But of course every digital copy that Google supplied to participating libraries is indeed a direct substitute for a copy that a publisher could have sold to that library. So there was harm created by what Google did, and it is not fair use under any theory of the law except the loony one propounded in the Ninth Circuit. Google is hoping that "opt out" will replace "opt in" as a principle of copyright law, but Judge Chin has already rejected that argument in denying the settlement agreement.
So, tell me what happens when consumers feel that $9.99 is the right price for EVERY kind of book because Amazon has decided that it is the right price for trade books. Where does this leave, e.g., scholarly publishers like university presses whose overheads do NOT include high-paid CEOs, fancy offices , etc., but do value things like good copyediting, design, and production. If presses sell their books at $9.99, their parent universities will have two choices: close them down, or subsidize them even much more heavily than they are doing now.
Mr. Masnick slings a lot of charges around here, accusing publishers and their defenders of intellectual dishonesty. I'd like to point out that he doesn't seem to mind engaging in some himself, to wit: 1) his generalization that authors of journal articles pay to have them published is a vast oversimplification, as some commentators have already pointed out (in humanities and social sciences, it is very rare indeed that authors pay anything); 2) his claim that the proposed new legislation for open access will cover all federal agencies (it will not apply to agencies like the NEH, whose budget for research is under $100 million); 3) his presumption that no journal publishers would suffer from a 6-month embargo period (humanities journals certainly would); 4) his implied assertion that publishers pay nothing for peer review (publishers run expensive editorial management systems, not paid for with tax dollars, that allow peer review to function efficiently); 5) his argument that "junk science" is getting through the peer-review system (he seems not to be aware of the scams that some OA publishers are perpetrating). Though I support open access myself in many ways, I don't think it benefits OA to have advocates that are as sloppy with the evidence as Mr. Masnick.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sandy Thatcher.
Google
But of course every digital copy that Google supplied to participating libraries is indeed a direct substitute for a copy that a publisher could have sold to that library. So there was harm created by what Google did, and it is not fair use under any theory of the law except the loony one propounded in the Ninth Circuit. Google is hoping that "opt out" will replace "opt in" as a principle of copyright law, but Judge Chin has already rejected that argument in denying the settlement agreement.
scholarly publishing
So, tell me what happens when consumers feel that $9.99 is the right price for EVERY kind of book because Amazon has decided that it is the right price for trade books. Where does this leave, e.g., scholarly publishers like university presses whose overheads do NOT include high-paid CEOs, fancy offices , etc., but do value things like good copyediting, design, and production. If presses sell their books at $9.99, their parent universities will have two choices: close them down, or subsidize them even much more heavily than they are doing now.
intellectual dishonesty?
Mr. Masnick slings a lot of charges around here, accusing publishers and their defenders of intellectual dishonesty. I'd like to point out that he doesn't seem to mind engaging in some himself, to wit: 1) his generalization that authors of journal articles pay to have them published is a vast oversimplification, as some commentators have already pointed out (in humanities and social sciences, it is very rare indeed that authors pay anything); 2) his claim that the proposed new legislation for open access will cover all federal agencies (it will not apply to agencies like the NEH, whose budget for research is under $100 million); 3) his presumption that no journal publishers would suffer from a 6-month embargo period (humanities journals certainly would); 4) his implied assertion that publishers pay nothing for peer review (publishers run expensive editorial management systems, not paid for with tax dollars, that allow peer review to function efficiently); 5) his argument that "junk science" is getting through the peer-review system (he seems not to be aware of the scams that some OA publishers are perpetrating). Though I support open access myself in many ways, I don't think it benefits OA to have advocates that are as sloppy with the evidence as Mr. Masnick.