TeleRead calls for well-stocked national digital libraries in the United States and elsewhere. TeleRead's moderator is David Rothman (dr@teleread.org). For occasional highlights from this blog, join the TeleRead Mailing List.
PDF in a mystery novel--complete with format challenges
E-text format hassles have finally become the stuff of fiction.
In Grave Secrets, a New York Times best-seller by Kathy Reichs, the problem file is a medical document rather than an e-book. But, yes, it's a PDF--complete with an overgrown file size.
Planet PDF carries an entertaining write-up, while at the same time noting that Ms. Reichs seemed a bit unfair to PDF. Maybe so. Perhaps a quick download of the latest Acrobat Reader would have helped. And, yes, the creators of the crucial file could have made it smaller, using the right techniques. Still, one wonders:
1. Even if the freshest Acrobat can always be downloaded from the Net, how about situations where a fast, easy connection isn't at hand? Might somebody actually die in a medical emergency someday because time was wasted dealing with a e-book format not on doctor's system? As it happens, the person involved was presumably dead already. But how about real-life situations? Another argument for a standardized e-book format.
2. Interesting, isn't it, that even the brains at NIH didn't follow the right procedures for shrinking the file size.
Could Bill Gates in fact hate e-books? No, but he might as well--given the damage that his people's Digital Rights Management schemes have done to the industry.
In Writing on Your Palm, consultant Jeff Kirvin nicely lays out the evolution of Microsoft's Digital Rights Management scheme--and along the way makes an important point about the Convert Lit tool used to crack DRM5, the latest "protection." Convert Lit won't work unless you already own a legal copy of the book in the original Microsoft format.
The DRM zealots might say, "But what if the results are then pirated?" That won't wash, however. Wasn't the latest Harry Potter pirated from paper--within hours of its release?
How long until the business side of Microsoft wakes up? I blame the marketers and the rest, not the techies, who must be in sheer pain--given all the stupidity that Bill Gates' business people have forced on them.
The scary thing is that books are just the tip of the iceberg. Microsoft wants DRM schemes to be far more widespread than they are now, and this could hurt everyone from engineers to writers, scholars and, yes, business people.
Thailand: Digital collection planned for schools--with up to 60,000 e-books
Thailand's education ministry plans to "develop up to 60,000 e-books to solve a shortage of reading materials facing rural schools," according to the Bangkok Post. "About 60,000 teachers would be urged to develop the e-books and would be given allowances in return."
The TeleRead take: Fascinating. Would that we had more details. Why just "up to" 60,000, and how many will the project have in a year? Does "develop" mean to scan or write? Is this a government version of Project Gutenberg? And, whether the books will be scanned or written from scratch, just what are the copyright details? Not to mention the hardware ones.
What if Russell Weller, the 86-year-old driver who accidentally killed 10 people and injured more than 40, could have read e-books and helped libraries and schools without even leaving home? That's what I was thinking when the Washington Post reported that "he has been engaged in his community as a volunteer at schools and libraries and has a mind that still seems sharp."
So was Weller actually on the way to the library when his Buick inflicted mayhem in a packed farmers market in Santa Monica, California? I don't know. But he could have been. How to keep his mind active and keep society safe?
The safety record of older drivers "is becoming a huge issue," according to Susan Ferguson, senior vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "They've been driving all of their lives and won't want to give it up. The elderly are going to represent more of a problem on the road than they currently do." Yes, we should install better road signs and otherwise make the highways friendlier to the elderly. Special transportation services could play a role, too, in saving lives, making it easier for the most dangerous drivers to surrender their licenses.
But shouldn't we also focus on ways for the elderly to be more comfortable at home and in their own neighborhoods, so that they needn't rely so much on automobiles? I love the idea of book vans. But they are hardly a complete solution, given the limited scope of their offerings, not to mention the fiscal issue. A well-stocked national digital library system could help--with a wide assortment of e-books not just for the young but also for the rest of us, including those too old to drive safely. Imagine if a group like the AARP got behind TeleRead. It would be one way to improve the lives of young and old simultaneously.
E-book tech is already good enough for the elderly to use. In fact, for many older people, digital books are better--because PDAs and the rest can enlarge the words for age-weakened eyes. "You can increase the type size with a single click," the AARP magazine observed. Published in the issue dated September-October 2000, the article does not mention the latest advances in screen resolution. What's more, the best is yet to come, and our libraries should be preparing now. My own mother, who, by the way, gave up her car years ago, hadn't any trouble using my Dell Axim PDA to read a few passages from a biography of Thomas Edison. She's an incurable Luddite who can barely tolerate an answering machine, but she conceded the possiblities here--especially if she could easily find what she wanted, from a large selection. TeleRead territory.
Beyond reading e-books and enjoying other online material, the elderly could also volunteer to help Project Gutenberg and local Friends of the Library--and scan in e-books, especially those by local and regional authors. Not to mention genealogical information. What more, with help from librarians and others, they could also help run local electronic bulletin boards for schools and civic groups.
Obviously we all want to drive as long as we can, and I am not saying: "Let's stop making efforts to improve the roads for elderly drivers." Also I'll remember that, at least for the now, the elderly are less of a threat as a group than teenagers are. They have more accidents per mile than the young but do not drive as much. Still, as the Insurance Institute has noted, the risks will grow as America ages. Beyond that, studies show that the elderly are far more likely to die from injuries in crashes. So, while keeping seniors on the road as long as prudent, let's not forget those who, regardless of larger signs and the rest, will never be able to drive safely again.
The campaign cash behind the 5Y/$250K file-sharing penalty
"A new bill proposed in Congress on Wednesday would land a person in prison for five years and impose a fine of $250,000 for uploading a single file to a peer-to-peer network. The bill was introduced by Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.). They said the bill is designed to increase domestic and international enforcement of copyright laws." - Wired News.
The TeleRead take: No mystery about Howard Berman, with $222,791 from the entertainment industry in the 2002 race. We know he's in the LA area in the belly of the beast, and is stuffed to the gills with campaign donations from the glitter people. And John Conyers, Jr.? Well, here's a great example of campaign cash beating out the interests of his constituents, especially the young. Motown or not, Detroit ain't Hollywood. Be interesting to see what happens if or when someone applies the 5Y/$250K penalty to the boombox crowd. And what about all the money cheated out of Detroit's libraries and schools--and cash-strapped families--through the copyright-term extension law and other assaults on the commonweal?
Oh, well, Congressional commerce must go on. In the 2002 Congressional race the "TV/Movies/Music" greedsters bought Conyers for $49,859. That was just under the $50,750 contributed by his most generous owners, members of the legal profession, some of whom, of course, just might be representing Hollywood fatcats. Surprise of surprise, Conyers is the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which, gasp, deals with copyright among other matters. Berman is also a Democrat on Judiciary. Glenn Reynolds should be very happy, given his suggestion that Republicans Should Back Recording Artists, Consumers. Could it soon be that the only Democrats left will be Hollywood tycoons and Luddites?
Transactions like the Conyers variety are exactly why Howard Dean's candidacy is of interest to me. I've been tough on Governor Blogger because I see hope, given his heavy reliance on the Internet for fund-raising. May he and good Republicans at all levels--TeleRead is nonpartisan!--use Net-related issues as a way to differentiate themselves from the competition.
Caveat: No proven quid pro quo about John Conyers. Just opinion. But come on--do you really think Hollywood would love Conyers so much if he were friendly to the cause of balanced copyright law?
Adobe Reader users: Beware of possible security risks to your programs and data
While Adobe has been playing cop with onerous DRM, it allegedly has neglected some security essentials. Hackers theoretically may be able to zap or change information in your system if you're using Acrobat 6.0 or Reader 6.0. So the accusations go.
"Attackers that can convince users to download and install malicious programs (non-certified plug-ins) may be able to execute arbitrary code on the user's system. Executing arbitrary code may allow an attacker to display false information when reporting document information and circumvent digital rights management features that prevent printing, copying of text, etc. This can only happen via non-certified plug-ins installed in a plug_ins directory when the 'Use Only Certified Plug-ins' checkbox is turned off, the default state in Adobe Acrobat 6.0 and Adobe Reader 6.0."
Oh, and along the way, CERT also questioned the effectiveness of Adobe's digital rights features:
"Digital content providers can not rely on plug-in cryptographic verification mechanisms to prevent attackers from gaining certain rights. These rights include printing, copying of text, and other digital-rights-management features when the attacker is able to access legitimately decrypted documents and the attacker has control of the local system. Note this can happen regardless of the plug-in architecture used. The ability for any application to protect such rights is dependent on the underlying operating system architecture, not application architecture."
Adobe has issued a issued a response to the vulnerability complaints, which originated from ElcomSoft--yep, the outfit that in the past has cracked Adobe's software, and that employed the programmer who once faced jail time. Again, however, remember that CERT is a security center and has no affiliation with ElcomSoft. If CERT is right about a problem existing, this is more than just a squabble between two companies.
Beautiful! Microsoft loser in DRM-related patent ruling
"In a strangely unpublicized case, Microsoft yesterday found itself on the losing end of a ruling in a critical Digital Rights Management (DRM) battle with InterTrust, a DRM company that is suing the software giant for almost 150 counts of patent infringement. This week's ruling sets the stage for a trial where it will be determined whether Microsoft broke the law, though it's likely the two companies will pursue settlement talks. InterTrust says that Microsoft has violated its DRM patents in products such as Windows Media Player and the Xbox video game console." - Security Administrator.
The TeleRead take: The fun isn't just in Microsoft being sued. It's also in what might come out in public testimony about DRM and related business practices. Let's hope Redmond does not settle.
Huck Finn and the greedsters at Adobe: There oughta be a law
Adobe's Reader 6 won't let me copy material into Word from an Adobe-released edition of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn--without some nasty restrictions.
This is a public domain work. And yet a pop-up box says: "You may copy 10 selections in this document for the next 120 days. Would you like to continue?" Yes, I suspect that Adobe might say something like, "Just upgrade to a paid verson." I don't know.
The more I encounter Adobe products, however, the more I wonder if we don't need legislation making it illegal to impose copying restrictions on public-domain books. Not sure if a law should apply here if we find this is just an arm twist to get us to upgrade. But it should in the case of public libraries using Adobe-formatted classics.
Jakob Nielsen: PDF is 'Unfit for Human Consumption'
Mary Ann Gruen just wrote a wonderful little essay on PDF Hell. For understandable reasons, the H word comes up a lot when the topic of PDF arises. So does an S word. Now Jakob Nielsen, one of the world's leading experts on Web-site usability, has unleashed PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption, complete with an H reference of a slightly different kind in a subhead: "Users Hate .PDF." From his summary:
Users get lost inside PDF files, which are typically big, linear text blobs that are optimized for print and unpleasant to read and navigate online. PDF is good for printing, but that's it. Don't use it for online presentation.
And, as I see it, you should try to avoid it for e-books, too, unless, of course, you want people to print them out! The program is just too bloody slow on many a machine, and as Dorothea Salo has pointed out, this is a proprietary format, with all the related risks.
posted by David Rothman at 10:13 AM | permanent link
Yes, horror or horrors, we've used a Microsoft Word format. But promise--we'll soon have the book not only in ASCII but some other formats, including one for the Gemstar 1150 and so on--to remind my fellow Gemstar owners that life goes on in the public domain, even if proprietary DRM-shackled formats come and go.
Major thanks to Jane Rutledge of Friends of the Library in Lafayette, Ind., and Betsy Connor Bowen, a good-hearted volunteer in Winthrop, Maine. Jane's final proofing reached me ten minutes ago, and I couldn't resist sharing her hard work--and Betsy's!--as soon as possible.
Please note that this is a preview version and not an official Project Gutenberg one. But it will be in the very near future after undergoing the customary processing.
Disclaimer: As much as I appreciate the work that Friends groups do, TeleRead is not an official part of them. And neither Jane's organization nor Jane herself has anything to do with the uppity views in this blog (same for Besty). Sinclair, however, just may have. Beware of dangerous books.
Classic reading for PDA-toting kids--and an e-book gouge in action
"Backpack. Three-ring notebook. Ballpoint pens. Personal digital assistant. If school supplies got a little costlier for some Gallatin parents this year, blame it on the preteens who are champing at the bit to … read? That's right. E-books have infiltrated at least one Tennessee school, sending students at Rucker Stewart Middle racing to try 'em out." - Tennessean.com.
The TeleRead take:James Linden ought to get a kick out of this. Except perhaps for one not-so-little detail. The news story says:
The Gallatin school was one of the first in the nation to bite on a package of 500 electronic literary classics for $750, offered by Palm Digital Media and local company Lightning Source.
''Our school has always been on the cutting edge of innovation,'' Principal Andrew Turner said. ''I'm surprised more people haven't jumped on an opportunity like this.''
For one year, students and teachers can download as many copies as they like of titles such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Around the World in Eighty Days, right from the school's Web site onto a computer or personal digital assistant.
What's this "one-year" business? And the $750? Those books are in the public domain and are available for downloading forever and forever for free--through Project Gutenberg.
I applaud it when commercial publishers and distributors make classics available, but aren't public-domain e-books the very stuff that our budget-strapped schools should pick up at no charge through Gutenberg and, let's hope in time, the public library system? If nothing else, while I realize that publishers are entitled to make up for expenses, including minimal licensing fees from Project Gutenberg if its scanning-and-proofing work is used, $750 seems too much to charge. And for only 500 books, when Project Gutenberg has uploaded more than 7,500? Here's to Project Gutenberg and the public domain doctrine--especially just after Gutenberg's 32nd birthday!
Additional thoughts: The $750 could easily have bought 10 used PDAs fit for reading e-books. What's more, it would appear that the amount could be $750 a year. I'll not blame the school or the wonderful parents who paid for the books. They acted on the information they had. The gouge they suffered is one more argument for enlightened copyright laws and a well-stocked national digital library system--so the parents and teachers of the Gallatin children can have the information tools they need to make the best choices (as well as stay in touch with America's civic and literary traditions).
Oh, and by the way, isn't Tennessee the state of Al Gore, who, in his rhetoric, loved to talk about a mythical little girl in rural Tennesse being able to dial up the Library for Congress? If the Dems hadn't sold out to Hollywood campaign contributors, the Gallatin children might already be enjoying a TeleRead-style national digital library system that far surpassed what Gore had in mind. See why I, a lifelong Dem, am so skeptical right now about Governor Blogger? But I'll keep an open mind. Flash! Now the Dean line is that he's "still developing a policy" on "the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and other copyright issues." How long, Governor Dean?
posted by David Rothman at 1:15 PM | permanent link
Gov. Blogger is still mum on net.copyright
Governor Blogger remains in his bob-n-weave mode on the pesky issue of net.copyright.
Latest evasion from ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean: "No matter what the issues are that we as individuals care most about--whether intellectual property, healthy care, the environment--I believe that the only way we are ever going to come to a real solution on any of these issues is if we all stand together against the special interests in Washington."
Hey, Gov, now that you're into bloggin', you might check out Glenn Harland Reynolds' advice to the GOP on the courting of NetGen. With so many of your supporters coming from cyberspace, shouldn't it be a little easier to show some guts on net.copyright? And if you can come out for a TeleRead-style library system, so much the better. But first--the basics.
You're POing me mightily by acting as if copyright law is just a detail, given the importance of matters such as the public domain and fair use. Just how the devil can the citizenry discuss The Issues in a sensible way if the copyright gentry strips us of our powers to exchange information?
Additional thoughts: The Dean observation of the week comes from Chris Suellentrop, writing in Slate: "Dean wants to be Napster, but his supporters are more like Gnutella: They don't need to go through Dean to connect with one another." That's something for Governor Blogger to consider when he wimps out on copyright issues.
Oh, no, billg. A Linux OS for tablet machines has just appeared from Lycoris--complete with a virtual keyboard. Now how about Linux book-reader software optimized for a tablet? Hey, Lycoris, care to check out LiberGNU and friends? Might not there be some room for cooperation--toward a standard consumer e-book format based on the production-level work of the Open eBook Forum? No, the Linux-related market isn't the biggest within e-bookdom right now. But this would be a nice statement from Lycoris or another Linux player. Meanwhile, tablet Linux could be great news for hardware vendors wanting to do low-cost, Linux-based versions of the Tablet PC.
But no miracles expected instantly--just in the long run, maybe. Anyone heard lately about the Lindows-powered tablet (without fancy stuff like handwriting recognition) that Lindows was ballyhooing back in November--to "be ready near the first part of the year"? Yep, that's a picture of the AWOL product. Time for Lindows President Michael Robertson, the guy who prides himself on seamless packaging for consumers, to deliver? If he really wants to stick his finger in Microsoft's eye, he could work not just with LiberGNU and friends but also with publishers--to get real, live books out for Linux fans. Who knows, maybe he could do deals with Linux stalwart O'Reilly, along with enlightened distributors such as Fictionwise.
With good Linux-based readers out there from other people--building on the OeBF's own production-level standard--the organization just might get off its posterior and finally live up to the promises from 1998. Here's to the cause of a decent e-book standard that will serve as more than a file-exchange aid for publishers and distributors!
Additional thoughts: Don't write off Linux on a tablet if the right apps exist. Palm hasn't done too badly--at least for now--within the PDA area despite the existence of Microsoft. When people choose a PDA, they won't necessarily demand a Microsoft OS as long as the portable can communicate with the desktop and run the useful apps. Same concept with tablets. If the open source folks can address the needs of tablet owners and come up with a decent OEB-based reader and other apps, then maybe there'll be hope. If nothing else, consumers won't have to spend as much on the OS! Anyone working on a tablet version of OpenOffice for Linux? Gasp, it might even include reading and authoring capabilities for e-books.
The TeleRead take: Compulsory licensing might well be better than the present mess. Still, for years, TeleRead has instead focused on voluntary participation by content providers--in a well-stocked national digital library system. Marketplace pressures might encourage participation. Payments would be fair. Accesses would be tracked for the purpose of providing compensation for writers, publishers and others. Techniques similar to those for anonymous digital cash might be used to assure more privacy than the Hollywood approach to DRM would take.
Just the same, a national digital library system in the TeleRead vein could also work without any DRM if, say, it tried to limit itself to IP addresses associated with a particular country. Subscription or pay-per-read options would be available for people elsewhere who lacked access through equivalent library systems. Primitive? Leaky? Sure. But the library model would help content providers in the most important way, by popularizing the medium of e-books. "Free" is always better at the reader end. See Harry Potter and the math of e-books if you haven't already--as well as a Wired article showing how "free" can boost demand. Needless to say, under TeleRead, different lending models could exist to help address budgetary issues.
Update, July 18: An HTML version of the Berkeley paper is also available--so you needn't mess with the PDF link on Slashdot. Also keep in mind that the TeleRead suggests voluntary participation by content-providers, as opposed to voluntary payments from users. This needn't be Stephen King II.
Music, films and e-books will share Rights Expression Language basics for DRM
Not that it's news, but many people may be unaware that the Open eBook Forum will be using the same basics for Rights Expression Language as the music and movie industries. A just-released white paper on the "The MPEG-21 Rights Expression Language" is available free from Rightscom. As discussed by the Music Industry News Network:
...rights owners need to know that their rights can be packaged with machine-readable licences, guaranteed to be ubiquitous, unambiguous and secure over any digital network. The MPEG REL makes all this possible...
The Open eBook Forum (www.openebook.org) is creating its own "Rights Grammar" based on the REL for securing rights in the distribution of ebooks, which is intended to be interoperable with the MPEG specification. This holds out the possibility that, in the future, different content sectors using different DRM technologies will be able to work together on the basis of a single REL.
Meanwhile here's an important caveat from the white paper released by Rightscom:
While the REL will become a vital part of the DRM landscape, it is solely concerned with setting business rules. It does not provide any encryption functionality for content, though it does link to processes for ensuring the rights expressions themselves are tamper proof and capable of authentication.
The TeleRead take: Important questions emerge here. Whatever the specifics of technology, how respectful will DRM be of concepts such as fair use? And will it allow innovative approaches for libraries such as the permanent checkout concept? Done right, of course, and combined with nonproprietary encryption and the rest, a truly standardized REL could help the cause of a Universal Consumer Format for e-books. Will the OeBF step up to the plate? That remains to be seen.
posted by David Rothman at 3:38 AM | permanent link
What’s different about you? This is a very educated readership on these isssues, and what’s the point of guest blogging if you don’t say something that we find truly informative?
Sure, Monday was just the first day. But it's no mystery what Lessig's regulars really want Dean to discuss. Will he keep ducking issues so dear to many on the Net? This guest-blogging business just might backfire on Dean if he isn't more clueful.
posted by David Rothman at 5:25 AM | permanent link
Talking books for the blind: A new report
"The final report for the pilot digital talking book project, eAudio, undertaken by the Mid-Illinois Talking Book Center is now on the web at http://www.mitbc.org/eaudiofinal.doc. The project was funded with $2000 from donation funds in honor of former MITBC director, Eileen Sheppard Meyer and the Illinois State Library Talking Book and Braille Service." - The Shifted Librarian.
The TeleRead take: Fascinating to see how the issues of talking books overlap with those of e-books. Read the report to find out about such joys as clashing formats and the matter of content availability. Still, as with e-books, there is potential here, especially when talking books can go online in a big way. We have the usual answer for the distribution question. A well-stocked national digital library system could help address format issues as well as the content question.
Consumers are begging for an end to DRM-related torture before they'll really accept e-books to the max. But guess which other group is grouchy? Publishers. They have not yet reached the point of crying out, "To hell with it! Abolish DRM!" But they're unhappy about issues ranging from user convenience to the question of access for the blind, and the Open eBook Forum would do well to listen to the complaints.
The publisher members of the AAP's Enabling Technology Committee believe that currently available DRM systems are falling short of consumer preferences in a number of areas, including:
--Compatibility with Macs (especially important for the K-12 market)
--The ability to move e-books from one device to another
--Transferrablity to other users (e.g., lending and donating), consistent, of course, with publishers' needs to protect the security of their work and intellectual property rights
--Consistency of successful downloading of e-books
--Format interoperability
--Support for publishers who want to make portions (but not all) of an e-book copyable and/or printable Ease of conversion of documents from the OEB file format into a format usable under the applicable DRM system; also the ability of DRM systems to accept and protect OEB files directly
--Accessibility for blind and print-disabled persons
--Ability of consumers to set up user-friendly personal libraries of digital content
--Consistency of basic usage features among different e-book products.
The issue of access for the blind is a particularly tricky one. The report says:
E-book publishing creates a revolutionary opportunity for blind and print-disabled persons to use books on the market (through "screen readers" and other technology enabling text to be read aloud with a synthetic speech processor), but this opportunity is frustrated when the publisher does not activate read-aloud capability (if this functionality is in fact available in the technical DRM system being used). Some publishers are concerned that by selecting to turn read-aloud functions on, they might arguably infringe audio rights to the book that were reserved by the author or sub-licensed to an audiobook publisher. While not all industry professionals believe that activating TTS (text-to-speech) capabilities would violate audio rights, the issue is far from settled. In the end, both users and publishers are frustrated--blind and print-disabled individuals lose out on read-aloud capability in many e-books, and publishers feel forced to remove an attractive feature from their products.
Needless to say, a Universal Consumer Format with well-done nonproprietary DRM could help, as could better-written copyright laws.
posted by David Rothman at 4:20 AM | permanent link
Germans 'fanslate' the Wiz: A Project Gutenberg angle here?
German fans have teamed up to translate the latest Harry Potter novel--in fact, do a bunch of translations even before the official one appears in November, according to Wired News. The process is likened to pizza. Everyone has a favorite homemade version. The best work will end up in a group version. But what to call the process? Why, of course--fanslation.
For legal reasons, you won't see the results unless you're a member of the Harry-auf-Deutsch virtual community. And even then, they'll come via e-mail rather than be on the site itself. No, this is not true publishing, at least not in the ususal sense. Still, some interesting parallels arise with Project Gutenberg and its group Distributed Proofreaders. Notice the power of massive collaboration?
A group of several hundred translators set to work shortly after the latest Potter volume was published in late June--and needed only two weeks to finish the translation. Now the members of the community are going over it carefully, polishing and improving it.
So far, only five chapters are available to the community--and four or five more chapters will be presented every week. That way, it will encourage more translating.
A key point:
Despite press reports, the idea is not simply to hurry the book into German so more readers can enjoy it, but rather to turn the work of translation into an ongoing point of departure for discussion, disagreement and collective imagination. Put another way: Translating Potter is not a mere diversion, it's a way of life.
Without the translations being released to the whole comos, these fans will be safe from the German publisher's lawyers--that's the understanding. But here's an idea. What if publishers actually let projects of this kind sell their output to the public--with provisions for royalty payments, and with quality controls in place? Such an approach might not be right for Germany. But what about translations into minor languages that otherwise would be neglected? When e-books finally do reach developing countries in a major way--and they will someday--distributed translation might be something to be considered, especially as translation software improves and humans can focus on nuances rather than worry so much about the basics.
If nothing else, the Germans' energy suggests that the basic Gutenberg mission--of hardworking volunteers putting books online (in this case, classics without copyright restrictions)--is hardly something for the States only. Project Gutenberg indeed is already appreciated in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and now it's hoping to be able to step up efforts in developing countries. Meanwhile keep in mind the nationality of Johannes Gutenberg, after whom the project is named. Time perhaps for Project Gutenberg to recruit from among the fanslation communities in Germany and elsewhere?
The New York Times has just published a story headlined Harry Potter and the Internet Pirates. Two stat-related facts in the article caught my eye yesterday:
1. All the millions of free e-books downloaded. Project Gutenberg's more than 7,500 free books are "available on several hundred Web sites," according to the Times. Meanwhile "roughly seven copies a minute are downloaded from the 1,600 e-books available free on the University of Virginia's Electronic Text Center, with 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' the leading title." Last year Michael Hart, Gutenberg's founder, told Sam Vaknin of UPI that "the one site we have the most control of gives away over a million e-books per month." My own wild guess--nothing more--is that the world is downloading at least 40 million classics a year, and remember, most of these public-domain works are hardly best-sellers in the "real world" of paper books.
2. The tiny revenue that e-books provide today--barely more than lunch money by the standards of the publishing industry as a whole. Mike Seagroves, director of business development for Palm Digital Media, described by the Times as "the largest commercial distributor of e-books," believes that only $8 million to $10 million of e-books will be sold in '03.
Could it be that e-book readers vastly prefer "free"? Mightn't a TeleRead-style library model--with due compensation for writers and publishers and file swapping allowed among library users--be one way to go? Yes, the bookstore model and subscription models could exist, too. But "free" just might be where much of the action could be, even for copyrighted titles.
The present situation is hardly the best. The agent for the Harry Potter series at this point hasn't even authorized an e-book edition despite Bryon Collin's petition--one that I'd recommend your signing.
Meanwhile, if you're in the e-book business, hang on. As the photo from E Ink and Phillips reminds us, things are going to get much better for all business models as the technology improves.
When creating digital library content today, librarians typically allow others to browse and search the content only on their respective Web sites, resultig in a bead-chain of collections barely coordinated in contact of function.
Exactly what TeleRead has been saying for years. Our pet word is "balkanization"--also handy when one writes about the e-book format wars. Seaman goes on:
The current information landscape is dotted with rich content silos that can be visited but that resist innovative local recombination and reuse. As librarians become more ambitious in digitizing content from their local holdings, the more striking this data-isolation appears. This situation repeatedly thwarts the integration of remotely held content into local library services, courseware systems, and desktop data-analysis tools.
And now the ultimate confession:
Sharing digital content sometimes touches a negative emotional nerve in librarians--a kneejerk response that I have observed in myself. For generations, we librarians have measured our worth in part by how much stuff we have, which is often the first thing anyone asks about a library. In the digital world, however, we can simultaneously have a boook and (legal rights permitting) give it to others too...
Nice words. But will the actions of federation members live up to them? Or will this be like the OeBF's situation with e-book (non)standards. Alas, groan, the article is in .pdf.
Larry Lessig has written with matters such as copyright in mind: "Dean’s guest blogging says nothing about Dean’s views about the issues I’ve been pushing here. I’ve never discussed these issues with any member of the Dean campaign." So far, no rely to my public questions--which I sent to Dean's campaign site. But, as noted, Dean doesn't seem to be quite as reliant on Hollywood donations as some other candidates, so maybe there is hope.
You can bet that others, too, would like to see some commitment here. Below are some excellent questions from a Lessig reader:
Three areas (I mentioned this on the dean2004 blog forum as well)
(1) pharmaceutical patents, generics, and affordable drugs (both domestically and internationally via WIPO agreements)
(2) digital copyright, given that more people swap music than voted for either Bush or Gore in 2004. And many of those that weren’t of voting age then - are now. A fair policy balancing legitimate piracy concerns with consumer rights is needed, and the lack of such a policy balance is retarding the growth of many technologies, destroying the entertainment industry, and, unrealistically, turning millions of americans into criminals.
(3) restoring a fiscal environment supporting both public and private financing of technology development to place the US back at the forefront of technology innovation.
...Many of those reading unauthorized electronic versions of "Phoenix" last week said they were doing so for the convenience and immediacy, not because they were free.
"This shows that if authors and publishers choose not to make books available legally, people are going to go out and steal them," said Mike Seagroves, director of business development for Palm Digital Media, the largest commercial distributor of e-books.
Mr. Seagroves said that when his company approached Scholastic, the American publisher of the Harry Potter books, about an e-book version for the fourth book, it was given the impression that Ms. Rowling wanted a $1 million advance.
Since Mr. Seagroves estimates that only about $8 million to $10 million worth of e-books will be sold this year, that seemed like a lot. Mr. Blair, from Ms. Rowling's literary agency, said that the figure was incorrect but that there were no plans to publish an e-book.
"PDF sucks." We agree with those sentiments from Dorothea Salo and countless others. How unfortunate that the Open eBook Forum now cares more about promoting Adobe PDF and the other proprietary formats of its major backers than about coming up with a Universal Consumer Format for real, live readers. As a friendly reminder to the OeBF of the need for a decent consumer standard--and really, e-bookers, we love the idea of the group, especially if it'll return to its original vision--we're reproducing a rather clueful post that fanfiction writer Mary Anne Gruen made to the eBook Community list this week. - David Rothman
I find PDF hell to read. I would avoid any e-books in it like the plague. If my husband didn't use the program for his work, we'd never download the free reader. It always seems to be a hassle to get it to work. It's not worth the time and difficulties. We have broadband and plenty of memory, but it takes forever for Adobe 6 to load to read anything. Before it finishes loading, I usually decide the item I was going to read wasn't worth my time and I click it off. I would never pay money to read anything on it. It costs too much already.
This program is good for paper printing uses where its layout is easier to read and appreciate, but it's not good for reading onscreen. Not unless it becomes very speedy and easy to use. And even then I don't find most things written in it comfortable to look at onscreen. Things come across as too busy and often too small.
Rich Text Format is a good example of an alternative to PDF. My contact with RTF has been limited to the world of fanfiction, where no one cares about fancy layouts. I've used it to pass around book-length pieces (up to 400 pages in a total of say five documents) as attachments to emails and I've found it to be the format. Nobody has to download anything (and perhaps fail at it). Programs I've never heard of can open RTF in notebook and the reader can begin reading at once. It has real ease of use and reading onscreen is easy as well.
I admit that what I send is pretty straightforward and that I'm not trying to protect it from copying or alteration. There aren't any footnotes or pictures. So maybe RTF wouldn't work in all instances. But I have noticed that Baen Books is now offering its free books in RTF, so it must have some flexibility or work in many cases.
Customers need ease in use, or it's not worth the time in their increasingly busy lives. I'm hearing a lot of former readers who are putting aside reading paper books because they spend all day working on some kind of computer and are tired of looking at print. To lure them back to the computer in-between working hours, ebooks need to offer real convenience and ease of use. They have to be as easy and quick to operate as the remote on the customer's TV screen and be relaxing to look at. They also need sensible pricing. The New York Times recently noted that half the copies of the recent Harry Potter book were sold in places like Costco where customers bought it for close to $15. Of course, the bad news for all publishers is that they usually didn't buy any other books while they were there.
More thoughts to add to Mary Anne Gruen's: The latest Adobe reader offers more options for human readers than previous ones, but it's still pretty pathetic compared to what it should do. I want human readers to be able to vary everything from the type style to the space between lines. Let the reader be the boss. Have you seen those playful but simultaneously condescending Adobe PDF commercials--showing masses of commuters, students and so on? They pretty well sum up Adobe's corporate vision of humanity as just a collection of marketing niches rather individuals. When it comes to setting up the conditions for reading text, Adobe would rather that human readers "receive" than "give." Like Dorothea Salo, I object to PDF's proprietary nature (think Adobe's gonna hold an election to decide on the accompanying Digital Rights Management schemes?), but, yes, like Mary Ann, I also continue to find this format to be a horror for readers despite the recent tweaks. - DR
A few weeks ago I shelled out $9.06 for Fallen: Confessions of a Disbarred Lawyer. Sleazy lawyers fascinate me. They're entertaining caricatures of the "honest" ones. Give me Body Heat's Ned Racine over Perry Mason any old day. Alas, too much of Fallen reads like a legal brief, and the publisher used the loathsome Adobe Reader format. But the story overcomes all. Anyway, who can resist gems like, "Not only was I incompetent beyond repair, but I was also crooked, a con artist, perhaps a sociopath. I took the case for the money…"
But should a TeleRead-style national digital library system, or local ones for that matter, buy amateurish e-books like Fallen when so many professionally done titles are out there? And what about "Get Rich Quick"? Will good tax money go for what TeleRead CTO James Linden has called "e-book spam"? A I see it, the best single cure for library spam isn’t that different from the best single solution I can summon up for the classical e-mail variety. Filtering. And I don’t mean the kind that moralistic opportunists in Washington want to inflict on our local libraries. Instead filtered searches could reflect quality levels as determined by librarians or others whom readers trusted, including bands of other library users with similar tastes.
Readers could specify that searches be done on keywords or otherwise, but with inferior works weeded out--the selectivity being determined by the quality level specified. Many of the best searches might happen with quality filters turned off. In this world, the books you read could be like UseNet postings, a mix of the brilliant, the so-so and the atrocious. Interested people--yes, only the interested--could peruse the equivalents of mere manuscripts as opposed to edited books.
But what about tax dollars? As I've often pointed out, TeleRead couldn't pay for everything. The solution would be a mix of different business and library models--and a hierarchy based on a mix of quality, importance and popularity, the same criteria that influence public library acquisitions today. Starting from the bottom, we might have:
1. Yes, James, the e-book equivalent of spam, "Get Rich Quick" and all that. Interested readers would have access, just as they do to sleazy sites on the Net; but public libraries would not pay a penny for titles they judged to be in this category. Readers would have to cough up the cash, and so might the publishers--one way for libraries to find money for better books. Most of the spamsters might not even wish to be in the system. The default in most filters for items at this level would be "Ignore." My own theory is that the most popular QFs--my abbreviation for "quality filters"--would be none other than those provided by local or national librarians. So, yes, as a practical matter, the spam would be invisible to readers who didn't appreciate it.
2. Books like Fallen that were amateurish but interesting. When first posted, most of them would be accessible only to paying customers, since librarians might hesitate to spend tax money. Still, exceptions would exist. If enough readers went for Fallens, then librarians might in fact include such titles in formal collections. No, Jacqueline Susann wasn’t Flaubert, but her books did find sufficient fans for librarians to hold their noses, as, in fact, they do for so many similar titles today. Keep in mind, too, that local librarians should be a tad partial to local writers and not quite hold them to the same standards as for out-of-town authors. Libraries are local institutions, and local writers often have voting and taxpaying relatives.
So what about the lending model for "amateurish but interesting"? If budgets allowed, the better of these books would be eligible for the permanent checkout approach (also identified as the “perennial checkout approach”) that I described earlier in this blog. If not, there would be borrowing time limits for such books and restrictions on how many readers could access them at once. The distinctions would be made case by case. Library patrons who wanted to keep the time-limited books could buy them outright through the library system at prices set by the publishers.
3. Mediocre midlist books. Unfortunately for writers but luckily for libraries, individual MMBs don’t find that many readers. So the "permanent checkout" approach would generally work well. "Midlist," by the way, means that a book isn’t either an old "backlist" item from the past or a "frontlist" bestseller.
4. Good midlist books. Even more often than with mediocre midlist books, librarians would use permanent checkouts, so readers could build personal libraries of these books on their own machines.
Oh, but doesn’t the above list of options leave out best-sellers? Just what to do? Well, as with mid-list books, public librarians could try to apply the "permanent checkout" concept to the best of the popular titles. Ideally all of the better blockbusters would quality for "permanent checkout." But realistically that might not happen for budgetary reasons. Of course, as the popularity of the best-sellers waned, then permanent checkouts might be possible after all.
How about rotten best-sellers? Librarians in such cases would be more sensitive to budgetary limits and more likely to apply the model of “Zapped after two weeks.” I’m not the biggest fan of time limits for library patrons checking out e-books, and ideally none would exist in a TeleRead system, but, reluctantly, I’ve concluded that it’s better for books to be offered this way than not at all.
See a pattern here? Yes--one of maximum choices for readers and at the same time a chance for librarians to exercise their acquisitions skills in new ways.
Tablet computers to narrow info gap between rich and poor
Kid-optimized tablet computers will go to more than 10,000 schoolchildren and teachers in Arkansas, California, Hawaii, New York, Utah and Washington, D.C.
Free Pad computers developed by a Norwegian company are being distributed to Independence County's nearly 7,000 public school teachers and students through a pilot program to put technology in rural schools.
The computers will replace textbooks and library books used by kindergarten through 12th graders in the county's eight school districts...
Bruce Lincoln of Columbia University's Institute for Learning Technology said the program represents a changing attitude about how to meld technology and public education. Lincoln said he believes the issue is as important to the nation's future as homeland security.
"It's sharing a knowledge base with people. This has been happening in some places for a long time but not in places like Independence County," he said.
The New York university plans to study the Arkansas project and help with its implementation. The three-year project will cost about $14 million and will be funded through corporate, private and nonprofit sponsorships, said Sandy Morgan, founder of Kidztel, the New Hampshire company coordinating the project
From the start, back in the early 1990s, the TeleRead proposal has advocated the tablet form-factor for K-12, and it's quite a kick to see both technology and life catching up. Especially I like the idea of educators and publishers collaborating to present textbook-style information in new ways. TeleRead favors real books being online for schoolchildren--including the classics that would be spoiled by hyperlinks (except for basic navigation, such as from the table of contents to individual chapters). But that's a different issue from the presentation of textbookish material.
Too, I would totally agree with Sandi Morgan--she actually spells her nickname with an "i," not the "y" in the AP article--that machines will be especially useful for children with learning disabilities. Amos Bokros would be appreciative. The story says of Ms. Morgan:
The Center Barnstead, N.H., mother of four, said she started her electronic textbook company after noticing that her son, who had a learning disability, was drawn to the computer.
"When he was on the computer or playing a video game, he was able to focus and stay on task," she said. "We have a generation of nonreaders and I became convinced that schools would be the place where the electronic book market would break."
Above all, it's good to see the program aimed at the schools and children needing it the most. In a related vein, see TeleRead Update 19, E-Books in Urban Education Useful Lessons from the South Side of Chicago. Of course, although the hardware is slowly beginning to get around, the content issue will remain. How to bridge the gap between rich and poor areas? That's what so much of TeleRead is about--reducing the "savage inequalities" of our schools and, yes, libraries. While the article talks about replacing library books, not just textbooks, I doubt that local communities like many of those in Arkansas can afford to do the job right without assistance from elsewhere. Just who'll pay for it all? TeleRead territory. Even under TeleRead, not everything could be online for free. But the situation would be vastly better than today.
What's more, via good design and purchasing arrangements, it could drive down the cost of hardware (now $450 per unit in KidzTel's case) so the children could keep the same machines permanently rather than have to turn them in at the end of the school year. As it is, let's hope that the children can at least hold on to little cards housing all of the books and notes they accumulate, or that school servers can provide long-term storage organized around each child. I won't get my hopes up right now if some rumors on the Net are correct (if nothing else, think about the cost of the cards up to the task). But maybe that will change in the future.
Note: The AP piece appeared in USA Today May 15, but the excerpt is still very much worth reproducing. A more recent article has just appeared in the Christian Science Monitor: Slate and chalk go wireless in the backwoods of Arkansas.
Details for purists: The FreePad machines are Linux based and are not Tablet PCs. Still, the form factor is definitely that of a tablet machine, small t. Another detail. The photo is from the FreePad site and may or may not show the exact model that Kidztel is distributing.
posted by David Rothman at 12:27 AM | permanent link
Howard Dean: Where does he stand on net.copyright and TeleRead?
Has anyone pinned down presidential candidate Howard Dean on the issue of Net-hostile copyright legislation? And how does the former Vermont governor feel about a well-stocked national digital library in the TeleRead vein? Within the limits of my time, I couldn't exactly find volumes on these questions--even though I suspect he's replied somewhere to the general copyright-related one. I'll take a quick stab right now with an e-mail to his people. Hey, Dean is The Man for many on the Net. Will he show appropriate gratitude and look out for our interests? No rhetorical questions here. I won't assume anything right now until more information reaches me, one way or another.
Meanwhile, browsing campaign records released electronically on April 16, I see that Dean's donors in the "TV/Movies/Music" category came in at $97,100 and ranked sixth on the Top Industries list for Dean. But the entertainment biz doesn't even show up on an industry-related table summing up donations to Dean's Fund for a Healthy America. A little hope here? Dean's total presidential donations as of March 31 were about $3 million (not sure, actually, if that would include PAC money).
--Perhaps eventually the copyright interests will understand the usefulness of a well-stocked national digital in fighting the piracy problem. Put the big-time crooks out of business by making the goodies free in many cases. No total solutions claimed here, but copyrighted books, movies and music are just a speck of our Gross Domestic Product. And if knowledge really builds wealth, then more library funding would be rather cost-effective.
--The possibility always exists that Edwards can take some sensible stands in the future. He has depicted himself as a populist in certain areas. How about digital libraries, Senator? Meanwhile I was delighted to learn of Edwards' position against relaxing regulations on media monopolies.
--Time for EFF and similar organizations to pin down candidates such as Dean and Edwards? Within the EFF site, via the site:eff.org wrinkle, I did Google searches on their names and the term "public domain." Zilch. Same for "DMCA." I doubt that EFF's libertarians would come out for TeleRead, but the public domain and DMCA questions ought to be of interest.
--Will Dean add Net-related issues to his online campagin literature summing up his position on important issues? And don't telll me that matters such as the public domain--and the loathsome copyright extension--are not of concern. What's more, what about the Net's potential for education and libraries in general? Time for a well-stocked national digital library to help spread the books and other goodies around--and drive down costs at the local level, while reducing the famous "savage inequalities"?
So after talking to the Open eBook Forum's Nick Bogaty and a few others in the book industry, what does a Toronto Globe and Mail reporter write on the e-book format issue? Could it be that the article is actually articulating the real policy of the OeBF right now--that is, the promotion of the big guys' formats?
Incompatible software has been a headache since the beginning, but three companies are emerging as the industry standards--Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash., Adobe Systems Inc. of San Jose, Calif. and Palm Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif.
The early systems didn't catch on because they were designed for desktop computers, clunky machines that aren't suitable for the three Bs--bedroom, bathroom and beach--where most people read for enjoyment.
Palm's tiny hand-held organizers fill that need. [Lisa Charters, online sales VP for Random House, Canada, Ltd.] said they have emerged as the most popular tool for reading e-books because millions are in use around the world and it is easy to download an e-book into their memory ready for the downtown commute, the cottage weekend, the beach or just cuddling up in bed.
So, dear readers, how long until OeB renames itself The Proprietary Format Promoters' Association? It's been said that the PeBF is "agnostic" about a standard consumer-level format for e-books. My own description would be a tad different, "aggressively apathetic." That could change, of course, and TeleRead intends to keep pressing for a Universal Consumer eBook Format, John Noring's phrase. I love the word "Consumer," by the way. Limiting e-books to the literati just won't cut it if publishers and writers are to make a living.
Back to the Globe article. It covered topics beyond formats, and the headline was right on the money: "E-books may yet meet great expectations." Regardless of the industry-harmful Tower of eBabel, it's good to see press reports that go beyond the fashionable gloom-and-doom stereotypes. As frustrating as the OeBF can be on format matters, I'm glad it's around to talk up the medium.
Details, details: I've used "eTower of Babel" in the past, but actually prefer "Tower of eBabel." Separately and of much greater importance, it could also be said there's a fourth pillar of the Tower. OverDrive makes money off format conversion and various compliciations from the horrendous incompatibilities of the industry at the consumer level. OverDrive CEO Steve Potash, of course, is president of the OeBF. A cute inside phrase cruelly leaves off Palm and calls the leading companies "MAO"--short for Microsoft, Adobe and Overdrive.
posted by David Rothman at 3:48 AM | permanent link
...I upgraded my reader and have gotten the free books for conversion to my REB1200 device.
I did notice something interesting, and I thought I'd share with you and possibly your readers.
If you look at the URLs of the free books, you notice a pattern:
http://12.149.108.82/Authenticate.Asp?Id=179&Book=XXXXXX [Yes, the above is actually just one line.-DR]
Well, for the listed titles, these are simple.
HISTORY for A Short History of Everything. CANDY for Candy and Me. LAST for Last to Die. Well, some of the next 3 are easy to guess.... SINISTER for The Sinister Pig. LUCK for The Joy Luck Club. SHORTY for Get Shorty.
'Force-fed MS Reader update...be afraid. very afraid'
With sentiments like the above--from a forum headline--some readers of Pocket PC Thoughts are tearing apart the new Microsoft Reader update. Some forum particpants report better performance with the new product. But others don't, and, having read via this TeleBlog of the DRM crack, one writes:
So, this exercise was to make MS Reader DRM5 more secure. So how long was it more secure?...Now you have all lost valuable RAM in you PPC's, diskspace on your PC's and Reader is starting up slower and for what? The new DRM5 was unbreakable one week or so. LOL.
Yes, after installing the new Reader, with relatively no hassle - 21% [ 72 ] Yes, but I had to activate it again 15% - [ 51 ] No; I can't install the update for Reader on my Pocket PC - 4% [ 15 ] No; I can't get Reader to activate on my Pocket PC - 5% [ 19 ] No; I could not locate the .lit files on my desktop computer - 3% [ 13 ] No; I don't want to use up RAM on my Pocket PC - 12% [ 42 ] I didn't bother; Microsoft can keep their #*%$ eBooks! - 36% [ 120 ]
New Microsoft Reader DRM 5 cracked with Convert Lit Version 1.4
Good news, Fair Use boosters. The new DRM 5 from Microsoft has been cracked with Convert Lit 1.4. Other interesting Reader info appears, too, in Jerry Justiano's essential Pocket PC eBooks Watch.
A message here for the Microsoft and other powerful members of the Open eBook Forum? But of course. Forget about proprietary DRM schemes. Nonproprietary ones still won't stop cracking, but at least they'll help pave the way for a standardized e-book format at the consumer level--and much better sales figures.
The Italian connection: You can't keep a good e-book format down
Noises from the Open eBook Forum haven't always been easy to decode over the years. Microsoft launched the OeBF with unequivocal promises of a consumer-level e-book format. The present OeB can't make up its mind and has been dilly-dallying despite excellent format work at the production level. Under the presidency of Steve Potash, CEO of OverDrive, which wants to make big bucks off the Tower of eBabel, the OeBF even comes across at times as the Proprietary Format Promoters' Forum. And yet the group doggedly goes ahead at the production level.
Now, alas for the Potashes, a pesky question is arising. What if open-source people successfully took the OeBF-developed production format and ran with an adaptation at the consumer level? OeBF, meet LiberGNU and friends in Italy. LiberGNU has just announced an alliance with EvolutionBook toward the success of the OpenBERG project, aided by the aptly named Project GNUtemberg, as well as Liber Liber. Not sure if I have all the players down right. But here is the word from LiberGNU:
Last 24th of June took place an informal meeting, where Maurizio Patitucci, Andrea Colanicchia (EvolutionBook), Marco Calvo, Stefania Ronci and Ruggero Montalto (LiberLiber) agreed on the priority of having a free (as in freedom) OEB reader ready for use, as soon as possible, in order to show to both e-bookstores and libraries the advantages of the OEB format (as described by Jon Noring in his recent article).
Can LiberGNU and friends topple the Tower of eBabel? Who knows. In the U.S., many obstacles remain, such as the love of some large U.S. publishers for oppressive Digital Rights Management schemes--the anthesis of what OpenBERG is all about. Perhaps the Italian alliance is just thinking "demo" at this point when it comes to the commercial side (although one can see the immediate usefulness for readers of unshackled material like the Free Encyclopedia Project). But that could change. What is clear is that the world won't sit still while the OeBF proscrastinates.
posted by David Rothman at 9:50 PM | permanent link
Happy 32nd Birthday, Project Gutenberg!
This Fourth of July isn't just the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It's also the 32nd birthday of Project Gutenberg, the oldest etext publisher on the Net.
In fact, the Declaration was the very first text that Gutenberg founder Michael Hart typed into a mainframe at the University of Illinois for e-publication--on the way to the group's 8,500 texts today, ranging from works of Homer to Tom Swift and His Airship.
Here's the Gutenberg version of the Declaration...and here's a more modern incarnation, courtesy the RaptorBook.org site run by TeleRead CTO James Linden, who is also one of Michael Hart's main format mavens. Many changes are ahead for the Gutenberg site itself, and you needn't be a scholar or Linden-level techie to volunteer and take part in this evolution.
Keep in mind Gutenberg's special place in the world of public domain, the doctrine under which books may be legally reproduced for free once copyrights expire. If no one uses this doctrine, then it will crumble. To support Gutenberg is to help keep the copyright greedsters at bay as best we can. Happy birthday, Gutenberg!
Beware of the Tories of the Internet era. Let us honor the Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776, and remember that political, economic and media freedoms are often intertwined. If you don't want cable and phone companies to tell you which Web sites you can visit, then you might appreciate Lawrence Lessig's post from last year--Broadband Wars I and Broadband Wars II. One way or another, the issue of Webs site choice will remain with us for a long time. In this case, surrealistically enough, Netfolks' interests would actually seem to overlap at least somewhat with those of Disney and Microsoft. Simply for business reasons, nothing else, they don't want the Verizons and Comcasts to limit our surfing options. In spirit all the companies mentioned are Tories who value money over our freedom. No evil conspiracies here, just bottom lines first, along with the usual control fixations.
Issues like Web choice are one reason for the establishment of a well-stocked national digital library system in the TeleRead vein, which would be harder than ever for cable companies and other powerful ISPs to block. Do we really want cable systems to favor Random House or Simon & Schuster, say, over an independent publisher's site? I doubt that would happen--I'd hope that the entertainment conglomerates themselves would be sensible enough to understand the downside here. But, given the risks if Verizon and the like controlled our Web choices, it's high time for both a well-stocked national digital library system and appropriate regulations to help discourage such a nightmare. Already Verizon tries to limit our email choices. What's more, even today, you can't set up your AOL account to include a return address without the aol.com (unless you go to the bother of using an auxiliary email program and a server elsewhere via TCP/IP).
Meanwhile we can all hope that a long-range, sophisticated version of Wi-Fi or a successor will eventually free broadband users and small broadband providers from direct or indirect dependence on the large phone and cable companies to reach homes and businesses. But don't count on it. Remember, Wi-Fi and the like exist at the mercy of the FCC--which, like all regulators, can be a most political creature and open to the influence of well-bought congress members. Few beat the telcoms at that game.
Alas, the Broadband Wars are just one area of concern for freedom-minded surfers. The library filtering controversy goes on; and, if we don't thwart the censors now, the same threats could extend to the Net at large, beyond libraries. Likewise copyright controversies continue--with, you guessed it, the usual Tories as the villains: Disney and friends. A Hollywood-bought Congress has let the greedsters pillage the public domain, the Supreme Court has failed to provide relief, and that issue could well be with us for years--in fact, eternally. Given the reliance of democracy on a well-informed citizenry, Draconian copyright laws and especially term-extensions are an insult to the memories of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence. In the aggregate, Washington's mean-spirited words are a reverse Declaration--or maybe a new Stamp Act: vanity law for America's greedy Hollywood elite. Whether you're a citizen of the United States or not, even if you're reading this in Iraq, those matters should be of interest to you in an era of corporate dominance across borders.
Psst! Congress may accidentally help promote a Universal Consumer Format for e-books
Gasp! The U.S. Congress is about to encourage the Open eBook Forum to do the right thing and adopt a universal consumer e-book format based on OeBF-developed production standards. This mini-miracle is just that--rather mini, and rather accidental, too. But it still will help the cause.
So what's happened? Well, Congress is about to update the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and tucked into the act is a proposal for a "National File Format" (NFF). That term is a tad misleading. No, Section 613 is not saying, "Hey, this is the format publishers must use for the general consumer." Instead NFF is actually a production document format specifically for the needs of the accessibility community. Within two years of the Act's reauthorization, textbook publishers must supply all K-12 textbooks in that format to disability-related organizations such as Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D). From there, the groups will process the material into synthesized speech, Braille and whatever else is appropriate to aid accessibility to the content.
But does an OeBF angle exist here? Yes, big time. Turns out that the U.S. Department of Education, which will carry out Section 613, already has been acting on its own. Late last year it funded CAST to create and oversee the "NFF Technical Panel" to develop the NFF document specification. This panel is loaded with familiar names in the OeBF such as Microsoft and McGraw-Hill, along with disability-
Governor Blogger remains in his bob-n-weave mode on the pesky issue of net.copyright. 
Oh, no, billg. A 
But no miracles expected instantly--just in the long run, maybe. Anyone heard lately about the 
The New York Times has just published a story headlined 
2. The tiny revenue that e-books provide today--barely more than lunch money by the standards of the publishing industry as a whole. Mike Seagroves, director of business development for 
The present situation is hardly the best. The agent for the Harry Potter series at this point hasn't even authorized an e-book edition despite 
Why don't we already have a seamless, well-stocked national digital library system?
Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean will be 
"PDF sucks." We agree with those 
I find PDF hell to read. I would avoid any e-books in it like the plague. If my husband didn't use the program for his work, we'd never download the free reader. It always seems to be a hassle to get it to work. It's not worth the time and difficulties. We have broadband and plenty of memory, but it takes forever for Adobe 6 to load to read anything. Before it finishes loading, I usually decide the item I was going to read wasn't worth my time and I click it off. I would never pay money to read anything on it. It costs too much already.
A few weeks ago I shelled out $9.06 for 
Kid-optimized tablet computers will go to more than 10,000 schoolchildren and teachers in Arkansas, California, Hawaii, New York, Utah and Washington, D.C. 
Noises from the 
Here's the 
Beware of the 
Issues like Web choice are one reason for the establishment of a well-stocked national digital library system in the 
Alas, the Broadband Wars are just one area of concern for freedom-minded surfers. The