Should All Books Be Digitized?

Would anyone consider releasing a new book without a digital version now-a-days? I think not.

So what is the problem with older books being digitized? Yea yea the same copyright bullshit that the music/movie studios are crying over.

Knowledge should be free.

Maybe knowledge should be free, but it isn't.

In the case of out of print books, and rare books, or even books that are hated, saving knowledge, or voices that are otherwise doomed to extinction is of obvious benefit to mankind as a whole.

Still somebody has to pay for even the labor of scanning. At the free lending libraries that are common in the US tax payers support their free lending libraries, and this is a wonderful thing.

However to carry that to the point of saying movie makers, and music makers and writers, and the families of writers are crying for no ethical reason, is wrong.

Far as I know Google does make money from its operations.

Obviously they have an interest in aquiring free stuff to make a profit from, either directly, or indirectly.

P.S. I have some personal experience with the impact on creators, of copyright infringements, and theft of intellectual property on my own little life and financial well being.

The word 'theft' does not mean what you think it means.

Bribing politicians to pass essentially unlimited copyright terms kills the public domain.

The publishers' lobby have taken a large chunk of our culture and made it their own until long after I'm dead. I don't have it anymore.

THAT'S THEFT.

"Yea yea the same copyright bullshit that the music/movie studios are crying over."

I disagree, music/movies are not knowledge, they are works of art, owned by the artists, producers, and other people who worked on the projects. They spent the time, you spend the money.

I do agree that knowledge in general should be free, but at the same time, who is going to bother writing, and improving the documentation of our knowledge, for free? Writing a book takes a tremendous amount of time, and I do believe the person who spent that time should be compensated for it just like any other profession. Do you work for free? If you suddenly can't make a dime for being a writer, you'll find much less quality publication in the market.

In the end, you'll still only get what you pay for.

and BTW, we just went over all this in this thread.

".....should be compensated for it just like any other profession."

Name another profession that compensates a creator 75 years after their death. Do you really think Paul McCartney should still be getting paid for songs he wrote 40 years ago?

"Do you really think Paul McCartney should still be getting paid for songs he wrote 40 years ago?"

They are his songs aren't they? No one else made that contribution to the rest of the world for him. If people enjoy them, and wish to have his songs for their own use, then they buy the product.

Should a company that designed a widget 40 years ago, and is still in business selling that widget just start giving their widget away for free, just because it's been 40 years since they made the first one?

Yes, I believe an artist should get paid for his/her work.

Thanks.

Good point, but as engineers we should maybe negotiate better contracts?
I designed a small pressed steel part a while ago, my boss was wingeing about the tool cost (a mere £500, compared with the cost of a new tool for an injection molded plastic part.)
I offered to pay for it, his eyes lit up.
But then I added I'll want a 5p royalty on every part.
He paid for the tooling pretty quick .
Del

Yeah, that Shakespeare and Beethoven and Mozart stuff would have never gotten anywhere without copyright.

Oh, wait...

Knowledge should be free.

Knowledge should be free? So somebody will spend his full life and money and what not for generating the knowledge, putting it in readable form ... book or digital .... and you want it free?!!!!

Can you explain your rationale as to why knowledge should be free?

I believe with knowledge comes responsibility. I can give a child the knowledge as to how to turn on the hot water...or the stove or light a match...does that mean they will use that knowledge wisely?

Why should a country (or company or person) invest thousands, millions or billions in R&D to become more competitive in the world only to have the fruits of their investments taken by some other country who may not have had the forethought or worse, wasn't wise enough or was too lazy to make the investment?

This is the digital age, everything is done with computers and most information can be obtained for free using any search engine.

As for everyone asking who would put their hard work into something when they are not getting paid. I guess you have never heard of open source software. Open source devs commit their livelihoods to their projects for the benefit of the community and the thanks they get from people online is enough for them.

As for larger companies who are trying to make a profit… Google's book digitizing program is another good example. Yes, they will make money from advertisements placed on the pages, but they are not charging users for access to the books. In my view, they are doing a public service while trying to recuperate some of their costs via advertising.

Yet another good example of people willing to write for free is Wikipedia. There is an article on pretty much everything at this point and some are very detailed. Sure it can't be taken as 100% fact but many of the articles are better than you would find in an encyclopedia.

stevem also makes a few good points about any other job where the worker is paid years after their death even.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge

This is the digital age, everything is done with computers and most information can be obtained for free using any search engine.

The material available free on internet is put free of charge by the creator of the document. It is his/her choice.

On the other hand there are many papers, books available on internet on payment only.

You are asking everything free!!!!

Well, really its not that knowledge should be free, it that it should be available to anyone regardless of their financial, family, geographic location. If I'm a poor child in the slums I want the same chance as the rich kid in Hollywood. This is such a foggy topic, because on one hand, I believe the creator of the works should get paid, (I do agree, that they only get a fraction, and the fat cats get the rest, which is bullspit), but I also believe that underprivileged individuals should have the same resources if they choose to pursue them. But hey... aren't public libraries providing exactly that service for free right now?

"....aren't public libraries providing exactly that service for free right now?"

No, they aren't. Just because the average person walking into a public library doesn't have to pay an entrance fee or get charged for taking out a book does not mean they are free. There are costs associated with operating a public library (land, building, electricity, janitorrs, librarians if they are not volunteers, etc.).

In this case I shall have to restudy Ben Franklins reasoning behind the institution of Free Lending Libraries.

This discussion has come up before.

In the case of US free lending libraries, the library at least buys the book.

Frankly, as one who has written some books, and does want the editorial support, and publishing, and distribution of formal and traditional publishing, I want my publisher to make some money.

Further, I have more than I want to have heard, been told that I will be appreciated more when I am dead.

If if am not going to get money while I am alive, I sure would like it if my daughter got some, for I was doing what I was, for my family.

So if my work is dependent for some of its value on my death, and I was doing what I was doing in hopes of helping my family, it is important that my copyright be transferred to my heir.

For publishers who maintain that trust, with a legal incentive to do so, I figure it is a fair deal, as long as there is some accountant charged to verify.

Knowledge is fragile.

There is not as much knowledge or wisdom as we really need, and it does need to be protected from harm.

Still to harm and hurt those who work to maintain and advance it by saying they ought to just give it to you, makes it impossible sometimes for them to live long enough to do so.

"Knowledge should be free."

someone oughta pay for it... no such thing as a free lunch, they say.

You, apparently, have never written a book.

If copyright is BS then I suggest that you supply your talents and intellectual effort to your employer for free the same way as you obviously expect authors, musicians etc to do.

Think it through before making sweeping statements such as this.

Are books, CD's, DVD,s etc too expensive - another debate altogether.

As a person who does a lot of research, digitized books are a main source of information. Everyone's need are different. I look for information that is usually out of print and industry standards. I need to know; how, what, where and how much it costs; not company secrets. For example, I need to know what adhesive to use, not how the adhesive is made or it's composition.

How do we justify public libraries?

You buy a book, film, record (does everyone still know what a record is?). You use it. You set it on a self. Later someone else comes along and does the same thing and over and over again.

The author signs an agreement to receive a royalty every time someone purchases their publication, not every time someone uses it. We as a nation of laws and fair play agree not to take that persons intellectual property and claim it as our own or distribute it for profit without his permission.

I see no difference in digitizing books for public use (if the copyright laws are not violated) than me using a book out of a public library.

Knowledge must be free is something that elit corporations/nations/badasses fight with all means against because they know their position is threatened and attacked if knowledge is freely available.

ok, I don't know about america but over here, every time someone takes a book out of a library the library must pay a fee (it was 30 pence quite a long time ago) which finds its way back to the author.

as for the specific topic in question, see here:

http://www.book-grab.com/

Yes why not what happens if the main book storage library was to burn down all that info would be lost all in favour

I am not sure that any clear solution to these issues has been offered. I am not inclined to view with favor CDs or DVDs that cost about $1.00 per unit to make and yet sell for $20.00. (Or books that cost $5.00 each and sell for $20.00.)

Nonetheless, the producers of these materials need to recover their initial costs (lest these things dry up). No one has yet devised a Web-based system that can bill consumers/copiers a suitable fee to accommodate authors and publishers, and cover the costs of production without going way overboard.

Seventy-year copyrights that don't benefit the author, but only his/her heirs and publishers, are a sick black joke. No legislature I know of has sorted this out with anything resembling common sense. Nor is this likely to happen in a lobby-infested milieu.

Itunes is a step in the right direction. Especially since they dumped DRM.

You might be right. I haven't followed all the most recent outworkings of these issues. I welcome being brought up to date on things I may have missed. If I-tunes is doing this well, more power to them.

Ah, but what you need to remember is that digital media becomes obsolete much faster than paper.
We can still read books printed by Paxton, but we can't read a 8" floppy
Del

I have nothing against books being digitized as long as the associated copyright holders give consent.

I would just hate to see printed media go away. I like the how books feel and I prefer to read the conventional way as opposed to reading off a screen.

In pondering this topic I found an web site with a simplified summary on copyright law (http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm). The first paragraph gives a nice summary of the purpose of copyright law (at least in the US). Here's the first sentence: "The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. "

So in essence copyright laws do promote providing knowledge for free....just not until after the originator (author/creator/etc.) either decides to allow it or until substantial time after his (or her) death (roughly 70 years). While that may not seem fair to many, it gives enough protection to encourage creative minds to actually create something worthwhile. I guess the thinking is that without adequate protection less would be produced. Some may argue about it extending so long after the authors death. I can certainly see both sides of that argument so I honestly don't know what I would find most acceptable.

GA from me

Good perspective

Yes. All learning material should be free, and authors should have websites for donations from the people who don't pay up-front. I think people are generally kind in nature and will return in donations for generosity in appreciating what they've learned. If I consider something worth the price, I always buy it, and I think a lot of people feel this way. If there's someone less fortunate who can't even afford a book to help him/her in getting trained for a job for example, the training material should be free. If they're successful in their goal because of the book, they'll most likely be more than happy to purchase a copy -and even be eager to spread the word.

"If they're successful in their goal because of the book, they'll most likely be more than happy to purchase a copy -and even be eager to spread the word. "

What planet are you from? There are entire countries on Earth ignoring the copyright laws. Okay maybe that's a bit of an exageration......but not by much. I had a friend tell me that Microsoft only sells one copy of MS Office in her country....then they make copies and distribute it. And yes, she said country, not company. I doubt that's 100% accurate, but she said it and was proud of it. Yeah...screw Microsoft!!! While I'm not a huge MS fan and maybe MS can afford it, but that doesn't make their actions right or lawful.

While I do think there are many honest and appreciative people who are willing to purchase software or books whether out of appreciation for the inventor/author's efforts or some other reason, I would speculate there are far more on the other side.

We're not exactly talking about publishing the source code are we?

maybe the literary world should take a cue from the automotive world

ever try to get a repair manual for a car or truck?

you're gonna pay in the majority of cases.

The music world has figured out new ways to make money.

the cost for distributing content continues to drop.

No not source code...the same thing you or I would purchase.

I had a friend tell me that Microsoft only sells one copy of MS Office in her country....then they make copies and distribute it. And yes, she said country,

Yes, and I am sure she is from Korea itself where our friend JB is staying presently

No, actually, this was several years ago long before my sentence assignment in Korea. She was from a country in the Middle East.

JB

Yes, you are right. But guest is also right. I know, even in Korea, books copy right is not followed at all. You can easily have a copy of book, which looks as good as new book, including coloured pages, cover every thing in Korea. Software copying is also regular in Korea. Good download speeds in Korea is very helpful in copying.

It must be true in Middle east.

In India the situation is not that bad, but many people copy the books, but it is not 100%.

In India, software purchase may be some 20% of total use. But bad download speeds in India, discourages software downloads.(as compared to Korea)

This requires a little thought. Free speech is not the same as free beer. In the case of "learning material" (books, I assume), somebody has to make the information contained in the book, and somebody has to print it. In the digital age, the printing is "free," but the creation of new knowledge still requires somebody to spend weeks, months or years of effort.

If we want somebody to do work for us, the most reliable method is to pay them. For most people, this means cash. Some will work for praise or encouragement. A few will work for just the joy of writing. To count on other people doing work for you (i.e. teaching you by writing "learning materials") without payment is unreasonable, if not unfair.

Your comment that knowledge in the form of learning materials should be free is a cultural development. Knowledge benefits society. When someone creates new knowledge, we want society (the rest of us) to benefit from the new knowledge. The task is to create new knowledge and distribute it to society.

Authors will create new knowledge if paid in cash or recognition. But if not paid, they will eventually stop doing it. If an author writes a book and someone not only takes the book from the author but distributes it under a different name, the author will eventually stop writing. Or they will hide their new knowledge, using it only to help themselves, as a trade secret. In this case, the knowledge will not be distributed, and it will probably die with the author.

Copyright laws were passed to solve this problem for the printing press era. A bargain was struck. The author was given a government enforced monopoly for a period of time in exchange for an agreement to make the knowledge public after that time. The monopoly was payment to the author for the book, and society benefited from the book being made public after a time.

This is true, but not accurate. The copyright laws were passed to protect printers more than authors. With no protection, printers would quickly run through all the books available for printing, and few new books would be written. The printers needed a continuing supply of new books in order to pay for their printing presses and expand their business. Copyright encouraged creation of new books, so the printers could continue in the business of supplying "learning materials." And this is also the reason that printers (i.e. publishers) give $$ advances to new authors. It further encourages authors to write new books.

The digital age is changing this. Gutenberg on steroids. Now, the cost of printing is effectively zero. But society still needs new knowledge, and authors to create it. The old copyright laws do not really work well in this new situation. The music business is still learning this. MP3 anyone?

What to do. Here is a thought.

The original bargain was a monopoly on copying/"publication" for a limited period of time, after which the knowledge was free to the public. So time enters into the solution. But time has been drastically sped up. Whereas it could take 6 months for a new book to be printed, old style, it can now be available to any and all the day after it is finished. And the "printing" is free, i.e. the marginal cost of putting it on a web site and downloading it to a PC is zero.

So, let's try a new copyright with a much shorter time scale: weeks or months instead of years. Instead of one book, you have a starting book with a series of updates.

In technical books, this would be like the software model where you pay a lot of money for the current version, less money for the last version and eventually almost no money for versions over a couple of years old. Again in technical books, each new release would have new examples and new knowledge added-in.

We already have this, to some degree, in fiction, particularly mystery and romance fiction. Out comes the first book in a series, followed every few months by a sequel. Sue Grafton has a series of books that use a letter to identify each one. She started with "A" and is now on "U". You may re-read the first book, but you are more interested in the next book.

The idea here is that the author gets paid according to the newness of the information. In an ideal case, it would be maximum at the start and decline by X %/month thereafter, going to zero or a tiny amount after N months.

I am guessing that something like this may be reasonably enforceable in the digital age. You are dealing with multiple windows in time, and a lot of them. You have a continuous series of windows for each author and each book series by the author. Since the knowledge is in the continuous process of being made public, the incentive for copying and distributing for these books free is significantly reduced. Such copying to avoid payment for the books looks much more like a rip-off than "making information free." This will tend to encourage people to buy the book, even if it is an older version, rather than feel like they are stealing it. Perhaps Ebooks will go in this direction.

We want society to benefit from ever increasing information. The task is to come up with a method whereby new information will be continuously created by lots of authors. Some authors will create knowledge and give it to society for free. Honor is due to them. But they may not chose to create all - or even most - of the new knowledge that we need. If we offer payment for the new knowledge that we want, some authors will provide this knowledge for payment.

We're talking about the best case, where the content has some resemblance to quality.

The digital age has also opened the door to content of questionable quality & new avenues to pay for it [ringtones anyone?]

Check out the reviews at the bottom of the page

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-God-Aaron-Rayburn/dp/1418499765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260304964&sr=8-1

Agreed. If publishing is easier, more junk gets published.

The interesting thing is this is a re-run of Gutenberg. There were not many dime novels, etc. copied in the monasteries. The Gutenberg era started out printing bibles, then descended into all manner of things - political, scandalous, pornographic, etc. It took a while for things to shake out in the new technology. We are seeing the same thing today in the explosion of books, etc. Lots of self-publishing today, particularly with technical books. I remember Adam Osborne selling his self-published paperback microprocessor books out of a box at the Home Brew Computer Club. And went on to sell a LOT of them. And yes, I have gladly paid $40 for a technical book downloaded as a PDF from the web.

And some things need to be published that are not politically correct or are uncomfortable to confront. Things that governments and big businesses would try to restrict. There is a tradition of leaking politically awkward things, from the Pentagon Papers to the current Climategate. More light is better, even though the light may not be pure white and may illuminate uncomfortable things.

music has gone through a similar arc

minstrel to media icons & back.

there is usually a divide between providers of content & the business people making money off of them.

Always a fine line between adding value & exploitation

my ability & desire to purchase technical content is almost always based on a simple equation:

Do I have more time or more money?