Eric Leese Morgan demonstrates how to quickly make a 12-page book by making a few cuts in the pages and fitting them together:
About ten years ago I created about 20 handmade books of about 25 pages each. I don’t thing this method would have been effective for that particular effort, but it is certainly something to keep in mind when one wants to put something together that looks decent and works well.
If you are involved with the selection or ordering process, then you are very likely to be familiar with searching for items by the International Standard Book Number, or ISBN. The newer, 13-digit ISBN is actually based on the European Article Number, or EAN, which makes books consistent with most international trade goods. The EAN was developed as an expansion of the common Universal Product Code, or UPC.
Enough theory? How about web sites that offer lookup services that can help you find booksellers, prices, and even reviews and summaries of the books you wish to acquire?
For comparison, here are links to results for the same book (Stephen King : The Dark Tower):
Sources and further information:
Google has reached a settlement with the group of publishers who filed suit in 2005 over the book digitization project. It is a legal document with many elements, and I cannot hope to make an overall evaluation of the agreement with just the amount that I have browsed (much less with my limited ability to discern the true meaning of legalese). However, there are a couple of sections that raise questions:
7.2 Fully Participating Library Uses… (b) Use of Library Digital Copies… (vii) Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use. The Fully Participating Library, if part of a Higher Education Institution, may allow faculty members and research staff of that Higher Education Institution to read, print, download or otherwise use up to five (5) pages of any Book from its LDC [Library Digital Copy] that is not Commercially Available for the following purposes: (1) personal scholarly use (for each Book, no more than once per person per term) and (2) classroom use in such Higher Education Institution that is limited to the instructors and students in the class and for the term in which the class is offered; provided that (a) the Fully Participating Library does not know at the time of such use that it is in material non-compliance with Section 8.2 (Security Standard, Security Implementation Plan and Security Audits) with respect to uses of the LDC authorized pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use), and (b) the Fully Participating Library keeps track of and reports all such uses of Books to the Registry in the course of the audit conducted pursuant to Section 8.2(c) (Audits) or, otherwise, upon reasonable request of the Registry, provided that such requests may be made no more than semi-annually. The Registry may make information from such reports regarding the usage of an individual Book available to the Rightsholder of such Book upon request of the Rightsholder. A Fully Participating Library may not read, print, download or otherwise use a Book or Insert through its LDC pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use) if such use is available through the Institutional Subscription and the Institutional Subscription service is offered or is available to the Fully Participating Library (whether for a fee or as a beta product) at the time such Fully Participating Library seeks to make such use.” (page 76)
The agreement defines Commercially Available as “…that the Rightsholder of such Book, or such Rightsholder’s designated agent, is, at the time in question, offering the Book (other than as derived from a Library Scan) for sale new through one or more then-customary channels of trade in the United States.” (Section 1.28 on page 4) Does this mean that if a researcher or faculty is able to read (or print) only up to 5 pages of the scanned book each semester for personal scholarly use – and then only if the book is not able to be purchased through “customary channels of trade”?
Am I interpreting this correctly? Is this not a severe restriction of the “Fair Use” clause of copyright? Why would a researcher want to agree to such limitations when the physical item allows for a broader use? I may be misreading this section, however, and hope to have it clarified in the near future.
Another section that gives me pause:
Section 3.8 (b) Effect of Changes in Law. Google will be able to take advantage of any future legislative change(s), such as legislation allowing the use of orphan works (if enacted), that put Google at a competitive disadvantage in its use of Books in any Google Products and Services that are subject to this Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Google may choose to receive the benefit of such change(s) only if a third party is actually taking advantage of such law(s) in connection with services that competitively disadvantage Google in its provision of any such Google Products and Services; provided, further, that no changes in the “fair use” doctrine as codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act shall trigger this Section 3.8(b) (Effect of Changes in Law).” (page 37)
So if a legislative body, such as the United States Congress, passes a law that allows for broader use of this type of material (i.e. a change in copyright law), Google can only put the broader use into Google Books if it can demonstrate that another company is already taking business away from them by implementing it; otherwise, Google must keep the higher restrictions in place.
In addition, what happens if “fair use” is broadened? It won’t trigger this section. Does that mean that Google can follow fair use, or that Google cannot? The fair use provision seems to be placed on an equal footing as the “competitively disadvantage” clause. Does Google pass along the broader use understanding, or does it just pass?
For better or worse, this settlement is going to dramatically change how libraries use electronic books. Hopefully the overall agreeement implements a positive experience for all parties involved, and that my concerns (and the concerns of others) are either misread clauses or taking a section out of context.
The element of this agreement that holds great promise is the potential for institutional access to the entire collection of scanned books. Imagine having millions of books available to our patrons via a usable and cost-effective agreement. We are moving towards the future; are we ready for it (and the future for us)?
Further information and links:
The New York Public Library is changing classification systems for their reference collection. Over the years they have used a unique system developed by their first library director, Dr. John Shaw Billings, appropriately named the Billings System. It hasn’t been updated since the 1950’s, however, and many books have been shelved according to size.
They are switching to the Library of Congress system, which ought to be quite a task, depending on the size of the collection.
This has me thinking about classification systems again, which I seem to delve into every few years. I have this not-so-secret desire to create a new classification system, but haven’t been able to come up with one that is a clear improvement over existing systems without creating new problems.
In one sense, classification systems are becoming less critical. With Integrated Library Systems and Online Public Access Catalogs becoming nearly ubiquitous, all one truly needs is a shelving order that allows one to locate a book quickly once you have the locator information.
This opens the possibility for organizing a library based on size, or color (as the Adobe Bookshop did a couple of years ago), which is an ongoing thought among library staff when patrons recall a book only for its size and color. Color wouldn’t be a very efficient (or accessible) system, however.
Size could work very well, though. If you created a system based on a library’s shelving units, and had the largest books on the lower shelves, and mass-market paperbacks on the top shelves, you could assign shelving locations based solely on the height and thickness of the item. You could very efficiently use all of your shelf space, replacing discarded items with items of a like size. All one would need was software that would track the available space and place books accordingly (sort of like defragmenting a hard drive). It would impede shelf browsing; and a mis-shelved item is lost until the next inventory (unless it is is visually out of place). Perhaps this would work well for closed stacks libraries.
Currently, the two dominant systems, at least in the U.S., are the Library of Congress System (LC), and the Dewey Decimal System (DDC). Each has, in my opinion, significant shortcomings, but have been continually updated.
There are many other library classification systems in existence; I wonder if we are approaching the time when an open source, collaborative classification system will make sense? There are a lot of pie-in-the-sky issues surrounding this, the largest being the fact that is is a massive undertaking for even a smaller library to completely change their classification. This would involve updating each electronic record, as well as re-labeling and re-locating every item covered by the classification change. I would have to be strongly convinced of the long-term benefits before starting down that road.
As a theoretical project, however, it is an interesting idea. The system could be created and worked on without involving any physical libraries, perhaps as simply as creating a Wiki and recruiting volunteers. Now all I need is the basic idea of what the classification will be built upon….
thought process started by BiblioTech Web
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.libology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Powered by FireStats
