involved with eBook standards development (check out www.openebook.org), and I'm not very optimistic about the future of eBooks as they stand. There is really no standardization in terms of reading devices, and no real consumer market for an eBook. What's going to make eBooks run is added-value, not great content - if the Harry Potter eBook contained video, sound, games, etc., THEN I'd be looking to buy an eBook. My guess is that for eBooks to exist mainly as books, their future is going to be in academia and reference - things that really can be better with a searchable interface, or other technological enhancements. Current fiction, unless given some sort of sensory enhancement, won't cut it in the eBook world.