As someone who likes to hold a book and flip the pages as I read, I was not sure if the Kindle e-reader experience would be enjoyable. I initially struggled to use the buttons correctly–skipping to the next chapter rather than turning to the next page. It was very light so holding it felt weird. Like most users who are new to a certain technology, I felt slightly uncomfortable using the tablet. I wanted the paper book back.

I wanted the paper book back, however, until I was in class today. During the discussion about how Goldstein described Justice Holmes, I was able to type “Holmes” into the Kindle search box. I selected The Copyright Highway and instantly got 15 excerpts. One of the excerpts seemed to fit the discussion at hand, too. Had I only had the paper copy of the book, however, I would have had to go to the index, find the page numbers where Holmes was listed, read the pages, and find the passages. While this search process has value (I think…?), the ability to get instant excerpts was very helpful in class today.

In conclusion, while I enjoy reading from paper books outside of class, having a Kindle during class discussions would be great.

I just came across this article by the New York Times about a lawsuit challenging Conan Doyle copyrights. I thought this article was interesting, because it is the opposite of what we have been discussing.  Rather than fighting for copyright, this article fights against one. The name Arthur Conan Doyle may sound familiar, and that is because he was the author of the beloved Sherlock Holmes.  Sherlock Holmes has become a cultural phenomenon, with in more recent years, multiple movies and television series starring the character, coming about. A few weeks ago, a civil complaint was filed claiming “many licensing fees paid to the Arthur Conan Doyle estate have been unnecessary, since the main characters and elements of their story derived from materials published before Jan. 1, 1923, are no longer covered by United States copyright law.”  The complaint also claims that the estate, a business entity in England, sent a letter to a publisher saying it would prevent the selling of “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes” if a licensing fee is not paid.  Through the complaint, the court has been asked to “make a declaratory judgment establishing that the basic ‘Sherlock Holmes story elements’ are in the public domain.” The complaint does not deny the fact that the estate is the “sole and exclusive owner” of the material that remains under copyright.  The man who filed the complaint believes that he shouldn’t be subjected to copyright laws because he didn’t draw on any material from the stories still under copyright.  If the man who filed the complaint is telling the truth, which I must believe he is, then I would have to agree with him.  This man shouldn’t be subjected to copyright laws if the works he is drawing from are already in the public domain.

For my post i watched The Alphabet Part 4. This sections intrigued me because it dealt with the advent of the fountain pen. Our fountain pens have made had a profound effect on how i view the written word. The 30 minute segment ends with a modern view of the scribe, now known as a Calligrapher; who will carry on the torch into the future. However, it is said that Calligraphy is seemingly a dying breed, I have only met a handful of people who knew how to write using it. All is not lost however, if our last book viewing has taught me anything, it is that there is still an appreciation for hand written words.

After watching The Making of a Renaissance Book it was a nice review of what we have learned and seen how printing presses are used.  It was similar to the EPI demonstration we viewed at EPI but with some broader details.  However, in my opinion it didn’t portray how long it takes to put all the type in and how precise it is.  The only way to truly understand that is to actually do it or view it.

One topic it did cover was how the type was made which is something I have been wondering.  It takes longer than even putting the type in and I had been wondering how they make it so precise.  My questions about this were answered in this video.  Once again the art of print making has been made clear how difficult an art form it is.

This article is about an employee of a university library that was hired with the sole purpose of managing copyright laws with the library materials.  This is a curious way of looking at copyright as it is usually not associated with gaining jobs.  The laws could however benefit some professions such as attorneys because of the constant changing of the laws due to advancements in technology.

Furthermore this also shows what a huge impact copyright has on our lives.  It is such a huge aspect in media that a university actually had to hire a person to manage it all.  This also begs the question if the copyright laws are too much now which is why it has become such a large part of society.  Personally I am fine with it because I would rather have too many copyright laws than too little which leads to people being taken advantage of.

http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.libcat.lafayette.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=bd425eb4-9977-4ae3-a8b7-5069efd856e3%40sessionmgr11&hid=4

In class and on the blog we have mostly been talking about how eBooks are negatively effecting the market of print books.  This article however talks about how eBooks are getting their sales taken from them due to the development of Tablets.  Tablets are products such as the iPad that have developed into a more reader friendly product.  The article says that it has taken about 20% sales from tablets.

I find this interesting that alsready another form of technology is starting to eclipse eBooks.  Although it may not surpass them it certainly present competition.  It also puts into perspective how timeless print works are.  They were the only form of print for hundreds of years and eBooks only had about a ten year run before developing competition.  It is vital to look at the development how the consuming of books is developing.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/tech/gaming-gadgets/tablets-replacing-e-readers/index.html

I read today about a supreme court case involving college textbooks and what technically constitutes theft. The court case centered around a student who purchased his textbooks in southeast asia (where most of the books are printed) for dirt cheap prices, in effect circumventing the american publishing companies and saving money. The controversy arose when the student attempted to re-sell the books online undercutting the price of the books had they been purchased domestically by a wide margin. The student then used this method to sell $900,000 worth of books and made $100,000 in profits. (not a bad way to make some cash)

The case centers around the concept of copyrights in the law and the chain of profits to be made off of books. now to be clear the same book is being purchased the only difference is the country in which the book was purchased and the price paid for it. To me it seems that this is a case of the american publishing companies taking this guy to court because they didn’t get their full profits off of the books in question. To me this seems like petty corporate vengeance. Keep in mind that these are college textbooks that most people don’t read for pleasure but are instead instrumental in gaining an education. The price of college textbooks is absurdly high (as we all know) however it is my personal belief that these books should be as low cost as possible. Textbooks are part of getting an education but capitalism has stepped in the way and private publishing companies are using the need based textbook market to drive the price up astronomically. For some this makes higher education unattainable. thoughts?

Yes, this is mainly a space for non-professor types, but following the discussions about our art books visit last week, this exhibition review of Ed Ruscha’s legacy in making and depicting books was too good to pass up.  Ed Ruscha is one of the granddaddies of American conceptual art (he has his own catalogue of his work online), and one of his big claims to fame is making simple, cheaply produced, almost “dumb” art books, usually involving photography.  This was a challenge to the “fine press” approach that dominated the rise of the art books (remember those fancy, large-format books on the first table last week?), and as desktop publishing became widely available for private individuals in the 1980s, this approach to books has stayed widely popular.  There’s a lot of sending-up, ripping-off, mashing-up, etc. in this area, maybe even more so than in the “regular” artist’s books we saw last week.  This probably makes such books more vulnerable to copyright lawsuits and criminal charges.  But let me ask: what is the social value of Ruscha’s style of book?  And what in copyright law (check out Goldstein here) might give his kind of work some protection?

Our most recent trip to the library was by far the most interesting one. Many of the books displayed on the tables were unorthodox to say the least. Their construction and content goes against most people’s basic definition of a modern codex. However, in a way, these pieces seemed to be sort of a throwback to the early days of manuscripts. Back in those times, books were seen not as just a form of technology used for sharing information or telling stories, but were in many ways an art form. That was clearly the goal in mind with the production of the books viewed in class. It was blatantly clear that a great deal of labor went into the creation of these pieces, and the results were beautiful works of art. I will try and keep an eye out for such artistic works in the future whenever I am in a place that sells books. Perhaps I will run into one of the examples we viewed on Tuesday.