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.

There it is, on CNN.com:  Hard Economic Times a Boon for Libraries.  Recognize that, oftentimes, the writer of a news article is not the same person who writes the headline for the article.  However, it does seem as though the article is suggesting that libraries are doing wonderfully because of the economic downturn.

Libraries are doing well, so far, because our funding is not directly affected by economic factors; our funding will be affected indirectly, yes sir.  Are you funded by property taxes?  Endowments?  Tuition?  All of these will suffer, one way or another, and we will see cuts.

Our saving grace is that we can see it coming… I refer to a prior post:  A Look Back, A Look Ahead.

The March 2009 issue of Walt Crawford’s Cites & Insights is devoted to a 30 page essay on the Google Books settlement.  His is an opinion that spans many of the issues : he is at once a writer, fair use advocate, a reader, and a library supporter.

found at Walt at Random

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.

A couple of posts about sandboxes have caught my eye:

• LISNews posted about Peter Morville (writer of Ambient Findability, which if you haven’t read – you should) and his Flickr “sandbox for collecting search examples, patterns, and anti-patterns.”
• Roy Tennant writes about the benefits of libraries having a sandbox to try out new software and technology, in particular he points out the University of Cincinnati’s sandbox.

I have, in a somewhat disorganized manner, been creating and working with sandboxes for several years.  Libology is, at least in its first phase, my effort to make a structured sandbox for my own efforts, with an eye towards demonstrating how various tools can work for libraries.  These have been scattered throughout several other domains, and one of my first tasks will be to combine what I have done so far under one domain.

Web hosting is inexpensive.  A site that can run blogs, discussion lists, wikis, CMSs, and a great many other helpful tools can be had for about $5 per month.  An individual or group, taking things one step at a time, can learn a lot from simply getting a site and setting up various software.  There is no better way, in my opinion, to learn about open source and web 2.0 than to jump in the sandbox and start playing!

Office Software Shootout is an article/post on Linux.com that compares the latest versions of OpenOffice.org Writer (2.3) and MS Office Word (2007) across several categories.

The result? Each program has strengths and weaknesses, but the reviewer concludes that OpenOffice.org comes out ahead.

My take on the results: I have not used either of the versions reviewed (I use OO.org 2.2.1 at home and via a flash drive Portable Apps package, and MS Office 2003 at work), but prefer OO.org for most tasks. Access still clearly beats out Base, but Base is good enough that I see that changing within a couple of upgrades.

The best part: OO.org is free. Download it, install it, and do whatever you need. Want to put it on all of your public access machines? Go ahead, there’s no charge. Staff machines? Same thing. Give it away to your patrons? Public relations!

The document converters work fine 99.9% of the time (letting you open, edit and save .doc and .xls files) and the learning curve isn’t too bad (especially considering that Microsoft changed many things in Office 2007, giving that program a similar learning curve). If you decide that you don’t like it, then go ahead and purchase another product.

Lawrence Lessig, chair of Creative Commons, writer for Wired Magazine, and much much more, has announced that he is changing the course of his life, and will be attempting to champion the cause of a democratic society.  Don’t read my wholly  inadequate summary, however:  he words it quite eloquently.

from lessig blog