Showing posts with label e-books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label e-books. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Is E-Book Milestone Worth Cheering? – Deadline.com

 Is E-Book Milestone Worth Cheering? – Deadline.com

Is E-Book Milestone Worth Cheering?

By MIKE FLEMING | Tuesday July 20, 2010 @ 9:21am EDT

 

318208709_e9bcd442a6Amazon.com is crowing that for the first time, its e-book sales volume has surpassed hardcovers. Am I the only one who sees this as an apocalyptic sign for the great pleasure of book reading? Amazon's basing  its assertion on sales figures for the last three months, when buyers were lining their Amazon Kindles with summer beach reading. Amazon chief Jeffrey Bezos marvels that the milestone is more remarkable given that Amazon has only been selling e-books 33 months, as opposed to the 15 years it has been moving hardcovers. A report on the milestone in The New York Times indicates that within the next decade, less than 25% of books sold will be in print.

The lure of e-books is easy to understand: with no trees killed, books come cheaper to consumers, who no longer have to lug around hardcovers when an entire library can be loaded into a single lightweight device. On the cost front, I wonder what will happen when the makers of Kindle and other devices corner the publishing market and are no longer interested in selling its software at loss leader prices so that it can move hardware. That confrontation is inevitable, when more brick and mortar stores vanish.

My biggest problem--and the reason I'll always stick to print books--is that I think the entire experience of reading a books is cheapened by technology, same as it was in music. Young people don't become invested in musical artists the way I did when I bought vinyl albums, savored the cover art and gave every song a chance (my kids pay a buck to download hits only and don't care about an artist's progression). Future generations of readers won't value the ritual experience of buying a book, appreciating its distinctive smell and formative heft, earning the way to the end, page by page, and then displaying the best ones like trophies on a shelf.

Now, the whole business of publishing is changing. More and more authors like James Patterson are co-writing novels. That's made them more prolific and wealthy, but it doesn't mean their books are better. Tom Clancy is taking this a step further this fall with the fall publication of Dead or Alive, a Jack Ryan thriller. All of the big authors write their signature franchise character books solo--Patterson works alone on his Alex Cross mysteries--Clancy wrote the Jack Ryan book with frequent collaborator Grant Blackwood. While other authors continued Ian Fleming's James Bond series, Robert Ludlum's Bourne series and even Mario Puzo's The Godfather characters, it's  only because those authors are dead. What's Clancy's excuse? I see it as another step in the wrong direction.

As for e-books, I'll give the last word to Elmore Leonard, who's still cranking out his customary 3 to 4 pages each day from 10-6, even as he prepares to turn 85. "To me, a book is a book, an electronic device is not, and love of books was the reason I started writing," Leonard told me recently. "I don’t have a word processor, e-mail, any of that stuff. I write in longhand mostly, then put it on my typewriter as I go along. I don’t have any interest in any of that electronic stuff, but I’m going on 85, and won’t have to worry about it too much longer.”

What about the rest of us, Elmore?

Is E-Book Milestone Worth Cheering? – Deadline.com

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Law.com - Commentary: Is Google Too Big to Infringe?

 Law.com - Commentary: Is Google Too Big to Infringe?

Commentary: Is Google Too Big to Infringe?

Robert Kunstadt
The National Law Journal
May 11, 2009

Technology lets Google scan books. It does it because now it can. But authors and publishers sued -- and a class action settlement is now pending in the Southern District of New York. The settlement would authorize Google to scan copyrighted books and maintain an electronic database of books. Google will be able to sell access to individual books and subscriptions to the database, place advertisements on any page dedicated to a book and make other commercial uses of books. Google will pay the copyright owner 63 percent of revenue. The settlement should be rejected.

I studied copyright law under the late Professor Melville B. Nimmer, author of "Nimmer on Copyright," at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. I was fortunate to win a national prize in The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers's "Nathan Burkan Competition" for law student papers on copyright law in 1975. My paper was published in the ASCAP Copyright Law Symposium. I was amazed to see online that Google scanned and published large sections of that paper (even though it was about protecting artists' copyrights).

Nimmer used to say "Ownership of a physical object [a book] is not ownership of the copyright in it." That is Copyright Law 101. But Google thought, "We can." The author's fundamental right is to control his or her work. Google's verbatim reproduction of scanned pages exceeds all bounds of "fair use" by abstracts or summaries. That the entire work is not reproduced is an aggravation, not a mitigation, since it violates the author's moral right under the Berne Convention to bar truncation of the work.

Google will argue that author/publisher class representatives and attorneys arranged this settlement. But these self-appointed "guardians" seem worse than no guardians at all. The class needs attorneys who will work harder for injunctive relief -- and contempt-of-court penalties if Google persists in copying. (But injunctive relief to stop Google's infringement would not create an evergreen settlement fund from which class attorneys may seek a share.)

PARTIES MAY NOT AMEND IP LAW

Authors should not be forced to comply with the proposed settlement's nonstatutory formalities to protect the author's rights. The author need only comply with U.S. copyright law. The parties may not amend the copyright law, creating an ad hoc alternative regime. The copyright law needs to be enforced, the settlement rejected and Google's willful infringement enjoined. Google, as a willful actor for profit, is punishable for copyright infringement the same as any software-pirating street peddler. To overcome the public perception that infringers are "Robin Hood" benefactors, IP law needs to be applied even-handedly to litigants large and small so that the public will see it in their own interest to support IP enforcement.

Google pursued its copying project in calculated disregard of authors' rights. Its business plan was: "So, sue me." To approve the proposed settlement would vindicate Google's street ethics: that the law is whatever you can grab and get away with. Google's added twist -- its update on the Dickensian street pickpocket -- is that if you take very little property from very many people, with a technological efficiency unimaginable to Fagin, you have some real money.

The settlement would reward Google's massive unauthorized online reproduction of copyrighted works, by making Google a "shadow copyright office" with a revenue percentage -- unlike the real Copyright Office, which collects a flat fee.

Google took from the authors first -- and belatedly now seeks to legitimize its misconduct by this settlement. Instead, Google should be punished hard, to deter such schemes. Otherwise, Google will succeed where Napster failed. Respect for IP law -- as well as the rule of law in general -- will decline. If an enterprising homeless person pitches a tent in Google's corporate parking lot for a "Thomas Jefferson Used Book & CD Flea Market," will Google let it stay there (since it only occupies part of the lot)? How about for a profit percentage as sweetener to induce "settlement"?

Google's conduct fits the definition of a public nuisance, and may be enjoined as such. It imposes a small harm on a large number of authors. The harm, copying only a portion of each work, is calculated so as not to make it worthwhile for an author to incur the expense of suing for injunctive relief. Google, despite its cute slogan "Don't be evil," is like a large paper mill releasing noxious gas over a wide area, sufficiently diluted that you smell it but faintly. Like those banks that are now "too big to fail," is Google really "too big to infringe"?

Robert Kunstadt is an IP trial attorney in New York. He submitted an opposition to the proposed settlement in the case against Google.

Law.com - Commentary: Is Google Too Big to Infringe?

With E-Readers Comes Wider Piracy of Books - NYTimes.com

With E-Readers Comes Wider Piracy of Books - NYTimes.com 

Print Books Are Target of Pirates on the Web

Published: May 11, 2009

Ursula K. Le Guin, the science fiction writer, was perusing the Web site Scribd last month when she came across digital copies of some books that seemed quite familiar to her. No wonder. She wrote them, including a free-for-the-taking copy of one of her most enduring novels, “The Left Hand of Darkness.”

 

Cory Doctorow offers some free electronic versions of his books.

Ursula K. Le Guin was irked to find copies of her work online.

Neither Ms. Le Guin nor her publisher had authorized the electronic editions. To Ms. Le Guin, it was a rude introduction to the quietly proliferating problem of digital piracy in the literary world. “I thought, who do these people think they are?” Ms. Le Guin said. “Why do they think they can violate my copyright and get away with it?”

This would all sound familiar to filmmakers and musicians who fought similar battles — with varying degrees of success — over the last decade. But to authors and their publishers in the age of Kindle, it’s new and frightening territory.

For a while now, determined readers have been able to sniff out errant digital copies of titles as varied as the “Harry Potter” series and best sellers by Stephen King and John Grisham. But some publishers say the problem has ballooned in recent months as an expanding appetite for e-books has spawned a bumper crop of pirated editions on Web sites like Scribd and Wattpad, and on file-sharing services like RapidShare and MediaFire.

“It’s exponentially up,” said David Young, chief executive of Hachette Book Group, whose Little, Brown division publishes the “Twilight” series by Stephenie Meyer, a favorite among digital pirates. “Our legal department is spending an ever-increasing time policing sites where copyrighted material is being presented.”

John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher that also issues the “Dummies” series, employs three full-time staff members to trawl for unauthorized copies. Gary M. Rinck, general counsel, said that in the last month, the company had sent notices on more than 5,000 titles — five times more than a year ago — asking various sites to take down digital versions of Wiley’s books.

“It’s a game of Whac-a-Mole,” said Russell Davis, an author and president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a trade association that helps authors pursue digital pirates. “You knock one down and five more spring up.”

Sites like Scribd and Wattpad, which invite users to upload documents like college theses and self-published novels, have been the target of industry grumbling in recent weeks, as illegal reproductions of popular titles have turned up on them. Trip Adler, chief executive of Scribd, said it was his “gut feeling” that unauthorized editions represented only a small fraction of the site’s content.

Both sites say they immediately remove illegally posted books once notified of them. The companies have also installed filters to identify copyrighted work when it is uploaded. “We are working very hard to keep unauthorized content off the site,” Mr. Adler said.

Several publishers declined to comment on the issue, fearing the attention might inspire more theft. For now, electronic piracy of books does not seem as widespread as what hit the music world, when file-sharing services like Napster threatened to take down the whole industry.

Publishers and authors say they can learn from their peers in music, who alienated fans by using the courts aggressively to go after college students and Napster before it converted to a legitimate online store.

“If iTunes started three years earlier, I’m not sure how big Napster and the subsequent piratical environments would have been, because people would have been in the habit of legitimately purchasing at pricing that wasn’t considered pernicious,” said Richard Sarnoff, a chairman of Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, the world’s largest publisher of consumer titles.

Until recently, publishers believed books were relatively safe from piracy because it was so labor-intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. What’s more, reading books on the computer was relatively unappealing compared with a printed version.

Now, with publishers producing more digital editions, it is potentially easier for hackers to copy files. And the growing popularity of electronic reading devices like the Kindle from Amazon or the Reader from Sony make it easier to read in digital form. Many of the unauthorized editions are uploaded as PDFs, which can be easily e-mailed to a Kindle or the Sony device.

An example of copyrighted material on Scribd recently included a digital version of “The Tales of Beedle the Bard,” a collection of fairy tales by J. K. Rowling. One commenter, posting as vicious-9690, wrote “thx for posting it up ur like the robinhood of ebooks.”

For some writers, tracking down illegal e-books is simply not worth it.

“The question is, how much time and energy do I want to spend chasing these guys,” Stephen King wrote in an e-mail message. “And to what end? My sense is that most of them live in basements floored with carpeting remnants, living on Funions and discount beer.”

Book sales are down significantly, and publishers say it is difficult to determine whether electronic piracy is denting sales. Some of the most frequently uploaded books, like the “Twilight” series, are also huge best sellers.

Some authors say they just want to protect the principle of compensating writers. “I don’t ask to get rich off this stuff,” said Harlan Ellison, an author and screenwriter. “I just ask to be paid.”

Nine years ago, Mr. Ellison sued Internet service providers for failing to stop a user from posting four of his stories to an online newsgroup. Since settling that suit, he has pursued more than 240 people who have posted his work to the Internet without permission. “If you put your hand in my pocket, you’ll drag back six inches of bloody stump,” he said.

Others view digital piracy as a way for new readers to discover writers. Cory Doctorow, a novelist whose young adult novel “Little Brother” spent seven weeks on the New York Times children’s chapter books best-seller list last year, offers free electronic versions of his books on the same day they are published in hardcover. He believes free versions, even unauthorized ones, entice new readers.

“I really feel like my problem isn’t piracy,” Mr. Doctorow said. “It’s obscurity.”

With E-Readers Comes Wider Piracy of Books - NYTimes.com

Friday, May 8, 2009

Google Books Discussion -- Open Content Alliance (OCA) » Blog Archive » Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now!

Open Content Alliance (OCA) » Blog Archive » Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now! 

Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now!

Today Democracy Now! broadcast an interview between Amy Goodman and Brewster Kahle about digitization, the Google Book Search Settlement, and the future of books and libraries (taped on April 17 in San Francisco):

Open Content Alliance (OCA) » Blog Archive » Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now!

Friday, February 27, 2009

Kindles and "creative machines" blur boundaries of copyright - Ars Technica

Kindles and "creative machines" blur boundaries of copyright - Ars Technica

The Authors Guild has invited plenty of ridicule by claiming that Amazon's Kindle 2 violates authors' rights by reading works aloud. But buried in their argument is a surprisingly tangled puzzle for copyright law in the digital era.

By Julian Sanchez

The Authors Guild has come in for a fair amount of ridicule since their executive director, Paul Aiken, claimed that the speech-to-text feature of Amazon's new Kindle 2 violated copyright law, telling the Wall Street Journal: "They don't have the right to read a book out loud." On Wednesday, Guild president Roy Blount Jr. took to the pages of The New York Times to defend his group's much-mocked position, arguing that the device would "swindle" penurious writers out of precious audiobook revenue. Whether or not you think that's likely, however, probing the Guild's objections reveals one more way that advancing technology may blur traditional categories in copyright law.

The short version of Blount's argument is that the right to create an audiobook version of a text is generally more valuable than the right to distribute an e-book, and that the Kindle effectively gives Amazon a free twofer: having bought the cheaper e-book right, it gets to offer customers a multimedia package that includes an audiobook rendered on the fly.

While proponents of this argument have had some trouble explaining why it's OK for a human to privately read a bedtime story out loud, but not for a machine to do it, there is at least this potential distinction: private human reading is not a for-profit product that presents a realistic alternative to publisher-authorized audiobooks. The Kindle may not produce the kind of rich dramatic reading a human actor might record, but advances in text-to-speech technology make it a far more passable alternative than the sort of stilted Cylon centurion delivery that represented the state of the art just a few years ago.

For the moment, the Authors Guild seems to be hoping to rely on contract law rather than copyright litigation, urging authors and publishers to condition their licensing of e-book rights on Amazon's blocking the read-out-loud feature unless a separate performance license is purchased. It's not hard to see why: under the standard established in the seminal Betamax case, the Kindle's out-loud feature would almost certainly be deemed to have "substantial noninfringing uses," leaving the company in the clear, and publishers with the unrealistic recourse of trying to sue individual owners who "perform" their books without permission.

How to create a derivative work

But there is an implicit copyright claim lurking in the Guild's objections: US law assigns creators and publishers the exclusive right to prepare (or authorize) "derivative works" based on their creations—such as audiobooks, translations, and dramatic adaptations. But that raises a surprisingly tangled question: What does it mean to create a derivative work? As Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge points out, the Guild has somewhat misleadingly spoken of "audio rights"—but there's no such thing as an "audio right" per se, only the right to prepare a "work," such as a particular (independently copyrightable) audio recording. But does the Kindle create a "work"?

Michael Kwun of the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that it doesn't, for two reasons. First, he says, a "derivative work" must be a work of creative authorship: He cites the copyright statute's definition of "derivative work" as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works . . . which, as a whole, represent[s] an original work of authorship."

But there's ambiguity hiding in that ellipsis. The full text is:

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

The second sentence imposes an originality requirement as the criterion for determining when revisions and annotations amount to the creation of a derivative work, not as a general requirement of any derivative work. Kwun invokes the hoary maxim "No creativity, no copyrightability," but this conflates the standard for independent copyrightability of a work with the criteria for infringement of the derivative work right. As legal scholar Paul Goldstein notes in his definitive essay on derivative works, "the [Copyright] Act does not require that the derivative work be protectable for its preparation to infringe." In other words, a work insufficiently original to be eligible for an independent copyright may still be an infringing derivative.

Consider, for instance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in the 1984 case Lone Ranger Television v. Program Radio. Program Radio edited for broadcast old recordings of Lone Ranger teleplays that had fallen into the public domain. Thanks to a quirk of the law, however, the original scripts on which the programs were based remained under copyright. Though the edited versions clearly fell far short of the originality that would be required for an independent copyright, the Court held that Program Radio had violated the authors' exclusive "derivative works" rights. While the record is mixed, subsequent cases have at least been open to the category of "unoriginal" derivative works.

And Kwun concedes that his argument has some counterintuitive results: he told Ars that, on this theory, a translation of a text into another language—a paradigmatic example of derivative work—would not count as such if the translation were produced by an algorithmic software program like Google Translate. While no author has yet raised this claim, as far as I know, it might be argued that Google's on-the-fly translations of Web pages constitute large-scale production and dissemination of "derivative works." One interesting, and equally counterintuitive, wrinkle is that it might actually make an enormous legal difference whether the translation is performed on Google's servers and transmitted to the user, or by plug-in software on the end-user's home computer.

That's OK, Kwun has a backup argument with more solid support in case law. In the 1992 case Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America, the Ninth Circuit found that Galoob's Game Genie—a device interposed between a game cartridge and the Nintendo console to allow users to tweak gameplay—did not create infringing "derivative works" of Nintendo's games because it did not "incorporate a portion of a copyrighted work in some concrete or permanent form." In other words, Game Genie altered the gaming experience, but did not actually create a new modified copy of the game. The Court codified that principle in Micro Star v. FormGen Inc., making the existence of some kind of nontransitory copy of a work a prerequisite for the creation of a "derivative."

Kindles and "creative machines" blur boundaries of copyright - Ars Technica

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Universal Digital Library: Results in Unicode

Universal Digital Library: Results in Unicode

The mission is to create a Universal Library which will foster creativity and free access to all human knowledge. As a first step in realizing this mission, it is proposed to create the Universal Library with a free-to-read, searchable collection of one million books, available to everyone over the Internet. Within 10 years, it is our expectation that the collection will grow to 10 Million books. The result will be a unique resource accessible to anyone in the world 24x7, without regard to nationality or socioeconomic background.

One of the goals of the Universal Library is to provide support for full text indexing and searching based on OCR (optical character recognition) technologies where available. The availability of online search allows users to locate relevant information quickly and reliably thus enhancing student's success in their research endeavors. This 24x7 resource would also provide an excellent test bed for language processing research in areas such as machine translation, summarization, intelligent indexing, and information retrieval.

It is our expectation that the Universal Library will be mirrored at several locations worldwide so as to protect the integrity and availability of the data. Several models for sustainability are being explored. Usability studies would also be conducted to ensure that the materials are easy to locate, navigate, and use. Appropriate metadata for navigation and management would also be created.

Universal Digital Library: Results in Unicode