More in mind are working with science datasets and descriptive metadata catalogues to assist in application of these data to other domains and applications, either via simulations, mining, enrichment, or public access.

Can you explain more what you mean by “Data systems support”? You talk a lot about the challenges of this and such, but I’m not sure I understand exactly what tasks or functions or services you believe fall under this domain. Is developing and maintaining some sort of “institutional repository” a “data systems support” task? Maintaining access to licensed e-books? Digitizing print collections and providing access to such?

However, you will find examples even within book publishing of innovating through each of the ways you’ve described.

Acquisition is common especially within the academic sector (Pearson, Wiley & McGraw Hill spring to mind). However, diversification tends to be strategically focused on enriching content, virtual learning environment, or evaluating/testing services rather than retail or distribution (such as Lexcycle and Scribd).

I’m not at all familiar with the biopharm industry but I’m guessing they don’t innovate through acquisition of pharmacies?

In academic publishing the R&D focus is likely to be a by-product of distorted market pressures, by which I mean the students are the end users but textbook adoptions and library acquisitions are driven by decisions from faculty. However, I assume this distortion also exists within biopharm as generally patients don’t write their own prescriptions.

I’d also add a 5th response seen in both the pharma world AND in book publishing- that of consolidation via merger. It’s a defensive response, but certainly it is a response to a shifting technological environment.

Does the student have any rights under copyright law in the UK. ?

Any answer or guidance will be appreciated.
Thanks

But your last sentence falls short when you refer to “our country.” The debate on Google Books is extremely U.S.-centric. The U.S. has copyright treaty agreements with 160 countries. Google’s market share for Internet search is substantially higher in some European countries than the reported 60 to 70 percent share it enjoys in the U.S., and Google is copying copyrighted books in many languages. Most countries don’t even have any “fair use” in their laws.

A grass-roots effort, called the “Heidelberg Appeal,” began in Germany and captured the attention of German politicians. Britain and France joined with Germany, and managed to urge the European Union to investigate the Google book settlement.

Not only are some of Google’s participating universities to blame for their poor performance on the Google Library Project since 2004 (for example, even public universities went along with Google’s nondisclosure demands), but I also blame the four-year silence of the American Library Association. The fact that Google got this far with its Library Project is a reflection on American libraries in general. And the fact that the ALA still does not oppose the proposed settlement is a reflection on them in particular.

The international public interest is at issue here, not merely the American public interest.

This post is really puzzling me. To take your example, “theoretically, the BRR has the ability to impose ISBNs and other identifiers on orphan works that lack them.” What does that mean?

My understanding is that any library can request to the US ISBN agency the assignment of ISBNs to orphan works, and that there are ISBNs available for this very purpose. Whoever does it, it would seem to me to be a good thing, and the assigned ISBN’s are disseminated by established channels as a result of their assignment.

What is it specifically about the potential addition of the BRR into a vast ecosystem of metadata generation and exchange that causes you worry?

http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2009/01/start-at-questions-list.html

I asked Dan Clancy of Google if we (libraries and G) could collaborate on an FAQ relating to libraries and Google, but he said they could not do so until the settlement had been … settled. I would still like to see a FAQ started for libraries so we can gather up the questions we have and be ready to push for answers when the time comes. Maybe the Archive could host the FAQ?

I’d also say that much of the angst around ETD’s revolves around this question of publication. We recently had a mini-uproar over ProQuest’s use of the term publishing or publication – this, in particular, seems problematic for humanities faculty.

I’m not sure how much this applies to the US situation, but perhaps the most significant aspect of the question of ‘publication’ for EThOS was the impact on any material used within the thesis where the copyright belonged to a third party. Inclusion of this type of material has traditionally been accepted in dissertations ‘for the purposes of examination’. Quoting from the EThOS Toolkit (http://ethos.ac.uk):

“Traditionally in the UK, for the purposes of examination, inclusion of such copyright material held by a third party has been tolerated as the thesis has not been considered as formally published. This unpublished status has lead to restricted dissemination of this research. In any legal sense, making something available on the Internet is communication to the public. Greater visibility through electronic distribution has materially changed the character of the thesis instilling a greater perceived risk of plagiarism, premature disclosure of results and copyright infringement than the traditional counterpart ever could.”

http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2009/05/cory-doctorow-extreme-geek.html

1. Business: Book donation program

Library legal experts, however, tended to few dissertations as unpublished – primarily because dissertation authors view them as unpublished. They have to, because many monograph and journal publishers will refuse to consider items that had been previously “published.”

In a chapter on dissertations in a forthcoming book on “Copyright and Cultural Institutions,” I note that UC Berkeley states that “Your doctoral dissertation is a published work that announces the results of your research.” Apparently their is a ruling by the attorney for the Regents of the Cal system that states that shelving a thesis in the library causes it to enter the public domain. UCLA, however, states that “doctoral dissertations are to be treated in the same manner as unpublished, copyrighted works.”

My take on the issue: I would prefer that we follow authorial intent rather than a strict parsing of the law. A dissertation that was registered and not renewed would be in the public domain. A dissertation that had never been registered is still unpublished (even if a technical determination could be made that publication had occurred and the work was unceremoniously tossed into the public domain.”

Then this also works in reverse for Hickbee’s since you suggest they have ‘rudimentary’ lists. The ‘curation’ by the library, teachers and then the students(parents) that purchase the titles becomes valuable to Hickbees because they get better more robust reading lists curated by real readers.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/40/105254455_33944f97ce.jpg