From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:32:19 -0400

As I said in my earlier post, I do not wish to engage the copyright
issues here.  But this sentence is plain wrong:

"It is not clear, from the perspective of authors or customers of
traditional publishers that they really are thinking beyond the
container, even if they attend panels on that topic."

Presumably some authors and customers access the New York Times, as I
do, on a smartphone and tablet, even as my wife reads the hardcopy.
And no doubt many authors and customers have noticed that ebook
versions of books now appear on the same day as hardcopies. That last
item is due to the behind-the-scenes miracle of integrated XML
workflows, which are designed to make texts available in multiple
containers.  Last night I watched a movie called "Antiviral" (not
recommended) which began its life as a theatrical release.  The DVD
followed shortly afterward.  I saw it streaming from Netflix.  To call
any of these changes transformative is nonsense.

All this stuff is very, very hard to do, and it all costs money.
Investments are rolled out in stages, typically beginning with the
largest market opportunity first.

Joe Esposito


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:48 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:22:24 +0000
>
> The purpose of fair use, and of copyright in general, of course, is
> not to protect the investment of publishers.  What fair use is doing
> in this environment is supporting needed competition for new markets.
> It is not clear, from the perspective of authors or customers of
> traditional publishers that they really are thinking beyond the
> container, even if they attend panels on that topic.  For example,
> restrictions on ILL that require libraries to print an article before
> sending it to a recipient seem intent on reproducing the
> inconveniences of print in the digital world.  So does a restriction
> on an e-book to the alleged number of loans possible with a print
> copy.  But while many publishers seem bound to the idea, and the
> limitations, of the print container, fair use allows others to
> experiment with new models.  No publisher, for example, would or could
> create an index for 12 million digital books; protecting their
> investment would prevent publishers from doing that, while fair use
> has allowed (so far) the HathiTrust to provide such a service.  The
> most likely beneficiaries of this freedom to experiment, in the world
> of scholarship at least, are the academic authors who, after all, are
> the intended beneficiaries of copyright.
>
> Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
> Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC  27708
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:56:31 -0400
>
> I don't want to address the copyright issues, but the notion that
> something is transformative when it is used in a way in which it was
> not originally intended really ties publishers to containers.
>
> Meanwhile, every publishing conference has a panel on thinking beyond
> containers.  The model, whether acknowledged or not, is the Disney
> studio, which famously creates characters and then exploits them
> across media, whether feature films, TV, home video, amusement park
> rides, merchandise, etc.  In scholarly communications the number of
> media platforms may be fewer, but the "intention" is the same.
>
> Publishers invest in not only content but content capability.  Today's
> article is tomorrow's component of a coursepack and may be the seed of
> a book.  The practical effect of the notion that only what was
> originally intended has protection is that publishers will declare
> their intention to "transform" everything they create.  I am planning
> to convert this liblicense post into a major motion picture.
>
> What's so exasperating about these dead-end arguments about the
> extension of fair use is that they are all backward-looking; most
> critiques of publishing are about how publishers thought of themselves
> twenty years ago.  How do we carve up the dead beast?  Better,  I
> think, to nurture a new menagerie.
>
> Joe Esposito