eBook Lending Library Launched 145
An anonymous reader writes "The Open Library has launched an eBook lending program. Patrons of this Internet Archive-led group of libraries may borrow up to five books at a time, for up to two weeks. Like print books, the eBooks may be on loan only to one patron at a time. The organization perceives this model providing more bang for the libraries' bucks. The books are mostly 20th-century titles. Some librarians have books that are too fragile or rare for lending and will scan them for eBook lending."
Project Gutenberg with DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Patrons of this Internet Archive-led group of libraries may borrow up to five books at a time, for up to two weeks. Like print books, the eBooks may be on loan only to one patron at a time. ..... The books are mostly 20th-century titles.
So... its basically Project Gutenberg with added DRM?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And I thought the days of Advertising on ./ were behind us..
When did you start thinking that? A few hours ago?
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly. It looks like a competitor to the Overdrive system many libraries use. Overdrive is a sharepoint-like portal that delivers DRM'd ebooks (usually PDFs) to library patrons. Its kinda kludgy but popular and the defacto standard for this kind of thing.
Gutenburg is only public domain books, this system would deliver purchased ebooks and most likely apply its own DRM like Adobe's PDF DRM. If it didn't use DRM the library using it would most likely get in some kind of trouble.
Oh well, anything that co
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what I was thinking. My local library uses Overdrive [overdrive.com], and I've downloaded many new audio books to my ipod from the comfort of my home for completely free.
But thanks to this article I found out that Overdrive offers an iPhone app so I can download books and audio straight to my phone. [wsj.com] This is great! They even made a video explaining how it works. [youtube.com]
They also have an Android version [overdrive.com] and here's a video by a user. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that explains it, it's very versatile in a number of features and supports various enterprise and Web scenarios.
Others here on Slashdot are very familiar (perhaps too familiar) and still aren't sure what features of Sharepoint lend themselves to this sort of eBook lending system, and what exactly a "sharepoint like" portal is. Is it similar to a Drupal like portal? Or a Wiki like portal?
Re: (Score:2)
Sharepoint's a hideous nightmare monolithic monstrosity. Typical Mircrosoft.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, library lending has got to be the situation where DRM is the most justified. You *really* don't own the product. If that's what it takes to get more titles (including those not in the public domain) available, then so be it.
Re:Project Gutenberg with DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm of the opposite opinion. The reason libraries have to put time limits on lending is because the resource is scarce. But books can be replicated digitally for practically nothing. Putting lending limits on e-books is a clear case of creating scarcity where none need exist. Technology has given us the tools to provide information for free to all, but our psychology limits us to thinking in terms of scarcity and imposing it if it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of decent authors is a very scarce resource. Having to work for nothing would make them scarcer.
Re: (Score:1)
Really?
You do know that except for a priviledged (and lucky) few, most authors need a day job to live. Writing is just a side activity.
On the other hand, scarcity (the paper book model) ensure that there won't be any change to not earning anything because knows an author, nor will they ever hear about him or her.
Public Lending Right as a model? (UK) (Score:3)
In the UK, we have the Public Lending Right [wikipedia.org] (also in some other countries). This gives authors a micro payment for every time one of their books is loaned in a public library, something like 5p. a time.
I am not sure how the figures are worked out but the intention is that authors are compensated for public loans that might impact their sales. It's not tied to the number of copies of their books that are stocked by the libraries, but the number of times their books are borrowed. It's summed up and given to t
Re: (Score:1)
So, 1 library buys 1 'copy' of a book, then 'loans' it to everybody for as long as they want, simultaneously?
Let's get this thing going. It sounds great. Well, except for authors/publishers.
Which library shall we designate the 'master', which buys the one copy of the book, and then loans it out to everyone?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you RTFA. They're talking about 20th Century books--books that are subject to copyright. This is a very good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very good thing.
Except for the whole DRM part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's rather cool.
(searches)
Year's best science fiction - nope
Red Mars - nope
Hyperion - nope
Foundation asimov - nope
mary higgins clark - nope
Ender's game -nope
Okay well that was a fun experiment but I don't think I'll be coming-back any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
So... its basically Project Gutenberg with added DRM?
The books are quite a bit more recent, check William Gibson's available books:
http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL26283A/William_F._Gibson [openlibrary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a better solution would be to only allow one book to be taken out per user. Makes more sense and most people don't read more than one book at a time anyways. If they want to keep the ebook they can buy it.
Really? I've never met someone who only reads one book at a time. It may only be occasionally that they'll stop one book halfway and get distracted, but that's two at a time.
The worst part, from a user experience perspective, is that it sounds like a reasonable limitation. When users do run into it and are frustrated, and that's what they'll tell other people about, no matter how good it is overall.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once? Musicians can go out on tour and perform live, and make a reasonable living doing that, making their studio recordings less critical a part of their income. Authors can't (generally speaking, I suppose some poets and spoken-word types could) go on tour and perform their craft for a live audience.
Yes, they're forcing a business model down peoples' throats, and it seems dated and silly given that you can make infinte lossless copies of a book with a close-to-zero cost. The real (and earnest) question is - what's your proposal for a better solution, specifically for the publishing industry, which will allow authors to - at the very least - make a comfortable middle-class living? Most authors do not write books that sell at volumes that would allow "2 cents per electronic copy" to be a maintainable business model. Do we tell those writers, "tough shit, start waiting tables and give up the writing thing if you're not popular?" And bear in mind that if you actually would suggest that, you've just neatly gutted the bulk of the sci-fi and fantasy genres, which I believe tend to be pretty popular around this part of the intartubes.
Re: (Score:1)
Blogs with advertising where they can regularly add content, and/or specialized subscription-type content.
Sales of physical copies of their works (people still buy physical books, and probably will for a long time).
Sponsored book signings / speaking engagements / web lectures, etc.
Contract gigs writing material for medium/large corporations that need or could find creative use for skilled writers (think Penny-Arcade's video game manuals).
Participation in and/or collaborative hosting and moderation of web-ba
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
As we used to fund art before with Patronage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage [wikipedia.org] ).
I actually am pretty serious. I do not see how one can expect to fund a production per copy when cloning such a production is a virtually free operation. The funding needs to be done beforehand. I would totally chip in a few hundreds bucks a year to fund arts I like.
Re: (Score:2)
As we used to fund art before with Patronage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage [wikipedia.org] ).
I actually am pretty serious. I do not see how one can expect to fund a production per copy when cloning such a production is a virtually free operation. The funding needs to be done beforehand. I would totally chip in a few hundreds bucks a year to fund arts I like.
That there is the problem. A lot of what's turned out to be incredibly influential work wasn't liked at that time, much of it was outright banned for being offensive to portions of the population.
Not to mention that in many cases you don't know what a work is going to look like until after it's finished.
This is why charity based welfare and assistance programs don't work very well. If you're a battered wife, you're far, far more likely to get help from charitable organizations than if you're a man in a simi
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of what's turned out to be incredibly influential work wasn't liked at that time, much of it was outright banned for being offensive to portions of the population.
No funding or business model changes this basic resistance to change. Corporate marketing seeks to control what is acceptable for it's own gain, but I'd guess that much of previous work that was banned or "offensive" ran into similar problems (under different guises of power): people who wield influence and power using it against others. Distributed patronage would be a huge win for the freedom for people choose what things get made.
Not to mention that in many cases you don't know what a work is going to look like until after it's finished.
Neither do any other investors, but still they invest in the very products
Re: (Score:1)
That there is the problem. A lot of what's turned out to be incredibly influential work wasn't liked at that time, much of it was outright banned for being offensive to portions of the population.
And the authors of those books hardly wrote them expecting any kind of economic payback.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Patronage.
It's not that patronage is a great system necessarily, though I imagine we can improve hugely on how it worked in past centuries. It's that the current system is broken. Very, very broken. DRM is patently ridiculous. There hasn't been a DRM scheme yet that couldn't be broken, and there never will be. Currently, copying is incredibly easy. Copying will only get easier. Artificial scarcity can't be maintained. Enforcing it is absolutely impossible. How is any regulating body to know
Re: (Score:1)
I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?
Not my problem. How is a person who sits around and does logarithm tables to 300 decimal places going to get paid when they are done? Oh, you mean we don't want or need 300 decimal place logarithm tables?
That may be a bad example, but all of them are. There is no inherent right to getting paid. Many things that society values (eg, scientific research) is primarily done through tax money. Scientists don't pass around a hat, and they rarely direct charge for their research.
I have great respect for author
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean we don't want or need 300 decimal place logarithm tables?
That may be a bad example, but all of them are.
I don't think you can use "we don't want or need this" as a justification for copying something for your billion closest friends to read...
Re: (Score:1)
Well.. yes?
Or, more specifically, we would suggest that if it turns out that being an author of written stories is no longer a suitable profession in terms of making a reasonable living income, that it be reserved as something to be done by those who do so out of enjoyment for the art - possibly as something done in spare time next to 'waiting tables'.
Remember.. the popular mantra here is that pe
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that no one is entitled to an income, but, sheesh, do you really want to live in a world where the only books that get written are those that will sell millions of copies? I mean, Harry Potter was fun, but surely you can agree that reading Glen Cook, for example, is much more satisfying. Not to mention John Steinbeck or Tolkein.
Surely we, as a society, can co
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Authors can't (generally speaking, I suppose some poets and spoken-word types could) go on tour and perform their craft for a live audience.
Sure they can. It's called "a reading". [yorkpress.co.uk]
"tough shit, start waiting tables and give up the writing thing if you're not popular?"
And that is different from the current business model [fonerbooks.com] how exactly? Sure, it ain't as bad as in music industry, but still...
Unless you are selling at least tens of thousands [brendahiatt.com] of each book - you're not going to be making a living from writing alone.
At 10% royalty a $20 hard copy owned by a publisher and a $2 self-published, self-marketed e-book make the same amount of money per book for the author.
Granted, minus the advance, promotion and various other services that the publisher would provide. Also, minus any copyright limitations.
If anything, authors need to demand a larger piece of a smaller cake for the e-versions of their books.
Most of the publisher's costs are non-existent for e-books, just as most of the risk. Author would probably be better off self-publishing through amazon. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the publisher's costs are non-existent for e-books, just as most of the risk. Author would probably be better off self-publishing through amazon. [amazon.com]
Maybe. The real question is: are there unaffiliated editors that authors can hire, rather than the other way around. It seems to me that that's the real monopoly that the publishing houses have, once you strip them of the dominance over distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't there be? It's a skill, not an inherited genetic trait. Plus, editors retire all the time - they don't get euthanized or taken to a glue factory.
But in general, editors are free to do freelance work as it attracts customers to their publisher.
Also, a self-publishing author doesn't really need all those editors [stateuniversity.com] that a publishing company might need.
Re: (Score:2)
Physical libraries already lend to an "infinite" number of people, where "infinite" is a number limited only by the book's popularity, durability and the length of time the book is held by each reader, and - at least in my country, don't know about yours - also already pay the author based on a combination of the number of times the book is borrowed and the amount of funding allocated to library lending in the government budget. This money comes out of our taxes, which I don't begrudge as I consider it part
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, it ISN'T infinite, then. It is strictly limited by how many times you can serially lend out each copy of the book before it wears out, and by how many copies the library buys. With electronic replication, it really is essentially infinite. You're not limited to serial lending; it can be parallel without limit. And the library only has to buy one copy. So no, electronic is not ANYTHING like physical.
Re: (Score:2)
I did put quotes around the word "infinite"; perhaps I should have used the word "indefinite"? However, if we're going to be picky, electronic replication is not really essentially infinite, nor is its lending parallel without limit. Hard drives do wear out. Bit errors still occur, however rarely. Parallelism (aka bandwidth) is dependent on the physical infrastructure. So it's really a question of efficiencies, for which electronic is mostly far superior (assuming the technological infrastructure is maintai
Re: (Score:2)
Score for logic: 0.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would someone who buys a copy be motivated to set up the expensive web infrastructure needed lend it to an infinite number of people at once?
The only motive I can see is that they have some way to make money off of it -- they either charge for the lending, or are making money off of ads. In which case, the author ought to get a cut --
Re: (Score:3)
- Patronage, where a wealthy person/group funds the creation of art. This was common before copyright. Although some of this funding will be purely altruistic ("just make great art for everyone"), this model also leads to self-indulgent or propaganda-like art.
- Donations, as is done with street performers, and non-profits both large and small (e.g. Wikipedia).
- Grants for the arts. Similar to donations, though the provenance of the funds may be different (e.g. in many cou
Re: (Score:2)
These are all certainly legitimate alternatives - I wasn't asking with a predetermined answer in mind, I was asking because GGP was carrying on about how "DRM and sales of books as if they're physical objects" is a dead and outdated business model, and, if we accept that that's the case, the next question is: where do we go from here?
I frankly don't see the objection to spending money to purchase a copy of a book you want to buy, regardless of whether or not there's DRM applied. I'm getting hours of enjoy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?
Well, I was thinking that they might get paid the same way that scriveners, lamplighters, and blacksmiths are paid.
Do we tell those writers, "tough shit, start waiting tables and give up the writing thing if you're not popular?"
Well, that is pretty much what we told scriveners, lamplighters, blacksmiths, and dozens of other professionals whose professions were rendered obsolete by technology. If authors do not want to write because they enjoy the art, well, that is unfortunate, but there are a whole lot of people out there who do just enjoy the art and write even when it is not profitable.
if you actually would suggest that, you've just neatly gutted the bulk of the sci-fi and fantasy genres, which I believe tend to be pretty popular around this part of the intartubes.
Oh yeah? Do you have
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I stopped reading when you suggested that *authors* have been made obsolete by technology, just like scribes and lamplighters.
Nowhere in my post did I say that the "second assistant mail clerk to the deputy copy editor" and the rest of the middlemen in the publishing industry were entitled to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?
The blindingly obvious answer is that you set the price for the one copy high enough that you only need to sell one.
Now who is going to pay $250,000 or even $25,000 for a novel? A few wealthy patronage types possibly. But there is nothing stopping a bunch of regular joes from throwing a couple bucks into a pool to
Re: (Score:2)
But there is nothing stopping a bunch of regular joes from throwing a couple bucks into a pool to raise that much money together.
If any of my favorite authors put a book out like that, I'd throw $5 or $10 into the pot to get it "released".
We would need someone to administer a scheme like that - maybe they could find new authors that we might like & they might also have to do some promotion to get enough people interested in some books. What could we call those people? "Publishers" sounds like a good name for them...
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there's more than a handful of webcomic artists who profit enough off of books, t-shirts, and other merchandise that they basically do it as their day job (or if not that, a part-time job). Sure, very few of them are Penny Arcade rich, but there are more of them that are making minimum wage or better from merch, donations, etc. than you'd think. I know of a few offhand that pull in anywhere from $1000-2000 a month in donations (that doesn't count ads or merch).
If your work can stand on its own mer
Re: (Score:2)
You neglect the obvious corollary.
Where in the past the prices of books were set at a level that would both compensate for the physical cost of the media and the author's intellectual contribution, now essentially the media cost is zero.
You're right, John Q Author won't get to sell books through massive publishers. But JQA can sell his books directly to his fans for almost nothing and make a nice profit.
Further, his market is no longer the 'segment' identified by a marketer, it's EVERYONE with an internet
Re: (Score:2)
"I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?"
I have an honest question, how are we to protect horse and buggy makers from this new fangled technology called the car?
Re: (Score:2)
Really, so you're also suggesting that AUTHORS have been made obsolete somehow by technology?
I know that AI systems have improved in the past few years, but I don't think we've managed to reduce Shakespeare to a few thousand lines of code yet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Really, so you're also suggesting that AUTHORS have been made obsolete somehow by technology?"
We do this all the time for other occupations, no one has any problem offshoring/outsourcing/destroying jobs when new technologies that make their skills obsolete (i.e. robots vs manual labor). I doubt you'd say "what about those poor factory workers/mcdonalds workers?", when we finally develop robots that can do manual labor and do food service/house work.
There are tonnes of jobs who've had their skillsets deva
Re: (Score:2)
Again, we're talking about *authors*. Not bookbinders, typesetters, printing press operators or any other person in the *publishing* end of the business - the creative type who actually writes the book. Your argument doesn't apply to them, unless - as I noted previously - we've had some truly amazing strides in the AI field in the past few months.
Computers are great at automating repetitive & manual tasks. Not so much with writing Moby Dick or The Lord of the Rings.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?
Your question rings like the questions that led to the Statute of Anne, in 1709. I don't think there's been a good answer yet.
The principle at the time was that to encourage the sharing of knowledge, authors and artists should be compensated fairly.
Speaking from my experience in design and publishing, I find there is one truth now: the printer always gets paid.
Re: (Score:1)
"Me: 1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)
Ad-hominem fallacy: Obnoxious twat, troll fallacy.
But your online profiles only show a MINOR in CSC (which is far from a MAJOR, much less a dual major), here:
AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease [linkedin.com]
Poisoning the well fallacy. Argument by innuendo (that having a minor in a discipline is meaningless, i.e. by the inverse error fallacy that since having a degree indicates some grasp of a discipline, not having a major degree indicates no grasp in a discipline).
LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...
Ad-hominem fallacy. Poisoning the well fallacy. Argument by innuendo (that somehow taking 6 years to study two disciplines to some form of completion indicates a lack of grasp of one or both
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's a bit of a tired cliche, but please dont' feed the troll - especially in this case. Whoever the hel it is has enough of a grudge on Americano that these posts have been following him around for the last few days (that I've noticed here and there). I don't really know who Americano is other than someone really doesn't like him and takes the time to troll every time he posts, but yeah. Just ignore the guy.
Yes, I realize the inherent irony in that I am essentially feeding the troll by association,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Publishers want to make money. If they allowed libraries to have a "checkout as many copies of this book as you like" policy then popular books wouldn't sell any better than unpopular ones (since the library only would need one "copy" of everything). Likely, a library licenses the right to have X number of copies "out" at any given time. If they want to have more out at one time, they have to pay more. So popular books make more money that way, the same as they would if the libraries were buying actual phys
Re: (Score:2)
There is this little thing call copyright law. It has to do with the RIGHT to COPY something. They have a right to loan out their single copy, but not more than one.
Re: (Score:2)
There is this little thing call copyright law. It has to do with the RIGHT to COPY something. They have a right to loan out their single copy, but not more than one.
A relic of an age where making mass numbers of copies required expensive industrial equipment. Now the majority of people have the necessary equipment in their living rooms.
The world has changed, and it is time to start updating the law to reflect those changes. You know, like how we updated plenty of other laws to keep pace a changing world, new technologies, and so forth? Oh, wait, I forget, copyrights are special.
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually it is plainly NOT a relic of times when it cost serious money to make copies. Sheesh. That would imply copyrights were LESS necessary now than they were then, because ... why, exactly? It is more practical to copy now than it was then. But obviously copyrights were considered necessary then, even given the expense and trouble of copying.
The above is pure logic and assumes that we want authors to be paid per copy. Whether THAT is what we should want is an entirely separate question. Entire
Re: (Score:2)
When copyrights were only relevant to people in certain industries, nobody had to worry about their natural rights being thr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the copyright system has become corrupted, I happen to agree. This has no bearing whatsoever on the logical absurdity of the poster'c comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make any less sense than selling ebooks in the first place. I'm sure that if you know where to look, you can find all sorts of ebooks available for pirating.
Not to mention that companies like O'reilly don't seem to be having any trouble making money with their DRM free ebooks.
It's not the libraries' fault (Score:1)
Unfortunately if you work in libraries you realise that it's the e-book (and other database) vendors that are applying the old world methodologies to their business models and libraries have no choice.
If libraries had their way all the world's published knowledge would be free and open to everyone.
Wish There Was A Way to Donate eBooks (Score:2)
I'm very glad to see programs like this. One of the reasons I chose a Nook over the Kindle was because my local library supported eBook lending. However I wish there was a way to donate eBooks I've purchased to the library (similar to how we can donate physical books). Do any online book sellers provide such an option (allow you to transfer the license)?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how popular the service will turn out to be, but Amazon supports lending of (some) Kindle books - discretion is left to the publisher, and there is now a service, lendle.me, which is geared towards building a library of lendable books from Amazon that people can share.
Not sure how the library services you use compare, but it's an option for people who own Kindles.
And... (Score:2)
Re: destroy publisher's business (Score:2)
Amazing how Slashdot hasn't run a story (did I miss it?) on Borders being on the verge of bankruptcy. B&N isn't doing so well either. THAT would pulverize the publishing industry.
Re: (Score:2)
How Can They Control That? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had the same questions, so I went to their site. I browsed around. Read the FAQ. Tried to borrow a book.
I still have the same questions.
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
If the person doesn't mind the copyright infringement, why would she take the trouble to crack the file instead of downloading an already unDRMed ebook from $file_sharing_system?
Re: (Score:2)
Because checking out a book from a library appears completely legitimate to anyone monitoring/logging traffic on the outside and all the 'infringement' is contained entirely within their house and impossible to tell the difference between someone following the rules and someone copying off the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Without reading the article, most libraries out there now use ePub-format books and something like Adobe Digital Editions for DRM, which is already cracked. (In the sense that you can acquire the decryption keys. It shouldn't be surprising that decrypting the books is easy.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing I had my conscience surgically removed years ago. It is a very simple procedure, involving lazers. It is commonly preformed on politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably use adobe digital editions or equivalent. I'm pretty sure the adobe security has been broken and cracking scripts made that relatively low-tech-savviness persons could use, but I think that many of us still wish to do things legally (hence the popularity of overdrive vs pirate bay). I'm a big fan of my local tax money going to buy books (which supports authors, editors, publishers, etc...) and then lets me have an extremely large volume of quality work for a fraction of the cost without too
Re: (Score:2)
Copy (Score:1)
I honestly don't see the point in this (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2)
So what?
I live in semi-rural England (Bracknell Forest.) I can check out audio books (spoken word) from our library online using our council (municipal) website. This is just doing it with text/pdf/proprietary format files, which, to me, is no more impressive.
Lot of fuss about nothing. Go on, mod me down!
Re: (Score:2)
I hear tell that you can now make phone calls, not by twisting a dial or turning a crank, but by pushing buttons, and sometimes you can even have the phone dial the previous number again!
YAY! Take the future and make it suck! (Score:5, Funny)
This is a winning concept. Take the best aspect of digital information and remove them. Next up: Slowing computers to one operation per second and adding the soothing clicky noise an abacus makes, then make a few cell phones without batteries that can only be used while connected to a power cord.
Re: (Score:1)
"open" dichotomy (Score:2)
I'd not come across the Open Library before but I'm beginning to see they have as a warped definition of the word "open" as some software companies do.
From their About us page:
> Open Library is an open project: the software is open, the data are open, the documentation is open...
From one of the DAISY protected books...
> There are two types of DAISYs on Open Library: open and protected. Open DAISYs can be read by anyone in the world on many different devices. Protected DAISYs (like this one) can only b
Re:If it's really fragile... (Score:5)
... then it's old enough to be OUT OF COPYRIGHT
You'd be surprised how fast acid paper decays. Yellows, cracks, falls apart. You can actually buy cheap paperbacks at physical barnes and noble stores that have started to decay.
In my opinion copyright law should be short enough for it not to be an issue, but, it most certainly is not.
The other failure mode is heavily used books that are out of print. Go ahead, try to get some newly printed Leo Frankowski. Good Luck. Doesn't have to be ancient to get worn out.
Re:out of print (Score:3)
I love the Out of Print scam.
They moan "oh, it costs too much to reprint it" - but skies alive help you if you get a private backer and do it yourself, they'll drill you with a copyright lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amazon Print on Demand (Score:2)
Great minds, sir.
I was thinking about that quite a lot. My biggest beef with Amazon currently is shipping. We completely agree that Print On Demand is the future of books.
The only POD machine I know of in a sales setting is at the Harvard Bookstore. Last year they were using Google Books, but of course the concept works with any properly formatted file. Last year when I checked it out the Harvard Book Store implementation didn't yet have rights/capacity for color covers.
I was just wondering why no one at Bo
Re: (Score:1)
I have paperback books that are over fifty years old, and at least one hardback that's over 100. Yellowing doesn't make them unreadable. They could certainly all be scanned and OCRed.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that just because they won't sell you something, they don't want to be paid for it. In reality, they are just waiting and trying to keep it to themselves until they think they can make enough money to republish it, and sue anyone who tries to have new copies printed without their permission.
The same thing happens with movies. Studios won't offer a movie unless they think they will make enough (read: a lot of) money selling it to you, even if it hasn't been available in any format for the last 30
Re: (Score:1)
For example, after I "checkout" a book, how do they enforce me to "return" the book.
Simple, after x amount of days the DRM prevents you from accessing it any more. Wow, that was hard.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are we still pretending its the dark ages and information is some kind of scarse and privileged entity?"
Because some ppl are happier creating artificial scarcity, because they fear they wouldn't get any attention otherwise.