Bo Sacks' optimistic piece about the magazine industry - It's Thanksgiving and all will be well - closed with this thought:
[T]he magazine industry, the printing industry, the advertising industry and the newly emerging digital information industry are not going to go away. All four will survive, get stronger and be better at what they do. Your job is to stay calm, stick around and be there as they do.
It was echoed in a New York Times op-ed piece by James Gleick, How to Publish Without Perishing.
Following are some excerpts from piece, though you should really read the entire piece.
One could imagine the book, venerable as it is, just vanishing into the ether. It melts into all the other information species searchable through Google’s most democratic of engines: the Web pages, the blogs, the organs of printed and broadcast news, the general chatter. (Thanks for everything, Gutenberg, and now goodbye.)
As a technology, the book is like a hammer. That is to say, it is perfect: a tool ideally suited to its task. Hammers can be tweaked and varied but will never go obsolete. Even when builders pound nails by the thousand with pneumatic nail guns, every household needs a hammer. Likewise, the bicycle is alive and well. It was invented in a world without automobiles, and for speed and range it was quickly surpassed by motorcycles and all kinds of powered scooters. But there is nothing quaint about bicycles. They outsell cars
His conclusion reflects the optimism found in Bo's piece:
Go back to an old-fashioned idea: that a book, printed in ink on durable paper, acid-free for longevity, is a thing of beauty. Make it as well as you can. People want to cherish it.
Discussion
By George Alexander on Dec 01, 2008
It is possible to interpret Gleick’s piece in the New York Times as favoring the printed book, as Gail Nickel-Kailing has done here. My take is very different, however. Gleick is trying to divert criticism away from a proposed legal agreement that, if approved by the courts, will give Google the power to ignore much of copyright law. In the heart of his NYT piece, Gleick writes:
“Which brings us to the settlement agreement, pending court approval, in the class action suit Authors Guild v. Google. The suit was filed in September 2005 when Google embarked on an audacious program of copying onto its servers every book it could get its hands on.… On its face this looked like a brazen assault on copyright, but Google argued that it should be protected as a new kind of “fair use” and went on scanning during two and a half years of secret negotiations (I was involved on the authors’ side).
By now the company has digitized at least seven million titles. …the vast majority, four million to five million, are books that had fallen into a kind of limbo: protected by copyright but out of print. Their publishers had given up on them. They existed at libraries and used booksellers but otherwise had left the playing field.
As a way through the impasse, the authors persuaded Google to do more than just scan the books for purposes of searching, but go further, by bringing them back to commercial life. Under the agreement these millions of out-of-print books return from limbo.”
If you read the details of the proposed settlement, you will find that it permits Google to sell electronic copies of books if it determines they are “not commercially available,” even if they are still under copyright. Gleick sees this as a good thing—a way to “return millions of books from limbo.” I see it as a wholesale violation of copyright.
If you feel copyright laws ought to be preserved, you may want to read my editorial on the subject at Beyond-print.net (link below). It includes a link to the full text of the proposed settlement.
http://www.beyond-print.de/site/content/en/channel_news/news_0669.html
By Jeanette Clinkunbroomer on Dec 02, 2008
If a book is not "commercially viable," how does Google intend to sell it? That's sort of a contradiction in terms.
However, if the publishers have "given up" on those titles, seems they've abandoned any claim to them, doesn't it? At least that seems to be their intent. So Google's action is sort of like finding something in the garbage and selling it at a flea market. Then the former owner comes back complaining about someone else is making money on it.
Perhaps the publishers gave up too soon, and unfortunately, it's they who hold the copyright, not the authors. God forbid the authors should have anything to say about it.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 02, 2008
George,
Do you think there is a place for a rethinking of copyright laws given the changes in communication and the practice of "mashing-up" protected copy by creative kids and professionals.
Maybe something more along the lines of Creative Commons? As I read the post, Google would "sell" ebooks... Given that a transaction will take place, am I right to think that some of that transaction will go back to the copyright holder?
By Scott Cochran on Dec 02, 2008
I'm sure out-of-print authors won't see substantial revenue from the Google ebook program. Which begs the question, how much of the transaction is the author entitled to? 50%? 75%? What's a fair price for your intellectual property? I only hope it doesn't take a class action suit to force them to compensate the authors however small the remuneration.
By George Alexander on Dec 02, 2008
Michael:
My opinion is that, in general, it should not be legal for Google (or anyone else) to sell the text of a work that is under copyright without the permission of the copyright holder.
Yes, under this settlement Google does have to pay 63% of any money it gets from sales to a “registry” established by the agreement. The registry then attempts to find the rightsholder and pay him/her.
But the key issue is not payment, it is whether Google should be able to sell copyrighted works without permission.
If we want to rethink copyright (and I actually support that idea), then let’s change the copyright law. Let’s not have it subverted by a deal between Google and groups that purport to represent authors and publishers.
And even if we do change the law, I don’t think Google (or anyone) should be able to sell copyrighted books that are otherwise readily available. For example, I think the would-be seller should be prevented from selling copyrighted books without permission if any of the following are true:
-- The book is available for purchase as a new book
-- The particular book is not available, but a newer edition of it is readily available
-- Used copies of the book are readily available
-- The book is available from many libraries
In other words, I would support changing copyright law to permit the sale of copyrighted material without permission only as a last resort in cases where the public has no other way to get the material. If the book is available, I don’t think it should be permitted. And I certainly don’t think copyright law should be completely transformed via a document that purports to do nothing more than settle a lawsuit.
By Michael Jahn on Dec 03, 2008
What a great thread ! As someone who is working with a company that scans books and converts them to POD PDF files, we have had many discussions with customers related to copyright, eBook conversion, online availability and other "distribution" issues - such as DRM.
Like the music business, where the DRM (or removing DRM) has become a marketing strategy, and like iTunes (and the iPod) where who distributes and how they distribute has change dramatically, there is "no going back to the book" really, as books are now printed on demand and ordered online at Amazon - who is working with traditional publishers (who are of course are either losing sleep, suing or have their head in the sand)
Unlike the music industry, the digital content players (Sony eBooks Reader, Amazon Kindle) are not wildly popular - yet. Perhaps the Book is like a hammer analogy is a good one, me, I use a screw gun and read my books on my Knidle.
My point is that the business model has changed, regardless of the laws, and it is not really Google that needs the change, it is the silly copyright law that - like in the nusic industry - never accounted for being able to distribute 1 million copies of something in 1 hour, worldwide with a single click.
Michael Jahn
Slightly used PDF Evangelist
By Patrick Henry on Dec 03, 2008
Wasn't digital print-on-demand supposed to eliminate out-of-print titles, create evergreen backlists, and assure revenue streams for publishers of even the most specialized books? The success of Lightning Source nothwithstanding, digital POD for books appears to be yet another hard-copy production technology with a great future behind it. It certainly seems to have left a void for Google to fill--minus the paper, ink, and glue.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 03, 2008
@ Patrick,
I think that POD books is like most overnight inventions...it takes about 10 years to get all the pieces in place. Given the recent interview with Lightning Source, it seems that they are now falling into place. Google may just turn out to be what makes it tip. Just as Apple tipped over music. Overnight, except it took years of legal wrangling and fighting and everybody trying out different models until Apple got it right.
@Michael,
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Once the logistics infrastructure gets to a certain level of development and especially when the old rules are changed, watch out.
The only quibble is it doesn't mean “no going back to the book” But it might mean that publishers will either get with the program, or into the dustbin of history.
"If a book is a hammer", the future looks very good of the people who make hammers. The trick is to integrate into the world wide production infrastructure that is growing.
If Amazon could deliver and print, at 15 centers all over the country, at the right price, with the right standards, why wouldn't they do it. And if not them why not Google? I don't think it would do any harm. Plus printing is not their core competency. Think of the lower mailing and UPS charges.
By Noel Ward on Dec 03, 2008
Jumping in here, I still don't think any present technology that truly replaces a book. Sure, you can read on a computer or e-book screen, but why carry another relatively pricey, weather-sensitive electronic toy when a $10 paperback does the job better? I'm no Luddite, but to me reading a "book" on a computer screen or e-book device is technology for its own sake, the answer to a question nobody asked, except some uber geeks who think nirvana is having a 500 Gigahertz quad-processor implanted in their cerebral cortex. The problem with technology is that it's 100% guaranteed to wear out, break,not work as advertised, be "improved" and require you to "upgrade" far too often. Sure, it gets better, but...
I cleaned out my office recently and tossed a couple of dead hard drives, an old computer (with 3 more go in a week or so), assorted software, a router, a VCR, and a laser printer. This is on top of the other computers, monitors and printers that have gone out the door over the past few years. But no books were thrown away. The technology I tossed was outdated and worthless, but the books I either kept or donated to the local library's book sale where they are enjoyed by others and bring in revenue to a small town library.
I always have a book or two in my bag when I travel, and often leave them in hotel rooms and airport lounges when finished, or give them to fellow travelers to enjoy. I carry them to beaches in my kayak, up mountains, out on sailboats, stuff them into backpacks and the door & seat pockets of my car. I don't see doing this with any of the electronic pretenders to the throne of books.
Part of Google's play is to have books that can only be read online. I guess that works, and at least it recognizes that it's the content that has value, so for those who want to read on a screen the Google solution may be OK. But Google should also have a deal where the out-of-print titles can be printed digitally for those who do their reading the way Gutenberg intended.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 03, 2008
yup. I go back to the hammer. Books are a reading tool that has evolved over 500 years. It's perfect. There are lots of reasons. But, it's not just because old baby boomers like me love books.
Meanwhile, the ebooks and stuff have been around about 5 to 10 years? It's not about design or technology. It's about evolution.
So..suppose the real answer for printers is to concentrate on the perfect information tools that have also evolved over hundreds of years:
Books, Posters and Newsletters.
So the answer to what you do is: Print Books, Newsletters and Posters.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 03, 2008
yup. I go back to the hammer. Books are a reading tool that has evolved over 500 years. It's perfect. There are lots of reasons. But, it's not just because old baby boomers like me love books.
Meanwhile, the ebooks and stuff have been around about 5 to 10 years? It's not about design or technology. It's about evolution.
So..suppose the real answer for printers is to concentrate on the perfect information tools that have also evolved over hundreds of years:
Books, Posters and Newsletters.
So the answer to "What do you do? is: Print Books, Newsletters and Posters.
By Helene Smith on Dec 03, 2008
I'm with Noel - and I think we risk losing so much if we make it too easy to read books electronically. I imagine many have, or will, measure this loss - and though I don't know precisely what it will be, I suspect it will have a lot to do with spirituality and connectedness with each other, the authors, and especially ourselves! Books are organic -- for touching and holding, smelling, and tossing under the bed when you finally give in to sleep! And everything else Noel said about carrying them, sharing them, and all those other human activities. For some, ebooks will be okay. I'm on the side of choice -- and ready availability of old fashioned books, especially for children.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 04, 2008
Helene makes a great point. The thing with books is that they are not only vehicles to deliver information. They are resonant cultural objects that enter and enhance human activity space.
Just think of how photo books are growing quickly at exactly the same time that it is trivial to exchange photos over cell phones or the web or flckr. And how self-publishers are producing books that no one but friends and families will ever read.
By Helene Smith on Dec 04, 2008
I just happened on a reference to "Proust and the Squid" last night. It's by Maryanne Wolf - a professor of child development at Tufts University, where she is also the director of the Center for Reading and Language Research.
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060186395/Proust_and_the_Squid/excerpt.aspx
An excerpt from the first
chapter:
We were never born to read. Human beings invented reading only a few thousand years ago. And with this invention, we rearranged the very organization of our brain, which in turn expanded the ways we were able to think, which altered the intellectual evolution of our species. Reading is one of the single most remarkable inventions in history; the ability to record history is one of its consequences. Our ancestors' invention could come about only because of the human brain's extraordinary ability to make new connections among its existing structures, a process made possible by the brain's ability to be shaped by experience. This plasticity at the heart of the brain's design forms the basis for much of who we are, and who we might become.
This book tells the story of the reading brain, in the context of our unfolding intellectual evolution. That story is changing before our eyes and under the tips of our fingers. The next few decades will witness transformations in our ability to communicate, as we recruit new connections in the brain that will propel our intellectual development in new and different ways. Knowing what reading demands of our brain and knowing how it contributes to our capacity to think, to feel, to infer, and to understand other human beings is especially important today as we make the transition from a reading brain to an increasingly digital one. By coming to understand how reading evolved historically, how it is acquired by a child, and how it restructured its biological underpinnings in the brain, we can shed new light on our wondrous complexity as a literate species. This places in sharp relief what may happen next in the evolution of human intelligence, and the choices we might face in shaping that future.
By Nigel Wells on Dec 04, 2008
There is a problem of generalisation when we discuss books. There are multiple classes of books from refernence works to pulp paper backs and everything in between. Some are more or less suitable to digital delivery, others are more suitable to remain as print on paper and there will be significant overlaps that readers will vote with their money on which is their preferrred format. It should not be forgotten that a book is a 3-dimensional object that goes beyond its role as a content carrier and is sometimes essential to the content.
The real problem is that without copyright there is no incentive for authors to works for months/years to produce something that clearly is their intellectual property and basis for reward. Nor for the investment of publishers to edit and prepare them for printing — a significant cost and expertise essential prior to publication. Or is the new business model that everyone woks for free and its only the digital deliverers get paid?
The argument that because something is unavailable gives no one the right to illegally usurp the property of others.
By Noel Ward on Dec 04, 2008
Well put, Nigel.
And this will all take a long time to play out.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 04, 2008
From Manual Castells, The Rise of the Network Society..
"While print favors systematic exposition, TV ( I would add the Internet-MJ) is best suited to casual conversation."
He then goes on to quote Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,
"Typography has the strongest possible bias towards exposition: a sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively and sequentially;a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response."
I think it remains true that a physical book + a pencil is the best tool to compare and contrast. Compare and contrast is the best way to learn to think.
Nigel,
But I think the rules of copyright have to change. You say about publishers, "Nor for the investment of publishers to edit and prepare them for printing — a significant cost and expertise essential prior to publication."
But the reality is that many publishers have ruthlessly cut editorial staffs and the cost of preparing a manuscript for publication is much less than ever before. From what I've been able to observe, it seems to me that the value add of many publishers has become their control of marketing and distribution logistics.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 06, 2008
I though of something this morning that I would like to throw into the mix. in case folks don't know about. The URL is http://www.goodreads.com/
it's a social network site that is based on the books people are reading. I think it's just one example of how Print can mash up with Web 2.0.
From the home page:
Have you ever wanted a better way to:
* See what your friends are reading.
* Keep track of what you've read and what you'd like to read.
* Get great book recommendations from people you know.
* Answer book trivia and collect your favorite quotes.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free