Major textbook publishers sue open-education textbook start-up

[Occam's Banana]

A new front has opened up in the Intellectual Property wars.

I found this particularly interesting since I work for the largest textbook wholesaler in the country ...


As The Chronicle of Higher Education reports, three major textbook publishers, Pearson, Cengage Learning, and Macmillan Higher Education, are suing a small startup company that produces open and free alternative textbooks. This startup, Boundless Learning, builds textbooks using creative commons licensed and otherwise freely available material - and this poses a threat to the three large textbook publishers. So, what do you do when you feel threatened? Well, file a copyright infringement lawsuit, of course.

Let's back up for a second to explain exactly what it is Boundless Learning does. It is important to note this description of Boundless' activities comes from the large textbook publishers themselves, since Boundless is still in closed beta and doesn't want to open up at this point (the lawsuit might be a good opportunity to open up, to eliminate any doubts).

Students select the traditional textbooks from the big publishers that were assigned to them in class, and Boundless Learning then pulls all matter of content from free and open sources to create free and open versions of the textbooks the student selected. It's important to stress that only free material is selected - texts and images that are licensed under creative commons, for instance.

According to the large three textbook publishers, this constitutes copyright infringement - even if no text or images are actually being copied. As an example, the three big publishers mention Boundless' alternative to a Biology book (this one). The big publishers' book uses images of a running bear and a fish-eating bear to illustrate the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Boundless' alternative uses similar, but not the same, bear images, which came from Wikipedia, are licensed under creative commons, and are properly attributed.


FTA: http://www.osnews.com/story/25774/Major_textbook_publishers_sue_open-education_textbook_start-up

[Xhin]

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. Boundless seems to be copying the exact layout and other creative parts of the textbook and substituting its text/images with that attributed to Creative Commons.

Consider what you would think of an author who "created" a story about a young student of magic named Potter Harry who went off to a boarding school called "Warthogs" and experienced a series of adventures fighting various forces of evil that tracked the entire story line of Harry Potter without actually using any exact language. Would this be infringing?

[Lishy]

You know, this makes me want to scan all my textbooks but change stuff around to avoid being sued, just for the sake of pissing them off.

I believe it's wrong to force us to pay for information. ALL this should be freely available for the world, on the internet!

(Of course, I ike books myself. But this "copyright" BS pisses me off!)

Course, the law pisses me off too. I just wanna say "Fuck you!" to them, because they aren't even suing for honest reasons! This is a sheer exploitation of the messed up law!

[roho76]

As long as it's not identical and not being marketed as the same thing under the same name then I don't see the problem. This is no different than impostor recipe websites and department stores that have lines of clothing that are almost identical to high end fashion designers clothing lines. Like Lishy said, this is simple perversion of an unnecessary law. Intellectual property writes are so hard to enforce that it is a necessity to have a police state similar to the one we have today to enforce it.

[GunnyFreedom]

I would feel more comfortable with Boundless if they did not exactly copy layouts and arrangement. As a desktop publisher and page layout person, I know that layouts often require at least as much effort and creativity as content in order to properly convey the information being presented. I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of IP, but I do recognize the catch-22 involved in the potentiality of abolishing IP, leading to a copying free-for-all, leading to nobody able to profit on creativity, leading to the death of original content.

There is no question but that textbook makers inflate pricing to meet the market demand in an artificially inflated subsidized education market, and that is clearly wrong and a violation of the free market. I also have no doubt that current IP law is far and away overly restrictive in many cases. However, I don't necessarily believe in the total abolition of IP because if I put 5 years of effort into something that someone can just copy in 5 hours and sell/give away as their own, then I am out 5 years of effort and creativity and off to the homeless shelter I go. Under that model, the motivation for producing exceptional original content vanishes and everything we produce as a nation becomes derivative.

So I don't actually know the answer. What I do know is that current IP laws are way too restrictive and open to malicious prosecution of people who do not merit prosecution. I do know that we need to break some artificial monopolies on information held by the politically connected, such as Monsanto patenting naturally occurring DNA...such things need to stop immediately. I do know that the ability to extend copyright out to 100 years and more (also by the politically connected, such as Disney corp) is detrimental to general societal creativity.

But I am very reluctant to concede the abolition of IP altogether as the consequences to that action may be even worse than what we face today. Without the ability to profit on original content and ideas, creativity will largely die except for very small, insular, localized markets, and even then such creative souls are liable to invest years and decades into projects to still come out a pauper even given spectacular demand.

Creativity cannot be deemed valueless or worthless, given the enormous resources input. Say for instance I spend 10 years of my life and every penny I can scrape together plus three mortgages on my house and property to develop a better mousetrap. Finally it's done and the last 10 years of my life's effort are starting to pay off when it's released to market and people start buying it. Until a week later WalMart starts selling a perfect duplicate at 1/4 the cost because they had no R&D investment to cover. Now I'm bankrupt, lose my house, and end up at the homeless shelter. In that paradigm, what would motivate me to produce original anything, when if I should produce something the market actually wants, it will just be copied and remarketed by someone else without the R&D costs?

[Anti Federalist]

+rep


I would feel more comfortable with Boundless if they did not exactly copy layouts and arrangement. As a desktop publisher and page layout person, I know that layouts often require at least as much effort and creativity as content in order to properly convey the information being presented. I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of IP, but I do recognize the catch-22 involved in the potentiality of abolishing IP, leading to a copying free-for-all, leading to nobody able to profit on creativity, leading to the death of original content.

There is no question but that textbook makers inflate pricing to meet the market demand in an artificially inflated subsidized education market, and that is clearly wrong and a violation of the free market. I also have no doubt that current IP law is far and away overly restrictive in many cases. However, I don't necessarily believe in the total abolition of IP because if I put 5 years of effort into something that someone can just copy in 5 hours and sell/give away as their own, then I am out 5 years of effort and creativity and off to the homeless shelter I go. Under that model, the motivation for producing exceptional original content vanishes and everything we produce as a nation becomes derivative.

So I don't actually know the answer. What I do know is that current IP laws are way too restrictive and open to malicious prosecution of people who do not merit prosecution. I do know that we need to break some artificial monopolies on information held by the politically connected, such as Monsanto patenting naturally occurring DNA...such things need to stop immediately. I do know that the ability to extend copyright out to 100 years and more (also by the politically connected, such as Disney corp) is detrimental to general societal creativity.

But I am very reluctant to concede the abolition of IP altogether as the consequences to that action may be even worse than what we face today. Without the ability to profit on original content and ideas, creativity will largely die except for very small, insular, localized markets, and even then such creative souls are liable to invest years and decades into projects to still come out a pauper even given spectacular demand.

Creativity cannot be deemed valueless or worthless, given the enormous resources input. Say for instance I spend 10 years of my life and every penny I can scrape together plus three mortgages on my house and property to develop a better mousetrap. Finally it's done and the last 10 years of my life's effort are starting to pay off when it's released to market and people start buying it. Until a week later WalMart starts selling a perfect duplicate at 1/4 the cost because they had no R&D investment to cover. Now I'm bankrupt, lose my house, and end up at the homeless shelter. In that paradigm, what would motivate me to produce original anything, when if I should produce something the market actually wants, it will just be copied and remarketed by someone else without the R&D costs?

[heavenlyboy34]

I would feel more comfortable with Boundless if they did not exactly copy layouts and arrangement. As a desktop publisher and page layout person, I know that layouts often require at least as much effort and creativity as content in order to properly convey the information being presented. I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of IP, but I do recognize the catch-22 involved in the potentiality of abolishing IP, leading to a copying free-for-all, leading to nobody able to profit on creativity, leading to the death of original content.

There is no question but that textbook makers inflate pricing to meet the market demand in an artificially inflated subsidized education market, and that is clearly wrong and a violation of the free market. I also have no doubt that current IP law is far and away overly restrictive in many cases. However, I don't necessarily believe in the total abolition of IP because if I put 5 years of effort into something that someone can just copy in 5 hours and sell/give away as their own, then I am out 5 years of effort and creativity and off to the homeless shelter I go. Under that model, the motivation for producing exceptional original content vanishes and everything we produce as a nation becomes derivative.

So I don't actually know the answer. What I do know is that current IP laws are way too restrictive and open to malicious prosecution of people who do not merit prosecution. I do know that we need to break some artificial monopolies on information held by the politically connected, such as Monsanto patenting naturally occurring DNA...such things need to stop immediately. I do know that the ability to extend copyright out to 100 years and more (also by the politically connected, such as Disney corp) is detrimental to general societal creativity.

But I am very reluctant to concede the abolition of IP altogether as the consequences to that action may be even worse than what we face today. Without the ability to profit on original content and ideas, creativity will largely die except for very small, insular, localized markets, and even then such creative souls are liable to invest years and decades into projects to still come out a pauper even given spectacular demand.

Creativity cannot be deemed valueless or worthless, given the enormous resources input. Say for instance I spend 10 years of my life and every penny I can scrape together plus three mortgages on my house and property to develop a better mousetrap. Finally it's done and the last 10 years of my life's effort are starting to pay off when it's released to market and people start buying it. Until a week later WalMart starts selling a perfect duplicate at 1/4 the cost because they had no R&D investment to cover. Now I'm bankrupt, lose my house, and end up at the homeless shelter. In that paradigm, what would motivate me to produce original anything, when if I should produce something the market actually wants, it will just be copied and remarketed by someone else without the R&D costs?

This has been disproven numerous times. I suggest you start with the great books "Against Intellectual Property" and "Against Intellectual Monopoly". Then search Mises.org for "Intellectual property". You'll see that all the pro-IP arguments are wrong. We also have a thread on this subject around somewhere. The pro-IP side had their proverbial heads handed to them on a platter. :D

[Xhin]

I believe it's wrong to force us to pay for information. ALL this should be freely available for the world, on the internet!


It is, though. With textbooks you're not paying for information, you're paying for a physical organized copy of information as well as the creative process that went into it.


I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of IP, but I do recognize the catch-22 involved in the potentiality of abolishing IP, leading to a copying free-for-all, leading to nobody able to profit on creativity, leading to the death of original content.

I don't think it would lead to the death of original content. If you're a consumer and you want what's cheap no matter the cost, you're going to pirate/copy/etc whatever you can regardless of the laws or potential lawsuits. Distributors are still going to buy from the source, because the source is what releases new content first. Effective piracy is also a lot of work -- for example the difference between downloading an album, burning a CD, printing out an album cover/booklet (also getting it if you pirated something that doesn't have that information included), getting a plastic case to hold it in, etc and just buying a CD.

In the Boundless situation, if you're a student that doesn't want to spend $300+ on textbooks but wants to keep the internal content the same, then it would take a massive amount of work to copy a textbook's layout and substitute stuff for free information. It would honestly be more worth it to buy the damn textbook.

Piracy isn't really a viable business alternative, it's a medium for lower-quality content distribution. The reason the entertainment industry has lost so much money (and they're still worth tons of money) is because rather than adapting to the internet, they lobby to make laws to prevent it.

[teacherone]

This has been disproven numerous times. I suggest you start with the great books "Against Intellectual Property" and "Against Intellectual Monopoly". Then search Mises.org for "Intellectual property". You'll see that all the pro-IP arguments are wrong. We also have a thread on this subject around somewhere. The pro-IP side had their proverbial heads handed to them on a platter. :D

^^^Yes. Read these 300 page books full of hypothetical naval gazings and THEN YOU'LL SEE HOW WRONG YOU REALLY ARE...


hahahahahaha.

[Lishy]

How can you copyright information?

[WilliamC]

thepiratebay.org has lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of textbooks.

I'm not into music, video games, movies, tv shows, software or such, but I love me some textbooks.

How do ya'll think I got so smart?

heh.

[heavenlyboy34]

^^^Yes. Read these 300 page books full of hypothetical naval gazings and THEN YOU'LL SEE HOW WRONG YOU REALLY ARE...


hahahahahaha.
:confused: such a stupid thing to say(there are no "hypothetical naval gazings" in these books)....not sure if serious...
http://i.qkme.me/1t0m.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

I would feel more comfortable with Boundless if they did not exactly copy layouts and arrangement. As a desktop publisher and page layout person, I know that layouts often require at least as much effort and creativity as content in order to properly convey the information being presented. I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of IP, but I do recognize the catch-22 involved in the potentiality of abolishing IP, leading to a copying free-for-all, leading to nobody able to profit on creativity, leading to the death of original content.


The "layouts & arrangement" aspect makes the issue even thornier. From the pro-IP stance, "word-for-word" infringement (& even "too-close" paraphrasis) would be much easier to deal with. But textbooks, by their nature, aren't bastions of creativity & originality - at least with respect to subject matter & content. Just the opposite, in fact (the whole point of textbooks is to propogate a received body of knowledge). Almost all the creativity/originality that goes into them (if any) will likely be in the form of presentation. Interesting ...


There is no question but that textbook makers inflate pricing to meet the market demand in an artificially inflated subsidized education market, and that is clearly wrong and a violation of the free market.

QFT. As I noted in the OP, I work for the largest textbook wholesaler/distributor (*not* publisher) in the country.
You are abosolutely correct. (In fact, the term "highway robbery" comes to mind ...)


I also have no doubt that current IP law is far and away overly restrictive in many cases. However, I don't necessarily believe in the total abolition of IP because if I put 5 years of effort into something that someone can just copy in 5 hours and sell/give away as their own, then I am out 5 years of effort and creativity and off to the homeless shelter I go. Under that model, the motivation for producing exceptional original content vanishes and everything we produce as a nation becomes derivative.


So I don't actually know the answer. What I do know is that current IP laws are way too restrictive and open to malicious prosecution of people who do not merit prosecution. I do know that we need to break some artificial monopolies on information held by the politically connected, such as Monsanto patenting naturally occurring DNA...such things need to stop immediately. I do know that the ability to extend copyright out to 100 years and more (also by the politically connected, such as Disney corp) is detrimental to general societal creativity.

This. As per usual, a well-intended system for promoting socially desirable endeavors has been warped & perverted beyond all recognition - with the warpers & perverters (like Monsanto & Disney) disingenuously hiding behind the original good intentions of the system to excuse themselves. It's disgusting & contemptible.


But I am very reluctant to concede the abolition of IP altogether as the consequences to that action may be even worse than what we face today. Without the ability to profit on original content and ideas, creativity will largely die except for very small, insular, localized markets, and even then such creative souls are liable to invest years and decades into projects to still come out a pauper even given spectacular demand.

Creativity cannot be deemed valueless or worthless, given the enormous resources input. Say for instance I spend 10 years of my life and every penny I can scrape together plus three mortgages on my house and property to develop a better mousetrap. Finally it's done and the last 10 years of my life's effort are starting to pay off when it's released to market and people start buying it. Until a week later WalMart starts selling a perfect duplicate at 1/4 the cost because they had no R&D investment to cover. Now I'm bankrupt, lose my house, and end up at the homeless shelter. In that paradigm, what would motivate me to produce original anything, when if I should produce something the market actually wants, it will just be copied and remarketed by someone else without the R&D costs?

To be honest, I must confess that I am an IP skeptic. Some sort of copyright/patent regime *might* be legitimate. I am doubtful, but if there *is* such a thing, I do not think it can be justified on grounds of property rights. Information & knowledge are "infinitely divisible" resources - as distinct from resources which are "finitely divisible" (such as land, cars, loaves of bread, etc.). Finite divisibility is an essential characteristic of all property.

But the only other argument I've come across for intellectual "property" (so-called) is the "reward or incentive for creative effort" justification. This smacks far too much of a "labor theory of value"; that is, it depends on the idea that value derives from the effort (&/or material inputs) that went into producing something - rather than from the utility (usefulness/desirability) with which anyone regards that something.

My purpose in the OP was not to bash IP, though - I just thought it was an interesting development that indirectly impinges on my field of work - and I was *certain* that RPFers would have something to say about the matter. ;)

[randfan7]

i wonder if this new publisher is practicing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design for their books? if so, they should be good to go. if not, then they better change in a hurry.

[Xhin]

Almost all the creativity/originality that goes into them (if any) will likely be in the form of presentation.

And that's exactly what Boundless is copying. Supposedly. It's still in beta so who knows for sure.


that is, it depends on the idea that value derives from the effort (&/or material inputs) that went into producing something - rather than from the utility (usefulness/desirability) with which anyone regards that something.

Secondhand/Used markets tend to dismantle the labor theory of value. In those cases, the value drops but not enough considering how little labor is put into selling something used.

If anything, a viable theory of value = labor would take into account how much labor *others* would have to put in to duplicate it, not how much labor the progenitur puts in.

[Occam's Banana]

And that's exactly what Boundless is copying. Supposedly. It's still in beta so who knows for sure.
Yes. That's one of the main points of interest in this case. Most people, when they hear "copyright violation," think "word-for-word copying" or something similar.
At any rate, as the OP article disclaims, we only have the plaintiffs' allegations to go by at this time.


Secondhand/Used markets tend to dismantle the labor theory of value. In those cases, the value drops but not enough considering how little labor is put into selling something used.

Precisely. The phenomenon of "secondary" markets (for things like used books) raises problems that must be addressed by any putatively legitimate IP regime.
For example, aren't authors being cheated (or victimized by theft) when used books are sold? If so, why is the sale of used books tolerated?
And if not, why not? Doesn't the justification for IP (whatever it might be - "property rights," "creative effort," etc.) require us to conclude otherwise?


If anything, a viable theory of value = labor would take into account how much labor *others* would have to put in to duplicate it, not how much labor the progenitur puts in.
I don't think any theory of value based on inputs (such as labor) is viable. Something has value *only* because someone finds it useful or desirable - and it is valuable *only* to the degree to which someone finds it useful or desirable. What the producer(s) or duplicator(s) "put into it" is irrelevant.

[Xhin]

For example, aren't authors being cheated (or victimized by theft) when used books are sold? If so, why is the sale of used books tolerated?

Well, the only problem with this is that with markets like used cars or used books you're selling your own physical property regardless of what's actually contained in it. When you sell digital information, it becomes much more tricky because you can copy and distribute digital information very easily. Then again, shouldn't this just fall under the same category as oral information? Can Warner Bros sue you if you make the bugs bunny voice to your friends?

Maybe the problem is that the thing that's being sold is itself digital. A blank CD and a CD with music on it are for all intents and purpose identical physical property, but one costs way more than the other, so that must be because of the digital information on it.


I don't think any theory of value based on inputs (such as labor) is viable. Something has value *only* because someone finds it useful or desirable - and it is valuable *only* to the degree to which someone finds it useful or desirable. What the producer(s) or duplicator(s) "put into it" is irrelevant.

That's way too simplistic an approach. At the very least there's something called "supply and demand" -- the perceived market cost of duplicating something (regardless of what the original producer actually put into it) will diminish the supply. If the demand is high enough, then there will be a much higher value put on it. If you have knowledge of the *worth* of something, then your own personal value of it will rise far beyond its actual utility.

[Occam's Banana]

Well, the only problem with this is that with markets like used cars or used books you're selling your own physical property regardless of what's actually contained in it.

I have to disagree with the claim that "with [...] used books you're selling [...] physical property regardless of what's actually contained in it." I think the exact opposite is true.

Normally, when you buy a book (new or used) you are *not* buying it for the sake of the physical object itself. You are buying it *because* of what's actually contained in it - that is, for the sake of its non-physical content.

If this non-physical content is something for which remuneration can be claimed as an entitlement by an "owner" or "creator" (as pro-IP advocates contend), then there can be no legitimate distinction between "new" & "used" when it comes to whether or not an author deserves remuneration for a sale of a copy of his book.

This is not to say that a book's physical characteristics are irrelevant to its value - clearly, they are not (which is why people are willing to pay more for new books than for used books). But the physical characteristics are incidental to IP concerns. Physical characteristics will affect the price of a book (especially for things like rare or collectible editions), but they have nothing to do with who is (or is not) entitled to remuneration for a sale of the book.


When you sell digital information, it becomes much more tricky because you can copy and distribute digital information very easily.

The ease with which physical objects can be duplicated or distributed does indeed affect the value of those objects (as reflected in their prices) - but it doesn't have anything to do with who is (or isn't) entitled to receive a share of the proceeds. The same is true of non-physical information.


Then again, shouldn't this just fall under the same category as oral information?

I believe that it should. Digital, oral, written, whatever - it doesn't matter. *IF* "owner" or "creator" rights exist with respect to information, then they should be assertable (at least in principle) - regardless of the format in which the information is recorded or conveyed (and regardless of how easy or difficult it is to duplicate or distribute that format).


Can Warner Bros sue you if you make the bugs bunny voice to your friends?

Technically, they (should) have the right to do so - *IF* "property rights" or "creative effort" (or whatever) entitles one to claim IP priveleges. If the pro-IP position is correct, then *in principle* you are "stealing" if you sing in the shower and you didn't write the song yourself (or you didn't pay the songwriter - or "songowner"). Of course, as a *practical* matter, you won't be sued for doing these things - but if IP is legitimate, you are still doing something wrong - you're just "getting off on a technicality."


Maybe the problem is that the thing that's being sold is itself digital. A blank CD and a CD with music on it are for all intents and purpose identical physical property, but one costs way more than the other, so that must be because of the digital information on it.

Yes. This is correct. (The "digital" aspect is irrelevant, however. Exactly the same thing can be said - and for the same reasons - about "analog" information, such as that found in physical books).


That's way too simplistic an approach. At the very least there's something called "supply and demand" -- the perceived market cost of duplicating something (regardless of what the original producer actually put into it) will diminish the supply. If the demand is high enough, then there will be a much higher value put on it. If you have knowledge of the *worth* of something, then your own personal value of it will rise far beyond its actual utility.

I'll retract the part of my original statement that reads "[something] is valuable *only* to the degree to which someone finds it useful or desirable" - that was a badly worded attempt to elaborate on the immediately preceding point. :o

But I stand by the rest. Inputs-based theories of value are invalid ("labor" & "capital" are inputs - but "supply" and "demand" are not).

[DamianTV]

No wonder Americans are so dumb. The Knowledge of Mankind has been Copyrighted for the sake of profit, and at the expense of the intelligence of the people!

[Xhin]

Normally, when you buy a book (new or used) you are *not* buying it for the sake of the physical object itself. You are buying it *because* of what's actually contained in it - that is, for the sake of its non-physical content.

But with a book, what's contained in the book is physical. You do not need a specialized tool (like a CD player) to read the book, nor can you copy the book without first writing a second book that plagiarizes it in some medium or another.



If this non-physical content is something for which remuneration can be claimed as an entitlement by an "owner" or "creator" (as pro-IP advocates contend), then there can be no legitimate distinction between "new" & "used" when it comes to whether or not an author deserves remuneration for a sale of a copy of his book.

If by "copy" you mean someone is selling a copy of the original book, in other words they've duplicated the original book, then yes, the publisher (not the author, since they entered into a contract with the publisher to copy and distribute their IP in return for money) deserves renumeration. The physical duplicate of the book is your property, however its content was plagiarized. If you want to sell the original book, then you're selling the physical book and nothing is broken because you did not at any time plagiarize its content.

If you think the book is not owned by whoever bought it, then IP laws should make it illegal to write in or otherwise change the content of a book you own. This is not the case.

With digital content, copying it is definitely plagiarism and that's why the MPAA/RIAA has a problem with piracy -- however the problem here is that digital data is a part of a physical object (say, a computer) that you own. So you're copying digital data which is on your own computer, which you should have rights to since you own the digital data -- however the digital data is also raw intellectual property so you're also plagiarizing it anytime it's copied or distributed.

So online piracy is allowing other people to copy the digital data that you own because it's a part of your computer. However, there is a source of that digital data -- and that *source* is an IP infringement, for example ripping music off a CD because you're making a copy of information from one medium to another. If you want to cull piracy, then you focus on the source of the infringement, rather than the copying and distribution of digital data afterwards.