Gregory's Server@internetarchive There is so much variety in the thing we call "book" and what is covered (uniformly) by (c). In the Google Books project, many academic authors stated they wanted their books to be available, even for free. And in some instances, factual books have been shown to warrant less protection than fiction. We need a revision of (c) that is more realistic and also that actually promotes science and the useful arts.
|
5 comments
@PJ_Evans @internetarchive I also want to point out that scanned books are a much poorer reading experience than e-books - it's just a photograph of book pages, with maybe some un-reviewed OCR text behind it. Fine perhaps for some searching, discovery of a proper noun in a large amount of text, but we can't promote careful reading with this technology. I hope that someone is working on a way to turn these images into actual book text.  @kcoyle @internetarchive @PJ_Evans @internetarchive The text can be really garbled. Note that it is offered to the visually impaired and I would like to hear how well it is working for them. When I look at it, it's a mess for things like tables of contents; plain text renders better, but there are still errors. Could something be set up where the text could be corrected by humans? |
@kcoyle @internetarchive
Google Books does a poor job of digitizing. They never get fold-out pages.