You might try ringing some bookshops, not all specialists are online.

Agree that it is about time digitisation was much more widespread, willing to join a campaign.

Pls keep folk posted.

The Google Books agreement could very easily result in the Google scans becoming the _only_ copies of many books, and while Google like to pretend they’re good at this, the fact remains that the Optical Character Recognition technology and transcription processes they’re using are less than perfect.

If the EU is going to try something along these lines, I feel the Google-centric process of converting the many older books into electronic form should be avoided. Perhaps a better solution is to reform the public lending library system so that they perform the archival process instead, effectively creating a National Arts Archive.

This would effectively mean the end of libraries as we know them, but be more relevant to today’s society in an age when pretty much any book anybody wants to read can be bought online for less than the price of the bus ticket to the nearest (probably closed) library!

In any case, the status quo is untenable.

I’d also suggest a root-and-branch reform of *all* IP-related law. The argument in favour of new high speed railways—that it’s cheaper to build an entirely new railway than to try upgrading an old one—applies to most complex systems, not just transport. The UK’s legal system is a terrifying mess and so top-heavy that the argument that “ignorance is no excuse” no longer holds any water: our system of laws is now so complicated that even our own *police* have trouble keeping track of what’s what.

Whoever wins the next General Election needs to bite the bullet and admit that it’s time for a reboot.

The great thing about the Internet is that once an old book or track goes online it’s up forever and inventory is infinite.

The Internet is the ultimate copy-paste machine but it also serves well to collectors.

There is also a great advantage for society as a whole that historic works now out of copyright are digitised and made available. My only concern is that there should be a mechanism for remunerating the libraries that hold the originals so that they have a funding stream to cover the costs of holding and preserving the originals for posterity. This should be paid by the digitising company and recouped either by a small charge for using the digitised images or advertising.

The difficult area is those books still in copyright but not available in digitised format. There needs to be a carrot and stick approach. Copyright holders should have the right to a return for their work. They obviously have the option to license their material to digitising companies in return for approriate royalties, and it should remain their right to do so. The issue is that if they chose not to make material available in that form, and if the original print format is not longer available, does society have a right to impose a compulsory license agreement upon them. Under such agreement a digitising company will have the right to reproduce the material in return for either an up front fee or a royalty payment for usage within the remaining copyright period.

To allow copyright material to be copied and published without payment to the author is unfair and may deter the publication of new creative or carefully researched materials. To allow interesting and valuable material to go out of circulation until it is out of copyright deprives society of a potentially valuable resource.

There must be a sensible compromise deal that can be developed. However until it is sorted out the Google land grab needs to be resisted.