Anti-Piracy Patent Stops Students From Sharing Textbooks

[abarbarian]

Anti-Piracy Patent Stops Students From Sharing Textbook

 

A new patent granted this week aims to stop students from sharing textbooks, both off and online. The patent awarded to economics professor Joseph Henry Vogel hopes to embed the publishing world even further into academia. Under his proposal, students can only participate in courses when they buy an online access code which allows them to use the course book. No access code means a lower grade, all in the best interests of science.

 

If You've Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law

 

 

 

 

Three courts came out three different ways because the language of the law is confusing and it appears to lead to "absurd" results (in the Ninth Circuit's words).

 

 

Ultimately the Court must choose between bringing copyright law into the Internet age or consigning us all to the dark ages. I hope they choose wisely.

 

Thank goodness we have intelligent governments running the world. :worthy:

[Guest LilBambi]

Yeah...right...

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Ah... the joy of horse manure.

[rolanaj]

Thank goodness we have intelligent governments running the world. :worthy:

Do I sense sarcasm here???

[Urmas]

The patent in question was granted to Professor of Economics Joseph Henry Vogel. He believes that piracy, lending and reselling of books is a threat to the publishing industry.

 

“Professors are increasingly turning a blind eye when students appear in class with photocopied pages. Others facilitate piracy by placing texts in the library reserve where they can be photocopied,” Vogel writes.

 

The result is less money for publishers, and fewer opportunities for professors like himself to get published. With Vogel’s invention, however, this threat can be stopped.

 

 

(Would you buy a used car Transdisciplinary Mini-Course from this man?)

 

Interesting. Compare the above with this:

Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist :

 

The returns are astronomical: in the past financial year, for example, Elsevier's operating profit margin was 36% (£724m on revenues of £2bn). They result from a stranglehold on the market. Elsevier, Springer and Wiley, who have bought up many of their competitors, now publish 42% of journal articles.

 

More importantly, universities are locked into buying their products. Academic papers are published in only one place, and they have to be read by researchers trying to keep up with their subject. Demand is inelastic and competition non-existent, because different journals can't publish the same material. In many cases the publishers oblige the libraries to buy a large package of journals, whether or not they want them all. Perhaps it's not surprising that one of the biggest crooks ever to have preyed upon the people of this country – Robert Maxwell – made much of his money through academic publishing.

 

The publishers claim that they have to charge these fees as a result of the costs of production and distribution, and that they add value (in Springer's words) because they "develop journal brands and maintain and improve the digital infrastructure which has revolutionised scientific communication in the past 15 years". But an analysis by Deutsche Bank reaches different conclusions. "We believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process … if the process really were as complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, 40% margins wouldn't be available." Far from assisting the dissemination of research, the big publishers impede it, as their long turnaround times can delay the release of findings by a year or more.

 

What we see here is pure rentier capitalism: monopolising a public resource then charging exorbitant fees to use it. Another term for it is economic parasitism. To obtain the knowledge for which we have already paid, we must surrender our feu to the lairds of learning.

 

Further reading:

Academic spring: how an angry maths blog sparked a scientific revolution

Elsevier — my part in its downfall

Timothy Gowers

 

 

Case Finland: Tertiary education is free of charge for students. In 2011, Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences (either by themselves or through a consortium called FinELib) spent a tad over €19 million on "ematerials" — my rough, half-educated guesstimate is that half of that money went to Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer Link & IEEE/IEE Electronic Library. (Finland has 5.4 million inhabitants, by the way.)

 

FinELib

 

And, according to professor Vogel, students (armed with photocopiers) are killing the industry. Crikey.

 

The idea is simple. As part of a course, students will have to participate in a web-based discussion board, an activity which counts towards their final grade. To gain access to the board students need a special code, which they get by buying the associated textbook.

 

Electronic learning environments are the norm these days. And, in many cases, universities buy — oops! — "outsource" 'em... to publishers (e.g. Pearson). Students must "pass" the exercises (based on the course book by the same publisher) before they can take the exam.

 

This means publishers can charge multiple times for a book that was sold only once.

 

 

Dunno if this is patentable though... after all, the underlying [sic!] idea of the world's OLDEST profession is "ya got it, ya sell it, ya still got it!"

 

 

[abarbarian]

Do I sense sarcasm here???

 

Nay lass I knows me place. Touch forelock an all.

Thems patents is a good thing.

Aye I got a pair of patent leather shoes for best way back in 70's, shiny as owt th' were. An d'st tha 'no thems still shiny an I niver polished em once, 'ad to dust em a few times but no polish.Mind thi' thas only used for best.

Aye them patents is good things I tell thi.

 

:worthy:

 

 

Excellent information there Urmas Now don't you have some pie making to do

Edited June 17, 2012 by abarbarian

[ross549]

As a college student myself, I hate it when a textbook cannot be purchased used. This happens a lot when a college has a "X College Edition" of a textbook. You can't resell it, because no one but students from that school will be able to use it. The content in many cases is identical, but it has a different ISBN. My wife, also a student, runs into this a lot at the local community college.

 

Algebra is Algebra. Math does not change. The books are sufficient, and there is no reason to have a "College X Edition" of the book.

 

The sciences are a different matter. That field changes all the time, so it makes sense that there will be newer editions of the book.

 

But to not let us students purchase the books used? HOGWASH. The textbook industry is doing just fine right now. No need to legislate them more money. None at all.

 

Adam

[Guest LilBambi]

Updated versions of a text book with substantive changes of actual material not slapping a college or university name on it, but real live updated versions (for all universities and colleges) makes sense. But college specific ones is ludicrous.

 

I agree with the following (that was in one of Urmas' quotes above) in this case (and generally) because publishers are promoting this travesty at the college/university level and preying on students:

 

"We believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process … if the process really were as complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, 40% margins wouldn't be available." Far from assisting the dissemination of research, the big publishers impede it, as their long turnaround times can delay the release of findings by a year or more.

Edited June 17, 2012 by LilBambi