I wrote a post about the BookChaser Editions service last year, but encountered a reference to another service they offer, and this led me to others:

• BookChaser Covers : compares cover images available from Amazon, Google Books, LibraryThing, and Open Library.
• BookChaser BookInfo : compares information about a book obtained from Amazon, Google Books, ISBNDB, Library of Congress, LibraryThing, Open Library, and WorldCat.
• ISBN Analysis Tool : compares x-ISBN-like service availability for a given ISBN obtained from Amazon, Google Books, LibraryThing and WorldCat.

All lookup services are by ISBN.

Saw a post on TechCrunch that indicated that Amazon has opened their offerings of blog subscriptions for the Kindle reader to all blogs that sign up.  So now Libology is available to readers of the Kindle… with two caveats:

1. It costs.  A lot.  Way more than you are paying now.  A whopping $1.99 per month (and I have no say in the price, so there).
2. I get some of the money, a whopping 30% (that’s 66 cents per month per subscription).

So really, if you don’t feel the need to pay to read this stuff, don’t.  Keep reading this stuff for free, though.  And if you are philosophically inclined (or reclined) against my getting paid, then, again, don’t.

Seriously, if you are really into the Kindle, and find the blog-perusing experience to be great, then I am glad to provide Libology as an option, just as I have provided a mobile-browser friendly version.  They do offer a 14-day trial if you want an excuse to try it out.  Just don’t feel guilty about canceling… I understand, trust me!

ALA TechSource has a brief blogger forum post on the state of E-Book Readers.  The quote that I think is most worth thinking about comes from Jason Griffey:

E-books are the future of reading in a very real way, simply because at some point they will be too cheap to not use. One of my staff brought a receipt to me this week for a laptop that the library bought in 2000. It was $3600. I just priced netbooks for my library, and can get a machine that is ridiculously more powerful than the year-2000 laptop for under $350. The Kindle, and most other e-readers, are hovering around the $350 or so dollar mark right now. In ten years, what will they cost? How can paper continue to compete with Moore’s Law?

Not only does it make sense, for reasons of legality (terms of use) and usability, to wait before purchasing and implementing E-Readers in a library, but it also makes sense from a monetary standpoint.  Amazon’s Kindle is king of the hill right now, but I think the big one is yet to arrive.  Watch for it, however:  when the convergence of price, usability, and usefulness happens, you want to be ready.

Authors Guild:  Contracts Forced Amazon to Flip on Kindle is an article on CNet.com in which the Authors Guild asserts that Amazon turned off the Kindle’s Text-to-speech function (unless authorized by a book’s publisher) due to contractual obligations, not pressure from the Guild.

The response from Amazon’s spokesperson was simply “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal.”

previously

found via LISNews

Amazon.com has given in to the Publisher’s Guild on the issue of text-to-speech capabilities in the Kindle 2.

In their press release, Amazon states up front that “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given.“  In this statement, they are correct.  If I read a book to someone who is visually or otherwise impaired, it takes a stretch of the imagination to suggest that I am actually staging a performance.

In addition, as I stated when the issue was first raised:

“How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader?  In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?”

To state that a feature of your product is legal, and to understand the benefit that the feature would bring to users of the product, but to then allow it to be disabled arbitrarily by third parties strikes me as a company that is attempting to placate the “squeaky wheels” simply because they threaten legal action.

BookFinder.com Journal makes a comparison to the relationship between large-print books and magnifiers.  Should the ability of consumers to use magnifiers while reading be controlled by the publisher (after all, it might be costing them large-print sales).

If you still feel that publishers should have the final say, then consider whether they should have this ability to control works that are in the public domain.  It doesn’t matter whether it is the consumer’s right to use text-to-speech, according to this decision; it only matters that individual consumers cannot respond with the apparent impact that the Writer’s guild can muster.

There has been a similar theme in the bibliographical world lately – rules being put in place that attempt to ignore or even circumvent that which already exists, whether it is Public Domain, Fair Use, or the First Sale doctrine.  OCLC, Google, and now Amazon have all implemented restrictions to their various offerings.  OCLC, to their credit, has stepped back and is in the process of re-evaluating its approach towards licensing records.  Google hasn’t even blinked about restricting access to Google Book items waaay beyond even the tightest of copyright interpretations.  Amazon asserts the rights of users to use text-to-speech, but then allows those with a vested interest against it to control its use.

Yes, there is a pattern to all of this, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from continuing.

The impending release of the Kindle 2 wireless reading device has been all over the news this week, accompanied by many reviews and commentaries.  One response to a new feature strikes me as extreme, however:

“Some publishers and agents expressed concern over a new, experimental feature that reads text aloud with a computer-generated voice.

“They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.”

An Amazon spokesman noted the text-reading feature depends on text-to-speech technology, and that listeners won’t confuse it with the audiobook experience. Amazon owns Audible, a leading audiobook provider.

Source:  Wall Street Journal

On one level he is correct:  the audio rights, like movies and other adaptations, are derivative and subject to negotiation.  However, text reading features are considered an assistive technology, and to attempt to make the output a derivative under copyright law opens a nasty can of worms.

Imagine if reading Goodnight Moon to your two-year-old was considered a “performance” and required permission… that’s how nasty and worm-ridden this can is.

One example of a negative effect of this viewpoint basically involves any website that would sell audio books, including Amazon.  How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader?  In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?

Note that we aren’t discussing audio books, which are derivative works, and are mostly very professionally produced and are meant to enhance the experience of the book, not simply to allow the person to experience it at all.

The argument by the Author’s Guild representative is a nasty legal mess that we should not consider reasonable under copyright law.

found at Open Access News

So you are an author.  You check your book’s entry on Amazon.com.  You see a review.  It is not good.  Someone bought a copy of your book and it was flawed.  You want to make it right.

What do you do?  You promise the reviewer that you will send a good copy via overnight delivery.  Then you realize that it is Christmas Eve, the reviewer lives in Ontario, Canada, you live in Ohio, and there is a massive snowstorm between the two locations.  The delivery services cannot deliver, bookstores are closed, and time is running out.

Then what do you do?

Perhaps what Whittenberg University professor Dan Fleisch did : You deliver it yourself.

via LISNews

Self-Publishers Flourish as Writers Pay the Tab is an article in today’s New York Times on how this one area of publishing is booming, while it seems all other areas are scaling back.

The headline itself doesn’t quite fit the article (but oftentimes the headline is written by someone other than the article’s writer) in that many of the prominent self-publishing companies don’t require much of a payment in advance (if any payment at all – see Lulu.com).

The downside of self-publishing, according to the article, is the lack of advance payments and the absence of the marketing efforts that traditional publishers offer.  However, when one is publishing a niche book, the marketing offered by a publisher, unless they specifically serve that niche, won’t necessarily do much for sales.

This is, as many things seem to be, reflecting a trend.  With web sites, blogs, wikis and other “new” media flourishing, it makes sense to apply many of those principles to the publishing world.  I want the traditional publishers to do well; they provide access and support to writers that we would sorely miss if they went out of business.  However, I suspect that in five years we will see more self-publishing (especially if you combine the small publishing companies that will form around the idea of print-on-demand and small press runs).

For libraries: prepare to widen your search for materials.  Traditional vendors will eventually need to find ways to include these “niche” publications in their offerings; in the meantime Amazon and others will be the primary nesting ground for these books.  There will be a period of time in which it will seem that it is harder to find the right books than before; afterwards it will be easier than ever.

There is a concept for all this, not mentioned in the article:  The Long Tail.

The Creative Commons blog has a thought-provoking post about CC licensed music.  It seems that the latest Nine Inch Nails album, Ghost I-IV, is available under a CC license.  This means that you can legally download it from any of the dozens (if not hundreds) of dowloading services on the web… for free.

However, the album is listed as the best-selling album for 2008 on Amazon.com’s MP3 store.  Give that some thought, because it signals that the transition to a new business model is well under way.  If that many people are paying for the download, you know many more are downloading the CC version; people are still still paying for Amazon’s download because they feel that NIN is worth it.

The music industry has been the razor’s edge of this new business model’s birth, though not without conflict.  Those of us who work with books and journals should pay attention, because at some time in the not-too-distant future, our media will undergo these sorts of transformations.  What do libraries need to do in order to adapt?  What do we need to do in order to lead the way?

found via the Lessig blog

A Useful Amplification of Records That Are Unavoidably Needed Anyway is an essay by Brett Bonfield which, dare I phrase it this way, usefully amplifies several of the major web-based entities which are intertwined with libraries.  These include (but aren’t limited to) OCLC’s WorldCat, Amazon, and LibraryThing.  Brett clearly understands libraries, and does a great job detailing the interrelationships between all involved.

Not directly related to the essay, LibraryThing has posted an expansion of their Common Knowledge fields for Authors and Events.  This is an interesting read, as it addresses in a real-world way the need for authorities and relationships.

Zoomii Books is not library related… yet. It is a virtual bookshelf built around Amazon’s book cover images and inventory. However, the concept would make for an excellent method of “browsing” a library catalog. The company founder has even mentioned that he would love to adapt the software to work with a library catalog.

It reminds me very much of a Firefox add-on called PicLens, which uses a similar interface for viewing a large number of images. If you haven’t tried it, you really should, if only to experience how much it improves image search and browse.

Mentioned on the NCG4lib list by B.G. Sloan

A somewhat rambling essay, but one that is important nonetheless:

Joe Wilcox has posted an interesting essay at Microsoft Watch regarding Google’s merger with DoubleClick, the internet advertising company.  I strongly disagree with some of his interpretations (he tries to have it both ways, and by defending Microsoft and chastising Google, he simply muddies the water), but the essay has me thinking about the good and bad of monopolies in libraryland.

First, is the love-hate relationship I have with “monopolies”.  Oftentimes a monopoly reduces choices for the user/consumer, and oftentimes the litmus test for this is whether the company/organization channels its energy towards preventing competition, rather than out-performing competition.  Efforts towards providing a better product/service than one’s competitor are rarely in vain.  Even if a company fails, the level of product/service is usually improved across the board.

Next, the concept of open standards is, for better or worse, tied up with monopolies.  A group with a monopoly is able to set standards much more effectively.  If the standards are set in a fair manner, i.e. not simply to prevent competition against one’s own product/service, then the monopoly can actually be more efficient.  If not, it isn’t truly an open standard, as much as it is a proprietary standard.

Libraries, then… we are swimming in a sea of standards, and companies that create them.  We are living with standards that work only for us, such as MARC, and aren’t of much (if any) benefit outside libraries.  The bibliographic information contained within them is of great benefit and value, but the standard is not very useful.

However, so much of our energies are tied up in this standard (and others, if we think about it), and it is dragging us down.  It is important to understand that the information is what has value; the value in how we store and access it is reflected in the ease of use, and the interest in using that storage/access method.

MARC has lost it’s luster, and we should move forward.  The information, however, is more valuable than ever, and we need to figure out how to maximize this value.  Making it easy for everyone to use, not only libraries, should be our top priority.  When Amazon or Google (or companies/groups like them) really want to access our bibliographic records, and use their structure, this will be when we know we have fixed the worst of our problems.  Is FRBR/RDA the answer?  I suspect not, simply because a new way needs to be much easier to describe and apply.

Google is, and has been for a while, the 800 pound gorilla in the search business.  This came about because their search tools were, and are, simply better than their competitors.  I don’t think this will last forever, but there are many benefits to their dominance.  They are able to set “standards” for web design that encourage compliant web site design and discourage  link farms and spam sites.  They have mastered, to a large extent, the art of interpreting the keyword search.  People now think in keywords when they search (which is why the natural language search engines are languishing in obscurity).

In libraryland, OCLC is our 800 pound gorilla.  When they come out with something new (and the last couple of years have been fantastic, with WorldCat leading the way), libraries pay attention.  If they set a particular course, it makes a great deal of sense to follow that same path.

Is this the best way, though?  Should the 800 pounders lead the way in information discovery?  How might they prevent innovation from happening, or are we doing that to ourselves already?  Is the slow pace of FRBR/RDA a reflection of the size of the beast as it slouches towards Bethlehem to be born, or simply the complexity of the solution?

One thing I have noticed on many blogs and listservs is that we love to talk about what is wrong and right about libraries and technology and search, but it is usually individuals and small groups taking the lead and deciding to blaze a new trail.  Open-ILS and LibraryThing are but two examples of dozens where people saw a need and decided to take charge of fulfilling it.

Why haven’t we come up with a new way to deal with bibliographic information?  Does one person, or a group, need to simply decide to do it?  The library community seems to be spinning its wheels on the issue, so perhaps this is the case.

Who wants to take on the challenge?

BibMe is a great site for locating and generating bibliographic citations in MLA, APA and Chicago styles, which you can then download to your computer, or store on their server (if you sign up for a free account).

In their Help section, they provide detail as to where they get the bibligraphic information to generate the citations:

from BiblioTech Web

In September, OCLC will be trying out a Wiki component to their WorldCat database. This is based on their WikiD project that they have been working on for a while.

Those of us familiar with Amazon know the depth that user reviews can add to the standard information available when one is considering purchasing a book; I would expect that similar information within WorldCat will be extremely helpful from a research perspective, as well. This could make WorldCat a better first step for book searches than most library catalogs.

Something to watch…

(note:  I somehow glazed over this entry… it was already October, and I somehow registered November as the starting month for the WikiD component.  They are already accepting user reviews.  It is still something to watch, however!)