[Ecommerce] "another" major project to scan and index books (SPARCOpenAccess Newsletter 11/2/05)
Manon Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org
Wed Nov 2 15:50:01 2005
From the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #91 November 2, 2005
Read this issue online
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-05.htm
The Open Content Alliance
The Open Content Alliance (OCA) is a major new project to scan print
books and index them for searching. It was launched on October 3 by
an international consortium of profit and non-profit organizations.
When the books are in the public domain or when OCA has obtained the
copyright-holder's consent, then it will provide open access to the
full-texts.
The press is calling OCA a Yahoo initiative, perhaps to play up a
rivalry with Google. But the Internet Archive conceived the OCA and
will administer it. Yahoo will index the content for searching.
Adobe and HP Labs will provide technology. Content will come from
any and all institutions that can be persuaded to volunteer. At the
time of launch, there were six: the European Archive, National
Archives of the UK, O'Reilly Media, Prelinger Archives, the
University of California, and the University of Toronto. Three weeks
later the content-providers had almost tripled. The new members
include the Biodiversity Heritage Library, the Smithsonian
Institution Libraries, Columbia University, Emory University, Johns
Hopkins University Libraries, and McMaster University, Rice
University, York University, and the Universities of British
Columbia, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and Virginia. Two especially important
post-launch members are the RLG and Microsoft. New members are
always welcome.
Unlike Google Library, the OCA will only scan copyrighted books when
it has the copyright-holder's consent. As a result, publisher groups
that criticized Google Library (AAP, AAUP, ALPSP) have endorsed the OCA.
OCA-scanned books will be available at a separate web site called the
Open Library, and searchable through IA, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Or
more precisely, that's where they'll start. But all OCA's
digitizing, copying, and indexing will be non-exclusive. If other
organizations want to copy and host the texts, they may. If other
search engines want to index them, they may. Yes, that includes Google.
In addition to producing free online digital books, OCA will support
print-on-demand from Lulu and audio editions from LibriVox.
Here are some thoughts about the project, especially in contrast with
Google's Library project.
* For publishers of books under copyright, the OCA is opt-in rather
than opt-out. This definitely pleases publishers and others with a
conservative interpretation of fair use, but it doesn't follow that
the Google opt-out policy is unlawful. Nor does the OCA policy
weaken the legal case for the Google policy.
Both policies might be lawful. If Google wins in court and
vindicates the opt-out policy, then book-scanning projects will have
two lawful options and it will be interesting to compare them. For
some authors and some publishers, the OCA method will look better.
But for the book-scanners themselves, for readers, and for many other
authors and publishers, the Google method will look better. The
advantage of opt-in is strongest in a period of legal uncertainty,
like the present. While Google is moiling through lawsuits, paying
lawyers, and risking liability, the OCA can proceed without risk.
However, if opt-out is ever vindicated, then its attractions will be
unmistakable. First, it dispenses with the cost and delay of seeking
permission. Second, it open a much larger universe of books for the
book-scanners. If some publishers will opt in, some will opt out,
and others will not respond one way or another --because they don't
realize that their texts are being scanned or they don't care enough
to stop it--, then an opt-in policy will get only the first set of
texts while an opt-out policy will get both the first and the third.
In short, the chief advantage of the OCA opt-in policy is that it's
clearly legal. If the Google opt-out policy is ever clearly legal
too, it will be so much better that even the OCA should consider
using it.
* While the OCA pleases publisher groups that objected to Google
Library, its reception among author groups is less clear. At least
one author group that criticized Google Library --the Text and
Academic Authors Association-- also supports the OCA. But I haven't
yet seen a statement from the Authors Guild (AG) about the OCA. In
fact, if the AG is consistent, it will have the same objection to the
OCA that it has to Google Library. If the Google project undercuts
book sales, then so will the OCA, and publisher consent won't stop
it. If the Google project increases book sales but doesn't pay for
the privilege, then the OCA project will do the same, and publisher
consent won't change that.
* The OCA will deliver full open access to its texts whenever it has
permission. By contrast, when Google digitizes public-domain books,
it will disable printing and downloading in the user's browser,
ruling out redistribution and offline reading. Google's scanning is
non-exclusive in the sense that anyone else with millions of dollars
is free to scan the same texts. But it's exclusive in the sense that
Google will not share its digital results with the public except
under certain restrictions. For Google, these restrictions are the
default, even for public-domain texts. Google is spending a lot of
money to digitize these texts and wants to be the only tool in town
to index them, at least for a significant time.
For the OCA, however, the default is to remove all access barriers
and retain no edge over rivals. That's so remarkable that it's worth
saying again: the OCA policy is to give everything away everything
that it has permission to give away. The only edge its members will
retain over rivals is the good will they generate and the use of the
digital files slightly before anyone else. Not only are Yahoo and
Microsoft --bitter rivals-- working together within the OCA, both are
willing to share the results with Google, a common rival to them both.
We could even say that insofar as they participate in this digital
book commons, the members of the OCA have no rivals. Everyone is
either a partner by working with them or a partner by receiving the
benefit of their work and investment as a gift. Google can be
forgiven if it wonders whether this is a business model or a potlatch.
It's not an ordinary business model, since the OCA is not-for-
profit. But it's not an ordinary potlatch either, since it's all
about utility, not ceremony. However, it has elements of both. The
OCA has found a way to make a gift of unrivaled significance and
still to pay the bills. The OCA is consciously surpassing Google in
the openness of its content, or the generosity of its gift, but it's
also consciously surpassing Google in the legal stability of its
business methods.
But of course Yahoo and Microsoft are still rivals apart from OCA and
still see ways to make money from their participation in OCA even if
that has to be long-term and indirect. The only short-term boost
they get over Google from this project is the chance to build better
relations with the authors and publishers who dislike the Google
project. We should never forget, however, that many authors and
publishers think the lawsuits against Google are baseless and
harmful, approve the opt-out policy, and love the Google project.
The rivalries among Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google are not only real,
but interesting enough to soak up news attention. But reporters who
focus on the rivalries are missing half the full story. The OCA
project and Google Library are compatible and complementary. Both
teams take the position that "the more, the merrier" and they're both
right to do so. Both teams work to minimize duplication among the
scanned books.
* The best statement of the OCA's open-access policy is by Daniel
Greenstein of the California Digital Library. Barbara Quint quotes
him in the October 31 issue of Information Today: Content providers
"must compete on value added to the content, not on ownership."
Giving away the content to all who want it will "drive innovations in
service provisions, such as annotated and educational services."
Even the for-profit OCA partners must recognize that "proprietary
control over content is an impediment to commerce."
Let's hope that's the future of book and journal literature.
* Even for the OCA, however, the details of reuse permissions may
vary from one content donor to another. Here's how Brewster Kahle
put it in his introduction to the OCA for the Yahoo Search Blog
(October 2): "We believe that donors should have the option to
restrict the bulk re-hosting of a substantial part of a collection.
This seems fair....Interestingly University of California and Yahoo
have decided to not put any restrictions. So if another library wants
to re-host these on their website, or another search engine wants to
integrate them into their page flipping system, they are welcome to.
To be clear, the public domain works in the Open Content Alliance can
be "borrowed" in bulk for build navigation services, do research on,
and the like. Bits and pieces of the public domain collections can be
re-used and re-interpreted. If someone wants to print and binding a
book and sell it on Amazon.com-- go nuts, if they want to make it
into an audio book and post it on the web-- go for it (we will even
supply the hosting for this), basically let's have a blast building
on the classics of humankind."
http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000192.html
This policy is codified in the first two principles of the OCA:
"[1] The OCA will encourage the greatest possible degree of access to
and reuse of collections in the archive, while respecting the rights
of content owners and contributors. [2] Contributors will determine
the terms and conditions under which their collections are
distributed and how attribution should be made."
http://www.opencontentalliance.org/participate.html
* I appreciate that Google would undermine its investment if it
shared its files freely. But of course I still prefer the OCA policy
of free sharing. Given the complicated balance of rivalry and
complementarity between the two projects, is there a chance that
Google will feel anything like competitive pressure to open up access
a bit more to its public-domain books? Google's need to protect its
investment may explain why it displays its books as images rather
than text, but it doesn't explain why it disables printing. The
purpose can't be to block rival indexing, since a search engine can't
crawl a printout. Nor can it be to ingratiate rights holders, since
no permission is needed to copy books in the public domain.
Similarly, it doesn't explain why Google blocks downloading the image
files for offline reading, since a search engine can't (yet) crawl
image files online or off. Can we hope that Google will feel
pressure from the OCA to offer printing and downloading for its
public-domain books, even if not full OA for rival indexing?
Moreover, Google is oddly blocking access to its digital books for
users in certain European countries, even for books that are clearly
in the public domain in those countries. (Thanks to Klaus Graf for
documenting this.) Google hasn't said whether this is a feature or a
bug, deliberate or inadvertent. But either way, can we hope that
pressure from the OCA will give it a reason to lift the barriers?
BTW, the OCA books in the Open Library are images, just like
Google's. However, the OCA allows users to download the books in PDF
format. (The download command is in the "Print" menu, and is
currently supported for some but not all the Open Library books.) The
PDF contains the image files, not text for cutting and pasting. This
is an annoying limitation but a step above what Google is offering.
If Google lifts access barriers in response to OCA, and rivals the
OCA in openness, is there any chance that OCA will take a step to
maintain its lead? Both projects have text qua text behind the
images, for searching. Which will be first to give it to users, at
least for public-domain books? I'd love to see non-image or text
versions of these books online, even if they are only crudely formatted.
* The OCA hasn't merely made a general offer of its content to every
user and search engine. It has specifically invited Google to join
the consortium and crawl the content. As far we know, Google hasn't
come to a decision yet. I'd like to see Google accept the
invitation. Indexing the OCA content would improve the Google index,
which would help both Google and its users. Is Google willing to
pass up that increment of quality in order to avoid feeling pressure
to reciprocate, or in order to spurn a gift from Yahoo and
Microsoft? Declining the invitation would not be "evil", but I can't
see that it would do any good.
* While some OCA members are for-profit corporations (Yahoo,
Microsoft, Adobe, HP), the OCA itself is non-profit. More, it's a 501
(c)(3) corporation, which means that donations to it are tax-
deductible in the U.S. Supporters who have no technology or content
to offer may help by donating money.
* The Google project has at least one advantage for the libraries and
archives that donate content. Google will pay the costs of scanning,
while the OCA expects the donating institutions to bear these costs --
at the unprecedented low rate of 10 cents/page. There are some
exceptions, however. Yahoo will pay to scan the University of
California's 18,000 volume collection of American literature, for
example, and Microsoft will pay to scan 150,000 books still to be
determined. The U of California, though, has committed $500,000 of
its own money to pick up where Yahoo left off and scan a few more
collections after that.
The allocation of costs is one reason why the OCA corpus will grow
more slowly than the Google corpus. Of course it's also a reason why
Google feels more pressure than the OCA to glean some competitive
advantage from its investment.
* Another reason why the OCA corpus will grow more slowly than the
Google corpus, at least for copyrighted books, is that seeking and
obtaining permission from the copyright holder is time-consuming,
expensive, and frequently unsuccessful.
Just last month Denise Troll Covey of Carnegie-Mellon published a
study documenting the difficulties.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub134abst.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_16_fosblogarchive.html#112989946699894762
Also see Kathlin Smith's summary of the Covey study in the November/
December CLIR Issues.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues48.html#access
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_30_fosblogarchive.html#113093740028850167
Look at these obstacles closely. That's what the OCA has signed up
to face and what Google needn't face as long as it can use its opt-
out policy.
* Google Library has signed up five significant research libraries.
The OCA started with two, now has a dozen, and has a standing
invitation for more.
Libraries attracted to the general idea may be unsure which team to
join. Google offers the advantage of paying the bills, but also the
risks of implicating its library partners in lawsuits for
contributory infringement. So far, both the author plaintiffs and
publisher plaintiffs suing Google have left the libraries out.
That's commendable but legally unnecessary and there's no telling how
long it will last.
* The libraries already participating in the OCA, Google Library, and
the EU's i2010 project are among the best-stocked in the world. Only
a fraction of their books have been digitized so far. But before
long we'll reach an important crossover moment when every researcher
with an internet connection will have free online access to more full-
text books online than are shelved at the average university
library. The crossover moment for public-domain books will occur
long before the crossover moment for copyrighted books, but I believe
both are inevitable. Also inevitable is the crossover moment when
online researchers have free online access to more full-text books
than are shelved at the *top* academic libraries.
The number of free online full-text journal articles is growing
steadily and it's likely that its percentage relative to toll-access
journal articles is also growing. However, the percentage of books
that are free online may soon exceed the percentage of journal
articles that are free online. A year or two ago that would have
been most unexpected. Journal articles are the low-hanging fruit for
OA because they are royalty-free, and books are higher-hanging fruit
because they are not. But to be precise, only copyrighted books pay
royalties; public-domain books are as royalty-free as journal
articles, though for a different reason. One clear advantage for
journal articles is that they are born digital, nowadays, while
public-domain books must be scanned. On the other side, however,
public-domain books have two advantages over journal articles for the
purposes of OA. The first is that well-funded and well-motivated
players are providing OA to public-domain books, one huge swath at a
time. The second is that the legal basis for OA to public-domain
books is the expiration of copyright, while the legal basis for OA to
(most) journal articles is copyright-holder consent. As we know all
too well, the fact that article authors have an interest in
consenting to OA, and the fact that they could consent to OA without
losing revenue, don't mean that they are all consenting. Moreover,
when they do consent, they don't always take the next step of
submitting their work to an OA journal or depositing it in an OA
repository. Consequently, we should be prepared to see the curve for
OA public-domain books, starting about now, rise more quickly than
the curve for OA journal articles. The public-domain book curve
could cross the journal curve in less than a year, keep climbing, and
reach roughly 100% ages before the journal curve reaches 100%.
* Both the OCA and Google Library will give priority to public-domain
books, although both will also include books under copyright. For
some time, then, progress reports and popular scans will focus public
attention on the wealth of the public domain. Let's hope this
educates voters about the importance of protecting the public domain
from encroachments such as copyright-term extensions.
Likewise, by making a point of getting the rights-holder's consent
before including books under copyrighted, the OCA could educate the
public about the benefits of relaxing the tightening grip of
copyright and consenting to wider and easier access. If consenting
publishers discover that free online full-text searching increases
net sales (as the consenting publishers in Google's Publisher program
are discovering), then more and more publishers should open their
content to the OCA.
Open Content Alliance, home page
http://www.opencontentalliance.org/
OCA members
http://www.opencontentalliance.org/contributors.html
OCA call for participation
http://www.opencontentalliance.org/participate.html
OCA press release
http://www.opencontentalliance.org/OCARelease.pdf
Open Library (home of OCA-scanned books)
http://www.openlibrary.org/
Brewster Kahle's introduction to the OCA on the Yahoo Search Blog.
http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000192.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112834574148546403
Brewster Kahle, The Open Library (Kahle's vision for OCA, deposited
like a book in the Open Library)
http://www.openlibrary.org/details/openlibrary
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113042149252437258
* Here's some news coverage and comment on the OCA.
Barbara Quint, Open Content Alliance Expands Rapidly; Reveals
Operational Details, Information Today, October 31, 2005.
http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb051031-1.shtml
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_30_fosblogarchive.html#113085626042219641
Barbara Quint, Microsoft Launches Book Digitization Project --MSN
Book Search, Information Today, October 31, 2005.
http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb051031-2.shtml
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_30_fosblogarchive.html#113085947518622082
Todd Bishop, Surprise alliance for MSN book search prompts concern,
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 31, 2005.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/246468_software31.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_30_fosblogarchive.html#a113076893933982079
Chris O'Brien, He fights for open access to the world's digital
library, Mercury News, October 30, 2005. A news profile of Brewster
Kahle.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13035279.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_30_fosblogarchive.html#a113068011120385006
Chris O'Brien, Dedicating his career to open information, Mercury
News, October 30, 2005. An interview with Brewster Kahle.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13035286.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_30_fosblogarchive.html#a113068011120385006
Walaika K. Haskins, Microsoft Writes a New Chapter with Online Book
Search, Top Tech News, October 28, 2005.
http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Microsoft-Writes-a-New-Chapter/
story.xhtml?story_id=13000D78453K
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113058938146906601
On October 27, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) announced that it
was joining the OCA.
http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=20831
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113058580344641200
Tara Calishain, Microsoft Jumps on the Book Indexing Bandwagon,
ResearchBuzz, October 26, 2005.
http://www.researchbuzz.org/2005/10/microsoft_jumps_on_the_book_in.shtml
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113055340482959597
Jeffrey Young, Microsoft, Joining Growing Digital-Library Effort,
Will Pay for Scanning of 150,000 Books, Chronicle of Higher
Education, October 27, 2005.
http://chronicle.com/free/2005/10/2005102701t.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113042905352358584
Stefanie Olsen, An open-source rival to Google's book project,
News.com, October 26, 2005.
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5915690.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113041927553560792
Eric Auchard, Microsoft joins Yahoo on digital library alliance,
Reuters, October 26, 2005.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?
type=internetNews&storyID=2005-10-26T111654Z_01_DIT640314_RTRIDST_0_OUKI
N-UK-MEDIA-DIGITAL-LIBRARIES.XML
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113033746680768856
Gary Price, Microsoft Announces MSN Book Search; Joins Open Content
Alliance, Search Engine Watch, October 25, 2005.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051025-220127
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113033448915843927
Elinor Mills, Microsoft to offer book search, News.com, October 25,
2005.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+offer+book+search/
2100-1025_3-5913711.html?part=rss&tag=5913711&subj=news
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113033377809520838
Katie Hafner, Microsoft to Offer Online Book-Content Searches, New
York Times, October 25, 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/technology/26book.html?
th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113033301607234027
On October 25, Microsoft announced that it was joining the OCA.
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/uploaded-files/brewster-FINAL%
20_MSNBookSearch_Press%20Release_10-25.doc
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113033167556310784
Editorial: The not-so-Open Content Alliance, Varsity Online, October
24, 2005.
http://www.thevarsity.ca/media/paper285/news/2005/10/24/
OpinionAnalysis/Editorial.The.NotSoOpen.Content.Alliance-1031957.shtml
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113027182107499279
Rosalio Ahumada, UC Joins Digital Library, Merced Sun-Star, October
22, 2005.
http://www.mercedsun-star.com/local/story/11384516p-12130090c.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113025574497722158
Max Chafkin, Google Scrambles to Defend 'Google Print for Libraries'
Initiative, The Book Standard, October 21, 2005.
http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/publisher/
article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001350032
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113008727244721692
Michael Bazeley, Consortium aims to digitize classic books, tech
papers, Knight-Ridder, October 19, 2005.
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?
StoryId=Cq1xeWeicq1bulvndqu5osu5h
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_16_fosblogarchive.html#a112982253688374916
Wade Roush, Wade Roush, Digitize This, MIT Technology Review, October
20, 2005.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/10/wo/wo_102005roush.asp
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_16_fosblogarchive.html#a112982220881091051
Becky Hogge, Brewster Kahle, The New Statesman, October 17, 2005.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200510170018
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_09_fosblogarchive.html#a112929233052375302
Scott Carlson and Jeffrey Young, Yahoo Works With Academic Libraries
on a New Project to Digitize Books, Chronicle of Higher Education,
October 14, 2005.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a03402.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_09_fosblogarchive.html#a112896041841463957
Max Chafkin, Yahoo Takes Friendly Approach to Book Digitization,
Sidesteps Google Uproar, The Book Standard, October 06, 2005.
http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/publisher/
article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001261807
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112869925330279011
Preston Gralla, Yahoo Gets Book-Scanning Right...Almost, Networking
Pipeline, October 5, 2005.
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2005/10/
yahoo_gets_book.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112861263403956555
Andrew Orlowski, Yahoo! follows Google into print minefield, The
Register, October 4, 2005.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/04/yahoo_print/
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112844093134234092
Julie Strack, UC Will Put Vast Collection of American Literature
Online, The Daily Californian, October 4, 2005.
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=19769
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112843919373637447
The University of California issued a press release (October 3) on
its participcation in the OCA.
http://www.cdlib.org/news/press_releases/oca_release_final_20050930.doc
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112843919373637447
Barbara Quint, Open Content Alliance Rises to the Challenge of Google
Print, Information Today, October 3, 2005.
http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb051003-2.shtml
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112836802204824481
Scott Carlson and Jeffrey Young, Yahoo Works With 2 Academic
Libraries and Other Archives on Project to Digitize Collections,
Chronicle of Higher Education, October 3, 2005.
http://chronicle.com/free/2005/10/2005100301t.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112835137971015386
Tara Calishain, Yahoo Announces Open Content Alliance, ResearchBuzz,
October 3, 2005.
http://www.researchbuzz.org/2005/10/yahoo_announces_open_content_a.shtml
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112835227816863689
Gary Price, A New Digital Library Alliance Makes its Debut, Search
Engine Watch, October 3, 2005.
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3553086
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112835641569960592
Katie Hefner, In Challenge to Google, Yahoo Will Scan Books, New York
Times, October 3, 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/business/03yahoo.html?
adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1128344731-G78Dd1qrna6xprvIPOCc3Q&pagewanted=print
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112834574148546403
Michael Liedtke, Publishers say yahoo to online book plan, Associated
Press, October 2, 2005.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/384/5647394.html
Elinor Mills, Yahoo to digitize public domain books, News.com,
October 2, 2005.
http://news.com.com/Yahoo+to+digitize+public+domain+books/
2100-1038_3-5887374.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#a112835709960134519
Robert Cringley interviewed Brewster Kahle for PBS's Nerd TV on
September 27, 2005. View the video or read the transcript.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/guests/
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#a113009704137688743
* Also see some of the links below on the publisher lawsuit against
Google. Many of the articles covering the suit contrast Google's
approach to copyright with the OCA's.
SNIP
>
> This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written
> by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this
> newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC.
>
> To unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>.
>
> Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to
> interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this
> issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the first
> two sites below.
>
> SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html
>
> Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter
> editorial position
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
>
> Newsletter, archived back issues
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
>
> Forum, archived postings
> https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html
>
> Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
>
> Timeline of the Open Access Movement
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
>
> Open Access Overview
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
>
> Open Access News blog
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
>
> Peter Suber
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
> peter.suber@earlham.edu
>
> SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the Creative
> Commons Attribution License. Users may freely copy, distribute,
> and display its contents, but must give credit to the author. To
> read the full license, visit
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/
>
>
>
>
> ==========
>
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> The SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
> To unsubscribe, email to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>.
> Send administrative queries to <SPARC-OANews-request@arl.org>.
>
>
************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607