librarian.net

Google Print Library going on hold over copyright is big news in our world. Copyfight followed up on the story. Of particular interest is the comments with people speculating on the copyright-kosherness of a publicly traded for-profit company freely scanning, copying and indexing content that is not owned by them without negotiating for rights. Other popular copyfighters Siva and Seth have worthwhile insights.

Siva “Once again, I think we should recognize that unless we think copyright should not exist, copyright holders should be able to decide when to license their works to other companies. This is far from absolute. But it’s common sense and generally true. Only in unusual circumstances, such as when markets fail to provide an essential public good, should we consider radical moves. This is not one of those cases. The service is not an essential public good — just a cool idea. And the market was not failing. Publishers were at the table…. Google messed up by going all unilateral on the publishers. There was no market failure here. Transaction costs were not prohibitive. They were working out the deal. This was not the recording industry shunning Napster. This was how copyright is supposed to work.”

Seth: Why is Google doing this book-scanning project? It’s not because it’s just so cool (even if it is). While coolness may justify a small-scale promotional project, the scanning efforts are expensive. So Google, as a company, obviously sees some value in the effort. This is not wrong. But it’s also a direct conflict with the granted monopoly know as copyright. Whenever there is value, particularly commercial value, there is conflict over who should be able to receive it.

The Google Print Library Project is going to hold off scanning books which are still under copyright until November. More over at Wired. This information was available on the official Google Blog [according to another Google blog] and quoted in the BBC article, and elsewhere, but the post itself is no longer there. Curious. [update: the post wasn’t missing/deleted, it was being update with new info, it’s back]

Just say no to shrinkwrap licenses on reference books. In fact, say “Hell no!” Ads in textbooks? No, no, no!

JD Lasica’s list of Top 10 assaults on digital liberties could just as easily be titled “Top 10 assaults on digital libraries” as diglet rightly points out. Of particular note to libraries is #10. I’ve been hearing more and more about libraries being strongarmed into consortia that requires them to forego IT and filtering decisionmaking, independent collection development and in some cases even in-house cataloging staff. Keep your eyes open to changed in your digital information environment, and the legislation that constantly surrounds it, so that you can be an advocate for access by your patrons.

Mary Minow was also at NJLA and she has put her four presentations up on the LibraryLaw Blog which I am spending some time reading this evening. I’m especially enjoying her talk on the legality of copying graphics for use on web pages.

Sometimes life in a world of strict copyright enforcement can seem like life in a world of crazy health insurance. My doctor doesn’t know what my health care will cost — keeping me from making informed decisions factoring in cost as one data point — and Harvard professors don’t know what their coursepacks will cost students after copyright fees are figured in. Students make illegal copies because they can’t afford a $500 coursepack. Who suffers? What is learned? [stayfree]

Interesting wrinkle in the Google Print Library project as it’s being worked out at Harvard Library. Publishers think Google needs to ask their permission before it copies their works, even if they’re in the public domain.

“The law does not permit wholesale copying (which is what digitisation is) by a commercial organisation of works that are still in copyright,” she wrote. “It is also illegal to make those works available digitally once they have been copied.”

Morris wrote that Google needs to obtain permission from publishers before using their work. While she wrote that it may be impractical to ask every publisher, Google should ask permission through collective licensing organizations.

Also interesting, seems that while Google Print actually destroys the books it scans, Google Print Library does not.

A quick back and forth over at Copyfight concerning the much touted NYPL Digital Archives. Taking images that are in the public domain, and then restricting their use … isn’t that sort of uncool, and unnecessary?