Apple has always been worse than Microsoft on standards and openness. Apple lost the PC wars to MS because the kept their products closed and proprietary. MS gets a lot of criticism, but it has probably been more open than the other dominant IT players. More than IBM was, more than Apple was/is, or look at Oracle - yikes. The openness is why their products are popular. Even so, when MS has tried to do more closed things they have not really prevailed with them. I am still waiting for someone to come along and steal Apple's cheese, like MS did last time around. Apple tends to overreach when they are winning.

Boy I have been using CS for three months and I am tickled pink. The payments are on time and average over a thousand dollars. Of course, we have quite a few titles. Some titles sell a lot -- some titles sell hardly anything. Thats book publishing on any level and authors should realize it. And the printed books from CS are good quality and the price is fairly low and the turn around time OK. Unless you have a big name publisher behind you this is the era of doing it yourself. I rmember in the old days the vanity houses would charge thousands of dollars and the authors would get nothing for their money. If you dont want CS to control some aspect of publishing you dont have to have them do it. We have a problem stocking Amazon directly cause we have so many titles. Here the ones done thru CS are printed and shipped without lifting a finger. And you can call them on the phone 24/7. Most complaints seem to be from authors who do not have that much experience as publishers.

Boy I have been using CS for three months and I am tickled pink. The payments are on time and average over a thousand dollars. Of course, we have quite a few titles. Some titles sell a lot -- some titles sell hardly anything. Thats book publishing on any level and authors should realize it. And the printed books from CS are good quality and the price is fairly low and the turn around time OK. Unless you have a big name publisher behind you this is the era of doing it yourself. I rmember in the old days the vanity houses would charge thousands of dollars and the authors would get nothing for their money. If you dont want CS to control some aspect of publishing you dont have to have them do it. We have a problem stocking Amazon directly cause we have so many titles. Here the ones done thru CS are printed and shipped without lifting a finger. And you can call them on the phone 24/7. Most complaints seem to be from authors who do not have that much experience as publishers.

I have been publishing books for years. (1965). For POD I use Lightning Source. Lulu was tried but as some have learned, they are not user friendly. CreateSpace is out of the question since it's all a build it online system and that's not at all satisfactory for anyone who wants a really professional product. The printing is okay, acceptable. But what I've noticed is that a lot of undedited, poorly written books are making it into this world and that's probably POD's biggest pitfall. We have seen competition from poorly drafted cookbooks, how to books, and other trade pubs cut into sales, but also into reader's budgets who learn too late that they had purchased junk.

Stevan, I think you're too complacent on what has been achieved. Elsevier is one of several big anti-science publishers who are fighting open-access mandates tooth and nail, not just via RWA but also individually acting against open access policies such as MIT's. Elsevier is requiring MIT authors to opt out of our OA policy (cf. http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/publishers-and-the-mit-faculty-open-access-policy/).

Thanks for the article. Natural law copyright has been revived by Libertarians through efforts such as creative commons; state-monopoly copyrights and patents are simply one solution to rewarding inventors and authors for putting their work in the public domain: an e.g. awards system without a monopoly grant would be probably more effective and voluntary instead. In any event many current legal proposals are trying to go well beyond what was originally intended. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see http://​www.Libertarian-Internation​al.org , the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization...

POGO: WHY ARE RESEARCHERS YET AGAIN BOYCOTTING INSTEAD OF KEYSTROKING? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/869-.html While the worldwide researcher community is again busy working itself up into an indignant lather with yet another publisher boycott threat, I am still haunted by a “keystroke koan”: “Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles – when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?” Not only has 100% OA been reachable through author self-archiving as of at least 1994, but over 90% of all refereed journals (published by 65% of all refereed journal publishers) have already given their explicit green light to some form of author self-archiving — with over 60% of all journals, including Elsevier’s — giving their authors the green light to self-archive their refereed final drafts (“postprint”) immediately upon acceptance for publication… So why are researchers yet again boycotting instead of keystroking, with yet another dozen years of needlessly lost research access and impact already behind us? We have met the enemy, Pogo, and it’s not Elsevier. (And this is why keystroke mandates are necessary; just keying out boycott threats to publishers is not enough.)

The cost of knowledge site was inspired by Tim Gowers's recent blog post publicly calling for action against Elsevier [1]; he recently followed it up with a great explanation on exactly what can be done next [2]. Some specific ideas: encourage the creation of free-access electronic journals, and discourage editorial teams working with high-cost publishers. Platforms like [3] are being built which look extremely promising in terms of how non-programmers can go about setting up a new online journal. There are many other efforts in these directions mentioned on the PolyMath publishing reform page [4]. [1] http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/ [2] http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/whats-wrong-with-electronic-journals/ [3] http://www.scholasticahq.com/ [4] http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_publishing_reform

Michael: There's something ironic about positioning a Facebook video-chat game as a movie killer, but if you can make it work, more power to you. It may be a sign of my age but I see these things as fundamentally different. I do a lot of gaming, and I watch a lot of movies and they're not directly substitutable for each other.

Mikael are you disagreeing with Bott's column on sabotaging ePub? Whether or not Apple stated what iBooks 2 outputs isn't the point here. The point is that Apple is promoting a book-creation program that is deliberately incompatible with everything else, including the standard Apple purports to support.

Here's our response to Paul. We're on it for reality TV: https://plus.google.com/104744911050510468464/posts/GRfzgSuST3p

Wex, The EULA states that you can't sell the output of iBooks Author anywhere but through the iBooks store. iBooks Author is a free tool to create enhanced content for the iBooks app. Apple has not stated that it outputs EPUB - but that it creates content for the iBook app. Pages, Apple's for pay word processing/ Document layout app, does indeed output standard EPUB files. As a correction, iBooks 2 (the iOS app) does indeed support standard EPUB files. I am currently reading a series that I bought directly from the author as EPUBs - and it works just fine in iBooks 2. iBooks Author cannot import them - at least not in my short experiments. I agree that the EULA is questionable, but not to the extent the paid by page view crew seem to imply.

Well, sure but... From the publications' point of view, this is unauthorized use of their works. The PTO should buy a copy if it wants to read a copy, and buy another copy if it wants to give a copy to the applicant, and buy a license to publish if it wants to publish. As far as the fair use justification - not under the Act. This use of the publications is a huge potential part of their market, and the PTO's unlicensed use of the publications undermines that market. And this is not a nonprofit educational use - patent applicants are depending on the review of prior art (whether their own review or a review performed by the PTO) for a distinct commercial purpose. At least the first and fourth factors cut strongly against a fair use finding. The problem is not a failure to recognize the fair use doctrine. The problem is that the copyright law (and the mentality it fosters) is too-encompassing. There are two real defenses of the PTO's conduct, neither of which depend on the legalistic fair use doctrine. First is that the information in these publications is not subject to copyright. Provided the PTO confines itself to using the information, and not selling copies of journals, copyright should not be implicated (even if the PTO has to copy the journal to get at the information). Copyright should cover _publication_ and distribution, not use. Second is that the PTO is doing this for the public weal (assuming arguendo that patent examination is good for the public). When a person, public or private, is using a work to advance the public good by promoting progress in science and the useful arts, copyright cannot be used to interfere with that use. The copyright law MUST be cabined by the Constitution, and since its only Constitutional authorization limits the purpose of the law, the law must give way when it no longer serves its purpose. Congress lacks the power to grant to authors a copyright enforceable against the PTO, so the copyright Congress granted to authors of journal articles cannot be enforceable against the PTO (no matter what Congress said or intended).

"so its a bit rich to complain that the world or movies and music are seeking to protect their copyright investment when tech companies and their investors seek to do exactly the same with their copyright backbone." As insipid as some of the legal battles over smartphone patents are right now, at least the tech companies haven't been pushing for legislation that could lead to serious curtailment on free speech and other fundamental rights like the film and music industries have.

Sign Me up!!

OK, so O'Dwyer looks to be going down for some kind of criminal copyright activity. Has anyone stopped to explain why his site was criminal and a search engine was not? Glad to see it's not just amateur me who's baffled by some of this stuff. One judge taking a looping detour into what we in the US would call "far left field" isn't all that rare.

Helen I'm not sure what point you're trying to make so I'm at a loss to know how to respond.

You can support technology and innovation as an art form and the creator of future business models and customer interaction and support movie creation and investment. Tech companies make tons of money out of ideas when they develop hence tech start ups and Y connector. People who create movies also need investment and create a return to re-invest in the creation of the content you wish to exploit. I'm sure your tech ideas come loaded with patents and IP so its a bit rich to complain that the world or movies and music are seeking to protect their copyright investment when tech companies and their investors seek to do exactly the same with their copyright backbone. Shouldn't we be supporting creativity across al areas and not turning on each other. Hollywood needs our support the music industry needs our support or you will have no content to deliver under your new tech ideas. Will you and your investors not protect your patent and IP?

I hasten to add that copyright infringements are not torts. They can be both a civil and criminal offence. That aside, I think you will find that many in the legal community are scratching their heads about the outcome of the bus photo case. There was a general lack of consideration of other cases in the judgment which in my opinion would have materially affected the outcome. Take for example, the creation records case.

Billy is incorrect. The 2nd Circuit Court's ruling specifically addresses this question, and found no basis in the law for the "legal importation" exemption. They ruled that only books published under US jurisdiction are subject to the First Sale doctrine; foreign-printed books aren't, no matter how they got into the US. The specific wording from the ruling (§ 109(a) is the First Sale doctrine): "While the Ninth Circuit in Omega held that § 109(a) also applies to foreign-produced copies of works sold in the United States with the permission of the copyright holder, that holding relied on Ninth Circuit precedents not adopted by other courts of appeals. Accordingly, while perhaps a close call, we think that, in light of its necessary interplay with § 602(a)(1), § 109(a) is best interpreted as applying only to copies manufactured domestically."

I have a copyright 10oz glass that is of the character Gram and unfornunatly has been cleaned in a dishwasher. It's color is gone but the character still remains in mint condition. I have looked everywhere for this glass on the web but have found nothing. Can you help me to define this glass and estimate it's value ? Sincerly Paul Driver

Of course, he's not saying "Shut up", he's saying "Don't complain here", noting the complaints that are in inappropriate threads will be deleted and telling people where they should complain.

After investing several weeks trying for a POD product produced by CS I have given up. Remote control printing of one's book, or in this case, reprinting a third edition, has nearly landed me in the luny bin.Give up. Find a dependable local print shop with which you can communicate in person.Each time an upload of an interior file is made it supposedly undergoes a professional review. But the review is strictly designed to address technical printing problems. Each time a review report came back by email it contained different issues. I finally concluded the CS objective is to force your use of so-called "professional services." For a fee, of course. Talk about trying to sell you a pig in a poke. Or for French readers: poque.

Wow, virtually every comment about CS and Amazon has been negative. Some have remarked that the spelling of some posters is, well, weak. It isn't germane to the discussion but, sheesh, you'd think writers would be able to spell! So if CS and Amazon suck big time, what are alternatives? Lulu? Any others?

> When you have little money, you buy second-hand books. Seen a second-hand ebook lately? Try coming over to India, say Bangalore. I almost exclusively buy only second-hand books.