[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questions about Google Books settlement
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Questions about Google Books settlement
- From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:54:51 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
This, of course, is precisely what is happening, and it is already underway. I posted a note on this on the Publishing Frontier blog: http://pubfrontier.com; the news item that caught my attention was the recent announcement that Random House was building a POD "portal." Joe Esposito ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandy Thatcher" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:44 PM Subject: Re: Questions about Google Books settlement > Some interesting thoughts here, including this among others: > > Yet another question is what will happen to limitations and > exceptions to copyright typically granted to libraries. These > exceptions depend on the works not being commercially available, > but what if increasingly all works are available for commercial > use, as in the Google case, von Lohmann asked. > > Indeed, it would appear that the settlement provides strong > incentives for publishers to retrieve rights to their > out-of-print works--or to resurrect them again in print if rights > had not reverted--so as to make them "commercially available" > again under the settlement's definition, which arguably allows > availability in POD form to qualify (especially if the POD > edition can be purchased through an online retailer like Amazon). > Google is providing yet another reason for publishers to take > advantage of the "long tail" and extend it backward in time, > which will--as von Lohmann observes--make it more difficult for > librarians and other users to apply "fair use" and Section 108 > privileges to make reproductions of substantial parts of these > works. > > This not exactly the same as recovering genuinely "orphan works," > where even the publishers don't know who owns the rights, but > there is a significant number of out-of-print, in-copyright works > that have been languishing simply owing to the economic decisions > that the older printing technologies obliged publishers to make, > which digital printing has rendered unnecessary any longer. > > Sandy Thatcher > Penn State University Press > >>New, William. Questions Raised About Google Library Project's >>Impact On Knowledge Access. Intellectual Property Watch. 26 >>November 2008. >> >>"What has been heralded as a breakthrough in the digitisation of >>human knowledge is also raising questions about how most humans >>will access that knowledge, according to an expert in copyright >>and the public interest." >> >>Full text at: >> >>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1332 >> >>Bernie Sloan >>Sora Associates >>Bloomington, IN
- Prev by Date: Re: Should university presses adopt an OA model for all of their scholarly books?
- Next by Date: NYTimes.com: College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S.
- Previous by thread: Re: Questions about Google Books settlement
- Next by thread: [no subject]