3 ms·

I don't think your analogy really holds. The publishers don't seem to be going after that component of the business plan (that they can tailor a textbook coveri

I don't think your analogy really holds. The publishers don't seem to be going after that component of the business plan (that they can tailor a textbook covering the same material), but rather that literary and pedagogical devices are systematically being 'reused'. A closer analogy in the context of computers would actually be the hardware and software design. It is not the content itself, but rather how the content is being delivered, in a non-technical sense that they are going after here. It's still kind of crud though, from both sides. Being forced to this type of litigation doesn't speak well for the publishers' futures, but at the same time, being open to this type of accusation at all speaks poorly on the startup's ability to actually create useful product.

its_so_on 15y ago
but they're saying 'this is paragraph by paragraph equivalent' and the analogy is 'but the cpu is from the same component manufacturer and the closest we have, the graphics card ditto, the cdrom ditto,' etc etc, with the form factor as close as 'dell' (in the analogy) can get it. same screen size and resolution, different manufacturer 'dell' uses. I think component-by-component matching is quite an analogy to what the publisher claims is going on here. The final difference (the 'design' of the software and the form factor) might be one the buyer doesn't care about enough to justify the price difference. The final 'design' in this case is having one author cohesively write the textbook (style and tone). In this case the students might not care enough to justify the price difference, and will take 'components' matched chapter by chapter from all over the web... the 'dell' analogy is even worse if you mean 'reuse' as it's literally the same or equivalent component (the very same or a functionally equivalent a 15 inch screen at such and such resolution). I mean, in the analogy they're by the same suppliers! the point is that you are saying 'put in the name of the textbook" and we'll try to get as close as possible chapter-by-chapter (component by compoinent) obviously without quite hitting the actual original autho's style? Isn't this what's being claimed?
sitkack 15y ago
Can you copyright the voicing and structure of a document? Even if the replacing source material was not constructed with that intent? At what point does have a structural similarity to a book turn into a copyright violation? Copyright is for the work itself. The physical manifestation of those words in that order. It isn't a lock on the ideas expressed with those words. Reproducing another writers outline is not a violation of copyright.

its_so_on 15y ago

but they're saying 'this is paragraph by paragraph equivalent' and the analogy is 'but the cpu is from the same component manufacturer and the closest we have, the graphics card ditto, the cdrom ditto,' etc etc, with the form factor as close as 'dell' (in the analogy) can get it. same screen size and resolution, different manufacturer 'dell' uses. I think component-by-component matching is quite an analogy to what the publisher claims is going on here. The final difference (the 'design' of the software and the form factor) might be one the buyer doesn't care about enough to justify the price difference. The final 'design' in this case is having one author cohesively write the textbook (style and tone). In this case the students might not care enough to justify the price difference, and will take 'components' matched chapter by chapter from all over the web... the 'dell' analogy is even worse if you mean 'reuse' as it's literally the same or equivalent component (the very same or a functionally equivalent a 15 inch screen at such and such resolution). I mean, in the analogy they're by the same suppliers! the point is that you are saying 'put in the name of the textbook" and we'll try to get as close as possible chapter-by-chapter (component by compoinent) obviously without quite hitting the actual original autho's style? Isn't this what's being claimed?

sitkack 15y ago

Can you copyright the voicing and structure of a document? Even if the replacing source material was not constructed with that intent? At what point does have a structural similarity to a book turn into a copyright violation? Copyright is for the work itself. The physical manifestation of those words in that order. It isn't a lock on the ideas expressed with those words. Reproducing another writers outline is not a violation of copyright.