Toolemera Blog

The Packrat as a Community Service

There is a blog I follow, both for it's interesting content and to keep tabs on the underbelly of the library and archives world: Digitization 101. Sometimes the content is pertinent to my thought patterns, sometimes I scratch my head and wonder at the increasing complexity of it all and sometimes I just guffaw. I will hazard this opinion: it's entirely possible to make life more complex than it needs be. It's possible to over-think something to the point where less is done than would be if we just got on with it. And, it's possible to take a world-view that attempts to insert controls where there may needs be none.

There is a fairly recent post regarding a post on another blog, which post was entitled "digital curiosities and amateur collections". This was a head scratching one for me. As an inveterate packrat, I tend to think of my stuff as my personal form of self-absorbation. I do it because I like to. At the same time, I started a website and eventually a blog to share some of this stuff with people who were of like minds. And again, because it's fun to do so. It's a form of connecting with other people on topics which I might otherwise not get to pontificate upon.

That word 'amateur' gets me. It implies that we, as collectors, are less conversant with our material than are the 'experts', the 'professionals'. As a recently retired 'professional', I feel comfortable slinging arrows and outrageous fortunes. It implies that an 'amateur' website or blog, while containing useful information, is somehow less so than the professionally created museumish website. Sure, the blog post goes on to discuss the highpoints of Amateur Cabinets of Curiousities as well as the importance of preserving and sharing this information with the public at large. The underlying tone of the post is one of 'hey look! these people out there are doing something good, but it is lacking in formal organization of data and metadata (librarians and archivists love to sling the word 'metadata' 'cause it sounds so much better than 'data about data' which sounds like a character from a sci-fi show) that is necessary for this information to be made really real.

Google and Antitrust

Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The Problem of Simultaneity

Eric M. Fraser
University of Chicago - Law School; University of Chicago - Booth School of Business
June 10, 2009

A thorough review of the Google Book Settlement and how US Antitrust laws relate to this impending fiasco for the written word.  I've read through this paper and will need to read through it a few more times. If you have any interest in what Google is doing and how it could change the distribution of the written word, and Google's bottom line, take the time to read this one.

Till next, Gary

The Google Patent

I just couldn't resist this one... US Patent # 7,508,978
...................

United States Patent	7,508,978
Lefevere ,   et al.	March 24, 2009

---

Detection of grooves in scanned images

Abstract

A system and method locate a central groove in a document such as a book, magazine, or catalog. In one implementation, scores are generated for points in a three-dimensional image that defines a surface of the document. The scores quantify a likelihood that a particular point is in the groove. The groove is then detected based on the scores. For example, lines may be fitted through the points and a value calculated for the lines based on the scores. The line corresponding to the highest calculated value may be selected as the line that defines the groove.

---

Inventors:	Lefevere; Francois-Marie (Mountain View, CA), Saric; Marin (Palo Alto, CA)
Assignee:	Google Inc. (Mountain View, CA)
Appl. No.:	10/938,727
Filed:	September 13, 2004

...................

Till next, Gary

Lions and Tigers and Google, Oh My!

The Los Angeles Times has posted a story covering the US Department of Justice looking into the Google Books - book publisher - authors settlement. The jist of the investigation is simply that the settlement may violate the Sherman Act (the ubiquitous US Anti-Trust act). While  the Author's Guild and many publishers have poo-poo'd this investigation, the fact is, the investigation came about as a direct result of public comments.

Amongst others, the American Library Association and the Internet Archive have spoken out questioning the so-called settlement. Why? The stated purpose of Google Books and the whole settlement thing is to allow Google Books and participating institutions to create a digital book market. At first glance, this sounds like a good thing. Universities, Colleges and private institutions would gain income from titles sitting dormant on their shelves. Google gets, well, what Google wants - more exposure and more control over the internet.

The problem is that by doing so, Google would retain a high level of exclusivity over content distribution and management. In my book (pun intended), that spells monopoly. Google leaves it up to the publisher, author or copyright owner to come forward and make a formal statement of inclusion or exclusion in the system. The basis of this move is simple: if you dont' say anything by a certain date, tough luck. Unlike the US and other international Copyright laws, there is very little governng Google's actions. Yet.

As a publisher of digital material (and eventually hard print, but that is another story), how do I feel about this? The material offered by Google Books is, at best, good to deplorable. I recently purchased a copy of a title listed as Thomas Tredgold's Practical Carpentry through one of the Google participants. The quality of the text was good, but the reproduction of the engravings was miserable. Much of the detail was illegible. In addition, the title was liste incorrectly. This is actually Peter Nicholson's Practical Carpentry, Revised by Thomas Tredgold. What we have is a simple matter of taking an existing Google Book file and arranging for a Print On Demand agency to print the book.The propriatary Google software that produces the white background of it's PDF files has the unfortunate side-effect of eradicating much detail in any resident images. As half the content of this title is made up of engravings, that's a problem.

Ebay Digital Copyright Back Story

A few people have asked for the back story to the recent Great Ebay Digital Copyright Battle of The Century. Ok, 'nuff hyperbole.

Whilst doing my usual searches for tool catalogs, I came upon a catalog title that looked suspiciously familiar. The Canadian catalog from Shurley Detriech had appeared for sale from an Ebay seller who specializes in digital material. Checking out the offering, I realized that the image was the cover image from my website. The original catalog had been loaned to me by it's owner for digitizing and posting on the site. So far as I knew, it was the only one out there.

Even more so, the image held my blue watermark. I took two steps. First, I sent an email to the seller explaining the facts of my ownership of the PDF file and requesting immediate removal on the grounds of copyright violation. Secondly, I filed a VeRo complaint with Ebay. VeRo is the Ebay copyright/intellectual property complaint resolution system.

The seller responded, saying that the catalog was removed from the sales list. However, the seller asked me for proof of ownership, as well as attempting to claim that copyright did not enter into this particular complaint. As you can see from the two recent posts: Digital Copyright for Dummies and Digital Battle Continues, there was an interesting exchange of opinions on the subject. A friend of mine who is an intellectual property attorney offered his services and consultation on the subject. His opinions backed up mine. Thus the two posts detailing a brief introduction to the why's and wherefore's of digital copyright.

I subsequently discovered another item of mine on this seller's storefront. This one was a Disston catalog that I own, one that is fairly rare. Although this one did not have my watermark (I had not used it at that time), the staining was a perfect match to the PDF of mine. Another brief exchange of emails, the last of which was my informing the seller of my holding legal representation and poof... no more emails.

Since then, I've been conducting some interesting research into online auctions, digital rights, digital copyright, fair use, copyright violation, etc., etc. While there are some gray areas, one thing is clear. The digital object is covered under copyright from the moment of creation. If you extract the content and create a new document, you have broken copyright by removing parts of the copyrighted item. If you resell the digital object without obtaining prior approval, you are breaking copyright by obtaining personal gain from an object that you do not own.

Some people say: "If a PDF is never viewed, does it really exist?". Actually, I just made that up. I was watching Life tonight and the Zenness rubbed off on me.

Now, if people want to download tons of books from Google Books and the Internet Archive, package them on a disc and sell them on Ebay and there are people who will buy the product... the ethics of this are questionable but there is as of yet nothing to stop the seller. But, if a seller grabs a PDF from a website or a disc and sells it as their own, that is a breach of copyright. To which Ebay says: "(sic) Sorry guys, we're just the innocent auction bystander who has not a lick of culpability in this transaction".

Sigh... what is the world coming to? And now, it is time to get on to other things, like finalizing The EAIA Digital Chronicle!

Till next, Gary