From jimad at msn.com Thu Nov 12 12:28:21 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:28:21 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If anyone want to "check out the competition" Amazon has just released "Kindle for the PC" Free download at: www.amazon.com/KindleForPC I installed it in about a minute, given that I already have an Amazon account I was "up and running" in less than a minute. Unlike the "hardware" versions of Kindle, there seems to be no way to import files other than directly from Amazon. Other than that, it seems like a very decent reader, but no better or perhaps worse than what they were already offering via Mobipocket. Except the new version is integrated with the Amazon online store, and the Mobipocket version isn't. Downloads are extremely fast. Also B&N has a competing hardware reader called "Nook" showing up in their stores end of this month. It includes Wi-Fi which the Kindles do not, and of course ties you to the other big book vendor. I tried reading from my PC using KindleForPC, but somehow, personally, I have no interest in seriously reading from anything that doesn't have more-or-less a book-like look and feel, such as a Kindle, or Sony Reader, or Nook for example. From dakretz at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 15:54:24 2009 From: dakretz at gmail.com (don kretz) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:54:24 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <627d59b80911121554x707520d3kdcbe96068d09b5d1@mail.gmail.com> Here's a list of "best-sellers". (It turns out that Amazon appears to use the same list for Kindle and Amazon itself, but the point is the same.) They're almost exclusively free books, and largely our bread and butter. If I download, say, "Oliver Twist" (#38.) The prologue states: "This etext was created by Peggy Gaugy. Edition 11 editing by Leigh Little." I bet somebody here can tell me what that means. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajhaines at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 16:10:27 2009 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines (shaw)) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:10:27 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG References: <627d59b80911121554x707520d3kdcbe96068d09b5d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FBFD2F9ADD34F7D99F6395E1B3D5C92@alp2400> It means that Kindle and Amazon are obtaining at least some of their books from PG. This particular Oliver Twist is PG #730 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/730), originally prepared by Peggy Gaugy and Leigh Little in November, 1996. It was checked over and generally cleaned up, and an HTML version produced, October 10, 2008 (by me, as it happens). >From the prologue wording quoted below, Kindle/Amazon have the 1996 version, not the 2008 version. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: don kretz To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:54 PM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG Here's a list of "best-sellers". (It turns out that Amazon appears to use the same list for Kindle and Amazon itself, but the point is the same.) They're almost exclusively free books, and largely our bread and butter. If I download, say, "Oliver Twist" (#38.) The prologue states: "This etext was created by Peggy Gaugy. Edition 11 editing by Leigh Little." I bet somebody here can tell me what that means. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pobox.com Thu Nov 12 16:23:35 2009 From: hart at pobox.com (Michael S. Hart) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:23:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <627d59b80911121554x707520d3kdcbe96068d09b5d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <627d59b80911121554x707520d3kdcbe96068d09b5d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, don kretz wrote: > Here's a list of "best-sellers". (It turns out that Amazon appears to use the same > list for Kindle and Amazon itself, but the point is the same.) > > They're almost exclusively free books, and largely our bread and butter. > > If I download, say, "Oliver Twist" (#38.) > > The prologue states: > > "This etext was created by Peggy Gaugy. > Edition 11 editing by Leigh Little." > > I bet somebody here can tell me what that means. Peggy Gaugy is the name of one of our volunteers, for whom we did some copyright research. mh From dakretz at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 16:45:50 2009 From: dakretz at gmail.com (don kretz) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:45:50 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: <627d59b80911121554x707520d3kdcbe96068d09b5d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <627d59b80911121645g4bdc9a13mead0e06a49f5315@mail.gmail.com> The perhaps naive conclusion I draw is that PG probably provides by a large margin more downloaded Kindle books than anyone else. Possibly over 50%. Also, that Amazon has a shot at being PG's largest distributor. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sly at victoria.tc.ca Thu Nov 12 18:06:49 2009 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:06:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <627d59b80911121645g4bdc9a13mead0e06a49f5315@mail.gmail.com> References: <627d59b80911121554x707520d3kdcbe96068d09b5d1@mail.gmail.com> <627d59b80911121645g4bdc9a13mead0e06a49f5315@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, I have found that PG texts are often used in most of the large free ebook collections you can find all over the internet. --Andrew On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, don kretz wrote: > The perhaps naive conclusion I draw is that PG probably provides by a large > margin more downloaded Kindle books than anyone else. Possibly over 50%. > > Also, that Amazon has a shot at being PG's largest distributor. From sly at victoria.tc.ca Thu Nov 12 18:20:59 2009 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:20:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I might argue that using the work "competition" is not accurate. Here is an excerpt from: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Mission_Statement_by_Michael_Hart >The mission of Project Gutenberg is simple: > > To encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks. > >This mission is, as much as possible, to encourage all those who are >interested in making eBooks and helping to give them away. And I recall reading further elaboration before, on the idea that PG should help to encourage anyone, anywhere to give away more texts. So if Amazon has become just one more of the many redistributors of PG texts, I do not think I would call it competition. --Andrew On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote: > If anyone want to "check out the competition" Amazon has just released > "Kindle for the PC" > From jayvdb at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 19:04:45 2009 From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:04:45 +1100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Sly wrote: > > I might argue that using the work "competition" is not accurate. > > Here is an excerpt from: > http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Mission_Statement_by_Michael_Hart > >>The mission of Project Gutenberg is simple: >> >> ? ?To encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks. >> >>This mission is, as much as possible, to encourage all those who are >>interested in making eBooks and helping to give them away. > > And I recall reading further elaboration before, on the idea > that PG should help to encourage anyone, anywhere to give > away more texts. So if Amazon has become just one more of > the many redistributors of PG texts, I do not think I would > call it competition. "Success" is the word that comes to mind. This is not very different from e-texts being used to reprint works that would otherwise not be economically viable to put back on the shelves. -- John Vandenberg From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Nov 12 20:40:28 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:40:28 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG Message-ID: um, well yes, amazon and the kindle are using p.g. e-texts. so is everybody else. and no, nobody goes back to pick up the "updated" versions. and given the difficulty of doing that, it's not surprising at all. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From user5013 at aol.com Fri Nov 13 12:37:55 2009 From: user5013 at aol.com (Christa & Jay Toser) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:37:55 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: is this the beginning of the end? Message-ID: <139D9E17-BA43-4ABA-9B01-883724495064@aol.com> Just to expand on one comment from Mr. Bowerbird: paul said: > Could it be that a lot of PG's books are rarely read, > and the traffic seen for these books is due to people > downloading the whole collection simply to have it? bowerbird said: could be. but i doubt there are many such people. One reason someone might download the whole collection is, they simply wish to improve their English. As anyone from a foreign country will tell you, English (especially American English) is a bizarre language with rules for grammar that have apparently random exceptions for each rule. Reading good literature in English, ANY good literature, is one way to get a handle on the language. "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar." -- Unknown Another reason someone might download the whole collection is, they are young. High school or first year college, with an undeclared major. They don't know what their final career will be. So having the whole collection means a vast library at their fingertips -- useful no matter what their future research needs. Oh heck, it doesn't have to be that they are young. I mean, if you had unlimited funds, wouldn't you wish to add on to your house, a library containing 20,000 books? That is Project Gutenberg. Would you read all 20,000 books? No. Would you read 1,000 of them? Probably. (I read a paperback book every three nights. I've been reading such since I was ten. I'm now fifty three. At a guess, that's 4,000 books.) But, it's just a matter of WHICH of those books you would read. So a Project Gutenberg client has a choice to make: Pick and choose book titles while online (and the clock is ticking); or download the whole shebang and then pick and choose at your leisure -- off line. That, I think, is where a decent percentage of the "whole library" downloads goes. "The instruction we find in books is like fire. We fetch it from our neighbors, kindle it at home, communicate it to others, and it becomes the property of all." -- Voltaire Hope this helps, Jay Toser -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klofstrom at gmail.com Fri Nov 13 13:14:46 2009 From: klofstrom at gmail.com (Karen Lofstrom) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:14:46 -1000 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: is this the beginning of the end? In-Reply-To: <139D9E17-BA43-4ABA-9B01-883724495064@aol.com> References: <139D9E17-BA43-4ABA-9B01-883724495064@aol.com> Message-ID: <1e8e65080911131314x48e0538ckae6f87fac245b6de@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Christa & Jay Toser wrote: > "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar." -- Unknown Um, the quote is from my online friend James D. Nicoll; he typed it on Usenet in 1990. The whole thing runs: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." Vocabulary transfers a lot more easily than grammar :) -- Karen Lofstrom nitpicking From prosfilaes at gmail.com Fri Nov 13 13:25:03 2009 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:25:03 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: is this the beginning of the end? In-Reply-To: <139D9E17-BA43-4ABA-9B01-883724495064@aol.com> References: <139D9E17-BA43-4ABA-9B01-883724495064@aol.com> Message-ID: <6d99d1fd0911131325t48ec5226t9f5d85f4642c9c43@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Christa & Jay Toser wrote: > So a Project Gutenberg client has a choice to make: ?Pick and choose book > titles while online (and the clock is ticking); Which is one of the cultural differences; I don't know where the line lies, but in at least US, very few people are left for whom the clock is ticking, and I think all of those are on dialup, where the concept of downloading the entire archive is inconceivable. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. From jimad at msn.com Fri Nov 13 19:15:42 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:15:42 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I am a "customer" for both PG and for Amazon. I used the word "competitor" for Amazon, in the same sense that one might use the word "competitor" when describing Microsoft from the perspective of the Free Software community. Amazon, B&N, Google, etc, all do some things that "we" PG might like, and some things that "we" PG don't like. For that matter I do some things that "PG" likes and which "PG" doesn't like. Amazon distributes free books, many of which derive from PG. Some of which include the PG legalize, some of which don't. Some "PG" books are distributed NOT for free on Amazon. Whether PG ever sees their cut of the action on these books or not I do not know -- but I have my own pet theories on that matter! Amazon also distributes electronic books for fee which besides copyright protection also contain what I think PG would consider onerous DRM restrictions which make that text of little use "forever" to the free books community. Amazon builds readers, namely Kindle, which prohibit the "normal" "fair use" policies of having public libraries lending those electronic books for an exclusive and limited period of time. Further, Amazon restricts forever the sale of those books to a different owner for use on a different Kindle reader. Amazon also distributes books in their own proprietary file format, AWZ, which includes the DRM. The new B&N reader appears that it will be somewhat less onerous in many of these areas. Etc. But B&N sticks a lot of silly copyrights on things where many of us think there ought not to be a copyright claim. Is Google a "friend" or an "enemy?" Well, the also distribute free books. But they slap IMHO silly legalese-like messages on those "free books" that has the practical effect of claiming that Google is the owner of those books, whereas some of us believe that Google ISN'T in fact the owner of those books -- rather the public is the owner of those books by nature of having paid for them over and over again during the duration of their legal copyright -- which is now expired. So personally I consider all these businesses to be frenemies -- and I take what positive I can from them, while trying to stay away from those parts of their actions I consider most onerous! But, I am a pragmatist, and an omnivore when it comes to my reading habits. I am happy to pay for books still in copyright, but I would rather not continue to pay for books that are no longer under copyright [that have risen to the public domain] and I am personally happy to steer clear completely of those works that the millennium copyright bill put back into copyright that ought to have damned well have risen to the public domain by now! From jimad at msn.com Fri Nov 13 21:59:21 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:59:21 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Below find an updated discussion of Google behavior relating to the issue of "Free Books" that many find troubling: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534670350244040.ht ml From hart at pobox.com Sat Nov 14 07:19:15 2009 From: hart at pobox.com (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:19:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This may be only available to subscribers. . .I got strange results. mh On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote: > Below find an updated discussion of Google behavior relating to the issue of > "Free Books" that many find troubling: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534670350244040.ht > ml > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From dakretz at gmail.com Sat Nov 14 11:25:42 2009 From: dakretz at gmail.com (don kretz) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:25:42 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <627d59b80911141125v7e16958bk6219a119be556946@mail.gmail.com> Yes. I've seen that referred to as "Rupert Murdoch's Wall". There's some irony in the way it illustrates another aspect of the same point. On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Michael S. Hart wrote: > > This may be only available to subscribers. . .I got strange results. > > > mh > > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote: > > > Below find an updated discussion of Google behavior relating to the issue > of > > "Free Books" that many find troubling: > > > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534670350244040.ht > > ml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Sun Nov 15 12:33:33 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:33:33 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry [re the Murdoch Iron Curtain], try Googling on: Google, Authors, Publishers Offer Revised Book Pact And pick the first hit that Google returns to "Wall Street Journal" and I think Murdock will give you "free" access to the full article. From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Nov 15 14:23:21 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:23:21 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG Message-ID: just as a reminder, in regard to the word "competition" in the subject-header of this thread, michael hart's emphasis on "unlimited distribution" means that _any_ use of the p.g. e-texts is to be considered as a "win", and thus the term "competition" would be out of place. good to remind ourselves of that every once in a while. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pobox.com Sun Nov 15 22:22:15 2009 From: hart at pobox.com (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:22:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It all depends on whether you think Amazon has us working for them, or whether you think Project Gutenberg has Amazon working for us... mh On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > just as a reminder, in regard to the word "competition" > in the subject-header of this thread, michael hart's > emphasis on "unlimited distribution" means that _any_ > use of the p.g. e-texts is to be considered as a "win", > and thus the term "competition" would be out of place. > > good to remind ourselves of that every once in a while. > > -bowerbird > > From jimad at msn.com Mon Nov 16 14:23:34 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:23:34 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When I speak of "competition" it is in the context of taking a good close honest look at what PG contributes to the world, for good or for bad, in comparison to that which others contribute to the world, for good or for bad. For example Google *claims* a slogan of "Do No Evil" but as one who has had to work with Google, I find the slogan laughable. Whether you want to call them "competition", "frenemies", "other ways for readers to get good books to read, etc." shouldn't stop you from taking a good hard look at what PG is doing verses what "the other guy" is doing - and seeing what one can learn from them. I work a lot on a volunteer basis for one non-profit which "competes" with other non-profits, and we always need to ask ourselves how what we do interacts with what the "competition" is doing - even though both sides would agree we are serving the public good. Then again, most for-profit enterprises ALSO believe they are serving the public good! The argument can always be made: if you don't like what we offer then just don't buy it! Re "Unlimited Distribution" PG puts *some* legal terms on those distributions, terms which presumably PG means. If some individuals or organizations violate the terms of these distributions, then presumable PG *would not* consider that a "win." If PG *does* consider the distribution a "win" even when distributed contrary to the stated terms, then I would suggest that PG needs to alter or remove the terms. Also PG lives and dies via copyright law, and I would think that PG would find any company or government action which takes books out of the public domain, or which moves them from a limbo status back into a private ownership status, or which violates a reasonable rational spirit of the Article 1 of the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" - any of these are bad things from the PG point of view and therefore represents "competition." The whole Google limbo thing - I would claim - arisen because of the Mickey Mouse extensions to copyright duration such that publishers really aren't interested in supporting a work of art anymore -- but they are also interested in making sure that no one else can support that work of art either! Further, in my interactions with PG in terms of trying to get them to support distribution on this that or the other E-book reader, and in terms of Michael's comments on this forum, it would seem to me in practice PG is very conflicted re the issue of distribution to "support" this that or the other E-book reader, presumably because at least some people associated with PG are pretty uncomfortable about many of the DRM side-effects associated with the growth of those E-book readers. Personally, I find many of the DRM issues uncomfortable also, but again, I am an omnivore when it comes to my reading, and I usually find it pretty easy to "route around" the greatest stupidities in for-profit companies offerings and still read what I want to read - and without stealing anything. One of the most uncomfortable things about the Kindle DRM scheme, for example, is that it prevents lending of E-Books by libraries to Kindle users - and I think that is a pretty bad thing! Also "competition" is a good thing, and tends eventually to limit the extent that for-profit companies can do stupid things - look for example how the music market has played out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Mon Nov 16 15:17:16 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As to the major points made below: 1. The more people PG eBooks get to, the more successful we are. Period! If our efforts are multiplied by those of Amazon, Sony, et. al. then a whole world should be better off for it. Personally, I would have the effort be one of cooperation, thanks, and reinvestment. 2. If you look at "Eldred v Ashcroft" which was previously labeled as per "Hart v Reno" you will see that our copyright law must consider itself to be permanent for all practical intents and purposes. 3. Even it not permanent, anything new you expose your 5 year olds to now won't have the copyright expire until they are 100 years old. That is certainly permanent enough for me, as I cannot legally show the movies I was FORCED to see when studying slavery in grade school, which would have been public domain no more than 56 years after copyrighted, which means the CONTINUITY OF OUR CULTURE is being left to corporations that have "lifespans" of over 100 years, but attention spans of 1 quarter. On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote: > > When I speak of ?competition? it is in the context of taking a good close honest look at what PG > contributes to the world, for good or for bad, in comparison to that which others contribute to the > world, for good or for bad.? For example Google *claims* a slogan of ?Do No Evil? but as one who has had > to work with Google, I find the slogan laughable.? Whether you want to call them ?competition?, > ?frenemies?, ?other ways for readers to get good books to read, etc.? shouldn?t stop you from taking a > good hard look at what PG is doing verses what ?the other guy? is doing ? and seeing what one can learn > from them.? I work a lot on a volunteer basis for one non-profit which ?competes? with other > non-profits, and we always need to ask ourselves how what we do interacts with what the ?competition? is > doing ? even though both sides would agree we are serving the public good.? Then again, most for-profit > enterprises ALSO believe they are serving the public good!? The argument can always be made: if you > don?t like what we offer then just don?t buy it! > > ? > > Re ?Unlimited Distribution? PG puts *some* legal terms on those distributions, terms which presumably PG > means.? If some individuals or organizations violate the terms of these distributions, then presumable > PG *would not* consider that a ?win.?? If PG *does* consider the distribution a ?win? even when > distributed contrary to the stated terms, then I would suggest that PG needs to alter or remove the > terms. Also PG lives and dies via copyright law, and I would think that PG would find any company or > government action which takes books out of the public domain, or which moves them from a limbo status > back into a private ownership status, or which violates a reasonable rational spirit of the Article 1 of > the Constitution: ?To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to > Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries? ? any of these > are bad things from the PG point of view and therefore represents ?competition.? The whole Google limbo > thing ? I would claim ? arisen because of the Mickey Mouse extensions to copyright duration such that > publishers really aren?t interested in supporting a work of art anymore -- but they are also interested > in making sure that no one else can support that work of art either! > > ? > > Further, in my interactions with PG in terms of trying to get them to support distribution on this that > or the other E-book reader, and in terms of Michael?s comments on this forum, it would seem to me in > practice PG is very conflicted re the issue of distribution to ?support? this that or the other E-book > reader, presumably because at least some people associated with PG are pretty uncomfortable about many > of the DRM side-effects associated with the growth of those E-book readers. Personally, I find many of > the DRM issues uncomfortable also, but again, I am an omnivore when it comes to my reading, and I > usually find it pretty easy to ?route around? the greatest stupidities in for-profit companies offerings > and still read what I want to read ? and without stealing anything. One of the most uncomfortable things > about the Kindle DRM scheme, for example, is that it prevents lending of E-Books by libraries to Kindle > users ? and I think that is a pretty bad thing!? Also ?competition? is a good thing, and tends > eventually to limit the extent that for-profit companies can do stupid things ? look for example how the > music market has played out. > > ? > > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Nov 17 16:51:49 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:51:49 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: the creator of the cyberspace library Message-ID: michael said: > It all depends on whether you think Amazon has us working for them, > or whether you think Project Gutenberg has Amazon working for us... and this is why you are the most brilliant man in e-books, michael, the person who invented them, the creator of the cyberspace library. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Wed Nov 18 15:42:57 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:42:57 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >1. The more people PG eBooks get to, the more successful we are. Period! > If our efforts are multiplied by those of Amazon, Sony, et. al. then a > whole world should be better off for it. Personally, I would have the > effort be one of cooperation, thanks, and reinvestment. Not disagreeing with anything you said, but, in practice many people with E-book readers find at least the amount of some of the PG legalese at the start of some PG E-books to be off-putting -- given that when reading on E-books the legalese can run about a dozen pages. Now on some of EPUBs and MOBIs that PG distributes the bulk of the legalese is moved to the back of the book, but in other cases it's in the front. Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an na?ve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese. For example, see Huck Finn #76 where I just counted the pages of legalese at the start of the book when read in MOBI format and it came to literally a dozen pages. Also, the legalese tends to come out not even formatted correctly, which also doesn't help first impressions. From ajhaines at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 09:16:56 2009 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines (shaw)) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:16:56 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG References: Message-ID: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> Many of PG's very old etexts (which #76 certainly qualifies as) have considerable legalese at both the front and the back. Etexts since about #4000-#5000 have most of it at the back, with only the book's basic info at the front. Old etexts that get cleaned up and reposted have their old legalese removed and replaced with the current material. Re #76 - you must be looking at a very old version of it. The current version, reposted in 2006, has only the book's basic info at the front and all the legalese at the back. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Adcock" To: "'Michael S. Hart'" ; "'Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion'" Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:42 PM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG > >1. The more people PG eBooks get to, the more successful we are. > >Period! >> If our efforts are multiplied by those of Amazon, Sony, et. al. then a >> whole world should be better off for it. Personally, I would have the >> effort be one of cooperation, thanks, and reinvestment. > > Not disagreeing with anything you said, but, in practice many people with > E-book readers find at least the amount of some of the PG legalese at the > start of some PG E-books to be off-putting -- given that when reading on > E-books the legalese can run about a dozen pages. Now on some of EPUBs > and MOBIs that PG distributes the bulk of the legalese is moved to the > back of the book, but in other cases it's in the front. Suggest if you > want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be > better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. > Further, an na?ve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be > made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to > share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the > legalese. > > For example, see Huck Finn #76 where I just counted the pages of legalese > at the start of the book when read in MOBI format and it came to literally > a dozen pages. Also, the legalese tends to come out not even formatted > correctly, which also doesn't help first impressions. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From sly at victoria.tc.ca Thu Nov 19 09:28:28 2009 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:28:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> References: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Al Haines (shaw) wrote: > Many of PG's very old etexts (which #76 certainly qualifies as) have >considerable legalese at both the front and the back. Etexts since about >#4000-#5000 have most of it at the back, with only the book's basic info >at the front. Old etexts that get cleaned up and reposted have their >old legalese removed and replaced with the current material. Just a small nit-picky clarification here. The early texts had _all_ the legalese at the front, with only a short "End of this Project Gutenberg Etext" line at the end. See for example: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3999/old/im86b10.txt --Andrew From ajhaines at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 09:35:04 2009 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines (shaw)) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:35:04 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG References: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> Message-ID: Andrew is correct. Mea culpa. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Sly" To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:28 AM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG > > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Al Haines (shaw) wrote: > >> Many of PG's very old etexts (which #76 certainly qualifies as) have >>considerable legalese at both the front and the back. Etexts since about >>#4000-#5000 have most of it at the back, with only the book's basic info >>at the front. Old etexts that get cleaned up and reposted have their >>old legalese removed and replaced with the current material. > > > Just a small nit-picky clarification here. The early texts had _all_ > the legalese at the front, with only a short "End of this Project > Gutenberg Etext" line at the end. > > See for example: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3999/old/im86b10.txt > > --Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Nov 19 10:17:20 2009 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:17:20 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> Jim Adcock wrote: > Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG > books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk > of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an na?ve reader > who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous > about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books > with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese. About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they have indeed downloaded an *English* book? Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free. A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because: - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From jimad at msn.com Thu Nov 19 11:31:32 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:31:32 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> References: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> Message-ID: Not sure what you mean by an "old" version of #76. Yesterday I go to the PG website. I say "Mark Twain." It give me a list of texts. I saw OKAY give me #76 in MOBI format. I read a page of two of introductory stuff like table of contents, and then I am hit with 12 pages of legalese. Re "Old stuff vs. New Stuff" on PG -- guess which customers download and read more often? >Re #76 - you must be looking at a very old version of it. The current >version, reposted in 2006, has only the book's basic info at the front and >all the legalese at the back. From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Nov 19 11:55:12 2009 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:55:12 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> Message-ID: <4B05A2A0.2080803@perathoner.de> James Adcock wrote: > Not sure what you mean by an "old" version of #76. Yesterday I go to > the PG website. I say "Mark Twain." It give me a list of texts. I > saw OKAY give me #76 in MOBI format. I read a page of two of > introductory stuff like table of contents, and then I am hit with 12 > pages of legalese. #76 is a book split into multiple html files, mobi format is just one file, so you have to put all parts of #76 in some order and then bake them sequentially into the mobi. (Same goes for epub, plucker etc.) The file that comes up first in the mobi format (unsurprisingly) is the TOC, you are supposed to follow the links to the parts. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From hart at pglaf.org Thu Nov 19 12:07:00 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:07:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> Message-ID: I though we decided long ago to move most of the legalese to the end, just for these reasons. . .VERY hard on small screens. mh On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > Jim Adcock wrote: > > > Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG > > books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk > > of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an na?ve reader > > who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous > > about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books > > with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese. > > About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get > pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they > have indeed downloaded an *English* book? > > > Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the > legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but > the cutting out is for free. > > > A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain > license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg > etc. would have done a much better job because: > > - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, > - readers would have actually understood the meaning, > - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been > kept by at least some republisher and so > - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. > > > The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation > goes to great pains to just damage itself. > > > > From hart at pglaf.org Thu Nov 19 12:07:59 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:07:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> Message-ID: Do we have any other percentages of where our readers hail from? mh On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > Jim Adcock wrote: > > > Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG > > books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk > > of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an na?ve reader > > who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous > > about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books > > with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese. > > About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get pretty > nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they have indeed > downloaded an *English* book? > > > Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese > cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out > is for free. > > > A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license > and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have > done a much better job because: > > - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, > - readers would have actually understood the meaning, > - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been > kept by at least some republisher and so > - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. > > > The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes > to great pains to just damage itself. > > > > From gbnewby at pglaf.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:14 2009 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:41:14 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <20091119204113.GI7368@pglaf.org> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:07:00PM -0800, Michael S. Hart wrote: > > I though we decided long ago to move most of the legalese to the end, > just for these reasons. . .VERY hard on small screens. > We did. There is not a whole lot up top -- just the short paragraph legalese, and metadata. The "*** START OF" and "*** END OF" have been reliable indicators of where the eBook content starts for very many years (since at least #2000 or so). There are still hundreds of titles that have not been updated from the old-style, where legalese is up top. But this is a relatively small number. -- Greg > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > > > Jim Adcock wrote: > > > > > Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG > > > books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk > > > of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an na?ve reader > > > who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous > > > about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books > > > with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese. > > > > About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get > > pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they > > have indeed downloaded an *English* book? > > > > > > Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the > > legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but > > the cutting out is for free. > > > > > > A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain > > license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg > > etc. would have done a much better job because: > > > > - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, > > - readers would have actually understood the meaning, > > - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been > > kept by at least some republisher and so > > - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. > > > > > > The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation > > goes to great pains to just damage itself. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From gbnewby at pglaf.org Thu Nov 19 12:58:30 2009 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:58:30 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <20091119205830.GK7368@pglaf.org> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:17:20PM +0100, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > Jim Adcock wrote: > Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the > legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but > the cutting out is for free. > > > A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain > license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg > etc. would have done a much better job because: > > - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, > - readers would have actually understood the meaning, > - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been > kept by at least some republisher and so > - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. > > > The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation > goes to great pains to just damage itself. This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even thought of. The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up. Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg name may be used in conjunction with variations. The current header, with the boilerplate up top, is very close to your "simple pointer" suggestion above. The far longer "small print," after the text, can be reformatted, put in a separate file, etc. While this *could* be referenced by a URL or somesuch, everyone recognizes that the eBook files tend to be redistributed independently of the gutenberg.org site, and that's why they start out at gutenberg.org with the long small print attached. With the structure of the current small print (which has been in place since #2000 or so, and retroactively applied to most of everything else), I think it's as friendly as any other title page, spash page, etc. for mobile devices. All that said, it's certainly possible to change the layout or content of the license. But I don't see how what is suggested above, for header content, is sigificantly different from what we are doing now. -- Greg From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Nov 19 13:11:33 2009 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:11:33 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <4B05B485.8050704@perathoner.de> Michael S. Hart wrote: > Do we have any other percentages of where our readers hail from? http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gutenberg.org -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From jimad at msn.com Thu Nov 19 13:52:40 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:52:40 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <4B05A2A0.2080803@perathoner.de> References: <4E4548E565FE4B5681AFAA3685FAF2FD@alp2400> <4B05A2A0.2080803@perathoner.de> Message-ID: >The file that comes up first in the mobi format (unsurprisingly) is the >TOC, you are supposed to follow the links to the parts. Don't know of any users of E-book readers who actually ever follow links in the TOC, perhaps in part because clicking on the links in the TOCs doesn't even work on many E-book readers. First Gen Kindles "worked" on TOC, more recent generations do not. What I do know many users of E-book readers do do is complain endlessly about the amount of PG legalese they have to scroll through at the start of PG books, and how as far as they are concerned these stuff makes PG books intolerable as far as they are concerned so they like getting books somewhere else like mobileread (which are typically just PG books with the legalese removed) For some people the PG legalese offends their esthetics of the book experience so much that they will not even consider the PG books. (PG txt conventions offend my sense of esthetics, but that is a different topic) From jimad at msn.com Thu Nov 19 14:45:59 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:45:59 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <20091119205830.GK7368@pglaf.org> References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> <20091119205830.GK7368@pglaf.org> Message-ID: Sorry, but in your-all cut-and-paste efforts you have assigned blame to me (jimad) for some email that someone else wrote -- not me. Not one word of what you-all attributed to me below was actually written by me. -----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Newby Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:59 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:17:20PM +0100, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > Jim Adcock wrote: > Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the > legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but > the cutting out is for free. > > > A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain > license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg > etc. would have done a much better job because: > > - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, > - readers would have actually understood the meaning, > - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been > kept by at least some republisher and so > - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. > > > The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation > goes to great pains to just damage itself. This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even thought of. The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up. Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg name may be used in conjunction with variations. The current header, with the boilerplate up top, is very close to your "simple pointer" suggestion above. The far longer "small print," after the text, can be reformatted, put in a separate file, etc. While this *could* be referenced by a URL or somesuch, everyone recognizes that the eBook files tend to be redistributed independently of the gutenberg.org site, and that's why they start out at gutenberg.org with the long small print attached. With the structure of the current small print (which has been in place since #2000 or so, and retroactively applied to most of everything else), I think it's as friendly as any other title page, spash page, etc. for mobile devices. All that said, it's certainly possible to change the layout or content of the license. But I don't see how what is suggested above, for header content, is sigificantly different from what we are doing now. -- Greg _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Nov 19 15:59:18 2009 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:59:18 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG In-Reply-To: <20091119205830.GK7368@pglaf.org> References: <4B058BB0.9080800@perathoner.de> <20091119205830.GK7368@pglaf.org> Message-ID: <4B05DBD6.8030609@perathoner.de> Greg Newby wrote: >> The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation >> goes to great pains to just damage itself. > > This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, > was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on > GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many > thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even > thought of. And a decade after CC was established, why doesn't PG switch? > The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to > explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use > of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words > (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even > understand why you're bringing this up. You need to be a lawyer to understand that byzantine point. People rightly judge that nobody would expend that many words if they just wanted to give something away. If something looks like a used car sales contract and reads like a used car sales contract then they think it is a used car sales contract. 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. Surely an onerous thing to have to do if you just want to read a PD book. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Here we are claiming bogus copyrights. You don't get a copyright for throwing together a motley collection that has no inclusion standard other than that you could somehow get hold of one copy of the book. And then DP would hold that copyright and not PG. > Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is > not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. > Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a > limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that > the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg > name may be used in conjunction with variations. You don't see Penguin print an essay about trademarks in each book. So why do we? Just say: This is the Project Gutenberg (tm) ebook of ... AFAICS everybody republishes PG texts with the license removed anyway. The license just makes sure people remove the Project Gutenberg name from each and every book they republish. How many 'royalties' did the trademark earn us anyway? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From gbnewby at pglaf.org Mon Nov 23 10:33:30 2009 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:33:30 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) Message-ID: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> The number of requests to help@ for kindle and similar device support has grown quite a lot, and so I finally spent some time writing a how-to for this topic. Your feedback is requested: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:MobileReader_Devices_How-To I included a link to James Adcock's magic catalog, but am not sure whether this is updated regularly/automatically. I would also be happy to link to good external content. The main thing I don't want to do it provide all the details for all devices, since that will be hard to verify and maintain. While this page is in the protected content area, there is already a page set up for user-contributed content, where I would love to see some more detailed advice on specific devices, conversion programs, etc.: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:The_Project_Gutenberg_Wiki TIA. Greg From jimad at msn.com Mon Nov 23 21:18:40 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:18:40 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> Message-ID: Cool. I would point out that it would be nice if PG created Ebook-reader-friendly "landing pads" for each of the books in a particular format -- ie MOBI and EPUB. The current "landing pad" pages for each book are virtually impossible to use with Ebook-readers, so it is not possible to create a "Magic Catalog" using a proper "landing pad" approach. IE the recommendation: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12345 in http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Information_About_Linking_to_our_Pag es really doesn't work for E-book readers so one can't use that approach -- because it doesn't work. If you had such proper "landing pads" then you could include links such as "How to Donate", and "About Us" etc. Also, if you want to encourage tools such as "Magic Catalog" then it would be cool to publish the PG catalogs in a format that can be easily and reliably parsed, including info on whether a particular book is illustrated or not (Many ebook users do not want the illustrated version since it takes too long over "mobile phone" links) Also it would be cool if someone took on the issue of using netbooks as-if they are Ebook-readers, because that would be a way to support a "Generic" Ebook-reader that would be agnostic about where one gets one's books from -- including PG. Manybooks.net has a E-book friendly version at: mnybks.net if you want to see an interface that Ebook-readers do reasonably well support. freekindlebooks.org also has an Ebook-reader friendly interface -- one that doesn't even assume a search box capability! From marcello at perathoner.de Tue Nov 24 05:41:33 2009 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:41:33 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> Message-ID: <4B0BE28D.1080007@perathoner.de> Jim Adcock wrote: > Cool. I would point out that it would be nice if PG created > Ebook-reader-friendly "landing pads" for each of the books in a particular > format -- ie MOBI and EPUB. The current "landing pad" pages for each book > are virtually impossible to use with Ebook-readers, so it is not possible to > create a "Magic Catalog" using a proper "landing pad" approach. What is a "magic catalog"? You don't need landing pages, you can go directly to the epub/mobi. > If you had such proper "landing pads" then you could include links such as > "How to Donate", and "About Us" etc. Also, if you want to encourage tools > such as "Magic Catalog" then it would be cool to publish the PG catalogs in > a format that can be easily and reliably parsed, Try the RDF/XML catalog: http://www.gutenberg.org/feeds/catalog.rdf.bz2 > including info on whether a > particular book is illustrated or not (Many ebook users do not want the > illustrated version since it takes too long over "mobile phone" links) We have no information about the 'illustration' status of an ebook. Sometimes the producers include ornaments and drop caps as images, so we cannot claim 'illustrated' if we find images. > Also it would be cool if someone took on the issue of using netbooks as-if > they are Ebook-readers, because that would be a way to support a "Generic" > Ebook-reader that would be agnostic about where one gets one's books from -- > including PG. Huh? Please illustrate. > Manybooks.net has a E-book friendly version at: > > mnybks.net Which concept is already outdated. The new kid on the block is the "Open Publication Distribution System": http://code.google.com/p/openpub/wiki/OPDS which PG will eventually support. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From desrod at gnu-designs.com Tue Nov 24 09:39:06 2009 From: desrod at gnu-designs.com (David A. Desrosiers) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:39:06 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: <4B0BE28D.1080007@perathoner.de> References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> <4B0BE28D.1080007@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <1259084346.26779.1.camel@galaeus> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > What is a "magic catalog"? If I understand your definition of "magic catalog", I created one for the Plucker site: http://www.plkr.org/samples > You don't need landing pages, you can go directly to the epub/mobi. Exactly. I did something similar, but with a bit more intelligence, so the ebooks that weren't available in the intended format, were striked-out (see the page above for example). No need to change the way PG displays their pages, you just need to change the way you think about reusing them. From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Nov 24 14:05:47 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:05:47 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] it's that time of year again Message-ID: i wait all year for this time. what, you ask, thanksgiving? well, yeah. but not exactly... see, 4 years ago, david rothman of teleread.com -- who's affectionately known as "the idiot" by david moynihan -- made me a little bet, and every year at this time i revisit it. david, like his best buddy jon noring, had repeated for years that "within 5 years, we will have cheap high-quality screens, and e-reader-machines will be readily available for just $50." well, along about 2001, i started pointed out to jon noring that he had been spouting that line for 5 years already, all without his big "prediction" ever coming true. finally, after a few years of that, noring finally stopped spewing that particular untruth. but rothman never got the message, and kept on babbling his insane prediction. i called him on it, repeatedly, such as: > http://www.teleread.org/blog/2005/11/29/you-can-buy-the-mit-100-laptop-for-200/ rothman responded, in november of 2005, with: > Folks, tune in a year from now, and we?ll see who?s right. > The MIT Media Lab has suffered its share of debacles, > but I?d bet my money on it in this case so i took rothman up on the offer, even extending out the bet. i said that if there were a $50 e-book machine within 5 years, i would buy it for him, or -- if he preferred -- a tofu turkey... so every year, around this time, i "check back" to laugh at him. 2006 came and went, and i was right. 2007 and 2008 as well. now it's 2009, and there's no $50 e-book-machine out there. so, after checking back for 4 straight years, i'm _still_ right... rothman's crystal ball is severely cracked. it always has been. that people listen to the man is a testament to their stupidity. tech-wise, he couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag... and has david learned anything? nope. he's still just as stupid as ever, still acting like a cheap machine is "around the corner", still using his blog to trumpet up whatever bucket of gullibility a screen-technology p.r. person is willing to type up for him... meanwhile... my bet that it would take until 2011 to hit an inexpensive price-point is looking to be accurate as the years roll by. key to it is if/when the pixel qi screen attains its promise. but now in 2009? well, david, you were wrong, i was right. at any rate, have a very lovely thanksgiving, everyone... even you -- david -- and i hope that crow tastes good. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joey at joeysmith.com Tue Nov 24 15:33:52 2009 From: joey at joeysmith.com (Joey Smith) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:33:52 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091124233352.GA14792@joeysmith.com> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:05:47PM -0500, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > see, 4 years ago, david rothman of teleread.com -- who's > affectionately known as "the idiot" by david moynihan -- > made me a little bet, and every year at this time i revisit it. [snip] > so i took rothman up on the offer, even extending out the bet. > i said that if there were a $50 e-book machine within 5 years, > i would buy it for him, or -- if he preferred -- a tofu turkey... > > so every year, around this time, i "check back" to laugh at him. > > 2006 came and went, and i was right. 2007 and 2008 as well. > now it's 2009, and there's no $50 e-book-machine out there. Who defines the requirements to meet this particular bet? Because I purchased a first-generation iPhone almost 8 months ago, and it works just fine in my opinion as an "e-book machine". And how much did I pay for it? $50 plus tax and shipping From joey at joeysmith.com Tue Nov 24 15:37:43 2009 From: joey at joeysmith.com (Joey Smith) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:37:43 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091124233743.GB14792@joeysmith.com> In fact, with a bit of Google-fu, I see an ad [1] claiming I could have gotten that same device for $50 almost a year ago. [1] http://www.wirelessandmobilenews.com/2008/12/best_after_xmas_holiday_wirless_cell_phone_and_smarphone_deals_discounts_-_50_iphone_refurb.html From davidrothman at pobox.com Tue Nov 24 16:14:49 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:14:49 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B0C76F9.7030003@pobox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Nov 24 16:16:38 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:16:38 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again Message-ID: joey said: > Who defines the requirements to meet this particular bet? rothman is the one who's been making all the promises, so you'll have to get him to specify the exact conditions. which, of course, he won't do, because he specializes in vague. which, of course, is what he must do since he is selling snake-oil. (roll-up screens! color e-ink! more!) but if we must be pedantic for you, joey, i'll specify that it has to be new (no refurbs) at a widely-available price. of course, if we want to interpret rothman more liberally, he implies these cheap e-reader-machines would be sold "like calculators", in blister-packs at the local drug-store. (his whole notion was based on price-cuts via large scale.) as you will see, if you go back and read the original post, i predicted that such a machine _would_ become available, at that price, around the time that _lunch_ costs that much. but rothman would have had people believing that it was "right around the corner", some 5-10 years ago. wrong! -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Nov 24 16:27:04 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:27:04 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: david said: > Exactly when will these good things happen? good question. some things are pretty obvious, the only question is about their exact _timing_... > As I've said before, who's to say for sure precisely when? david, for years and years and years, you've been saying -- directly and indirectly -- that these developments are "right around the corner..." and you breathlessly promote every press release on the next "upcoming thing" as if it were _real_, when it's perfectly clear it's hype and marketing. you're a sucker, plain and simple, one born every minute. > But we should be looking ahead to the time when > e-book technology is going to get much better. yep. there's always jam tomorrow, but never jam today. every day, day after day, there's always jam tomorrow... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Tue Nov 24 18:15:40 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:15:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you want a really cheep ereaders, I have a dirt cheap MP3 player that came from Taiwan, complete with ereader software built in. Go Figure!!! From hart at pglaf.org Tue Nov 24 18:19:25 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:19:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Joey Re: Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: <20091124233743.GB14792@joeysmith.com> References: <20091124233743.GB14792@joeysmith.com> Message-ID: If anyone sees iPhones like that this year, let me know. . . . mh On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Joey Smith wrote: > In fact, with a bit of Google-fu, I see an ad [1] claiming I could have > gotten that same device for $50 almost a year ago. > > [1] http://www.wirelessandmobilenews.com/2008/12/best_after_xmas_holiday_wirless_cell_phone_and_smarphone_deals_discounts_-_50_iphone_refurb.html > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From dakretz at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 18:27:31 2009 From: dakretz at gmail.com (don kretz) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:27:31 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Joey Re: Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: <20091124233743.GB14792@joeysmith.com> Message-ID: <627d59b80911241827q54135584u2235a9c1377120a@mail.gmail.com> ... and without an AT&T contract. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael S. Hart wrote: > > If anyone sees iPhones like that this year, let me know. . . . > > > mh > > > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Joey Smith wrote: > > > In fact, with a bit of Google-fu, I see an ad [1] claiming I could have > > gotten that same device for $50 almost a year ago. > > > > [1] > http://www.wirelessandmobilenews.com/2008/12/best_after_xmas_holiday_wirless_cell_phone_and_smarphone_deals_discounts_-_50_iphone_refurb.html > > _______________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidrothman at pobox.com Tue Nov 24 19:21:12 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:21:12 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Joey Re: Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: <20091124233743.GB14792@joeysmith.com> Message-ID: <4B0CA2A8.80607@pobox.com> > If anyone sees iPhones like that this year, let me know. . . . Meanwhile bargain hunters can check out eBay for various brands. Handy link: http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?LH_BIN=1&LH_IncludeSIF=1&_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A2465&_nkw=pda&_ipg=100&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 A 32MB Compaq Ipaq ("guaranteed fully working") with a brand-new battery is $45 with free U.S. shipping. URL is: http://cgi.ebay.com/COMPAQ-IPAQ-3630-3635-32MB-POCKET-PC-HANDHELD-PDA_W0QQitemZ360209346893QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPDA_s_Pocket_PC_s?hash=item53de26714d And that's just one example of the possibilities, and probably not the best. David Rothman TeleRead.org Michael S. Hart wrote: > If anyone sees iPhones like that this year, let me know. . . . > > > mh > > > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Joey Smith wrote: > > >> In fact, with a bit of Google-fu, I see an ad [1] claiming I could have >> gotten that same device for $50 almost a year ago. >> >> [1] http://www.wirelessandmobilenews.com/2008/12/best_after_xmas_holiday_wirless_cell_phone_and_smarphone_deals_discounts_-_50_iphone_refurb.html >> _______________________________________________ >> gutvol-d mailing list >> gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org >> http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d >> >> > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Nov 24 19:29:34 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:29:34 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Joey=A0_Re=3A=A0_Re=3A_it=27s_that_time_of_yea?= =?iso-8859-1?q?r_again?= Message-ID: if you really want a cheap machine for e-books, rather than futz around with some used p.d.a., just pay the $90 that ebookwise now wants for one of their rocketbooks, or whatever they are called nowadays; people still love that machine. and if you want a good machine, buy an itouch; you will not feel that you wasted your money... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 27 04:34:35 2009 From: walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl (Walter van Holst) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:34:35 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: <4B0C76F9.7030003@pobox.com> References: <4B0C76F9.7030003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4B0FC75B.2060002@xs4all.nl> David H. Rothman schreef: > And, yes, thanks to Pixel Qi and E Ink, some interesting possibilities > are ahead to reduce hardware prices and sharpen the view. Exactly when > will these good things happen? As I've said before, who's to say for > sure precisely when? But we should be looking ahead to the time when > e-book technology is going to get much better. Not anywhere near the $50 (which won't buy you a good diner over here anymore), but I've seen Cool-ER's in mainstream electronics stores for under 300 Euro nowadays. When I got my iRex iLiad a few years ago, you could only get it at a specific bookstore chain, not mention at a somewhat different price point. To me this means that e-readers are becoming 'normal'. Regards, Walter From hart at pglaf.org Fri Nov 27 20:48:55 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:48:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Walter van Holst wrote: > David H. Rothman schreef: > > > And, yes, thanks to Pixel Qi and E Ink, some interesting possibilities are > > ahead to reduce hardware prices and sharpen the view. Exactly when will > > these good things happen? As I've said before, who's to say for sure > > precisely when? But we should be looking ahead to the time when e-book > > technology is going to get much better. > > Not anywhere near the $50 (which won't buy you a good diner over here > anymore), but I've seen Cool-ER's in mainstream electronics stores for under > 300 Euro nowadays. When I got my iRex iLiad a few years ago, you could only > get it at a specific bookstore chain, not mention at a somewhat different > price point. To me this means that e-readers are becoming 'normal'. I don't consider it "normal" when someone pays 300 euros for a dedicated eBook gizmo at the same time I pay 275 dollars for a full Windows netbook. Actually, given that this was "Black Friday" in the US., I saw a name brand of 10" netbook, 8 hour battery, 160G hard drive, wifi, ports, etc., for $229, the thing was even cheaper over the counter at the store than online. Go figure. Other places were offering similar netbooks for $99 if you signed up for stuff via two contracts, but I never recommend that, nor do I usually mention brand. I still don't understand why anyone would pay so much for "dedicated hardware" when the full featured computers are even less money. I could understand in certain very specific cases when a professional writer's preference for a certain keyboard might be involved, someone who spends months or years working on a novel or the like that should make millions, but I think we are talking a bit more mainstream here. I just can't see a world where people are walking about with dedicated readers the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that iPods will be more and more full functioned as the generations progress. The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the world will turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. mh From richfield at telkomsa.net Sat Nov 28 00:05:48 2009 From: richfield at telkomsa.net (Jon Richfield) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:05:48 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B10D9DC.2070506@telkomsa.net> I actually had to go onto Google to get clarity on what a "Netbook" is, and it took me a long time... In the end I looked up the term by date! OK. I reckon I have now caught up with enough of what I had forgotten or missed. I'll bear Netbooks and their like in mind before I buy a Kindle or its like. Now lets get back to fundamentals. It is all a question of what function you are buying the thing for. Price is relevant only where you wonder whether the function justifies the outlay (in the context of what you can afford of course) and which of the rival products is best value for money. The latter two items should be common to all purchases, so lets ignore them for now. If you want to use it for a general purpose, portable, cheapish computer, fine. No problem. Netbook (assuming of course that it is adequate in comparison to full-function, larger equipment, but that too is a routine consideration, not relevant here. And of course, as Michael suggests, pace any relevant improvements in phones and other options etc.) But as soon as you begin to look at the special functions that epaper devices offer, then the question changes. Apart from questions concerning rival merits of rival products, and the acceptability of the crude attempts of various suppliers to bully you into buying their products for their purposes, if what you want is a *reader* with greatly extended offline battery life, effectively with independence of mains power, large capacity for reading material, and a format suitable for reading one-handed in bed, low light, or sunlight, then epaper seems to be extinguish rather than merely defeat rival media. No netbook or ftm blackberry seems to me suitable for bedtime or sickbed reading. For the last-named, I reckon I might manage something satisfactory with a projector and more powerful equipment, but apart from price and related considerations, that seems a little excessive for normal requirements (or resources). Some months ago BB intimidated me with dire descriptions of Kindle (or was it epaper in general?) slowness, contrast and resolution. Fortunately I was in no exceptional hurry to buy any device in particular, so that influenced me less than the marketing policies, pricing, media options and so on., and I have not yet bought anything, partly because I have too little time for reading anyway, least of all in bed, and I no longer commute. Since then I have however seen a couple of Kindle models and one of the rivals (Sony?). To be sure, both worked only in B&W, but that is fine for most reading. Both worked quite faste enough for reading (no more than a second to "page over", and quite adequate contrast. So that is OK. At a good price and function, I might well have bought one already. The smart money says that i'll have something like that in a year or less. What I really am interested in though, is spectacle displays. Any comments anyone, on: http://www.lumus-optical.com ? Even from BB? Cheers, Jon > I don't consider it "normal" when someone pays 300 euros for a dedicated eBook > gizmo at the same time I pay 275 dollars for a full Windows netbook. > > Actually, given that this was "Black Friday" in the US., I saw a name brand of > 10" netbook, 8 hour battery, 160G hard drive, wifi, ports, etc., for $229, the > thing was even cheaper over the counter at the store than online. Go figure. > > Other places were offering similar netbooks for $99 if you signed up for stuff > via two contracts, but I never recommend that, nor do I usually mention brand. > > I still don't understand why anyone would pay so much for "dedicated hardware" > when the full featured computers are even less money. > > I could understand in certain very specific cases when a professional writer's > preference for a certain keyboard might be involved, someone who spends months > or years working on a novel or the like that should make millions, but I think > we are talking a bit more mainstream here. > > I just can't see a world where people are walking about with dedicated readers > the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that iPods will be > more and more full functioned as the generations progress. > > The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the world will > turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. > > > mh > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > From schultzk at uni-trier.de Sat Nov 28 00:14:59 2009 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:14:59 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi There, Am 28.11.2009 um 05:48 schrieb Michael S. Hart: > > > I just can't see a world where people are walking about with > dedicated readers > the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that > iPods will be > more and more full functioned as the generations progress. > > The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the > world will > turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. > Just in case you have not noticed the iPhone is a full feldged computer: 1) it runs programms 2) it can be programmed 3) it communicates with other computers What can any other PC DO that a iPhone can not? (Of course inside of its capabilities. Do not forget that todays computers are yesterdays super-computers) I am sure you can remember those textprocessing-typwriters!! Not much use for them. Computers were cheaper more versatile back then, too. Still there was a market. My problem is when will there be affordable and wide-spread availibilty of e-books. Right, PG! Forgot to mention a good look and feel. What I mean is e-paper has be here for some 15 years. No devices on the market!? Just same old screen technology!! Same goes for cars and energy efficiency. From hart at pglaf.org Sat Nov 28 01:54:48 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:54:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Hi There, > > Am 28.11.2009 um 05:48 schrieb Michael S. Hart: > > > > > > > I just can't see a world where people are walking about with dedicated > > readers > > the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that iPods will > > be > > more and more full functioned as the generations progress. > > > > The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the world > > will > > turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. > > > Just in case you have not noticed the iPhone is a full feldged computer: > 1) it runs programms > 2) it can be programmed > 3) it communicates with other computers > > What can any other PC DO that a iPhone can not? (Of course inside > of its capabilities. Do not forget that todays computers are yesterdays > super-computers) Yes, I remember when the Z-80's got down to 50 cents, you could buy an anything with them in it. . . . However, if speed is/was an issue. . . . I think iPhones fall into the same category. However, all the netbooks I am looking at are 1.6Ghz and really do all the things most other computers do without any big sacrifices as long as the keyboard and screen do what you like. . .since I have big hands I need a bigger keyboard than the very smallest, if I am going to type a lot of long things. > I am sure you can remember those textprocessing-typwriters!! Not much use > for them. Computers were cheaper more versatile back then, too. Still there > was a market. Exactly the point I was making. . .those things never a more than niche market. Even when you could plug those into a computer as a printer, as I did. > > My problem is when will there be affordable and wide-spread availibilty of > e-books. I saw a news story about an e-ink ebook reader that was only $137 on release, full featured, but I still say it is too much for the likes of me. However, iPods go for all sorts of much higher prices, so all they really got to do is come up with a gimmick. So far the gimmick is to make it do iPod stuff. . .hee hee! > Right, PG! Forgot to mention a good look and feel. Too subjective. . .for this kind of discussion. You really need some serious market research on that, or steal a design like the iPod. . . . > What I mean is e-paper has be here for some 15 years. No devices on the > market!? Sorry, I missed the point. . .or just speculating??? > Just same old screen technology!! Same goes for cars and energy efficiency. E-ink is hardy the same old screen technology. When the speed it up it will become more like screen technologies we are used to, and add a three way dot for RGB to get color, or do the same sort of thing a lot of digital projectors do. . . . Do it all with millions of tiny mirrors. . . . From hart at pglaf.org Sat Nov 28 02:07:36 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:07:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: <4B10D9DC.2070506@telkomsa.net> References: <4B10D9DC.2070506@telkomsa.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Jon Richfield wrote: > I actually had to go onto Google to get clarity on what a "Netbook" is, and it > took me a long time... In the end I looked up the term by date! OK. I reckon > I have now caught up with enough of what I had forgotten or missed. I'll bear > Netbooks and their like in mind before I buy a Kindle or its like. My own definition splits at 13" screens. > Now lets get back to fundamentals. > > It is all a question of what function you are buying the thing for. Price is > relevant only where you wonder whether the function justifies the outlay (in > the context of what you can afford of course) and which of the rival products > is best value for money. The latter two items should be common to all > purchases, so lets ignore them for now. Don't forget the need for a willingness to carry one more gizmo. There are millions of people who will carry an iPod nano because it is not any extra hassle, but won't carry a bigger one, iPhone or other larger device. eBook reading CAN be done on Nano sized screens, I mentioned an eBook reader software package in my iPod G3 clone. . . . Yes, I have read entire files on it. No, I'm not as comfortable with it as reading on my cellphones. > If you want to use it for a general purpose, portable, cheapish computer, > fine. No problem. Netbook (assuming of course that it is adequate in > comparison to full-function, larger equipment, but that too is a routine > consideration, not relevant here. And of course, as Michael suggests, pace > any relevant improvements in phones and other options etc.) I have a feeling that netbooks are with us for the long run, but I know not all the manufacturers and retailers are sure. It has been tough to find all the models I want for holidays gifts. > But as soon as you begin to look at the special functions that epaper devices > offer, then the question changes. Apart from questions concerning rival merits > of rival products, and the acceptability of the crude attempts of various > suppliers to bully you into buying their products for their purposes, if what > you want is a *reader* with greatly extended offline battery life, effectively > with independence of mains power, large capacity for reading material, and a > format suitable for reading one-handed in bed, low light, or sunlight, then > epaper seems to be extinguish rather than merely defeat rival media. No > netbook or ftm blackberry seems to me suitable for bedtime or sickbed reading. I don't have any trouble with a netbook in bed, I just have the power set to shut off after 5 minutes without input. You can just use what clickers they have as page turners. Personally, I'll bet they should be coming out with more clicker types, too. > For the last-named, I reckon I might manage something satisfactory with a > projector and more powerful equipment, but apart from price and related > considerations, that seems a little excessive for normal requirements (or > resources). Not to mention a little excessive for normal requirements for carry. I will carry my netbook all over the place, not as much so for those previous laptops. Of course, the cellphones are ubiquitout. . . . > Some months ago BB intimidated me with dire descriptions of Kindle (or was it > epaper in general?) slowness, contrast and resolution. Fortunately I was in > no exceptional hurry to buy any device in particular, so that influenced me > less than the marketing policies, pricing, media options and so on., and I > have not yet bought anything, partly because I have too little time for > reading anyway, least of all in bed, and I no longer commute. Since then I > have however seen a couple of Kindle models and one of the rivals (Sony?). To > be sure, both worked only in B&W, but that is fine for most reading. Both > worked quite faste enough for reading (no more than a second to "page over", > and quite adequate contrast. So that is OK. At a good price and function, I > might well have bought one already. The smart money says that i'll have > something like that in a year or less. Eventually they will come out with a screen that can work reflective AND backlit. . . . > What I really am interested in though, is spectacle displays. Any comments > anyone, on: http://www.lumus-optical.com ? Even from BB? > > Cheers, > > Jon > > I don't consider it "normal" when someone pays 300 euros for a dedicated > > eBook > > gizmo at the same time I pay 275 dollars for a full Windows netbook. > > > > Actually, given that this was "Black Friday" in the US., I saw a name brand > > of > > 10" netbook, 8 hour battery, 160G hard drive, wifi, ports, etc., for $229, > > the > > thing was even cheaper over the counter at the store than online. Go > > figure. > > > > Other places were offering similar netbooks for $99 if you signed up for > > stuff > > via two contracts, but I never recommend that, nor do I usually mention > > brand. > > > > I still don't understand why anyone would pay so much for "dedicated > > hardware" > > when the full featured computers are even less money. > > > > I could understand in certain very specific cases when a professional > > writer's > > preference for a certain keyboard might be involved, someone who spends > > months > > or years working on a novel or the like that should make millions, but I > > think > > we are talking a bit more mainstream here. > > > > I just can't see a world where people are walking about with dedicated > > readers > > the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that iPods will > > be > > more and more full functioned as the generations progress. > > > > The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the world > > will > > turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. > > > > > > mh > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > From davidrothman at pobox.com Sat Nov 28 05:16:18 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:16:18 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: <4B10D9DC.2070506@telkomsa.net> Message-ID: <5eff08fa0911280516m7fe135fag4becdc92d946cb4f@mail.gmail.com> > Eventually they will come out with a screen that can work reflective AND backlit. . Exactly. And "eventually" could be very soon. See text and videos at http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/26/pixel-qi-well-start-mass-production-of-screens-next-month/ That may well mean actual readers and netbooks in 2010 with the Pixel Qi screen; and supposedly Mary Lou Jepsen and friends plan to aim in the future for $100s HDTVs. I could care less if somehow Pixel Qi or an equivalent tech instead shows up three or four years later. Point is, it's coming for readers and other apps. I myself think that PixelQi's text-background contrast could be better in the reflective mode, but I suspect improvements will come in time. Of course, as I see it, the issue isn't so much netbooks vs. iPods vs. dedicated readers. In real life I go back and forth between an Acer netbook, a Touch, and dedicated readers, and more and more people will be doing the same (ideally with help from e-book standards, now that ePub has gained momentum). David David Rothman, TeleRead.org, 703-370-6540 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl Sat Nov 28 07:14:10 2009 From: walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl (Walter van Holst) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:14:10 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B113E42.3000504@xs4all.nl> Michael S. Hart schreef: >> 300 Euro nowadays. When I got my iRex iLiad a few years ago, you could only >> get it at a specific bookstore chain, not mention at a somewhat different >> price point. To me this means that e-readers are becoming 'normal'. > > I don't consider it "normal" when someone pays 300 euros for a dedicated eBook > gizmo at the same time I pay 275 dollars for a full Windows netbook. A full Windows netbook is in terms of eye strain nowhere near such a dedicated e-ink gizmo. Besides, loads of people spend orders of magnitude more on television screens, blueray players and other consumer electronics. Not to mention what is being spend on vacations etc. 300 Euro is not cheap yet, but perfectly within reach for a massive amount of consumers in the Western world. Basically you are going to hit the point that it becomes feasible to start producing them in larger quantities which in itself will cause a price drop. > I still don't understand why anyone would pay so much for "dedicated hardware" > when the full featured computers are even less money. Because the 'full featured computer' (which a netbook actually isn't) doesn't provide the functionality some people (myself included) require from an e-reader. > I just can't see a world where people are walking about with dedicated readers > the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that iPods will be > more and more full functioned as the generations progress. I don't expect them to become as ubiquitous as iPhones, but even that could be possible, especially when schools and universities start to use them. I would have loved to have my e-reader when I was at university, especially since it also doubles as a notepad. > The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the world will > turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. They already are in a sense. Nonetheless you'll see none going around and using an iPhone for word processing. I use my iPhone for reading while on the subway/tram/bus, but for longer train trips I prefer my iLiad. Regards, Walter From hart at pglaf.org Sat Nov 28 07:34:07 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:34:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: <4B113E42.3000504@xs4all.nl> References: <4B113E42.3000504@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Walter van Holst wrote: > Michael S. Hart schreef: > > > > 300 Euro nowadays. When I got my iRex iLiad a few years ago, you could > > > only > > > get it at a specific bookstore chain, not mention at a somewhat different > > > price point. To me this means that e-readers are becoming 'normal'. > > > > I don't consider it "normal" when someone pays 300 euros for a dedicated > > eBook > > gizmo at the same time I pay 275 dollars for a full Windows netbook. > > A full Windows netbook is in terms of eye strain nowhere near such a dedicated > e-ink gizmo. I'm reading this in white on black, no eyestrain. > Besides, loads of people spend orders of magnitude more on > television screens, blueray players and other consumer electronics. Not to > mention what is being spend on vacations etc. Just because millions of people do it doesn't mean it is a good solution. > 300 Euro is not cheap yet, but > perfectly within reach for a massive amount of consumers in the Western world. > Basically you are going to hit the point that it becomes feasible to start > producing them in larger quantities which in itself will cause a price drop. > > > I still don't understand why anyone would pay so much for "dedicated > > hardware" > > when the full featured computers are even less money. > > Because the 'full featured computer' (which a netbook actually isn't) doesn't > provide the functionality some people (myself included) require from an > e-reader. I don't know about your netbooks, but around here you can get them with the DVD drive in the box with them, or separately, as you choose, which makes them full featured enough for me. > > > I just can't see a world where people are walking about with dedicated > > readers the same way they walk around with iPods, and I also notice that > > iPods will be more and more full functioned as the generations progress. > > I don't expect them to become as ubiquitous as iPhones, but even that could be > possible, especially when schools and universities start to use them. I would > have loved to have my e-reader when I was at university, especially since it > also doubles as a notepad. I wonder what it would signify if people were reading as much as listening to music? > > The iPod and iPhone will become full tilt computers long before the world > > will turn to dedicated ereaders, except for specific situations. > > They already are in a sense. Nonetheless you'll see none going around and > using an iPhone for word processing. I use my iPhone for reading while on the > subway/tram/bus, but for longer train trips I prefer my iLiad. Actually, I still have my Palm fold-up keyboards, and would LOVE new ones to come out for iPhones, iPods, etc., via USB connections. I have type a lot of articles, speeches, etc., on those keyboards, taken copious notes, in classes and conferences, etc., then just put it back in my pocket. From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Nov 28 12:02:38 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:02:38 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: rothman said: > I could care less if somehow Pixel Qi or an equivalent tech > instead shows up three or four years later. since you've blown years past your original projections anyway, and thereby shattered your credibility into a million tiny pieces, i can see why you "could care less"... of course, the real damage is that -- for over a decade now -- you've managed to convince lots and lots and lots of people that the e-book revolution is "around the corner", but not here yet... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Nov 28 12:14:25 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:14:25 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: walter said: > Basically you are going to hit the point that it becomes > feasible to start producing them in larger quantities > which in itself will cause a price drop. that's the same kind of "logic" that rothman has been using. except the process is not invariable, not by a long shot, and it certainly doesn't operate nearly as quickly as we might like. first of all, e-ink is burdened with a lot of patents. second, it has had a very long history of owners who have bought in at a high price, learned the setbacks over years, and then "flipped" the technology to a new set of owners, who bought in at a high price, learned the setbacks, etc. in other words, there are a lot of investors who still want to see the profitable return that they believed was "inevitable". so they have a desire to produce "in larger quantities", but they have little inclination to drop the price, even a little bit. moreover, it's expensive to scale up their production facilities, and they've already overextended their ability to borrow money, not to mention the normal blah-blah about today's economy... so i wouldn't look for a quick drop in the price of e-ink screens. and that means you won't get a quick drop in the price of the machines that utilize such screens. sorry. it just won't happen. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidrothman at pobox.com Sat Nov 28 12:28:36 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:28:36 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5eff08fa0911281228u73629dd7s3e5d363c79901f47@mail.gmail.com> Same old troll, BB ;-). My big point here is that schools and libraries and the rest of us should be preparing--the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. See below. DR http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/26/pixel-qi-well-start-mass-production-of-screens-next-month/ On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM, wrote: > rothman said: > > I could care less if somehow Pixel Qi or an equivalent tech > > instead shows up three or four years later. > > since you've blown years past your original projections anyway, > and thereby shattered your credibility into a million tiny pieces, > i can see why you "could care less"... > > of course, the real damage is that -- for over a decade now -- > you've managed to convince lots and lots and lots of people that > the e-book revolution is "around the corner", but not here yet... > > -bowerbird > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Nov 28 12:36:44 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:36:44 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: jon richfield said: > Some months ago BB intimidated me with dire descriptions of Kindle > (or was it epaper in general?) slowness, contrast and resolution.? ok, first of all, jon, any time you are "intimidated" by what i say, you can just push the "delete" button. and thus you will have vanquished (and vanished) the intimidation. with one finger. instantly! see how easy it can be? *** second of all, i'm quite sure i didn't give any "dire descriptions". because the truth of the matter is, e-ink is just fine for many people. you have to try it out, and see for yourself, whether the contrast and the resolution and the speed of the software works for you... or not... like i said, it's fine for some people. and not fine for other people. and nobody can tell you whether it'll be fine for you, except you... now, in terms of judging whether it's a useful technology or not, you have to listen to the people who actually own the technology, and most people who actually own the kindle love their machines. so hey, i'm happy for them... what i _probably_ said is that -- until the technology was out and actually being used by people -- we had no idea of its limitations. as the old saying goes, the only product that has no limitations is the one that hasn't been released yet. that's why it's so _stupid_ to go on and on about unreleased technology, because only a fool or an idiot would believe the hype and marketing of a press release. so one e-ink was released, we released that there were many areas in which it was suboptimal, and we hadn't been prepared for that. because before it was released, e-ink was a "magic" technology that had no flaws. it was going to be all perfect, and very inexpensive, and e-reader-machines were right around the corner, for just $50. this is the kind of bullshit in which you find yourself knee-deep when you start dealing with speculation instead of released tech. and when someone is flooding the e-book scene with this bullshit, we need to call them on it, and tell them clearly to stop doing that. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Nov 28 12:58:04 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:58:04 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] [SPAM] re: Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: rothman said: > Same old troll, BB ;-). right. i deal in facts, and you call me names, and somehow it's _me_ who is the "troll" here. ;+) > My big point here oh please. your "big point" is bullshit. <- fact! and i've told people precisely _why_ it's bullshit, and you have no rejoinder. you don't even _try_ to mount a counter, because you don't have one. > My big point here is that schools and libraries > and the rest of us should be preparing-- your message -- whether you know it or not -- is that people should _wait_, because the tech is "right around the corner", but not _here_ yet. so everyone is sitting around waiting, while google raids the library. thanks for the catatonia, david... > the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. your message is that they will be coming _later_. let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." > Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, > especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). i already have my response written concerning all that... i'm waiting to send it until people get back from holiday. suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry, and there is no future for the dinosaurs, zero future at all... sony will never sign up for z.m.l., because they can't slap d.r.m. on it, so they chose the publishers' .epub instead... that's quite some victory, david. just like the "victory" you had a decade ago, when microsoft slapped d.r.m. on the earlier version of .epub. now this time it's adobe, but the story will turn out the very same way, just watch. but oh well, the executives bought themselves some more quarters, even if profitability wasn't as good as they hoped. > As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. > My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. yeah, see how quickly you disown your own past, david. you promoted e-ink unceasingly, for years and years, in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of your blog entries. and now pixel qi is about to prove that you were _wrong_ about e-ink being "the future" that was "around the corner". so you ditch e-ink as if you never knew it. you chase every technology that sends you a press release, instead of having the real-world discipline that requires working models, or at least something more than vapor... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Nov 28 13:03:33 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:03:33 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again Message-ID: rothman said: >?? Same old troll, BB ;-). right.? i deal in facts, and you call me names, and somehow it's _me_ who is the "troll" here.????? ;+) >?? My big point here oh please.? your "big point" is *censored*.? <- fact! and i've told people precisely _why_ it's *censored*, and you have no rejoinder.? you don't even _try_ to mount a counter, because you don't have one. >?? My big point here is that schools and libraries >?? and the rest of us should be preparing-- your message -- whether you know it or not -- is that people should _wait_, because the tech is "right around the corner", but not _here_ yet. so everyone is sitting around waiting, while google raids the library.? thanks for the catatonia, david... >?? the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. your message is that they will be coming _later_. let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." >?? Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, >?? especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). i already have my response written concerning all that... i'm waiting to send it until people get back from holiday. suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry, and there is no future for the dinosaurs, zero future at all... sony will never sign up for z.m.l., because they can't slap d.r.m. on it, so they chose the publishers' .epub instead... that's quite some victory, david.? just like the "victory" you had a decade ago, when microsoft slapped d.r.m. on the earlier version of .epub.? now this time it's adobe, but the story will turn out the very same way, just watch. but oh well, the executives bought themselves some more quarters, even if profitability wasn't as good as they hoped. >?? As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. >?? My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. yeah, see how quickly you disown your own past, david. you promoted e-ink unceasingly, for years and years, in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of your blog entries. and now pixel qi is about to prove that you were _wrong_ about e-ink being "the future" that was "around the corner". so you ditch e-ink as if you never knew it. you chase every technology that sends you a press release, instead of having the real-world discipline that requires working models, or at least something more than vapor... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidrothman at pobox.com Sat Nov 28 13:52:12 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:52:12 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." We've done our share of posts at TeleRead.org about PG and other valuable "now" resources--and the availability of inexpensive used hardware. Not to mention TeleRead's advocacy of the e-book standards you've resisted. BOTH Michael and I have helped e-bookdom in different ways. Just the other day I complained that a Harvard professor had NOT mentioned Michael and PG in a book. I've even called for federal funding of grassroots digitization projects like PG/DP's. > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry.. Wow. TeleRead again and again has said publishers should stop selling encrypted books to consumers--contradicting the standard dino line--and this unimaginative smear is the best Bowerbird can do. See URL below. I will confess to wanting publishers of all sizes to thrive; big crime. OK, I've spent too much time feeding the troll. Happy post-Thanksgiving, everyone! David http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128139/DRM_a_drag_on_e_book_growth_say_critics_ On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM, wrote: > > rothman said: > >?? Same old troll, BB ;-). > > right.? i deal in facts, and you call me names, > and somehow it's _me_ who is the "troll" here.????? ;+) > > > >?? My big point here > > oh please.? your "big point" is *censored*.? <- fact! > > and i've told people precisely _why_ it's *censored*, > and you have no rejoinder.? you don't even _try_ > to mount a counter, because you don't have one. > > > >?? My big point here is that schools and libraries > >?? and the rest of us should be preparing-- > > your message -- whether you know it or not -- > is that people should _wait_, because the tech > is "right around the corner", but not _here_ yet. > > so everyone is sitting around waiting, while google > raids the library.? thanks for the catatonia, david... > > > >?? the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. > > your message is that they will be coming _later_. > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, > which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." > > > >?? Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, > >?? especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). > > i already have my response written concerning all that... > i'm waiting to send it until people get back from holiday. > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, > david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry, and > there is no future for the dinosaurs, zero future at all... > > sony will never sign up for z.m.l., because they can't slap > d.r.m. on it, so they chose the publishers' .epub instead... > > that's quite some victory, david.? just like the "victory" > you had a decade ago, when microsoft slapped d.r.m. > on the earlier version of .epub.? now this time it's adobe, > but the story will turn out the very same way, just watch. > > but oh well, the executives bought themselves some more > quarters, even if profitability wasn't as good as they hoped. > > > >?? As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. > >?? My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. > > yeah, see how quickly you disown your own past, david. > > you promoted e-ink unceasingly, for years and years, in > hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of your blog entries. > > and now pixel qi is about to prove that you were _wrong_ > about e-ink being "the future" that was "around the corner". > > so you ditch e-ink as if you never knew it. > > you chase every technology that sends you a press release, > instead of having the real-world discipline that requires > working models, or at least something more than vapor... > > -bowerbird > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From hart at pglaf.org Sat Nov 28 15:06:19 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:06:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." > > We've done our share of posts at TeleRead.org about PG and other > valuable "now" resources--and the availability of inexpensive used > hardware. Not to mention TeleRead's advocacy of the e-book standards > you've resisted. BOTH Michael and I have helped e-bookdom in different Just because these last two sentences are so consequtive, I must add that I have NOT done any "advocacy of the eBook standards." Any. I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, and I don't want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would allow them to keep new ones from developing. I like certain things about many of the standards, even MS Word, as it would allow one document to contain all the varied editions of Shakespeare in a manner that would switching back and forth to compare any edition[s] to any other[s]. > ways. Just the other day I complained that a Harvard professor had NOT > mentioned Michael and PG in a book. I've even called for federal > funding of grassroots digitization projects like PG/DP's. I fear that any time any "grassroots. . .projects" that get taste of federal funding might get so weakened by it that they were not more likely, but less likely, to survive after such funding. Of course, if the copyright trend, and there is only one, as far as length of copyright terms goes, will continue just a few more decades, then there really won't be much more of such to do, not another copyright will ever expire. . . . > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry.. > > Wow. TeleRead again and again has said publishers should stop selling > encrypted books to consumers--contradicting the standard dino > line--and this unimaginative smear is the best Bowerbird can do. See > URL below. I will confess to wanting publishers of all sizes to > thrive; big crime. If there WERE publishers of all size, just as with other company types, then the normal distribution will still put vast majority stakes in the hands of just the top handful of such companies as it is via paper publishers, music publishers, radio & television publishers, newspaper publishers, etc., etc., etc., all with the same business model subject to the same downfalls, just as with, are you ready. . . Just as with the dinosaurs. Any time the gene pool gets going too much in one direction, the odds of epidemics, pandemics, and other ELE's ["Extinction Level Events] goes up and up and up. Just as it did with the financial markets in 1929 and again now. No matter how much genetics and other sciences prove diversity's power over the centuries, there are still plenty of people quite literally and vocally against it. "DIVERSITY ISN'T WORTH IT" Is a bumper sticker I have seen right here in my home town. http://www.cafepress.com/+diversity_isnt_worth_it_bumper,31591635 I prefer to see a wide variety of eBook formats for wide variety usage on everything from mainframes to netbooks to cellphones to PDAs and MP3 players, and everything in between. eBooks should be ubiquitous and so should the hardware/software! mh > > OK, I've spent too much time feeding the troll. > > Happy post-Thanksgiving, everyone! > > David > > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128139/DRM_a_drag_on_e_book_growth_say_critics_ > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM, wrote: > > > > rothman said: > > >?? Same old troll, BB ;-). > > > > right.? i deal in facts, and you call me names, > > and somehow it's _me_ who is the "troll" here.????? ;+) > > > > > > >?? My big point here > > > > oh please.? your "big point" is *censored*.? <- fact! > > > > and i've told people precisely _why_ it's *censored*, > > and you have no rejoinder.? you don't even _try_ > > to mount a counter, because you don't have one. > > > > > > >?? My big point here is that schools and libraries > > >?? and the rest of us should be preparing-- > > > > your message -- whether you know it or not -- > > is that people should _wait_, because the tech > > is "right around the corner", but not _here_ yet. > > > > so everyone is sitting around waiting, while google > > raids the library.? thanks for the catatonia, david... > > > > > > >?? the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. > > > > your message is that they will be coming _later_. > > > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, > > which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." > > > > > > >?? Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, > > >?? especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). > > > > i already have my response written concerning all that... > > i'm waiting to send it until people get back from holiday. > > > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, > > david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry, and > > there is no future for the dinosaurs, zero future at all... > > > > sony will never sign up for z.m.l., because they can't slap > > d.r.m. on it, so they chose the publishers' .epub instead... > > > > that's quite some victory, david.? just like the "victory" > > you had a decade ago, when microsoft slapped d.r.m. > > on the earlier version of .epub.? now this time it's adobe, > > but the story will turn out the very same way, just watch. > > > > but oh well, the executives bought themselves some more > > quarters, even if profitability wasn't as good as they hoped. > > > > > > >?? As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. > > >?? My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. > > > > yeah, see how quickly you disown your own past, david. > > > > you promoted e-ink unceasingly, for years and years, in > > hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of your blog entries. > > > > and now pixel qi is about to prove that you were _wrong_ > > about e-ink being "the future" that was "around the corner". > > > > so you ditch e-ink as if you never knew it. > > > > you chase every technology that sends you a press release, > > instead of having the real-world discipline that requires > > working models, or at least something more than vapor... > > > > -bowerbird > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From davidrothman at pobox.com Sat Nov 28 15:32:19 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:32:19 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5eff08fa0911281532gc2025f6gfd6e5070709904ca@mail.gmail.com> LOL, same ole Michael re formats, etc. But so what? I'll be happy to see you get credit for your pioneering efforts in other areas. Cheers, David On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Hart wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, which is that "we > can make e-books happen right now." > > > > We've done our share of posts at TeleRead.org about PG and other > > valuable "now" resources--and the availability of inexpensive used > > hardware. Not to mention TeleRead's advocacy of the e-book standards > > you've resisted. BOTH Michael and I have helped e-bookdom in different > > Just because these last two sentences are so consequtive, I must add > that I have NOT done any "advocacy of the eBook standards." Any. > > I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, > and I don't want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would > allow them to keep new ones from developing. > > I like certain things about many of the standards, even MS Word, > as it would allow one document to contain all the varied editions > of Shakespeare in a manner that would switching back and forth to > compare any edition[s] to any other[s]. > > > > ways. Just the other day I complained that a Harvard professor had NOT > > mentioned Michael and PG in a book. I've even called for federal > > funding of grassroots digitization projects like PG/DP's. > > I fear that any time any "grassroots. . .projects" that get taste > of federal funding might get so weakened by it that they were not > more likely, but less likely, to survive after such funding. > > Of course, if the copyright trend, and there is only one, as far > as length of copyright terms goes, will continue just a few more > decades, then there really won't be much more of such to do, not > another copyright will ever expire. . . . > > > > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, david, > the corporate dinosaur publishing industry.. > > > > Wow. TeleRead again and again has said publishers should stop selling > > encrypted books to consumers--contradicting the standard dino > > line--and this unimaginative smear is the best Bowerbird can do. See > > URL below. I will confess to wanting publishers of all sizes to > > thrive; big crime. > > If there WERE publishers of all size, just as with other company > types, then the normal distribution will still put vast majority > stakes in the hands of just the top handful of such companies as > it is via paper publishers, music publishers, radio & television > publishers, newspaper publishers, etc., etc., etc., all with the > same business model subject to the same downfalls, just as with, > are you ready. . . > > > Just as with the dinosaurs. > > Any time the gene pool gets going too much in one direction, the > odds of epidemics, pandemics, and other ELE's ["Extinction Level > Events] goes up and up and up. > > Just as it did with the financial markets in 1929 and again now. > > No matter how much genetics and other sciences prove diversity's > power over the centuries, there are still plenty of people quite > literally and vocally against it. > > "DIVERSITY ISN'T WORTH IT" > > Is a bumper sticker I have seen right here in my home town. > > http://www.cafepress.com/+diversity_isnt_worth_it_bumper,31591635 > > > I prefer to see a wide variety of eBook formats for wide variety > usage on everything from mainframes to netbooks to cellphones to > PDAs and MP3 players, and everything in between. > > eBooks should be ubiquitous and so should the hardware/software! > > > mh > > > > > > > OK, I've spent too much time feeding the troll. > > > > Happy post-Thanksgiving, everyone! > > > > David > > > > > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128139/DRM_a_drag_on_e_book_growth_say_critics_ > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM, wrote: > > > > > > rothman said: > > > > Same old troll, BB ;-). > > > > > > right. i deal in facts, and you call me names, > > > and somehow it's _me_ who is the "troll" here. ;+) > > > > > > > > > > My big point here > > > > > > oh please. your "big point" is *censored*. <- fact! > > > > > > and i've told people precisely _why_ it's *censored*, > > > and you have no rejoinder. you don't even _try_ > > > to mount a counter, because you don't have one. > > > > > > > > > > My big point here is that schools and libraries > > > > and the rest of us should be preparing-- > > > > > > your message -- whether you know it or not -- > > > is that people should _wait_, because the tech > > > is "right around the corner", but not _here_ yet. > > > > > > so everyone is sitting around waiting, while google > > > raids the library. thanks for the catatonia, david... > > > > > > > > > > the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. > > > > > > your message is that they will be coming _later_. > > > > > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, > > > which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." > > > > > > > > > > Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, > > > > especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). > > > > > > i already have my response written concerning all that... > > > i'm waiting to send it until people get back from holiday. > > > > > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, > > > david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry, and > > > there is no future for the dinosaurs, zero future at all... > > > > > > sony will never sign up for z.m.l., because they can't slap > > > d.r.m. on it, so they chose the publishers' .epub instead... > > > > > > that's quite some victory, david. just like the "victory" > > > you had a decade ago, when microsoft slapped d.r.m. > > > on the earlier version of .epub. now this time it's adobe, > > > but the story will turn out the very same way, just watch. > > > > > > but oh well, the executives bought themselves some more > > > quarters, even if profitability wasn't as good as they hoped. > > > > > > > > > > As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. > > > > My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. > > > > > > yeah, see how quickly you disown your own past, david. > > > > > > you promoted e-ink unceasingly, for years and years, in > > > hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of your blog entries. > > > > > > and now pixel qi is about to prove that you were _wrong_ > > > about e-ink being "the future" that was "around the corner". > > > > > > so you ditch e-ink as if you never knew it. > > > > > > you chase every technology that sends you a press release, > > > instead of having the real-world discipline that requires > > > working models, or at least something more than vapor... > > > > > > -bowerbird > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gutvol-d mailing list > > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Sun Nov 29 00:03:23 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:03:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: <5eff08fa0911281532gc2025f6gfd6e5070709904ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <5eff08fa0911281532gc2025f6gfd6e5070709904ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > LOL, same ole Michael re formats, etc. > > But so what? I'll be happy to see you get credit for your pioneering efforts in > other areas. > > Cheers, > David Same old Rothman. . .given all I said below, just ridicule rather than an rational response to any or all of the points outlined below. However, as I am sure BB would say, "Just look at how many new formats there are than five years ago when Rothman and Hart discussed this B4. The result obviously supports the position Hart has taken all along, I wonder if Rothman would or could resist the temptation to charges Hart was being a namby-pamby vacillator if someone did finally come up with a format that did those things mentioned below, & Hart acknowledged it as being a worthwhile step forward?" Michael Hart with apologies to BB By the way, I got some email saying Rothman had been tossed out of the discussion group for being routinely disruptive. I don't recall that. > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Hart wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, which is > that "we can make e-books happen right now." > > > > We've done our share of posts at TeleRead.org about PG and other > > valuable "now" resources--and the availability of inexpensive used > > hardware. Not to mention TeleRead's advocacy of the e-book > standards > > you've resisted. BOTH Michael and I have helped e-bookdom in > different > > Just because these last two sentences are so consequtive, I must add > that I have NOT done any "advocacy of the eBook standards." ?Any. > > I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, > and I don't want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would > allow them to keep new ones from developing. > > I like certain things about many of the standards, even MS Word, > as it would allow one document to contain all the varied editions > of Shakespeare in a manner that would switching back and forth to > compare any edition[s] to any other[s]. > > > > ways. Just the other day I complained that a Harvard professor had NOT > > mentioned Michael and PG in a book. I've even called for federal > > funding of grassroots digitization projects like PG/DP's. > > I fear that any time any "grassroots. . .projects" that get taste > of federal funding might get so weakened by it that they were not > more likely, but less likely, to survive after such funding. > > Of course, if the copyright trend, and there is only one, as far > as length of copyright terms goes, will continue just a few more > decades, then there really won't be much more of such to do, not > another copyright will ever expire. . . . > > > > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, david, > the corporate dinosaur publishing industry.. > > > > Wow. TeleRead again and again has said publishers should stop selling > > encrypted books to consumers--contradicting the standard dino > > line--and this unimaginative smear is the best Bowerbird can do. See > > URL below. I will confess to wanting publishers of all sizes to > > thrive; big crime. > > If there WERE publishers of all size, just as with other company > types, then the normal distribution will still put vast majority > stakes in the hands of just the top handful of such companies as > it is via paper publishers, music publishers, radio & television > publishers, newspaper publishers, etc., etc., etc., all with the > same business model subject to the same downfalls, just as with, > are you ready. . . > > > Just as with the dinosaurs. > > Any time the gene pool gets going too much in one direction, the > odds of epidemics, pandemics, and other ELE's ["Extinction Level > Events] goes up and up and up. > > Just as it did with the financial markets in 1929 and again now. > > No matter how much genetics and other sciences prove diversity's > power over the centuries, there are still plenty of people quite > literally and vocally against it. > > "DIVERSITY ISN'T WORTH IT" > > Is a bumper sticker I have seen right here in my home town. > > http://www.cafepress.com/+diversity_isnt_worth_it_bumper,31591635 > > > I prefer to see a wide variety of eBook formats for wide variety > usage on everything from mainframes to netbooks to cellphones to > PDAs and MP3 players, and everything in between. > > eBooks should be ubiquitous and so should the hardware/software! > > > mh > > > > > > > OK, I've spent too much time feeding the troll. > > > > Happy post-Thanksgiving, everyone! > > > > David > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128139/DRM_a_drag_on_e_book_growth_say_c > ritics_ > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM, wrote: > > > > > > rothman said: > > > >?? Same old troll, BB ;-). > > > > > > right.? i deal in facts, and you call me names, > > > and somehow it's _me_ who is the "troll" here.????? ;+) > > > > > > > > > >?? My big point here > > > > > > oh please.? your "big point" is *censored*.? <- fact! > > > > > > and i've told people precisely _why_ it's *censored*, > > > and you have no rejoinder.? you don't even _try_ > > > to mount a counter, because you don't have one. > > > > > > > > > >?? My big point here is that schools and libraries > > > >?? and the rest of us should be preparing-- > > > > > > your message -- whether you know it or not -- > > > is that people should _wait_, because the tech > > > is "right around the corner", but not _here_ yet. > > > > > > so everyone is sitting around waiting, while google > > > raids the library.? thanks for the catatonia, david... > > > > > > > > > >?? the capabilities will be coming sooner or later. > > > > > > your message is that they will be coming _later_. > > > > > > let's contrast that with the message of michael hart, > > > which is that "we can make e-books happen right now." > > > > > > > > > >?? Glad BB himself has been so 100 percent infallible, > > > >?? especially about ePub (Sony signed up for ZML lately?). > > > > > > i already have my response written concerning all that... > > > i'm waiting to send it until people get back from holiday. > > > > > > suffice it to say for now that you're a tool of the industry, > > > david, the corporate dinosaur publishing industry, and > > > there is no future for the dinosaurs, zero future at all... > > > > > > sony will never sign up for z.m.l., because they can't slap > > > d.r.m. on it, so they chose the publishers' .epub instead... > > > > > > that's quite some victory, david.? just like the "victory" > > > you had a decade ago, when microsoft slapped d.r.m. > > > on the earlier version of .epub.? now this time it's adobe, > > > but the story will turn out the very same way, just watch. > > > > > > but oh well, the executives bought themselves some more > > > quarters, even if profitability wasn't as good as they hoped. > > > > > > > > > >?? As for E Ink, it's just one of several possibilities out there. > > > >?? My pointer in fact was to Pixel Qi. > > > > > > yeah, see how quickly you disown your own past, david. > > > > > > you promoted e-ink unceasingly, for years and years, in > > > hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of your blog entries. > > > > > > and now pixel qi is about to prove that you were _wrong_ > > > about e-ink being "the future" that was "around the corner". > > > > > > so you ditch e-ink as if you never knew it. > > > > > > you chase every technology that sends you a press release, > > > instead of having the real-world discipline that requires > > > working models, or at least something more than vapor... > > > > > > -bowerbird > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gutvol-d mailing list > > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > From davidrothman at pobox.com Sun Nov 29 05:35:37 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:35:37 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> > I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, and I don't want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would allow them to keep new ones from developing. So by that logic, Michael, I guess PG shouldn't have been so .TXTcentric for so long. You can't and shouldn't freeze standards absolutely, but can at least work toward graceful evolution.That's what ePub is about. It isn't perfect, but we're better with it than without it. My own idea of nirvana remain a world where most everything is available in nonDRMed ePub. If the larger publishers won't listen about encrypted books, then smaller rivals may well come along with easier-to-enjoy alternatives. Anyway, I have a choice between doing my work and wasting time replying to some rather surrealistic misstatements here. I choose the former. But meanwhile I'm pleased that PG is offering ePub, which can, yes, slug it out which the other formats in the best Darwinian tradition. David TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home http://www.teleread.org From hart at pglaf.org Sun Nov 29 06:52:42 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:52:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: it's that time of year again In-Reply-To: <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, and I don't > want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would allow them to keep new > ones from developing. > > So by that logic, Michael, I guess PG shouldn't have been so .TXTcentric for > so long. Still pretending that plain text as we are writing it here is a standard!? It just makes anyone wonder if you will ever make any ridicule progress... Why don't you try something new instead of accusing everyone else of not doing anything new??? > You can't and shouldn't freeze standards absolutely, but can at least work > toward graceful evolution.That's what ePub is about. It isn't perfect, but > we're better with it than without it. My own idea of nirvana remain a world > where most everything is available in nonDRMed ePub. If the larger publishers > won't listen about encrypted books, then smaller rivals may well come along > with easier-to-enjoy alternatives. Hey, where have you been??? We've been supporting ePub. Don't you ever look before you leap? > Anyway, I have a choice between doing my work and wasting time replying to Well, I certainly agree that you are wasting your time with such comments. If you can't come up with something better, it's time to call it a waste. > some rather surrealistic misstatements here. I choose the former. But > meanwhile I'm pleased that PG is offering ePub, which can, yes, slug it out > which the other formats in the best Darwinian tradition. Ah, so. . .on the one hand you deny ePub, on the other it is there. Ever consider trying consistency? Your normally disruptive behaviors haven't changed over the years. Too bad maturity doesn't always come with age. . . . I hope you are serious about stopping wasting time, yours and ours. From davidrothman at pobox.com Sun Nov 29 08:47:43 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:47:43 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> > We've been supporting ePub. Don't you ever look before you leap? Heck, Michael, I wrote in the very message you were commenting on: "I'm pleased that PG is offering ePub, which can, yes, slug it out [with] the other formats in the best Darwinian tradition." You acknowledge that later in your response. But there's a difference between PG simply offering ePub and your being a genuine advocate of it, which you have failed to be so far (care to decide to be?). ePub isn't perfect, but it is progress and is still evolving. Speaking of controversy, rather than trying to marginalize my e-book standards advocacy, perhaps you'll find it more rewarding to move on to a different topic if it hasn't been discussed here earlier. To quote Paul Biba's item in TeleRead: "As you may have heard, the US, in a fit of Governmental insanity, is negotiating a new copyright treaty that allows for criminal action to be taken against copyright infringers and gives governments broad powers to require ISPs to spy on their users. The insane thing is that the text of the treaty and its basic terms and conditions are not being released due to 'national security.'" See: http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/25/two-us-senators-demand-that-secret-copyright-treaty-be-published/ We're hardy the first to warn people of the possibilities for mischief here, but we're glad to help spread word. Your comment on this secrecy, Michael? As I see it, THAT is genuine fodder for your ire. Imagine the potential for future damage to the public domain if copyright law is even more crook-ridden than it is today, due to still less transparency. As you can see, national security is the excuse here. Talk about D.C.-style patriotism! As is so often the case, the PG archives contain relevant thoughts. From Boswell: "Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest." (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1564/1564-h/1564-h.htm). David TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home http://www.teleread.org Michael S. Hart wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > >>> I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, and I don't >>> >> want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would allow them to keep new >> ones from developing. >> >> So by that logic, Michael, I guess PG shouldn't have been so .TXTcentric for >> so long. >> > > Still pretending that plain text as we are writing it here is a standard!? > > It just makes anyone wonder if you will ever make any ridicule progress... > > Why don't you try something new instead of accusing everyone else of not > doing anything new??? > > > >> You can't and shouldn't freeze standards absolutely, but can at least work >> toward graceful evolution.That's what ePub is about. It isn't perfect, but >> we're better with it than without it. My own idea of nirvana remain a world >> where most everything is available in nonDRMed ePub. If the larger publishers >> won't listen about encrypted books, then smaller rivals may well come along >> with easier-to-enjoy alternatives. >> > > Hey, where have you been??? > > We've been supporting ePub. > > Don't you ever look before you leap? > > > >> Anyway, I have a choice between doing my work and wasting time replying to >> > > Well, I certainly agree that you are wasting your time with such comments. > > If you can't come up with something better, it's time to call it a waste. > > > >> some rather surrealistic misstatements here. I choose the former. But >> meanwhile I'm pleased that PG is offering ePub, which can, yes, slug it out >> which the other formats in the best Darwinian tradition. >> > > Ah, so. . .on the one hand you deny ePub, on the other it is there. > > Ever consider trying consistency? > > Your normally disruptive behaviors haven't changed over the years. > > Too bad maturity doesn't always come with age. . . . > > I hope you are serious about stopping wasting time, yours and ours. > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Nov 29 11:39:45 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:39:45 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: it's fun to watch rothman sputter when his dale-carnegie doubletalk isn't working in a certain situation... it's even more funny when he tries to pull it back from the edge, by finding "something that everyone can agree on", and engages in another dose of doubletalk. yes, david, we all agree that the government is bad when it extends copyright and tries to keep all of those shady dealings out of sight... and, by the way, isn't this the same government your "teleread" proposal wants to put in charge? michael hart didn't seek a grant to pay for the digitization of books under project gutenberg, or try to suck at the money teat of big business. hart went directly to the people. smart choice. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Nov 29 11:51:42 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:51:42 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] meanwhle, more hype on screen technology Message-ID: meanwhile, because it happens constantly, here is some more hype on screen technology, from one of the latest entries on the teleread blawg: > http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/28/flexible-ereader-screens-shown-in-taiwan/ anyone care to bet how long before this technology comes to market at a price affordable to end-users? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Sun Nov 29 12:06:09 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > We've been supporting ePub. Don't you ever look before you leap? > > Heck, Michael, I wrote in the very message you were commenting on: "I'm > pleased that PG is offering ePub, which can, yes, slug it out [with] the other > formats in the best Darwinian tradition." You acknowledge that later in your > response. But there's a difference between PG simply offering ePub and your > being a genuine advocate of it, which you have failed to be so far (care to > decide to be?). ePub isn't perfect, but it is progress and is still evolving. I haven't FAILED to be an advocate, I have REFUSED. . . . Quite a difference. A difference YOU have refused to acknowlege all these years. Don't you listen when I say I am not going to do such things? We have added ePub to PG, that is all the support any formats are ever going to get in the foreseeable future. Get used to it! We're not a bandwagon. We're not likely to be any time soon. Do you realize how silly you sound harping away at this when you should have picked it up years and years ago? Stop wasting our time. . .and yours.0 > Speaking of controversy, rather than trying to marginalize my e-book standards > advocacy, perhaps you'll find it more rewarding to move on to a different > topic if it hasn't been discussed here earlier. You are more than welcome to advocate any eBook standards you like, but at least have the respect to pay attention. > To quote Paul Biba's item in TeleRead: "As you may have heard, the US, in a > fit of Governmental insanity, is negotiating a new copyright treaty that > allows for criminal action to be taken against copyright infringers and gives > governments broad powers to require ISPs to spy on their users. The insane > thing is that the text of the treaty and its basic terms and conditions are > not being released due to 'national security.'" See: > > http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/25/two-us-senators-demand-that-secret-copyright-treaty-be-published/ > > We're hardy the first to warn people of the possibilities for mischief here, > but we're glad to help spread word. > > Your comment on this secrecy, Michael? As I see it, THAT is genuine fodder for > your ire. Imagine the potential for future damage to the public domain if > copyright law is even more crook-ridden than it is today, due to still less > transparency. As you can see, national security is the excuse here. Talk about > D.C.-style patriotism! You missed the REAL threat, when Gonzales asked for life imprisonment!!! You are SOOO far behind the times, all of this is old, not news. > As is so often the case, the PG archives contain relevant thoughts. From > Boswell: "Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly > uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: > 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' But let it be considered, that > he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended > patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for > self-interest." > > (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1564/1564-h/1564-h.htm). If you really want to quote the best, at least quote Milton. > > David > > TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home > http://www.teleread.org > > > > Michael S. Hart wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't believe any of these standards will last terribly long, and I > > > > don't > > > > > > > want to give any standards MORE gravitas that would allow them to keep new > > > ones from developing. > > > > > > So by that logic, Michael, I guess PG shouldn't have been so .TXTcentric > > > for > > > so long. > > > > > > > Still pretending that plain text as we are writing it here is a standard!? > > > > It just makes anyone wonder if you will ever make any ridicule progress... > > > > Why don't you try something new instead of accusing everyone else of not > > doing anything new??? > > > > > > > > > You can't and shouldn't freeze standards absolutely, but can at least work > > > toward graceful evolution.That's what ePub is about. It isn't perfect, but > > > we're better with it than without it. My own idea of nirvana remain a > > > world > > > where most everything is available in nonDRMed ePub. If the larger > > > publishers > > > won't listen about encrypted books, then smaller rivals may well come > > > along > > > with easier-to-enjoy alternatives. > > > > > > > Hey, where have you been??? > > > > We've been supporting ePub. > > > > Don't you ever look before you leap? > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I have a choice between doing my work and wasting time replying to > > > > > > > Well, I certainly agree that you are wasting your time with such comments. > > > > If you can't come up with something better, it's time to call it a waste. > > > > > > > > > some rather surrealistic misstatements here. I choose the former. But > > > meanwhile I'm pleased that PG is offering ePub, which can, yes, slug it > > > out > > > which the other formats in the best Darwinian tradition. > > > > > > > Ah, so. . .on the one hand you deny ePub, on the other it is there. > > > > Ever consider trying consistency? > > > > Your normally disruptive behaviors haven't changed over the years. > > > > Too bad maturity doesn't always come with age. . . . > > > > I hope you are serious about stopping wasting time, yours and ours. > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Nov 29 12:35:22 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:35:22 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: michael said: > I haven't FAILED to be an advocate, I have REFUSED. . . . bravo. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidrothman at pobox.com Sun Nov 29 13:32:34 2009 From: davidrothman at pobox.com (David H. Rothman) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:32:34 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again]] In-Reply-To: References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4B12E872.3030205@pobox.com> > You are SOOO far behind the times, all of this is old, not news. Uh, Michael, it's the SECRECY that's a big angle here, beyond the usual mischief. Why should proposed copyright treaties be treated like national security secrets? Just Google around a bit: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=secret+copyright+treaty No small number of news organizations see...news. As for disrupting this list, keep in mind that out of the blue, without my attacking anyone, Bowerbird launched a strike on me and wants to do this every Thanksgiving. Great for holiday cheer, huh? I defended myself. You sided with PG's resident troll, the clown who has been kicked off his share of lists. A little Orwellian. Or is this list instead the Planet of the Trolls? The Apes--no, I mean the Trolls--set the tone? Bizarre. Meanwhile apologies to the Apes. They strike me as far, far more civil than Bowerbird. I'm happy to write up PG's better side, but I gotta say, Michael, you're doing a pretty efficient job of alienating people without my tolerance of your, er, eccentricities. Some potential friends of PG may put themselves in my place and not reach out to you. Horror of horrors, a few of those you alienate might even have money. The tone of the PG volunteer list just might be one reason why PG is unfortunately so bleepin' cash-strapped. All this craziness might also scare away potential participants with first-rate ideas for PG. Which counts most--Bowerbird's rants or your mission to digitize books in the public domain? As for ePub, I've already said that it's fine great for PG to offer many formats and let 'em slug at out. You can do that until the end of time, and in fact I'd prefer this. But ePub is the one that Sony and B&N are gearing up for, and the one that even Amazon might in time offer as a Kindle-format alternative. This took years to achieve. It's unfortunate that rather than helping the standards movement, you've just been sitting on the sidelines. You could still have worked toward standards while offering many formats. OK, enough. Now get back to the stuff I like--PG's mission. David TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home http://www.teleread.org From marcello at perathoner.de Sun Nov 29 13:46:58 2009 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:46:58 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4B12EBD2.4080701@perathoner.de> Michael S. Hart wrote: > We have added ePub to PG, that is all the support any formats > are ever going to get in the foreseeable future. I added ePub to PG, single-handedly and with no help or encouragement from PG. I will add more formats whenever my time allows it. Free formats that have some acceptance get the highest priority. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From gbnewby at pglaf.org Sun Nov 29 14:27:24 2009 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:27:24 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] In-Reply-To: <4B12EBD2.4080701@perathoner.de> References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> <4B12EBD2.4080701@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <20091129222724.GA27835@pglaf.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46:58PM +0100, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > Michael S. Hart wrote: > >> We have added ePub to PG, that is all the support any formats >> are ever going to get in the foreseeable future. > > I added ePub to PG, single-handedly and with no help or encouragement > from PG. It has greatly appreciated. -- Greg > I will add more formats whenever my time allows it. Free formats that > have some acceptance get the highest priority. > > > -- > Marcello Perathoner > webmaster at gutenberg.org From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Nov 29 14:44:06 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:44:06 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again]] Message-ID: david rothman said: > As for disrupting this list, keep in mind that out of the blue, > without my attacking anyone, Bowerbird launched a strike on me > and wants to do this every Thanksgiving. Great for holiday cheer, huh? it wasn't "out of the blue". it was based on a bet from 4 years ago. you tried to escape from an unpleasant accounting of the realities by saying "check back in a year and see what it looks like then..." i set the terms of the bet at 5 years, precisely because i wanted to demonstrate clearly how awful your "predictive power" actually is. not only did you continue to be wrong one year later, but you were also wrong 2 years later, and then wrong again 3 years later, and -- now -- wrong yet again 4 years later. wrong wrong wrong wrong. so yeah, i'll check in next year at this time, to conclude the bet... you seem to think that anyone who dares to check your _accuracy_ is "launching a strike" on you. you want to spew your thoughts out without having any do any checks. you don't want to be challenged. and hey, i don't blame you. if my track-record was as bad as yours, i wouldn't want anyone bringing up pesky issues like "accuracy" either. and if my grasp on the issues was as tenuous as yours, i wouldn't want to engage in any dialog either, because it would be exposed that i couldn't really defend my position with rational arguments. you want to dish out platitudes and be praised for doing just that, instead of doing the difficult work of examining the hard trade-offs. you want to dangle the shiny in front of people, and not have to face the uncomfortable fact that it just makes them dissatisfied with the current reality of the situation on the ground and in the marketplace. you call my posts "rants", but that kind of doubletalk doesn't work, and you're so far outside your comfort zone you don't even realize it. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Nov 29 14:50:19 2009 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:50:19 EST Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again] Message-ID: greg said: > It has greatly appreciated. i'm gonna talk about formats in the coming week, but i'm curious as to how .epub advocates evaluate the quality of these automatic conversions to .epub. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Sun Nov 29 20:44:22 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:44:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Some genuine fodder for Michael's ire [Re: Re: it's that time of year again]] In-Reply-To: <4B12E872.3030205@pobox.com> References: <5eff08fa0911281352k61602ba3lae487451be8535ce@mail.gmail.com> <4B1278A9.9090203@pobox.com> <4B12A5AF.8040900@pobox.com> <4B12E872.3030205@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, David H. Rothman wrote: > > You are SOOO far behind the times, all of this is old, not news. > > Uh, Michael, it's the SECRECY that's a big angle here, beyond the usual > mischief. Why should proposed copyright treaties be treated like national > security secrets? Just Google around a bit: Duh!!! Don't you remember how SECRET the 1998 US Copyright Act was when it passed? I'll bet you didn't even KNOW it was passed for weeks or month afterwards! Biggest political smokescreen. . . . You really don't remember anything about it, do you??? As for this new treaty, I've been on it for quite a while, it's not news. > > http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=secret+copyright+treaty > > No small number of news organizations see...news. > > As for disrupting this list, keep in mind that out of the blue, without my > attacking anyone, Bowerbird launched a strike on me and wants to do this every Talk about "out of the blue" you said you weren't going to waste more time. > Thanksgiving. Great for holiday cheer, huh? I defended myself. You sided with > PG's resident troll, the clown who has been kicked off his share of lists. A I don't side with anyone, particularly either of you two. > little Orwellian. Or is this list instead the Planet of the Trolls? The > Apes--no, I mean the Trolls--set the tone? Bizarre. Meanwhile apologies to the > Apes. They strike me as far, far more civil than Bowerbird. Sounds more Orsonwellian to me. . . . > I'm happy to write up PG's better side, but I gotta say, Michael, you're doing > a pretty efficient job of alienating people without my tolerance of your, er, I'm not worried about alienating you or your cadre of friends, I just call them as I see them and you don't like my consistency. Stop wasting time with old news. > eccentricities. Some potential friends of PG may put themselves in my place > and not reach out to you. Horror of horrors, a few of those you alienate might > even have money. The tone of the PG volunteer list just might be one reason > why PG is unfortunately so bleepin' cash-strapped. All this craziness might > also scare away potential participants with first-rate ideas for PG. Which > counts most--Bowerbird's rants or your mission to digitize books in the public > domain? Money, money, money, money. YOU go for the money, OK? First rate ideas for PG will carry their own weight, without having to carry the weight of all your gold. > > As for ePub, I've already said that it's fine great for PG to offer many > formats and let 'em slug at out. You can do that until the end of time, and in > fact I'd prefer this. Then please do, and stop contradicting yourself, and everyone else. > But ePub is the one that Sony and B&N are gearing up > for, and the one that even Amazon might in time offer as a Kindle-format > alternative. This took years to achieve. It's unfortunate that rather than > helping the standards movement, you've just been sitting on the sidelines. You > could still have worked toward standards while offering many formats. "Took years to achieve?" Sony, Amazon and Google combined maybe add up to 10 years. Duh! They could all drop their current eBook programs like hot potatoes if things don't go their way, without even a business plan blip. However, I think, as I always have, that eBooks are going to be so extraordinarily HUGE that it will carry them all along. . . . > > OK, enough. Now get back to the stuff I like--PG's mission. Give the most possible books to the most possible people. Let me know when Sony and Amazon and all the rest of them have combined for their first million seller. Then I'll tell that we gave away that many copies of just one book in a single month. . .several times. . . . They are only making a dent in the commercial world, not in the world of eBooks in toto. > > David > > TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home > http://www.teleread.org > From gbnewby at pglaf.org Mon Nov 30 13:16:38 2009 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:16:38 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> Message-ID: <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:18:40PM -0800, Jim Adcock wrote: > Cool. I would point out that it would be nice if PG created > Ebook-reader-friendly "landing pads" for each of the books in a particular > format -- ie MOBI and EPUB. The current "landing pad" pages for each book > are virtually impossible to use with Ebook-readers, so it is not possible to > create a "Magic Catalog" using a proper "landing pad" approach. > > IE the recommendation: > > http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12345 Sorry for not responding sooner. One obvious approach is something like this: http://m.gutenberg.org/etext/12345 ...which would just be minimalist HTML. Does this seem like it should be easy? Or, do we need to customize for 1000 different devices (literally...according to our pals at wattpad.com). -- Greg > in > > http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Information_About_Linking_to_our_Pag > es > > > really doesn't work for E-book readers so one can't use that approach -- > because it doesn't work. > > If you had such proper "landing pads" then you could include links such as > "How to Donate", and "About Us" etc. Also, if you want to encourage tools > such as "Magic Catalog" then it would be cool to publish the PG catalogs in > a format that can be easily and reliably parsed, including info on whether a > particular book is illustrated or not (Many ebook users do not want the > illustrated version since it takes too long over "mobile phone" links) > > Also it would be cool if someone took on the issue of using netbooks as-if > they are Ebook-readers, because that would be a way to support a "Generic" > Ebook-reader that would be agnostic about where one gets one's books from -- > including PG. > > Manybooks.net has a E-book friendly version at: > > mnybks.net > > if you want to see an interface that Ebook-readers do reasonably well > support. > > freekindlebooks.org also has an Ebook-reader friendly interface -- one that > doesn't even assume a search box capability! > From desrod at gnu-designs.com Mon Nov 30 14:02:54 2009 From: desrod at gnu-designs.com (David A. Desrosiers) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:02:54 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Greg Newby wrote: > Does this seem like it should be easy? Or, do we need to customize > for 1000 different devices (literally...according to our pals at > wattpad.com). The correct way is to just apply a stylesheet for mobile devices to your existing HTML page, and be done with it. You don't even have to edit the HTML to apply it to all of the sub-html pages you serve from that vhost if you wish. The main site appears to be running Apache/2, so that's doable. I'd even be willing to expose my Gutenberg mirror as the "mobile site" and make the necessary adjustments if you wanted to do that. Supporting per-device useragents is a dead-end right from the start; you'll always be playing a losing game of catch-up the whole way. Let me know and we can begin testing out some ideas. From hart at pglaf.org Mon Nov 30 19:31:10 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:31:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] phase-change memory Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:37:36 -0800 From: Greg Newby To: Michael S. Hart , Michael S. Hart Subject: phase-change memory I have it on good authority that this will be replacing many instances of flash memory. Samsung is already manufacturing it for cell phones. http://www.eetimessupplynetwork.com/220100470?cid=RSSfeed_eetsn_eetsnRSS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-change_memory /// From Michael Samsung's first announcement of a 512-Mbit phase-change RAM prototype came in September 2006, and only now is the rumor coming out that they are actually in production. This is a great test of comments made earlier this week for the periods between such announcements and actual fact, but you can't actually go out and buy this stuff right now, and if you did, you'd probably be disappointed, as it is only a 512 M. . .BIT. . .not 512 MByte so these won't compete with the flash RAM you've been buying off the shelve for years-- available nearly up to the 512 GIGAbyte level today. In addition, the advantage of the new PRAM chips is mainly, perhaps solely, about a 20% reduction in battery drain. So, if you are comforatable using your computer for 2.5 hrs now, you should be comfortable using it for 3 hrs on PRAM. The question of calendaring such progress remains, as these chips have to work their way through the entire production, testing, integration and finally work their way through the various countries' distribution pipelines to consumers of a Samsung cellphone and then perhaps other brands or purposes such as competing with current flash RAM in the gigabytes. Even if this all happens to the point where the average one of us can walk into a store and buy a USB version of some a year from now, that would be over four years from vaporware to an actual wide scale product, probably closer to five. From hart at pglaf.org Mon Nov 30 19:46:46 2009 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:46:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] MORE !@! Re: phase-change memory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, I chopped off the best part when I sent that!!! The other major advantages of PRAM is that erase/write time lapses may be up to seven times as fast though no one seems to have mentioned that this should work well with the new USB 3.0, which is now officialy 1.5 years out of the gate, but I haven't seen any such devices. Footnote: while the smallest portions can rewrite the data over 10 times faster, the overall speed increases are expected to be only 7 times faster when scaled up. However, this brings us to another major point in that scalability has potential to put even more gigbytes in the current USB flash form factors. I don't expect to see any of these for TWO more years, which would be at the end of 2011 at the earliest, and I am not betting heavily on that, though, as always, a pizza lunch will be given to anyone bringing me such a gizmo that I can buy at competitive prices. I am hoping others will bring their own predictions to bear on this and that we can have a little contest. From jimad at msn.com Mon Nov 30 20:20:57 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:20:57 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: <4B0BE28D.1080007@perathoner.de> References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> <4B0BE28D.1080007@perathoner.de> Message-ID: >What is a "magic catalog"? A "Magic Catalog" is fancy pants marketing words for a simple HTML catalog which has been converted to EPUB or MOBI format in a way such that when one has the Magic Catalog in one's Kindle or other E-book reader you can read the catalog there "in native format" just like any other e-book, click on any book in the catalog, and the catalog automagically fires up the mechanizations which cause the Kindle or other E-book reader to automagically start downloading the E-book over Whispernet or Wi-Fi to the E-book reader. The only thing "magic" about it is the "holy cow!" reaction of seeing how easily this works after painfully fighting the PG website over the rudimentary web browsers found in Kindle and other E-book readers. One can have a Magic Catalog in one's Kindle, for example, be at the airport, and with one click get a new book for free to read on the airplane flight. Compared to literally a half-hour fighting the PG website and then it being catch-as-catch-can whether or not one can successfully download the book you want. >You don't need landing pages, you can go directly to the epub/mobi. Yes one can do this and this is in fact how the Magic Catalogs work, but PG asks that one not do this kind of direct linking to a book, rather PG asks that one links to the standard "landing pads" at PG, such as: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/142 But that doesn't work for E-book readers and other small format devices because the standard PG page uses frames and includes too much information to be usable on small format devices. Mnybks.net in comparison demonstrates the kind of simple interface that actually works for small format devices. One would like a simpler landing pad than http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/142 but one that still retains the essentials, such as how to donate to PG, how to get to the home page of PG, etc. >Try the RDF/XML catalog: > http://www.gutenberg.org/feeds/catalog.rdf.bz2 Yes -- agreed this is a much better format to derive other catalogs from such as a "Magic Catalog" >We have no information about the 'illustration' status of an ebook. >Sometimes the producers include ornaments and drop caps as images, so we >cannot claim 'illustrated' if we find images. Very Strange, then how does PG generate a page such as http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22210 -- which includes both "illustrated" and "un-illustrated" versions of the same book? Again, E-book readers like the option of choosing getting texts illustrated or not illustrated. If I am downloading a book at an airport, the Whispernet connection is probably not fast enough to make getting the illustrated version worthwhile. But if at home with a direct hardwired connection to the internet, then an E-book user might want to get the illustrated version. >> Also it would be cool if someone took on the issue of using netbooks as-if >> they are Ebook-readers, because that would be a way to support a "Generic" >> Ebook-reader that would be agnostic about where one gets one's books from -- >> including PG. > >Huh? Please illustrate. OK, let's say Santa brings me an netbook for Xmas. Besides the built-in HTML format reader aka "Internet Explorer" I can also easily install other HTML readers, such as Firefox. On the same netbook I can also install a variety of MOBI format readers including "Kindle for the PC", "Mobipocket Reader", "Stanza", etc. I can also install a variety of EPUB format readers including Adobe Digital Editions, Calibre, EPUBReader, etc. In general see: http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/E-book_software to see what-all is available for a netbook or other computers. Now much of this software is happy to read free books already on your computer, but also is often tied to one or more for-pay publishers such as B&N or Amazon or Sony where you can use the reader software to buy and download the for-pay book. People can and do disagree about which e-book reader looks prettiest, just like they disagree about which HTML format reader they like best. They also disagree about which for-pay ebook publishers they like best. One can obviously also install Adobe Reader and read PDF format. And Calibre and Stanza among other tools allow one to change file formats on free books. So there is a ton of options available here, and it could be cool if someone documented all the different ways one can read the various file options PG offers using a netbook -- which is after all just a small laptop, but personally I don't see people lugging a big laptop around in order to use it as an e-book reader. > The new kid on the block is the "Open >Publication Distribution System": > http://code.google.com/p/openpub/wiki/OPDS >which PG will eventually support. Yes this looks like it will be very cool once it is developed and if it is supported by more sites than just PG. From desrod at gnu-designs.com Mon Nov 30 21:18:43 2009 From: desrod at gnu-designs.com (David A. Desrosiers) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:18:43 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:02 PM, David A. Desrosiers wrote: > I'd even be willing to expose my Gutenberg mirror as the "mobile site" > and make the necessary adjustments if you wanted to do that. I threw something together this afternoon and you can see it in the screenshots below (taken from my BlackBerry Bold device with BBSAK from my Windows laptop) http://code.gnu-designs.com/m.gutenberg.org/ These are NOT converted etexts, they're 100% untouched and are manipulated on the fly by a little wrapper that I wrote, which sanitizes and cleanses the output and also injects a proper stylesheet that is appropriate for mobile devices. I was playing with some "e-paper-like" color schemes (which you can see in the screenshots), to increase readability. I can easily reflow, reformat, slice and dice the output to look like anything I want for any device. A 175-line Perl script (with comments!) drives the site that converts these on the fly for users. If anyone is interested, I can probably tighten up the security and expose it publicly to get some heavy testing on it. I'd love to have something like this linked from the main Gutenberg site :) From jimad at msn.com Mon Nov 30 23:08:51 2009 From: jimad at msn.com (James Adcock) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:08:51 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) In-Reply-To: <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> Message-ID: >One obvious approach is something like this: > http://m.gutenberg.org/etext/12345 Sorry, I can't get this example location to work. From ajhaines at shaw.ca Mon Nov 30 23:37:44 2009 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines (shaw)) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:37:44 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) References: <20091123183330.GA19309@pglaf.org> <20091130211638.GA7076@pglaf.org> Message-ID: It should probably be: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12345 ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Adcock" To: ; "'Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion'" Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:08 PM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: New mobile devices page (pls. proofread) > >>One obvious approach is something like this: > >> http://m.gutenberg.org/etext/12345 > > Sorry, I can't get this example location to work. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d >