> Actually, one of the big concerns about Google having exclusive rights to
> the digitization of out-of-print works is the price that they will charge.
One of the things I've found interesting about this discussion is the
presumption of the value in these materials. Just as selection and
presenta
Karen Coyle writes:
> > How is this different from what's already in place in terms of
> > electronic resources? This is not uniquely Google, nor has it
> > even been proven to happen.
>
> Uh, can you say "Elsevier"? Elsevier raised journal prices by more
> than 10% a year for many years, jo
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> No, it's not uniquely Google, but adding another price pressure point to
> libraries is still seen as detrimental.
>
I'm sure you saw:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/technology/companies/21google.html
"The new agreement, which Google hop
The "oddness" was remarked upon in Randy picker's talk at the Columbia
conference on the Google Book Search Settlement. "orphan works" is not
a term that occurs in the settlement agreement. "Rightsholders other
than Registered Rightsholders" are orphan parents.
Careful commentators refer to
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
How is this different from what's already in place in terms of
electronic resources? This is not uniquely Google, nor has it even
been proven to happen.
Uh, can you say "Elsevier"? Elsevier raised journal prices by more than
10% a year for many years, journals t
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:07, Karen Coyle wrote:
> - without competition, Google (with the agreement of the registry, whose
> purpose is to garner as much income as possible for rights holders) will
> charge a price that is more than some institutions will be able to afford;
> others will subscri
Eric, can you cite a section for this? Because I haven't seen this
interpretation elsewhere, and I don't read it in the section you cite,
which doesn't seem to me to mention orphan works. I will point to
Grimmelmann:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=james_grimme
Actually, one of the big concerns about Google having exclusive rights
to the digitization of out-of-print works is the price that they will
charge. At the meeting at ALA Washington that I went to, some of the
librarians present wanted the price issue to be the main issue that
libraries would b
I think one thing in Karen's comment is incorrect. As far as I can
tell, the 'most favored nation' clause does NOT apply in the situation
that Karen assumes it "would be most likely to come into play". MFN
appears to apply only if the registry licenses orphan works. It's an
odd provision if
But the argument being trotted out is that having orphan works
available through Google would HURT libraries, which is a somewhat
different discussion.
The arguments I see for that (as applied to libraries other than the
internet Archive) are:
1. Asset devaluation. Just as DeBeers would be
Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
Yes, that is what I am hearing too. Google has all but gotten the
right to digitize orphan works to the exclusion of others like
libraries or the Internet Archive.
Exactly. The Archive, actually the OCA, asked to be included in the
settlement ("sue me, too! please
On May 20, 2009, at 3:47 PM, st...@archive.org wrote:
I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the
library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US
and international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example)
will end up helping libraries.
i think the concern is that the settle
On 5/20/09 11:19 AM, Eric Hellman wrote:
> I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the
> library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US
> and international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example)
> will end up helping libraries.
i think the concern is that the settlement cou
Eric Hellman wrote:
Should note that Google could be paying $100,000,000+ to rights
holders without getting ANYTHING in return in the absence of a
settlement- that's what the copyright attorneys I've talked to believe
would have been the ruling by the court had the suit gone to trial.
And if t
Should note that Google could be paying $100,000,000+ to rights
holders without getting ANYTHING in return in the absence of a
settlement- that's what the copyright attorneys I've talked to believe
would have been the ruling by the court had the suit gone to trial.
And if that happened libr
also, if your script can handle a redirect, you can use
our locator to find each item, e.g.
http://www.archive.org/download/librariesreaders00fostuoft/
http://www.archive.org/download/developmentofchi00tancuoft/
http://www.archive.org/download/rulesregulations00brituoft/
as the data does migrate
On May 19, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
On May 19, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
I applaud the Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance's
efforts. archive.org++
Try this hack with Google Books, not.
$ echo http://ia300206.us.archive.org/3/items/librariesre
On May 19, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
I applaud the Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance's
efforts. archive.org++
Try this hack with Google Books, not.
$ echo http://ia300206.us.archive.org/3/items/librariesreaders00fostuoft/
> libraries.urls
$ echo http://ia3
> BTW, we are sponsoring a mini-symposium on the topic of mass digitization
> here at Notre Dame, tomorrow:
Any protesters expected? ;)
T
> BTW, we are sponsoring a mini-symposium on the topic of mass digitization
> here at Notre Dame, tomorrow:
>
> http://www.library.nd.edu/symposium/
>
Nice timing.
--joe
On May 19, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
But hey, it looks good to be part of such a prestigious
group of libraries in partnering with Google to
deliver content freely* to the public!
...I think that's an overly pessimistic assessment. There
is a growing corpus of freely available conte
It's true that we have buns in the oven that are promissing.
But it's also worth noting that HathiTrust mainly came about via the
Google partnership, and they have certain limitations on what they can
do with their scans that came out of the Google partnership (the current
vast majority), as a
Roy Tennant wrote:
I think that's an overly pessimistic assessment. There is a growing corpus
of freely available content being managed by the Hathi Trust[1], that
already numbers in the hundreds of thousands of volumes, and soon likely to
be over a million. Also, since government documents are
On 5/19/09 5/19/09 9:59 AM, "Ethan Gruber" wrote:
> Google isn't a dumb company. They knew this would be the result all along.
> The real losers here are the libraries, especially the ones that funded the
> packaging and transport of their materials to the Google scanning centers
> (because Go
Google isn't a dumb company. They knew this would be the result all along.
The real losers here are the libraries, especially the ones that funded the
packaging and transport of their materials to the Google scanning centers
(because Google didn't pay for that, fyi) But hey, it looks good to be p
fyi - [the Google Book Settlement] "should not be approved"
A Book Grab by Google
by Brewster Kahle
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Washington Post | Opinions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802637.html
/st...@archive.org
26 matches
Mail list logo
