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.”
found via LISNews
Terry Reese has released an updated version of MarcEdit 5.1, and there are a few interesting additions:
It sounds like a great program just got even better!
found via Catalogablog
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.
Zotero 1.5 Beta has been released!
When I attended OneBigLibrary Unconference last summer, Trevor Owens gave a talk (un-talk?) on this version of Zotero and some of the new features and ideas that would be part of it (my post about it is here). It has come to fruition, and it can change the way you do research (especially group research). See the video for a great overview.
In addition, Peter Murray (a.k.a. the Disruptive Library Technology Jester) has already set up a way to distribute your own Zotero citations via an RSS feed. It is a great sign of success for a project like Zotero when people are creating mashups when your product is just a few days old. Think of the ways that this could be used to promote library services, especially if your library software doesn’t do RSS.
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.
Media-Morphosis : How the Internet will Devour, Transform, or Destroy Your Favorite Medium is an essay by Cory Doctorow on Internet Evolution. Think of it as another way of describing the times in which we are living. Then start thinking about things that the Internet will Devour, Transform, or Destroy that aren’t “mediums”….
found via LISNews
Non-Hierarchical Management is an article by Aaron Swartz on the Palinet Leadership Network, and it is well worth reading.
If you are a manager, read it with an eye towards improving how you work with your team.
If you are part of a team, read it with an eye towards improving how you work with your manager, as well as the rest of your team. Who knows, you may be in a position to manage someday… read it with this in mind.
Whatever your position, you can improve the quality, quantity, and enjoyment of your work by implementing some of these suggestions. Even if you are the only one applying these lessons, your attitude and approach will be the better for it.
found via Walt at Random
Research Libraries Clobber OCLC Policy is a title, and a descriptive one at that, for LibraryThing’s report of the ARL’s report on the OCLC licensing policy kerfluffle (I keep coming back to this word).
It is, however, an interesting read, one that holds much for one to consider as events unfold over the next few months.
In addition, Tim Spaulding states that “The full report makes for enjoyable reading—outside of Dublin, Ohio anyway.” I have read the report, and can say I found it enjoyable (in the sense of celebrating the expression of shared ideals – I hold no enjoyment that this has become a divisive issue). I live just a few miles from Dublin, so I suspect that I will have to travel there and re-read the report to see if this statement holds true.
Or perhaps it was meant to be taken figuratively? 😉
Paper Cut : Missouri College Embraces E-Textbooks is a story that was broadcast this morning on NPR. The headline is slightly misleading, in that they are running a pilot program in which 500 students are trying out E-Texts for one semester; when the pilot is completed, they may or may not fully “embrace” the concept.
One element that I was surprised was not in the article was the idea of Open Access Texts, which are available for no cost, and are created, edited, and updated in an collaborative fashion. Perhaps they limited the pilot program to electronic versions of alredy-used textbooks, but I certainly see a progression towards open access as being a natural step for a program such as this.
It will be interesting to see what results Northwest Missouri State gets from this study.
found via LISNews
Sending OCLC on its way is a post by Peter Brantley on his Thoughts and Speculations blog. It focuses on the library world’s reaction to OCLC’s licensing change, and cautions against our overreacting.
He is not an apologist for OCLC, but someone who is pointing out what he sees as the dangers in pushing OCLC too far off of its business model. In this I agree; OCLC has done some fantastic things, and is an orgainization worth preserving. However, we need to ensure that it does not stifle innovation at the same time.
The continuing survival of libraries in the digital age requires us to be creative and experimental with our data, and having it locked up too tightly will only hurt everyone involved.
found via Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change wiki
A little over two months ago, I decided to apply for an ISSN for this blog. The notification letter arrived from the Library of Congress yesterday: Libology blog has an ISSN of 1946-1852. The link on the ISSN number doesn’t return a result (yet) but I recommend WorldCat’s xISSN History Visualization Tool.
There has been a debate over the use of ISSNs for blogs; my perspective is that I attempt to make this a responsible and professional ongoing commentary on library technology, sociology, etc., and as such it fits the definition of a serial. And the LOC agrees.
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
The Library Web Site of the Future, written by Steven J. Bell, is yet another essay about what is wrong with library web sites, and yet it is not just another essay…
It is a strong critique that touches upon many aspects of our web presence, and emphasizes that users, both students and faculty, are increasingly bypassing it and seeking information elsewhere. Read it with a critical eye towards your library’s web site, but I suggest taking some of it with a grain of salt.
Bell’s conclusion is that libraries have erred in not following the lead of marketing design experts, that we are moribund because we don’t let our sites be transformed into an “advertiser of campus wares to those who would buy into the brand.”
I suspect the answer is that our web sites tend to be moribund because we let them be. We tend to design by committee, attempting to force what should be a easily navigated collection of resources into a click-fest labyrinth.
Try having someone unfamiliar with your website navigate it with a general purpose in mind (“I want to find a full-text magazine article.”) and see what blind alleys they encounter. This is about the simplest usability test you can create, and it can be telling. But it is only the start.
Bell suggests that focusing on usability is a misstep, and that it is simply “rearranging the deck chairs on this Titanic.” I think that the problem is that usability is not a misstep, but only the first step in a different direction.
We need to make accessing our resources so straightforward, so open, and so universal that people will use them because it is the path of least resistance to the information they seek.
There are many elements to this, and Bell is right in many of his criticisms, but libraries need to be as universal as possible. Keeping our resources in a silo, no matter how good the resources, does not generate traffic. We need to open it up as much as we can, and continually push to open the rest.
In addition, we need to get our resources where our users are. Do you use RSS to get information to users? Do you use social networking to get information to users? Your resources, if disseminated the right way, become your best marketing strategy. Figure out where your potential users are, and then figure out how to connect your resources to wherever that is.
You don’t need to turn your site into a product to be marketed; you need to get your product to market.
found via LISNews
Found via the posting of Beth Bernhardt’s ALA Midwinter presentation, Dealing with Free E-Journals : Are they worth the effort? (PowerPoint) , are several sites featuring links to free online journals:
As well as these sites with article-level searching:
thanks to Open Access News
Gramophone Archive is the complete, searchable collection of every issue of The Gramophone since April 1923.
Enjoy audiophiles!
found via MetaFilter
From the entry form:
Walden Media wants to send YOU to the American Library Association’s Annual Conference! Enter below for a chance to win a trip for YOU and one GUEST including:
found via LISNews
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
I am a bit of a space freak (several people will read this and say “A bit???”), so this touches on two of my interests.
NASA’s Inclusion and Innovations Council recently had a all-day report period on barriers to inclusion and innovation at the agency. Changing the institutional behaviors that stifle people’s incentive to provide ideas and input has been a priority at the agency since the loss of Columbia.
One of the reports was not presented as a printed report or a displayed set of slides. It was a video posted on YouTube, and charted the process in which a NASA employee attempts to contribute an innovative idea to a project.
Barriers to Innovation and Inclusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_424YskAfewNext, read Wayne Hale’s blog entry about this video. Recognize that this is a person who has worked in an organization where this type of behavior not only stifles innovation, it can cost lives. Yet the behavior exists in many places, including many libraries.
Does this seem familiar? Have you known someone who had an idea, perhaps outside of his or her job description, who was “handled” in this sort of way? Have you been this person? Have you been this person’s supervisor, or someone who was approached with an idea? Did you discuss chains of command, or supervisors, or that it had been done some other way for years?
This is not an issue just for NASA; this is an issue for any organization that risks demoralizing employees and locking themselves into bureaucratic irrelevance. This might be your library. Watch the video, and then watch yourselves and others to ensure that you are not part of the problem, but part of the solution.
One part of the solution is to generate ideas, good ideas about anything and everything you observe. Express them to anyone who can use them; express them in a constructive, positive way, and give people every reason to consider them for adoption.
Another part is to watch for ideas from others. Encourage them to brainstorm and to express their suggestions. Be supportive, offer constructive advice, and be that echoing voice during staff meetings or at the break room table saying “That sounds like it has potential!”
Yet another part is to watch yourself, ensuring that when someone makes a suggestion or presents an idea, that it is the suggestion or idea that is discussed, not the bureaucratic structure or the current procedures that dominates your response.
Think about how much better your library, as well as everyone else’s library, can be, if we only encourage innovation and inclusion. Think about it.
found via Librarian in Black
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Libology Blog
Established July 2006
ISSN: 1946-1852
by Rick Mason
