I agree that the Harper Collins response is a significant
move.
But its also rather disappointing in that the advantages and
strength of the Google approach has been ignored in the way
that
the Harper Collins/Libre Digital platform is set up. Search
seems
to be an afterthought and access is rather non-standard.
Google's 'Book Search' solution is in some ways
surprisingly
crude -- it simply delivers JPEGs to the browser. There is
no
complicated file format. But this is in fact much preferable
and
much more scaleable than the e-book file formats that
publisher's
have hitherto favoured (and the Newsstand LibreDigital
format is
similarly e-bookish! Yet another ebook experiment with a new
format into which book lenght PDFs can be poured).Note that
the
Harper Collins library doesnot appear to have powerful and
flexible searching within and across titles. Note also that
users
will need to download some reader-software. Several blocks
or
stopping points before you can find out whether you want the
thing.
The Google approach at least puts the question on the right
footing: everything is and should be searchable, but whether
or
not you have access or full access to the text will depend
on
such matters as having the right to access, or your library
or
institution having the right to grant you access. The
'foreign
format' or ebook approach says: if you want to search this
you
are going to have to buy access and we dont guarantee that
the
goods in question have anything at all germane to your
interests.
This is the way print books have always been sold (and with
limited right of return), but it clearly isnt the way that
books
will be sold or licensed on the web.
With a web library 'access' shold be a consequence of
'search'
(mediated by various legal and commercial considerations).
With a
purely print library 'search' results from 'access'. You
consult
the index or scan the pages when/after you have located the
book.
To organise a digital library as though the content were
locked
up is completely wrong-headed and publishers should place
SEARCH
at the top of their promotion and technology strategies if
they
want them to work. Access then becomes a secondary and
implementation detail (almost certainly highly lucrative --
if
reliably delivered).
Declaration of interest -- at Exact Editions we are using a
similar approach to Google Book Search, in this respect:-
make
the foundation of the service a searchable archive and
deliver
page or issue 'views' as licence management and commercial
consideration allows. In the magazine business this means
the
publishers call the shots.
The book business is quite a bit more complex in respect of
rights! But Google will surely find out that the book
publishers
interests have to be addressed.
Adam Hodgkin
www.exacteditions.com
On 8/24/06, Joseph J. Esposito <espositoj gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The article below ("Who Needs Google?")
appeared in Publishers
> Weekly. It describes a service from a division of
Electronic
> Newstand called LibreDigital that scans and converts
books and
> makes them searchable online. Full control of what and
how much
> is viewable remains with the publisher. Note that this
is a
> SAAS (Software as a Service) implementation. IT types
need not
> apply.
>
> This is an important development (assuming the
technology
> works!). This will bring more and more content online,
where it
> can be found by any well-tuned search engine. I don't
much care
> for the headline of the article myself, but that is a
matter of
> taste. It should be said that while LibreDigital (and
other
> emerging, competing services) does much of what the
Google Print
> and Library programs proposed to do, it is highly
unlikely that
> many publishers would have invested in this route if
Google had
> not put a gun to their head.
>
> Joe Esposito
|