Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Businesses Google The Internet Books Media

Big Ten Schools Recommit to Google Books Project 95

Posted by Zonk from the oodles-of-text dept.
CNN reports that twelve major universities around the country have agreed to have substantial portions of their libraries included in the Google Books project. Around ten million volumes are expected to be included in the project. Participating schools include the University of Chicago and the 11 universities in the Big Ten athletic conference: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin. "The committee said Google will scan and index materials 'in a manner consistent with copyright law.' Google generally makes available the full text of books in the public domain and limited portions of copyrighted books. Several other universities, including Harvard and California, already have signed up to let Google scan their libraries. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Ten Schools Recommit to Google Books Project More

Big Ten Schools Recommit to Google Books Project

Comments Filter:

  • Copyright Law (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LeafOnTheWind ( 1066228 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:18PM (#19462065)
    is just ridiculous now. If Google gets restricted from posting educational information because of copyright law its just going to be pathetic. I mean, isn't that what libraries are for - providing /free/ access to books??

    • Re:Copyright Law (Score:4, Informative)

      by marcushnk ( 90744 ) <senectus@@@gmail...com> on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:20PM (#19462079) Journal
      The books have to purchased first.. then you can read them from that physical location for "free" (for a variable definition of free)
      The bloody marvelous venture from Google changes that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by znu ( 31198 )
        I'd be really interested if anyone against Google's book indexing could advance any kind of coherent explanation for how it differs legally from Google's web indexing, which (almost) nobody seems to have a problem with.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by HuguesT ( 84078 )
          I think it's been hashed to death.

          We assume the copyright owner is the person/entity who has final say over who can read their work and under which circumstances. We assume we are talking about Google books, were anybody can come, type a book title and start browsing a portion of any book.

          1- the information on the web is copyrighted but already mostly freely available. You only have to find it, which is what search services are about. In this case the vast majority of web authors want to be in Google's inde

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by znu ( 31198 )
            I understand the mechanics of each case. You say fair use is a different matter, but I was asking for some sort of legal argument, which would essentially boil down to how the two cases differ in a way that matters in a fair use test. I really still haven't seen that anywhere.

          • We assume the copyright owner is the person/entity who has final say over who can read their work and under which circumstances.

            Basing your argument on a false premise is not a good start. Copyright law decides who can make copies of copyrighted works, not the copyright holder. In some cases only the copyright holder can authorize some reproduction/republishing, while in others they have no legal right to restrict others.

            In this case, we readily see that copyright owners do not have complete and easy control over their work anymore.

            They never did have. I can take excerpts of their works and republish them without consent and that has always been the case. You might note that I can do this whether or not some Web page author has set the ro

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by HuguesT ( 84078 )
              Thanks for your input, but I believe you haven't read what I've written ;-)

              You are confusing copyright and publication. Generally speaking, the copyright owner of a work has complete control over their work. If I write a book in my house or compose a symphony, this is my intellectual property, and I can decide who can read/listen to it, and when, to a very large degree.

              As an example, J.K. Rowling is widely believed to have mostly finished writing the last book of the Harry Potter series, yet few indeed are

        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by The_Wilschon ( 782534 )
          I'm all for the book indexing, but still, you can't put a robots.txt on a book. This is an important difference which allows website operators to opt out of web indexing. Book copyright owners are apparently being denied the privilege of opting out of having their books indexed. Of course, the fact that most website operators don't opt out is salient as well...

          • I'm all for the book indexing, but still, you can't put a robots.txt on a book. This is an important difference which allows website operators to opt out of web indexing.

            Respecting robots.txt is a courtesy from those crawling the pages. Some engines ignore them. Legally, robots.txt means very little. Google is providing a way for book publishers to opt out of Google books, and many people criticize them for their method of so doing, without realizing they do so as a courtesy. Legally, they can tell book publishers to go bugger themselves and index them anyway, if they are so inclined.

            Book copyright owners are apparently being denied the privilege of opting out of having their books indexed.

            No, book copyright owners have slightly more work to exercise their privilege (not thi

      • Not entirely sure about the US but in Australia, the government provides public libraries.
        They buy books then allow you to borrow them for free.

        With Google they just let someone else buy the books but they only provide small portions. Cost of access and ease of access is the same.
        Heck if they wanted to they *could* buy the books them selves. I think they are aiming for the public domain ones though hence the big library deals.

    • Re:Copyright Law (Score:4, Informative)

      by Score Whore ( 32328 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:32PM (#19462149)
      You might want to ask Google about their policy on how the scanned public domain works can be used. Part of their usual agreement with the libraries is that they will return to the library the digital version of the book -- but the library is not allowed to let anyone have mass or bulk access to the digital versions. Books that are public domain. Which Google has scanned, eg. has not made any transformative change, but wants to control access to. For those who's disbelieve this, go check it out the agreements for public schools (University of California) are available.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NMerriam ( 15122 )
        Unfortunately, just scanning a work means that the scan itself has a copyright.

        Similarly, you can't bring a camera into most museums because it is only by restricting photography that museums can control who has the ability to reproduce paintings they own (after all, a 400-year old painting is well out of copyright).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nagora ( 177841 )
          Unfortunately, just scanning a work means that the scan itself has a copyright.

          This is not the case in the UK, and the example of museums making posters for sale in the shop is a particular case where it has been ruled that there is no copyright in the resulting poster. As you say, the reason cameras are not allowed in many well-lit galleries where flash is not an issue is to try to keep those poster/book sales up. However, this rule is not as common in the UK as the US.

          TWW

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Echnin ( 607099 )
            I don't know about that. IANAL but Bridgeman v. Corel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_v._Corel) was a US case where the court ruled "that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality". And according to the Wikipedia article, the plaintiff argued "that under English and Welsh law, such reproductions seemed to be protected by copyright", (though "recent events have thrown further doubt about the validity of the original rulin
      • I, for one, would like to see our new Google overlords challenged on its restrictions of public domain works.

        As absurd as interpretations of copyright law have become, it is hard for me to believe that an automated machine scan of a public domain book, involving no human effort other than placing the book in the machine and certainly no human creativity, acquires a new copyright of its own. IANAL but I recall reading somewhere that (1) simple compilations of uncopyrighted data, such as a phone book, cann

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )
        Also there is the privacy aspect. Google is developing a real reputation for poking it's beak, where it really doesn't belong and for keeping and mining way to much private data. It might be better if the Universities created their own shared digital library and protected their students from the ever more invasive nature of the googlites, especially with the negative aspects of a government monitoring what you study, what you learn and what you teach, and censuring individuals for when it doesn't agreed wit

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      in US they have subverted the meaning of the "library" from its original to now it being understood as "rent service".
      The result of it is very clearly seen - degradation of public literacy

  • Off-topic: Big Eleven (Score:5, Funny)

    by AcidPenguin9873 ( 911493 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:23PM (#19462101)
    Yes, we know - there are eleven schools in the Big Ten. The conference logo [wikipedia.org] even acknowledges it with an embedded "11" on either side of the "T". So please, no "OMG!!!!!!!11eleven" comments.

    • Re: Off-topic: Big Eleven (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Come now. The fact that they acknowledge it diminishes the utter retardation of it not one iota.

    • Re:Off-topic: Big Eleven (Score:5, Funny)

      by MisaDaBinksX4evah ( 889652 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @11:28PM (#19462349)
      These schools go to eleven.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Paktu ( 1103861 )
      That has to be the first time I've ever seen a post containing OMG!!!!!!11eleven modded insightful...

    • My question is: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by thegnu ( 557446 )
      Do we REALLY want their books?

      While under the safe shade of the off-topicness of the parent comment, let me say how disturbingly natural it has just recently become for me to add HTML tags.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TheoMurpse ( 729043 )
      Of course it would be an athletic conference which allowed 11 schools into a group named for ten universities (Penn was not a member before 1990).

      • Of course it would be an athletic conference which allowed 11 schools into a group named for ten universities (Penn was not a member before 1990).
        Penn is a member of the Ivy League. Penn State is a member of the Big Ten Conference.
      • The big ten (although centered around athletics) is not just an athletic conference. As a student at PSU I had access to the other school's libraries. I beleive there is also some sort of faculty cooperation, guest lecturing, and cross University research opportunities among the schools. And just to clarify, Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1990 (Penn != Penn Satate)

      • (Penn was not a member before 1990)
        Penn [upenn.edu] is not a member after 1990, either.

        You're thinking of Penn State [psu.edu].

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by hwyengr ( 839340 )
      And a historical note, the University of Chicago was a member of the original group which later became the Big Ten.
    • What I don't get is how an athletic conference has any bearing whatsoever over academic matters (and I find that fact somewhat troubling). Ditto for the Ivy League.
      • Didn't you know Reading is part of track and field?

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This [wikipedia.org] is why. You cannot argue that this makes a great deal of sense. It is good for universities to work together in academic affairs, but sadly, many universities do not always want to play nice with each other. It just so happens that the 11 schools of the Big Ten are in a good geographic region with each other and happen to be some of the largest universities in their states.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
        Conferences are a great way to group universities. You can typically accomplish more when you work as a group than if you work alone. The schools cooperate and compete in things other than athletics, you just don't see that stuff on ESPN.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      They must have counted with a C program: for (i=0; i=10; i++) printf("School #%d", i);

  • Google Books wouldn't be the one to do it... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bongo Bill ( 853669 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:26PM (#19462115) Homepage
    ...but isn't it about time that the concept of the public library was taken online? And I don't mean just public domain works, like Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] is doing (though of course, if the copyright term weren't so long, public domain only would be viable), but for-real honest-to-god reading books, promoting public literacy, online.

  • Consistent with copyright law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bender0x7D1 ( 536254 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:32PM (#19462147)

    I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law when the article also mentions there is a lawsuit pending regarding the appropriate use of copyrighted material.

    I may think Google is using it in a legal manner. You may think it is a legal manner. Google may think it is a legal manner. The schools and libraries may think it is a legal manner. However, until the court rules in the pending copyright case, no one really knows what is legal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      Sounds like a terribly flawed system to me if no one knows what is legal/illegal.
      • Yes, because the law should obviously cover every possible scenario, in specific, direct from its creation. Really, the goal is to create laws defined enough that they can't be abused and loose enough that they can be interpreted in their spirit to pertain to new situations. This is one of those times when we have a new situation that the spirit of the law needs to be defined for. The system's working as far as I'm concerned.

        • the goal is to create laws defined enough that they can't be abused and loose enough that they can be interpreted in their spirit to pertain to new situations.
          But if individuals and small businesses cannot afford competent legal representation to get such an interpretation, the law is still broken. There's a reason why they call it a law-suit: too many district court judges seem to decide close cases on which side's counsel is dressed better.
    • I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law when the article also mentions there is a lawsuit pending regarding the appropriate use of copyrighted material.

      It's pretty simple, really: Google and the participating universities are right, and the AAP and the Authors Guild are wrong. Next question?

      (I will note for the record that while I'm not a member of the AG, I am a member of SFWA, which has worked hand-in-hand with the AG on a number of oc

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NMerriam ( 15122 )

      I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law

      I think the whole point of going to these large academic libraries is that they have books that are unquestionably in the public domain -- entire rooms full of books 100+ years old of which only a handful of copies exist worldwide, and are available only in very limited contexts even when they are already digitized. Using the tools and distribution of Google, these materials can actually be shared e

    • If they say that access is available in a manner consistent with copyright law, will they allow bulk digital download of stuff that is no longer under copyright and is under public domain?

    • I find it funny that they are saying the material will be provided in a manner consistent with copyright law when the article also mentions there is a lawsuit pending regarding the appropriate use of copyrighted material.

      Would it be fair to say that your post is consistent with decency laws in the US? Yet, I can still sue you for emotional damage I received when you used the word "material" after the word "funny" which I find to be obscene and evil. I can bring a lawsuit against you for anything I feel like. That does not mean I will win said lawsuit, nor does it mean that your post is of questionable legality until the courts rule on my pending suit.

    • IANAL, but I think it is pretty straightforward. If the Universities didn't include this clause they could be be sued as an "accomplice" in violating copyright law. However, with this clause, if Google is found to be breaking the copyright law, they can state that Google didn't comply with their agreement and be quite safe.
  • You know, this could be the most ideal time in history to start a publishing company. If you assume (rightly) that most of the current publishing houses are going to restrict use of the scanned books to the point of uselessness thus minimizing the opportunity for Google to indirectly sell some treeware then it stands to reason that a new company that isn't being lead by dinosaurs could seriously take advantage of the opportunity to sell much more treeware just by letting Google have at it.

    The riaa and mpa

    • Re:Ohhhh boy it is Extinction Time(tm) !!! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Admiral Ag ( 829695 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:17AM (#19462523)
      I don't think that's good enough. For the betterment of humanity, everyone needs to have free access to every academic book ever written. I'm not saying that authors should not be paid, because hardly anyone would write books if they weren't paid, but that an alternative funding scheme needs to be found... and soon. Most academic books are funded by salaries paid from the public purse, so why not go that extra bit further? Anyone who has had to trudge around a research library or request books on interloan knows what a pain this is. Copyright as it is serves as an impediment to the furtherance of humankind. I'm not asking for Harry Potter to be provided free of charge, or the latest paperback porn, but I think it is reasonable to ask that all academic books have free access enabled.

      There's no reason why, when I sit down at my computer, that I should not have the sum total of human knowledge at my disposal. Providing this would be a direct benefit to many and an indirect benefit to all, so there is a good case for public funding.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by megaditto ( 982598 )
        People already have online access to 'the sum total of human knowledge,' provided you are able to pay for it (usually through your university or R&D company account). Those who need it (scientists, doctors, students, researchers, etc.), already have access.

        Using public funds to pay for universal access is a horrible idea, however, since some incompetent asshole will invariably be in charge of deciding what gets funded. If you are not convinced, consider the example of Soviet Union and their funding of g

        • People already have online access to 'the sum total of human knowledge,' provided you are able to pay for it (usually through your university or R&D company account). Those who need it (scientists, doctors, students, researchers, etc.), already have access.

          I understand where you're coming from, but your assertion is patently false. There are repositories of literature on certain subjects, but the truth is the vast majority of copyrighted works from the last 200 years, are no longer available for purchase or rental anywhere. In many cases the last copy of a work has been lost or destroyed, or only a few copies remain in private collections. The library of congress has not collected reference copies for a long, long time. Looking at the example of music perfo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jonathan ( 5011 )
          People already have online access to 'the sum total of human knowledge,' provided you are able to pay for it (usually through your university or R&D company account). Those who need it (scientists, doctors, students, researchers, etc.), already have access.

          Wrong. I'm a scientist (check my link) at a research institution and we can only subscribe to a small fraction of the journals out there. Practically daily I come across an article I can't read because of this. The whole thing is nuts. The government

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @10:57PM (#19462241)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I thought Google's biggest opponents were the publishers. Are the libraries really allowed to dictate what happens to the books they hold?
    If that's the case, it really highlights a major difference in the attitudes regarding copyright on books VS music and films.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If Google were to send employees to these libraries and take out the materials a few at a time, I'm sure the library would have no say in what happens to them. However, that would take ages. In order for this to work, Google would need to get these materials by the truckload. This requires cooperation of the libraries, which requires a formal contract, which means the libraries can negotiate whatever they want.

      If the library says that it will only send Google truckloads of books on the condition that Google
  • Well, at least it isn't as bad as Vinge envisioned. The libraries are still here.
    • Ah yes, that's what this reminded me of. I was thinking it was one of the stories in Analog, but you're right. This is from Vinge's latest book.

      For those who don't read Vinge, one part of the story involves an impatient company using destructive scanning methods to scan books electronically. They were essentially putting the books through a high tech wood chipper which scanned each shredded piece of paper, reoriented it to match it back to its original page, and then reconstructed the book from that. Appare
      • Vinge is generally superb, but Rainbows End (the book with the book shredding)
        is not his best. It is still good enough to read, but not representative of
        Vinge.

        All the bobbles stuff or the Tines are much better.

        I know he has played with the 'singularity' a bunch, but I think there is
        still more exploration to be had there. Other ways it could go down. I
        would not mind if he went back to the singularity well one more time.
  • I'm sure this has been posted before but I'd like to see how Google plans to implement this as in some form of beta.
  • BYU wasn't interested in participating? They have a super mega huge library..

    --
    wi-fizzle research [wi-fizzle.com]

  • what if... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EspressoFreak ( 237002 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @01:00AM (#19462689)
    What if Google issues their own digital library card, then will that be okay?
  • This implies that only "Major Schools" whatever the fsck that means have books worth putting online and/or the technology to do so.

    I happen to disagree. Some of the PEW awards for Excellence in Technology went to schools not on that list, that have just as much technology and pending lawsuit results, could offer more diverse titles to put online. For starters, my alma mattar (sp?) contains the Jack Williamson Sci-Fi Library [enmu.edu] also an incredible array of documented artifacts [enmu.edu] in an anthro department that u

  • Funny thing, Contracts- (Score:4, Interesting)

    by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <`moc.tibroni' `ta' `hcsrih'> on Monday June 11, 2007 @07:08AM (#19463845) Homepage Journal
    A friend of mine was hired by a company that was doing this work for Google. When the schools pulled out, out went his job.

    The camera system they had was great- using Canon 1Ds with a mirror, a page flipper, and no book was opened past 45 degrees (I believe- I'm doing this from memory).

    Would have been a nice job....
  • I can't tell but it seems to me the universities ought to be able to receive the raw scan data (or cleaned up pre-OCR) for use by the university (or university group). The question then is whether they can show the digital copy to more than one person at a time, and if they can still do so when the book is checked out. Many books say no reproduction for any use but it seems to me that libraries may require some additional legal protections so they can advance into the 20th century. There is a conflict also

    • The question then is whether they can show the digital copy to more than one person at a time, and if they can still do so when the book is checked out. Many books say no reproduction for any use but it seems to me that libraries may require some additional legal protections so they can advance into the 20th century.

      What a book says you can do, and what the law says you can do are different things. If I publish a book and the first page says "you cannot copy excerpts from this book in the states of California or Idaho" nothing legally stops people from doing so. As for legal protections for libraries, they are actually pretty extensive. The problem is, the fair use doctrine is very vague and interpretable, and our court system is very wealth dependent. According to most precedent, if you're providing a work for educa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mattr ( 78516 )
        Thank you, very interesting. I have long wondered what was the obstacle to a real online library. Presumably a library must buy at least one copy of each book it has but is that even required?

  • Google Books "Full View" is a treasure (Score:4, Informative)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Monday June 11, 2007 @07:47AM (#19464031) Homepage
    Regardless of the maybe-not-so-unimportant details, let me just say that Google Books, with "Full View" turned on, is a treasure. I haven't had so much fun since I graduated and moved and lost access to my university library.

    There's just amazing stuff in there. Look at this peek at what Princeton University [google.com] was like in 1818. Before peeking, guess how many professors you think Princeton had in 1818.

    How about Horseless Age, full of spiffy ads on all the hot automotive items of 1903?

    How about The Boston Road Book, [google.com] which lists, describes, and rates all the best roads and routes for cyclists as of 1899?

    Yes, I wish Google gave access to the OCR text (they must have OCRed it in order to index it) and I wish they were a little more forthcoming with respect to your rights to use this material (can Google really stop me from reusing material that's in the public domain? Does scanning a book constitute a transformative use or whatever?)

    But don't let arguing over it stop you from enjoying this fabulous resource.

     
    • SIgh... must press preview... What I meant of course is that I used to have marvellous fun wasting time prowling around for things in the university library that weren't very relevant to whatever I was supposed to be doing.

      And I meant to provide a link to Horseless Age. [google.com]
  • Finally communism is possible with the help of Internet!
  • Google is currently talking with Mysore university, India to digitize and protect thousands of very ancient manuscripts. God knows what deals they are making in other parts of the world. Seems Google is single minded on fulfilling its vision.
  • ...twelve major universities around the country have agreed...

    Around what country? Oh, THAT country...
  • Google has had their book scanning office open here in Ann Arbor for over a year now at 1100 Eisenhower Ave. They have strict security and hide behind a fake corporation name, but anyone in the food industry that delivers there can tell you what it is. I'm not sure why Michigan is included in this list of new members because the fact that this was happening has been public news since it started. The location isn't public but easily found information when talking to the right people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close