Library Tech Confidential

From Google settles landmark lawsuit over book scanning [Library Journal] :

If approved by a federal judge, the settlement would end a class-action suit filed September 20, 2005 by the AG and certain authors, and another suit filed October 19, 2005 by five major AAP members. It would transform Google Book Search into a major online bookstore, creating a one-stop experience for users who wishing to search, access, print or buy copies of books. The announcement comes just weeks after LJ reported reported on October 10 that a settlement was imminent… [read more]

A settlement is good, but a verdict confirming Google’s approach as fair use would have been better.  For more information on what this will mean for Google Book Search product, there’s more detailed information from Google. 

This paves the way for some seriously innovative offerings that will be particularly relevant to special libraries.  When trying to find titles for ILL I have frequently come up empty at local libraries but found exactly what I need on Google.  Depending on the price point, this could be a real lifesaver.

From Publishers Sue Georgia State University Over E-Reserves [Library Journal] :

The federal lawsuit was filed against Georgia State University (GSU) in Atlanta by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and SAGE Publications, and supported by the Association of American Publishers(AAP). It charges GSU with “pervasive, flagrant, and ongoing unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials” via its “electronic course reserves service, its Blackboard/WebCT Vista electronic course management system, and its departmental web pages and hyperlinked online syllabi available on websites and computer servers controlled by GSU. [read more]

Read the rest of this entry »

I was going to be spend my Saturday at the MaRS Centre attending participating in Metronauts’ Transit Camp un-conference, but unfortunately I didn’t feel well this morning. What’s an un-conference, you ask? Here’s how they describe it:

…participants create the content of the sessions throughout the day. The event structure is open and fueled by participation. Propose a session on a topic you’re passionate about and engage your fellow participants in conversation. Participation can also mean active listening, and recording of sessions, but there are no observers. Participants are asked to sign the Metronauts Pledge as a commitment to help create a positive environment for everyone.

While much of the pledge basically boils down to ‘play nice with others’, the following bit is truly fascinating:

3. You agree that all materials (text, photography, videos, etc.) and design artifacts posted to this website for which you own the rights shall be covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike license.

I’ve warmed up to the idea of assigning ‘open’ licenses to certain kinds of IP after the fact - photos posted to Flickr, say - but had never encountered the idea of promising to do so beforehand. This makes perfect sense for a semi-public gathering of like-minded activist/enthusiasts, especially given that this conference is meant to generate useful ideas for Metrolinx, a public body charged with coordinating public transit across the GTA. It also strikes me as vastly preferable to increasingly common, massive, dense, super-legalese, sketchy click-through EULAs from various online services that insist users assign unlimited, irrevocable, worldwide commercial rights to all content uploaded to the service.

Update: If you’re curious, notes and other information from today’s event are available via Metronauts’ wiki. Spacing’s coverage is also worth checking out.

Kottke’s guest blogger has posted a fantastic interview with Cory Doctorow on copyright, 21st century literature, and appropriately compensating artists for the indexing and public availability of their work :

“You know, the fact that Amazon or Google want to show quotes from your book alongside search results for people who are trying to find out which books contain which string, I think it’s just crazy to say that you deserve to be compensated for that even if they could figure out a way to make money off of it. Indexing books is just not in the realm of things that we deserve to get compensated for, any more than library lending is.

And I know that in Europe they do have a library right, and you actually do get compensated for library use. I actually think that’s kind of gross. I don’t think that’s good public policy. If we want to subsidize writers with public money, don’t take it out of the budget of the library. What a disaster for public policy, for good stewardship, to take money out the hands of the public libraries. What a disaster that writers have actually endorsed this plan.”

If that doesn’t provide a clear enough picture of his position on digital re-distribution of copyright works, here’s what he says in the bio on his personal website:

“I believe that we live in an era where anything that can be expressed as bits will be. I believe that bits exist to be copied. Therefore, I believe that any business-model that depends on your bits not being copied is just dumb, and that lawmakers who try to prop these up are like governments that sink fortunes into protecting people who insist on living on the sides of active volcanoes.”

At the risk of violating my personal prohibition against bandwagon-jumping and/or endorsing unabashed declarations of historical inevitability… can I get an amen, brothers and sisters?

In any case, I think the “library right” to which he refers in the first quote above may be the “rental and lending right” established in Directive 1992/100/EEC (since replaced by Directive 2006/115/EC), although my familiarity with law there is not sufficient for me to say so with any great degree of certainty.

In Canada we have the Public Lending Right Commission. According to it’s FAQ, the Commission disbributes payment to authors of registered “works of fiction, poetry, drama, children’s books, scholarly books, and general non-fiction” that meet certain criteria, with compensation being based on their presence in the catalogues of a representative sample of Canadian public libraries rather than tied to circulation statistics or any other measure of use.

In February of this year, $9 million in public funds were distributed among some 15,000 authors (an average payment of $588 per author). Given that compensation was capped at a maximum of $281.05 per title, I guess that means the ‘average’ compensated author has 2.09 works in the registry; however, compensation is calculated using a sliding scale whereby recent works are worth more than older ones.

I can’t help but wonder if Cory, an ex-pat Canadian, has registered any of his numerous titles?

• Copyright reform is not a spectator sport [CAUT / Michael Geist]
• A guide to copyrights: copyright protection [CIPO]