Journalist, freelance and sci-fi authors groups take aim at Google book settlement January 6, 2010 | 6:03 pm
Three national authors groups comprising more than 4,000 writers and journalists today decried the controversial agreement between Google and author-publisher groups that would allow the tech giant to sell access to millions of books online. In a letter to Congress, the three groups -- the National Writers Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America -- pointed to what they saw as the overly confusing and ultimately unfair rules that would govern what Google could do with the books if the settlement were to be approved in federal court. In language by turns wry and outraged, the writer groups accuse Google of inadequately explaining the terms of the agreement to the many authors it could affect, and the Authors Guild and publishing industry of fashioning a deal that favors current authors, while leaving less lucrative out-of-print authors behind. The deal does not cover books currently in print. "Think about it," the letter reads. "The existing competitive marketplace is best for the books that publishers care about. It's just the rest of us they want shoved into the straight jacket of the Book Rights Registry which they and the Authors Guild are proposing." If the settlement were approved, it would include the creation of a "Book Rights Registry" to oversee licensing and revenue claims for all books covered by the agreement -- many of which are out of print but remain copyrighted. Under its current terms, authors are automatically included in the settlement, and must "opt out" if they prefer that their books not appear in Google's search results. By the nature of older books, many authors are dead or difficult to find. Still, many authors have objected to being automatically included in the settlement process. "Are you opting in or opting out of the Google Books Settlement? If you dont know what that means or dont know what it means for you and your book youre in good company," read the letter. "No attempt was made to locate the vast majority of authors, and the rest were sent emails. Of those, how many thought they were email spam and deleted them unread?" Google declined to directly address the concerns expressed in the letter, noting instead that if it is approved, "the settlement will open access to millions of books while giving authors and publishers new ways to distribute their work online." The Authors Guild did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Find the full text of the letter embedded below.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Journalist, freelance and sci-fi authors groups take aim at Google book settlement | Technology | Los Angeles Times
Sunday, March 2, 2008
It is Time for Open Access » The Daily Gazette
It is Time for Open Access
By Editorial Board
12:27 am - 02/18/08
Swarthmore might have been ranked one of the most wired campuses in the nation last year, but the College has not been quick to embrace the use of technology as part of its academic mission. Professors use Blackboard, but it is rare when blogs, podcasts, or video ever makes it into the classroom. A handful of professors don't even use email.
Now, however, the College has a unique opportunity.
Just last week, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences embraced the Open Access movement. What does this mean? Every scholarly article that is to be published by a Harvard professor must also be submitted to the Provost's office with a non-exclusive license unless the faculty-member specifically asks for a waiver. After a set period of time, all of these articles will be made freely available online through Harvard's library. It is a remarkable decision.
Now, most research is published in expensive and closed journals— annual prices range from $800 (for Art and History journals) to well over $12,000 (for Chemistry journals). This means that only the wealthiest libraries have a hope of affording subscriptions, and that few scholars outside of the Western world would have any hope of access.
Open Access changes all that. Articles published online can be read and debated by any scholar in the world. Harvard has always been one of the world's foremost universities, and this will help cement that position.
Swarthmore needs to step up and join Harvard.
As a school, we pride ourselves on our commitment to social justice. Swarthmore students have started organizations to fight genocide, the raise awareness on the Iraq War, to buy bed-nets for children in Uganda, and to raise the wages of many Swarthmore employees.
We should embrace this commitment to social justice in the school's research as well. And there is nothing to lose. Swarthmore's scholars would gain a far wider audience for their research–and they could still publish in the journal of their choice: Two-thirds of all journals already permit scholars to make their articles freely available after publication, according to Peter Suber of Open Access News. The Swarthmore library system would, eventually, have thousands of dollars to spend on other vital resources. Swarthmore students would benefit from increasing dialogue with scholars in other parts of the globe.
The benefits of Open Access are clear. What are we waiting for?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Wendt Library Blog, UW College of Engineering: Journal cancellations: Letter from the director
Wendt Library Blog, UW College of Engineering: Journal cancellations: Letter from the director
Letter from Director Deborah Helman:
Journal subscriptions, particularly those of commercial publishers, remain high and Wendt Library continues to be unable to keep pace with their annual rising costs. Price increases for 2008 are projected to average 7-9% - somewhere in the range of $42,000 to $50,000. While we received a small increase to our FY08 acquisitions budget, we will still have to reduce our expenditures on journals and serials by a significant amount.
Campus administration has been supportive of libraries, providing regular additions to the acquisitions budget. While these increases have not kept pace with the rising cost of journals, they have still been helpful and essential. We continue to work with administration to obtain funding that will allow us to provide you with collections that will help you to be both productive and competitive in your research and that supports teaching and learning.
Please share your comments or concerns about any of the list of serials proposed for cancellation. Please also continue to share your new journal requests with your liaison librarian or on Wendt’s purchase request form and we will consider adding them now or in the future.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about these proposed cancellations or other Wendt Library services, please contact me (608-262-7980).
Sincerely,
Deborah Helman
What we're doing to reduce overall costs:
- Shifting to e-only (no print) for more journals
- Cancelling more journals, with a focus on print only titles
- Reducing spending on reference materials and conference proceedings
- Expanding rapid article delivery as an alternative for many high priced and/or underused journals
What faculty and researchers can do:
- Exert your influence with publishers and societies
- Publish in open access journals when possible
- Retain your author rights - the UW-Madison Faculty Senate has endorsed use of the CIC author's addendum to retain key copyright to articles
- Learn more about scholarly communications issues
Wendt Library Blog, UW College of Engineering: Journal cancellations: Letter from the director
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Association of Research Libraries :: December 11, 2007, E-News
Association of Research Libraries :: December 11, 2007, E-News
New Web Resource Rounds Up Information on Authors and Their Rights
A new ARL Web page brings together a range of resources—many developed by ARL member libraries—that support author management of copyrights. The page offers general strategies, a range of examples of resources from research libraries, policy statements supporting rights retention, example addenda, and informational resources. The “Authors and Their Rights” page is available from both the scholarly communication and public policies home pages http://www.arl.org/sc/ and http://www.arl.org/pp/.
Association of Research Libraries :: December 11, 2007, E-News
Monday, November 26, 2007
Hardin Scholarly Communication News » U of Iowa Faculty Senate Approves Author's Addendum for Publishing Agreements - The University of Iowa Libraries
U of Iowa Faculty Senate Approves Author’s Addendum for Publishing Agreements
The University of Iowa Faculty Senate Approved the “Addendum to Publication Agreements for CIC Authors” at their October 23, 2007 meeting. This addendum is intended for authors to use to help them protect their intellectual property rights when publishing their work.
Excerpt from the “Statement on Publishing Agreements”:
Faculty authors should consider a number of factors when choosing and interacting with publishers for their works. The goal of publication should be to encourage widespread dissemination and impact; the means for accomplishing this will necessarily depend on the nature of the work in question, the author’s circumstances, available suitable outlets, and expectations in the author’s field of inquiry. In general, authors are encouraged to consider publishing strategies that will optimize short- and long-term access to their work, taking into account such factors as affordability, efficient means for distribution, a secure third-party archiving strategy, and flexible management of rights.
To read more of the statement and view the addendum, visit the full Statement and Addendum.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Monday, November 12, 2007
How Big Media's Copyright Campaigns Threaten Internet Free Expression -- Copyright
How Big Media's Copyright Campaigns Threaten Internet Free Expression -- Copyright
 |
How Big Media's Copyright Campaigns Threaten Internet Free Expression
Big media companies' efforts to extend copyright are hurting creators' abilities to find audiences for their work, argues cyber-rights activist Cory Doctorow.
By Cory Doctorow, InformationWeek
Nov. 5, 2007
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202802308
When people talk about "creator's rights," they usually mean copyright, but copyright is just a side dish for creators: The most important right we have is the right to free expression. And these two rights are always in tension.
Take Viacom's claims against YouTube. The entertainment giant says that YouTube has been profiting from the fact that YouTube users upload clips from Viacom shows, and it demands that YouTube take steps to prevent this from happening in the future. YouTube actually offered to do something very like this: It invited Viacom and other rights holders to send them all the clips they wanted kept offline, and promised to programatically detect these clips and interdict them.
But Viacom rejected this offer (see "Viacom CEO: YouTube Antipiracy Not Quite There," "Viacom exec not satisfied with Google plan," and "Viacom rejects YouTube Antipiracy"). Rather, the company wants YouTube to just figure it out, determine a priori which video clips are being presented with permission and which ones are not. After all, Viacom does the very same thing: It won't air clips until a battalion of lawyers has investigated them and determined whether they are lawful. [Editor's Note, Nov. 7, 1pm: Jeremy Zweig vice president of media and editorial at Viacom, disputes this account. "We haven't rejected anything. The 'interdiction' system that Cory describes is not operational, and YouTube hasn't asked us for our content to populate the system they announced a couple of weeks ago," Zweig stated in an e-mail.]
But the Internet is not cable television. Net-based hosting outfits -- including YouTube, Flickr, Blogger, Scribd, and the Internet Archive -- offer free publication venues to all comers, enabling anyone to publish anything. In 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress considered the question of liability for these companies and decided to offer them a mixed deal: Hosting companies don't need to hire a million lawyers to review every blog post before it goes live, but rights holders can order them to remove any infringing material from the Net just by sending them a notice that the material infringes.
This deal enabled hosting companies to offer free platforms for publication and expression to everyone. But it also allowed anyone to censor the Internet, just by making claims of infringement, without offering any evidence to support those claims, and without having to go to court to prove their claims. Abusing the DMCA presents an irresistible lure to anyone with a beef against an online critic, from the Church of Scientology to Diebold's voting machines division.
The proposal for online hosts to figure out what infringes and what doesn't is wildly impractical. Under most countries' copyright laws, creative works receive a copyright from the moment that they are "fixed in a tangible medium" (hard drives count), and this means that the pool of copyrighted works is so large as to be practically speaking infinite. Every e-mail, instant message, blog post, LOLcat, Facebook status update, and tweet on Twitter is a copyrighted work.
Knowing whether a work is copyrighted, who holds the copyright, and whether a posting is made with the rights holder's permission (or in accord with each nation's varying ideas about fair use) is impossible. The only way to be sure is to start from the presumption that each creative work is infringing, and then make each Internet user prove, to some lawyer's satisfaction, that she has the right to post each drib of content that appears on the Web.
Imagine that such a system were the law of the land. There's no way Blogger or YouTube or Flickr could afford to offer free hosting to their users. Rather, all these hosted services would have to charge enough for access to cover the scorching legal bills associated with checking all material. And not just the freebies, either: Your local ISP, the servers hosting your company's Web site or your page for family genealogy -- they'd all have to do the same kind of continuous checking and rechecking of every file you publish with them.
It would be the end of any publication that couldn't foot the legal bills to get off the ground. The multibillion-page Internet would collapse into the homogeneous world of cable TV (remember when we thought that a "500-channel universe" would be unimaginably broad? Imagine an Internet with only 500 "channels!"). From Amazon to Ask A Ninja, from Blogger to The Everlasting Blort, every bit of online content is made possible by removing the cost of paying lawyers to act as the Internet's gatekeepers.
The Internet's current, incredible diversity is great news for artists. The traditional artist's lament is that our publishers have us over a barrel, controlling the narrow and vital channels for making works available -- from big gallery owners to movie studios to record labels to New York publishers. That's why artists have such a hard time negotiating a decent deal for themselves (for example, most beginning recording artists have to agree to have money deducted from their royalty statements for "breakage" of records en route to stores -- and these deductions are also levied against digital sales through the iTunes Store!).
But, thanks to the Web, artists have more options than ever. The Internet's most popular video podcasts aren't associated with TV networks (with all the terrible, one-sided deals that would entail); rather, they're independent programs like RocketBoom, Homestar Runner, or the late, lamented Ze Frank Show. These creators -- along with all the musicians, writers, and other artists using the Net to earn their living -- were able to write their own ticket. Today, major artists like Radiohead and Madonna are leaving the record labels behind and trying novel, Net-based ways of promoting their work.
And it's not just the indies who benefit: The existence of successful independent artists creates fantastic leverage for artists who negotiate with the majors. More and more, the big media companies' "like it or leave it" bargaining stance is being undermined by the possibility that the next big star will shrug, turn on her heel, and make her fortune without the big companies' help. This has humbled the bigs, making their deals better and more artist-friendly.
Bargaining leverage is just for starters. The greatest threat that art faces is suppression. Historically, artists have struggled just to make themselves heard, just to safeguard the right to express themselves. Censorship is history's greatest enemy of art. A limited-liability Web is a Web where anyone can post anything and reach everyone.
What's more, this privilege isn't limited to artists. All manner of communication, from the personal introspection in public "diaries" to social chatter on MySpace and Facebook, are now possible. Some artists have taken the bizarre stance that this "trivial" matter is unimportant and thus a poor excuse for allowing hosted services to exist in the first place. This is pretty arrogant: A society where only artists are allowed to impart "important" messages and where the rest of us are supposed to shut up about our loves, hopes, aspirations, jokes, family, and wants is hardly a democratic paradise.
Artists are in the free expression business, and technology that helps free expression helps artists. When lowering the cost of copyright enforcement raises the cost of free speech, every artist has a duty to speak out. Our ability to make our art is inextricably linked with the billions of Internet users who use the network to talk about their lives.
Cory Doctorow is co-author of the Boing Boing blog, as well as a journalist, Internet activist, and science fiction writer. Read his previous InformationWeek columns.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Transitions: scholarly communications news for the UI community | September 2007
Welcome to the September issue of Transitions.
Table of Contents:
*Campaign against Open Access and Public Access to Federally Funded Research
*Scholarly Publishing Out of Step with the Academy
*Scholarly Publishers Issue Position Paper on Author/Publisher Rights
*U.S College Book Price Study
*Economic Stability of Open Access
*Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
*Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Joins Google’s Library Project
*Do Open Access Articles Have Greater Citation Impact?
*Flattening of the U.S. Output of Scientific Articles: 1988–2003
*Amazon Will Digitize Universities’ Books and Sell Print-on-Demand Copies
*L.A. Times Editorial: Accessing NIH research
*Yale Libraries Pull Out of BioMed Central Over Cost of Publication