Good news from Japan-Direct, which ships from Japan. The much-talked-about Sony Librie is now going for $439, a big difference from the $599 that at least one States-based rival is charging.

This is the E Ink machine known for DRM from hell but a screen as readable as newsprint's. I'm buying one myself--read on for the full story. Via Sony's new format importer, you can now see anything in HTML, ASCII, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, PDF, (X)HTML or RSS. Bottom line? You can enjoy not just Gutenberg-style books but also ASCII or HTML books on sale from places such as Fictionwise, eBookAd and Blackmask.

The OpenReader angle

What's more, ManyBooks.net is already experimenting with the proprietary Libirie format, and, of course, Jon Noring and I will do our best to convince Sony to officially bring the nonproprietary OpenReader to the machine. Let's hope Sony has learned its lesson from its MP3-related mistakes. Advanced display technology is nice, but e-books won't ever reach their full potential until we raze the Tower of eBabel.

But back to Japan-Direct. Please read the J-D FAQ carefully, and remember that Sony has promoted this machine as for the Japanese market rather than the American one. The Librie can display English text but has controls with Japanese markings. Japan-Direct says that the Librie "now comes with our basic English manual."

Important: I always like to know about the vendors I mention here. Now, what are your impressions of Japan-Direct, positive or negative? I have not bought anything from the eight-year-old company, but found the Web site to be informative and full of positive comments from customers. Randy at J-D responded lickety-split to some questions I had. In the interest of disclosure, you need to know I may be doing some consumer-level documentation for J-D and running some ads, identified as such, if this makes sense to both Randy and me. If I do doc, you can bet I'll seek feedback on questions that Librie users, especially nontechies, need to have answered.

Eating Your Own Cooking Department: I bought a Librie via a kindly acquaintance in Japan who found one on sale. If the deal hadn't gone through, however, I'd have bought from J-D.

Financing the Librie Department: Check out my eBay ads for an RCA REB1200 color eBook and RCA REB1100 monochrome model. I'm keeping my eBookWise-1150 to stay in touch with Gemstardom and related regions, especially given the interesting tricks that Steve Breen will have on the way in his Librarian program. I just wish I could have afforded to keep the RCAs around. I'll especially miss the 1200. Both would be great machines for e-book newbies. What's more, the 1100 has some neat wrinkle like the ability to pick up fonts (in your favorite style and size) from your PC. Plus, you can read in landscape mode, widening the lines.

Update, 3:25: The 1100 has already been sold via eBay to a nice lady in Georgia. The 1200 is still available.

posted by David Rothman at 1:45 AM | permanent link

From Brewster Kahle at the Internet Archive--posted to the archivists-talk list:

The good folks at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society have helped file the appeal of Kahle v. Ashcroft. This suit is about "orphan works," or works that are so out of print that often the publisher can not be found, but under the new copyright laws, these works are still under copyright. This suit seeks to affirm that libraries in the digital world can have out-of-print works on their shelves, just as we had on the shelves of the libraries we grew up with. Let's hope sanity prevails and we protect our libraries.
posted by David Rothman at 2:53 PM | permanent link

"Sony missed out on potential sales from MP3 players and other gadgets because it was overly proprietary about music and entertainment content, the head of the company's video-game unit said." - Sony admits MP3 error, in The Australian.

The TeleRead take: And too proprietary about the Librie as well? Sony's opening up the machine to imported Gutenberg-style books is a big step forward, however, and ideally the company will also give OpenReader a good look--for commercial books. Hey, it just might be more PC than before within Sonydom to go for Open Standards. The OR concept has the support of leading e-bookstores as well as Victor McCrary, the former e-book evangelist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
posted by David Rothman at 1:32 PM | permanent link

"Why do you think the History Channel is what it is? Why do you think it's all World War II documentaries? It's because it's public-domain footage. So the history we're seeing is being skewed towards what's fallen into public domain." - Filmmaker Robert Stone, as quoted in How Copyright could be killing culture in the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Related: Techies Talk Tough in D.C., a copyright story in Wired News.
posted by David Rothman at 2:33 AM | permanent link

The Cybook has gotten 7 out of 10 points in a ZDNet review. It praises the machine as having "potential to bridge the gap between much more expensive Tablet PCs and much smaller handhelds." Among the cons? The size, weight and the lack of a physical keyboard, mentioned in TeleRead's review. Your own opinion of the machine will depend on the use. I myself read from the Cybook only at home where the size isn't so much a factor. In that place it's terrific, and at least one ZDNet reader shares my enthusiasm. (ZDNet review found via Pocket PC eBooks.)
posted by David Rothman at 4:38 AM | permanent link

Consumer electronics firms are selling out to Hollywood in the DRM controversy. Bottom line: you'll pay more for gadgets that let you do less. The only good news here is that with firms such as Sony and Philip involved, maybe a true universal DRM standard will emerge.(Via Techdirt and the Wall Street Journal.)
posted by David Rothman at 4:23 AM | permanent link

Would the Xanadu project, newly written up, have gotten much further along if Ted Nelson hadn't been so bogged down by the "pernicious issue of royalties"--the words of one skeptic? I'm pro-copyright, pro-royalty, but isn't it possible that Nelson would have been more successful with Berners-Lee approach without all the complex billing-related algorithms required?

posted by David Rothman at 4:02 AM | permanent link

This Slashdot item is good news. The bad news is that EU Directive 2001/29/EU, a Euro DMCA, exists in the first place.
posted by David Rothman at 11:37 AM | permanent link

"When someone gets used to retrieving items using the words they think of, not the words we think of, do you think they'll still be willing to type "LastName, FirstName" to find an author?" - Jenny Levine on the possibilities of social bookmark sites for library catalogs.

The TeleRead take: Hear, hear! For the interested, library use should be a social experience in the electronic sense, not just the old-fashioned one alone.
posted by David Rothman at 8:15 AM | permanent link

From academic librarian Tom Peters--whom you can contact for further details:

The Meting of the Minds Online Book Discussion Group at 7 p.m. CST today will discuss the classic 1911 novel Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton. This is a tale of retribution about a discouraged New England farmer and his hypochondriac wife. Their empty lives are suddenly changed when her cousin, a young girl who still finds joy in life, comes to live with them.

Because Ethan Frome is in the public domain, numerous online versions can be downloaded free of charge. There also are numerous study guides and group discussion questions available online. For example, a guide in the Spark Notes series contains information about the characters, plot, action, symbols, themes, etc.

Click on the "Meting" link above to reach Tom's virtual auditorium. The chat software will install automatically. It does not contain any spyware.

The sponsor of Meting is the Mid-Illinois Talking Book Center. While the discussions are for the blind visually imparied, anyone is welcome to join the chatcast. The more particpants, the better, so don't feel you're imposing. Also, you can just listen and enjoy the program without asking questions or making comments.
posted by David Rothman at 3:52 AM | permanent link

The Washington Post's "public domain" gaffe has drawn a well-deserved scolding from Free Culture, a student group against copyright excesses and for many-to-many media. In an item on the donation of a Bob Dylan recording to a historical society, the Post merrily chirped that the "Minnesota Party Tape" was now in the "public domain." Nope--not unless you fly to Minnesota to hear the recording in person. That's PD? No more than Elvis is Dylan or vice versa.

In fairness to the Post, it later ran a wonderful article on the copyright-related greed that resulted in a classic civil rights documentary being pulled from sale. However, I doubt that the Post was trying to atone for its "public domain" gaffe. Besides, a direct correction of the Dylan item would be more in order. I'll email Post ombudsman Michael Getler and see what happens. If you do the same, please be civil--perhaps he and the Post editors will show open minds. I'm hopeful. Perhaps he can even examine some broader issues in the Post's treatment of copyright matters.

Friendly suggestions for the Post--and other mainstreamers

Memo to Mr. Getler: Over the years, the gutting of the public domain will eventually divert billions from the public to entertainment conglomerates and rich copyright heirs. Shouldn't the "mainstream" media care more about copyright matters, especially given the free speech issues involved--a point made loud and clear in the plight of the civil rights documentary? The Post has been better than average. But even it has been deficient in major respects, given the size of the threat.

Some members of the copyright gentry, a term coined by Project Gutenberg's Michael Hart, are no small menace to free speech and democracy when pocketbook issues arise. Jack Valenti, object of more than a few worshipful pieces in the press, even has called for near-eternal copyright. I'm pro-property, pro-copyright, and as much as I dislike the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, I recognize that it is still on the books and must be obeyed here in the States. But what about the aspirations of many of its backers--the continual plundering of the public domain, with extension after extension in the future? Is copyright merely the same as real estate or stock ownership? Will an almost-eternal investment in a house, car or shares of the Washington Post Company deprive anyone of freedom of expression, now or later? No, copyright is a different animal, with well-heeled friends who love to lavish cash on it. Why isn't the Post telling us more about the true origins of Hollywood-bought laws that in the end may threaten even L Street, not just documentary makers?

Dylan gaffe just a tiny symptom

The Dylan gaffe is merely a tiny symptom of major problems that go far beyond the Post. Ideally the media will own up to having been so clueless and cowardly on copyright matters; a myopic Atlantic article illustrates the problem. Just how could the Atlantic print 9,000 words on Hollywood political donations without one mention of Jack Valenti's well-funded campaign against the commonweal? As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I voted for Kerry-Edwards but held my nose very tightly, given the intensity of the smell. Notice? The top Dems were endlessly populist on issues like drug costs, but hardly ever on copyright. Why so little in the press about this bizarre dichotomy? Several times, via a responsible campaign staffer, I asked Edwards to oppose Bono. No reply. Didn't get anywhere with Kerry, either. As a Democratic buddy reminded me, quoting a California Dem, appropriately enough, "Money is the mother's milk of politics."

So why didn't the Post in 2004 follow up all the way to the nipple? After all, a major metropolitan paper had once said in an editorial on copyright extensions: "The real-world explanation for these perpetual extensions is, of course, the disproportionate financial clout of corporate copyright holders in Congress and the galloping increase in the potential value of their intellectual property, which heightens the holders' reluctance to give it up when the time comes. There may not be sufficient constitutional basis for the court to right that imbalance. But if not, perhaps in the wake of campaign finance reform, some idealistic lawmaker should think about addressing it."

That was L Street speaking in 2002, but as best I can determine, the Post's campaign reporters were almost comatose two years later when voters could have responded. The Post mentioned Hollywood donations. But, unless I'm missing something, its journalists never wrote on the disgraceful refusal of "populist" John Edwards or John Kerry to speak out on the Bono Act and most other copyright outrages.

I did my best to wake up David Broder (e-mailed) and lobbyist-beat reporter Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (phoned) about the the need for a full investigation of the huge cash dump from which an Edwards PAC benefited early in the campaign. Edwards sat on the copyright-related Judiciary committee and obviously knew the issues, having even been a guest blogger for Larry Lessig. Bought silence on the Bono Act? Keep in mind that the Post was far from the only offender in refusing to pin down Kerry and Edwards about their stands. The producers of author Tim Russert's Meet the Press, a natural place to publicly explore the candidates' stubborn silence on copyright extension, refused to follow through. At least Russert himself would not. Meanwhile the print-media journalists I contacted were hardly better. Talk about Washington groupthink.

The media's paucity of good reporting on Hollywood-bought legislation has turned the public into dunces, not just about the possible quid pro quos but also the basics. My favorite example is a Kerry volunteer who told me that she thought copyright only applied to music. Even Hilary Rosen would be appalled. Could it be that in letting the Dylan gaffe slip through, the Post copydesk crew was simply reflecting the general population's ignorance of copyright? Doesn't the Post news side care?

On this and other copyright matters, I'll blame the Post institutionally far more than I would Anne Schroeder, the reporter on the Dylan item, who is entitled to her share of fallibility. (My own specialty happens to be typos, including a colorful variant of "public" in the headline above my original post, before Alev rescued me.)

No follow-up--even on Hollywood money with Mafia taint

I won't buy, "No one wants to read about these issues." Wouldn't the public like to know more about the grubby details of the Hollywood-D.C. link, complete with a large Hollywood donor with a business associate reported to be in the Mafia? Granted, nuggets like the Hollywood-Mafia-D.C. story can reach the public, as they did briefly in the Los Angeles Times and even Disney-owned ABC. And as I'll keep emphasizing, the Post news side, despite its shortcoming, is better in general about copyright than the typical paper's staff. But we're still not getting enough of the nitty-gritty about copyright and campaign cash. Along with the rest of the press, the Post just is not following up to the extent it should on the sausage-factory aspects of copyright law.

Sometimes I wonder if ideological motives, such as these ascribed to Dan Rather in the fuss over CBS's campaign reporting, explain why certain members of the media won't give the Hollywood money story the time and ink it merits. By far--just look at the contribution stats--Democrats are more in debt to Hollywood than the Republicans are even if the latter are hardly exemplary.

===============

Now here are a few thoughts on a somewhat related topic. Could the Post's flawed coverage of copyright be costing it subscribers? I doubt it; maybe even the opposite. Yawn. But then again, isn't it possible that younger, Net-hip readers do understand the Hollywood threat--in iPodish terms?

You never know. Cluelessness in the aggregate, not just one issue alone, can hurt in subtle ways. Last year I cancelled the Post except on Sundays, and when a free promo offer for weekday editions ends, I'll once again do with weekdays only. I'm cutting back on the Post because I can no longer cope with the onslaught of pulp and ink. The Post has become increasingly less essential to this lifelong subscriber, especially in the paper edition, and the Dylan-related gaffe hasn't helped L Street's case. On matters dearest to me, I generally can find more authoritative and in-depth information via the Net; and a free daily paper from another company provides me with the local news about Alexandria, VA, which the Post so often neglects.

I'd much rather that the Post and New York Times survive, given the resources they have to investigate the corporate and government abuses, often with success. But over the long term even the giants may not stay in business without radical changes. Read the New York Herald-Tribune lately? News organizations are hardly eternal. The rise of the Wikipedia, and Wikinews, not infallible but certainly worth looking at, suggests that the public hungers for reportage beyond the mainstream media's.

Related: Protecting the King--about the copyright term issue as applied to music in Europe.

Update: Tweaked this afternoon for precision, readability and all that (and out of time to do more). Meanwhile let's see what Michael Getler says about the Post's copyright-related coverage.
posted by David Rothman at 3:01 AM | permanent link

If you want to buy a copy of Eyes on the Prize, a classic civil rights documentary, you may have to cough up $1,500 on eBay. The reason? Corporate and private greed, including the latter kind from the estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. The filmmakers can't afford the rights gouges--and not just Hollywood's. The King estate, for example, turned down even a $100,000 offer for use of the civil rights leader's image. So Eyes is no longer in official circulation.

An argument from Bert Sugayan, now vice president to rights services for Getty Images, won't wash. He says that society isn't spending enough on documentaries. That might be true, but greedy studios, commercial archives and estates are no small part of the problem. This is, of course, yet one more reason for killing or at least mitigating the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, a threat to the First Amendment. Artists, writers and others should be paid fairly, but, please, let's have more balance. Changes in laws affecting VIP images could also go a long way. If documentary makers need to rely increasingly on massive funding from big corporations and megafoundations, then freedom of expression can only suffer. Getty and the King Estate don't care--they just want to max their revenue.

Detail: When I looked on eBay just now for Eye on the Prize, I couldn't find a copy at any price. The Ku Klux Klan ought to award a prize to Intellectual Properties Management, Atlanta, controller of King-related rights. I respect the memory of Dr. King and believe that the rapacity of certain of his descendants, and their lawyers, would horrify him.

(A Struggle for Rights from the Washington Post, via Free Culture Blog: Voice of the student movement for free culture. Also see an earlier article, Bleary Days for Eyes on the Prize in Wired News.)
posted by David Rothman at 2:02 AM | permanent link

"Librarians can expect to hear more and louder chants of, "Why do we need libraries, anyhow, if everything is online?" The profession has grappled with that one for a long time." - Access by Google, in Library Journal.

The TeleRead take: The answer is rather obviously--libraries can be virtual as well as physical, and reference librarians and others can interact with patrons online, not just face to face. Beyond that, a role will remain for neighborhood libraries as places for story-telling hours, study space for kids from noisy homes, face-to-face mentoring, you name it.
posted by David Rothman at 8:25 AM | permanent link