[pd-discuss] BL and google digitise books

Thu Jun 23 12:47:46 UTC 2011

>
>
> if you frame it as an objection against the perpetual character of these
> restrictions then i think this is something that should be addressed
> (because it is clearly insane that these restrictions last longer than the
> time limited rights of the original authors). But i guess that would require
> getting a better understanding of the agreement (if they really imply
> perpetual restrictions). Isnt that information obtainable via a FOI request
> (plus i always thought that google was asking for 15 or 25 years in these
> kind of contracts, which is still way too long)
>
> I think we can give it a last go before we FOIA them. although the exact
deal may be under commercial confidentiality. Peter in cc is in direct
correspondence with BL.


>
> maybe this is something where communia can get involved. i could imagine
> compiling a yearly list of questionable practices across europe or somthing
> similar...
>
>
 maybe even some "awards" to worst practices?


> > Javier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 June 2011 12:11, Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl> wrote:
> > not sure if this is a worthy battle. obviously this is a situation which
> is far from optimal (but not special: this seems to be similar to the deals
> google has with all other participating libraries in europe) but the
> question is if it is realistic to expect that a campaign could change this.
> >
> > Google is not doing anything that is wrong per-se (this is public domain
> material so they can do whatever they want with it, that is if you want the
> beauty of it).
> > With regards to the BL there might be more of an issue since they are a
> publicly funded organization that should be more accountable to principles
> like open and equal access. however, i think in in times where public money
> for digitization seems to be on the retreat and these PPPs become one of the
> only ways to get large amounts of material online i do not think that a
> campaign has the potential to result in anything productive.
> >
> > The core of the issue comes down to the simple question do we want a
> proper public digital infrastructure (that would require public funding) or
> are we willing to live with the trade-offs that result from these PPPs. If
> we really want to push for the public scenario then that means that we also
> need to push for the funding required to get this implemented.... /paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 Jun 2011, at 10:57, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> >
> > > Javier: I would definitely ask Paul Keller (in cc) and other folks at
> > > Communia for their opinion on the value of this. They know the sector,
> > > and the probable/possible impact of campaigns in this area, much
> > > better than I do!
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Javier Ruiz
> > > <javier at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Unfortunately even after the calculation is done and material is PD,
> > >>> it is not clear that digital copies will be open as in
> > >>> opendefinition.org (and hence free for anyone to use without
> > >>> restriction).
> > >>>
> > >>> E.g. I understand the material from BL is unfortunately still rights
> > >>> encumbered [1], possibly due to contractual obligations (with
> > >>> Google?).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Would the access conditions here be a worthy battle?
> > >> Open Rights Groups is meant to campaign on this sort of thing, but
> taking on
> > >> Google and BL would require a supportive effort from our wider
> networks,
> > >> even if other organisations do not have campaigning mandate.
> > >> Javier
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> pd-discuss mailing list
> > >> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Gray
> > >
> > > Community Coordinator
> > > The Open Knowledge Foundation
> > > http://blog.okfn.org
> > >
> > > http://twitter.com/jwyg
> > > http://identi.ca/jwyg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pd-discuss mailing list
> > pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pd-discuss mailing list
> > pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20110623/53a47056/attachment.html>