Date:Sep 23, 2005
To: Cory Doctorow
From: Tony Sanfilippo\
Subject: Google Print
Cc: Xeni , Mark, David, Sandy_Thatcher
Cory,
In this case, it's Google that is making at least two digital copies
of our books and giving one to the library. The library didn't make
the copy. The copy is payment for access to the books. As I see it,
and it seems as the AG sees it, that's an infringement. As a university
press, we're not in the business of suing professors or libraries, and
I don't see that as useful. I do want to try and educate both professors
and librarians to the fact that they too have a stake in this model.
The less we publish, the less libraries have to offer, the fewer faculty
members get tenure.
Without university presses, a lot of scholarship wouldn't get vetted,
edited and designed. Do we want to chuck the whole commercial model?
Perhaps we should. But until administrators decide that, we're dependant
on that model. Our university press, like most, has a clear mandate
from our administration--be sustainable. Make less money, then publish
fewer books.
Tony, if the library is doing something lawful that is cutting into
your business, that's bad news for you, but good news for the library.
I would argue what's bad news for me, is bad news for libraries. Especially
considering that commercial academic presses like Elsevier charge 3
or 4 times what we charge for content. It's not 3 or 4 times better.
It's usually not better at all. If we stop publishing, they would be
happy to pick up the slack. And they probably wouldn't have a problem
suing either libraries or faculty when possible.
I think that 17USC allows profs to do exactly what you describe,
without compensation. Indeed, I know for a fact that much of my material
is either posted online or photocopied by universities, including my
small-press material like my collection from Four Walls Eight Windows.
I really respect and admire that you allow that. I agree that there
is a common good served, but there also needs to be some limitation.
Your allowing your work to be used that way does not prevent you from
publishing in the future. For us, it can.
Clearly we need better fair use guidelines. Of course we want our material
used for educational purposes. But when we find 50 to 80 percent of
a book posted unsecured on line, that seems to go beyond simple fair
use.
I'd refer you to my boss's very thoughtful article on the issue.
http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=product/jsp/321/fair1.html
Your message below doesn't address the substance of the followups
to your earlier messages:
Sorry, I had to be in New York for a meeting and had to leave early.
What I slapped off this morning was just a gut reaction to the whooping
I just read on BB.
1. If the libraries are doing something illegal, then sue the libraries,
not Google
We haven't sued anyone. And much of the infringement we've seen has
been at state institutions. Even if we wanted to, the constitution prevents
us from suing, something those libraries are well aware of. And I personally
have no interest in suing Google. I've written an op-ed piece suggesting
a compromise that will run in next Monday's Publisher's Weekly.
I'll send you the link upon publication.
2. If you support scholarship, there's no conceivable basis for
objecting to giving academic libraries fulltext indices of their collections
That's not what they are getting. They're image files of the books.
Jpegs. If this project goes forward,anyone will be able to search the
text using Google, so the libraries won't need their own indices. My
objection is that we will loose the opportunity to sell those digital
files of our content ourselves. Contrary to your argument that "Google
Print won't take a penny away from a publisher", the libraries
in question probably have 70 - 90% of what we've published over the
past 50 years. The files Google is giving each library are worth tens
of thousands of dollars, if I had been allowed to sell them. The libraries
involved have all bought or subscribed to digital content of ours in
the past. Now they won't need to anymore. That loss of income means
many new books won't get published.
3. Fair use is *not* noncommercial use, and no one should be more
keenly aware of this than a commercial academic publisher
It seems to me that what Google is proposing is more like what Kinko's
was doing, or what MDS was doing. The "transformative" argument
is interesting but as you probably know, there are four factors in determining
fair use. Commercial use is the first factor for a reason. Like the
first amendment. I think the transformative justification might fare
better if they decide to unilaterally not to place ads on those particular
book pages. And we're not a commercial academic publisher, we're a non-profit
university press
I'm not against Google, I really believe in what they do and respect
their work. But I think they need to respect our work. Right now, I'm
not so sure they do.
Tony
Cory
On Sep
22, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Tony Sanfilippo wrote:----------------begin submit-------------
email_name:
Tony Sanfilippo
email_from:
\
from_url:subject:suggested_url:
http://
description:
Folks, that's just not the case. Our paperback sales have been plummeting
in the last few years and our industry studies have made a direct correlation
to the decrease in those sales with the increased use of uncompensated
e-reserves. This isn't like an RIAA study. This was looking at faculty
syllabuses on line where they have told students, "I've posted
this at the libraries site so you don't have to buy the book."
Yes, we need to maximize revenues. Our press, because of those decreased
sales, our press has both cut staff and the number of titles we publish
each year. The uncompensated use of that material has already decreased
the amount of scholarship we produce. And the prospect of more cuts
should concern everyone who cares about scholarship, especially libraries.
-----------------end
submit--------------
This mail generated by mailto - problems? webmaster@mutatron.com
A copy of this output is kept for problem resolution purposes.
-------------------source----------------
referer: http://boingboing.net/suggest.html
browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.8)
Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4
source : 68.234.216.184
------------------end mail-------050730--
--
Cory Doctorow
doctorow@craphound.com
latest novel: craphound.com/someone
blog: boingboing.net
vanity: craphound.com
second novel: craphound.com/est
collection: craphound.com/place
novel: craphound.com/down
work: www.eff.org
Join my mailing list and find out about upcoming books, stories, articles
and appearances:
http://www.ctyme.com/mailman/listinfo/doctorow--
Tony Sanfilippo
Marketing and Sales Director
Penn State Press
820 N. University Dr.
USB1, Suite C
University Park, PA 16802
www.psupress.org |