The Open Content Alliance SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #91 November 2, 2005 by Peter Suber 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 opens 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_OUKIN-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. ---------- Read this issue online http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3966994/suber_news91.html SOAN is published and sponsored by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). http://www.arl.org/sparc/ Additional support is provided by Data Conversion Laboratory (DCL), experts in converting research documents to XML. http://www.dclab.com/public_access.asp ========== 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 or other sponsors. To unsubscribe, send any message (from the subscribed address) to . Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues.? If you are reading a forwarded copy, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the next two sites below. SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan 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 licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ Return to the Newsletter archive