It’s interesting just how much emphasis experts are placing on taking advantage of social media to reach a wider audience. Of course, you’d expect it in this case from someone with a vested interest in social media distribution, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad advice. Yet at the same time, publishers get upset about social media “ripping off” their content, as seen with Pulse, Flipboard, Zite, and now Pinterest.

I suppose it’s the same as the old dichotomy of cable carrying broadcast television, in which an argument raged for years about whether the cable networks benefited more from being able to offer broadcast stations to their subscribers, or the broadcast stations benefited more by reaching the cable-subscribing audience. Are social media making a profit from other people’s work, or helping more people find that work? Looks like both from here.

Jacobs writes that he prefers the slow, click-intensive method of annotating common to e-ink readers rather than the “easy” method with tablets, because he is better able to remember what he annotates through e-ink readers’ more difficult process.

E-books are in their infancy now: there’s little textual design to speak of, typography is often terrible, illustrations are limited, errors are shockingly frequent. They’ll get much better. But it would be cool if, when they improve, readers were given means of introducing a bit of cognitive friction when that would make the reading experience a stronger one. Sort of like cranking up the speed and increasing the incline on an elliptical trainer.

Most e-ink readers seem to be locked into one font, unlike tablet- or smartphone-based readers that usually offer plenty of font-changing options. But even on the readers that have the options, I’ll admit I’ve never really considered intentionally making books harder to read so I remember them better. And it should have crossed my mind when I wrote the post about the original study—or when I ran across the post from a neuroscience blogger who suggested that easy-to-read e-readers might interfere with remembering what we read.

Anyway, I still find it amazing to consider that there could actually be a useful purpose for Comic Sans.

Not surprisingly, Experian found Pinterest users are also more likely to be interested in hobbies and crafts than the rest of the online population. Those who visit both hobbies and crafts websites and Pinterest tend to be “baby boomers and young adults who are heavy web users who spend time on house and garden, sports and fitness, and family-oriented websites.”

But Jeff Roberts of PaidContent reports that it is stirring up a bit of copyright controversy. A number of photographers are complaining that their pictures are being used without permission. The site does have a DMCA takedown procedure, but on the other hand, given that its entire business model is based on using images without permission, it is unclear whether its DMCA safe harbor would hold up in court.

Of course, the conflict between new media technology and old copyright isn’t exactly new. Aside from the examples PaidContent mentions, media aggregators Pulse, Flipboard, and Zite have both heard complaints from disgruntled rights-holders about their articles being scooped and redisplayed out of the web browsing context. Fortunately, they were able to come to accommodations with those rights-holders.

And Pinterest may be able to reach an accommodation of its own with photograph rights-holders. It is in talks with Getty Images, and the money it is receiving from affiliate links will undoubtedly help it pay license fees if required.

I am intrigued by all the interest Pinterest is receiving, and will be checking it out myself when I have the chance. The network is invitation-only, however, so I will need to wait until I can find someone to send me one. (If any TeleRead readers are Pinterested, could you possibly oblige?)

Rushdie attended a dinner sponsored by Booktrack to commemorate publishing a Booktrack-enhanced Rushdie short story, “In the South”. He gave a reading at this dinner with Booktrack’s music in the background.

In an interview, Rushdie indicated that he “had to be convinced that this was a good thing” (mainly by his younger son, who said “It’s super cool, dad,”) but discovered he rather liked the effect once he actually heard it.

Rushdie explains that he was offered several chances to weigh in on the music as it was composed, but largely kept out of the creative process, since he found nothing objectionable in the draft material he was sent. “I just liked it. The composer was over in New Zealand, and he would email me clips of the music, and ask me what I thought — so I guess if I thought that something was really wrong, I could have said so. But as it happens, I didn’t think that. He was very generous; he was totally up for me saying whatever I wanted to say.”

“What I didn’t want it to sound like too much was special effects. I didn’t want it to sound like too literal a soundtrack — you know, with bangs and crashes in the right places.”

While I still have my doubts that reading really needs a soundtrack, Booktrack’s willingness to work with Rushdie and make sure he fully approved of its treatment of his work certainly shows its heart is in the right place.

In response to the Phoenix editorial about the New York Times committing a copyright violation by posting a PDF of a 36-year-old newspaper article even as Op-Ed columnist Bill Keller blasts the copyright violations of others, Keller suggests that irony should be “[kept] out of the hands of the clueless,” but seems to be clueless that he’s committing a significant irony himself.

Keller writes that since the paper the article came from was long defunct without digital archives, he assumes the author of the article felt reposting the article “seemed a logical way to let today’s readers see Booth’s work and pay it homage.”

Keller continues:

In my column and blog post I disparaged some of the recent attempts to expand copyright enforcement, and said reforms of the law should be focused on genuine pirates who profit by distributing films, music, books, etc. (sure, columns, too) that belong to other people. The law should not go after minor transgressions. Moreover, I specifically said a real reform should also relax some copyright protections – such as cases where a work that is long out of print could be made widely available to a new audience. Nowhere did I suggest that the law should criminalize the illustrative uploading of a 36-year-old alt-weekly article that is otherwise unavailable.

The thing is, the law currently does criminalize (or at least provide civil penalties for) posting someone else’s work without permission, no matter how old or hard-to-find it is. (Anyway, the New York Times does profit, perhaps not directly from the reposted article, but from posting content in general.) You can’t just ignore the law as it is in favor of what you want the law to be.

I would have thought a paper like the New York Times would understand that—it’s certainly quick enough to object when it thinks other people are ripping off its content! But Keller airily “leave[s] to lawyers—if any care to waste the time” the matter of whether the PDF repost broke the law at all. (Good thing Righthaven is on the ropes. It has spent its short existence suing people and blogs who did exactly the same thing as the New York Times just did—reposting copyrighted newspaper articles they found particularly insightful so members of their communities could see them!)

The irony is, of course, that a lot of pirates Keller rails against, who illegally repost the copyrighted works of others, do it for the exact same reason: the works are not currently available any other way and they want more people to be able to see and enjoy them. But they don’t have the clout of a huge organization such as the New York Times behind them, so apparently what is okay for the Times is verboten for them.

And as a final amusing note, Keller says that the Times “took down the PDF” when the Phoenix objected. Except it really didn’t—it removed the links to it from the articles, but if one types in the URL from the screenshot in the Phoenix editorial, the PDF still loads perfectly well (at least at the time I’m writing this).

Most of the comments on Keller’s rant don’t subscribe to his point of view either. One commenter summarizes his argument as “I want my copyright violations to be legal, and your copyright violations to be illegal, I leave it for the lawyers to explain why this is okay.” And another most insightfully points out:

What Keller either fails to understand, or refuses to understand, is that current copyright law is already used against minor transgressors. What he also absurdly fails or refuses to acknowledge is that his original rant was aimed at those opposing SOPA – an act that, if it was passed, would have made it legal for the Phoenix to demand without ANY judicial oversight that the nytimes domain be taken down!

in other words, the debate is not about Keller’s dream copyright enforcement, but about real copyright enforcement – both as it is now and as it is envisioned by players like the MPAA.

Indeed, there are too many insightful comments to quote. It seems Keller may not have an easy time finding many people who agree with him.

(Found via BoingBoing.)

What strikes me most about indie writers, however, is not what they write, but how they publish it. Konrath may be a ‘downmarket’ writer for some, but he is a first-rate publisher for many, as was Hocking: they wrote regularly, priced to the market, and promoted like hell. Heinze and Wilkinson may be looking for publishing deals: they just can’t be bothered waiting for traditional publishers to "discover them".

Traditional publishers need to learn from these successes, if they are to throw off the irritating "legacy" tag some self-published writers hang around their necks.

He suggests publishers should be trying models similar to that floated by Macmillan New Writing (which is unfortunately closed for new submissions right now when it should be scooping up all the fresh “indie” talent it can). They should be building communities and courting the more successful self-published authors (as with Amanda Hocking).

All that makes sense, but the article’s close in which Jones suggests that badly-edited and poorly-presented self-published e-books will put readers off over time, and traditional publishers could improve their appearance, is actually rather amusing. I find myself wondering just where Jones has been over the last few years if he thinks that “professional” e-books are uniformly well-edited or presented. I’ve seen plenty of self-published works that were better than some pro-published for typos.

This is only the latest in a number of reports that have suggested a 9-inch Fire could launch sometime this year, so the only thing really new about it is the source. It made a lot of sense for Amazon to introduce a mid-sized tablet early on and get people hooked on its platform. At least some of those will be inclined to upgrade to the 9-inch version, and people whose friends enjoyed the 7-inch version but who want something larger themselves might be more inclined to buy it as well.

The only downside for Amazon is that this larger Fire will be going head-to-head against Apple’s same-sized iPad, rather than positioning itself in a niche Apple had no plans of filling. The most visible previous competitors in that position—the BlackBerry PlayBook, the HP TouchPad—haven’t done so well. And if Apple kicks the game up another notch with a new Retina Display in this year’s iPad 3, that will steal some of the luster from a cheaper standard-display 9” Fire.

And, of course, we’ve not yet seen any confirmation that Amazon is really planning a 9” Fire at all.

If 2011 was the year of the iPad 2, will 2012 be the year of the iPad 3? Said a source familiar with the device: “What do you think?”

Assuming it really does come with a Retina-resolution screen, that means the iPad will finally be able to show high-definition video in its native resolution, and it also means e-books should look absolutely incredible. Amazon’s Kindle Fire had just better watch its back!

[Schools Minister Nick] Gibb said: "Children should always have a book on the go. The difference in achievement between children who read for half an hour a day in their spare time and those who do not is huge – as much as a year’s education by the time they are 15."

(It’s worth noting that e-books are one of the easiest ways anyone can “always have a book on the go,” especially if it’s on a device like a smartphone or iPod Touch that they’re carrying in their pocket already!)

But critics charge that, instead of creating contests, the government should be devoting more resources to education and reevaluating the mandated phonics teaching process which may not be right for all students.

I remember participating in a reading contest when I was a kid—I read something like 104 books in a month to win first place—while I was in kindergarten. (Granted, most of them were little and golden, but still.) The love of books has been with me ever since, though I suspect the contest win was more likely an effect of a love that was there already than a cause of it.

By reducing the weight that its planes carry, the move could save the Air Force as much as $1.2 million in fuel costs per year. (I wonder how much is saved in fuel costs by airline passengers bringing Kindles instead of a bunch of print books?)

"Moving from a paper-based to an electronically based flight publication system will not only enhance operational effectiveness, it can also save the Department of Defense time and money," said Maj. Gen. Rick Martin, the director of operations for the Air Mobility Command. "Electronic flight bags are becoming an industry standard due to their operational, environmental and cost savings benefits."

This is in keeping with a directive President Obama issued in November directing all branches of government to reduce their reliance on costly paper.

(Found via Slashdot.)

It happened with Larry Kirshbaum, the long-time publishing-industry exec and agent who Amazon tapped to run its publishing subsidiary, who Mike Shatzkin says “has gone from one of the most well-liked people in publishing to the one of the most reviled.” And PaidContent’s Laura Hazard Owen reports it seems to be happening to respected librarian Nancy Pearl, who has partnered with Amazon to republish some of her favorite out-of-print books.

“By aligning herself with Amazon, she’s turning her back on independents,” Seattle Mystery Bookshop owner J.B. Dickey told the Seattle Times. “Amazon is absolutely antithetical to independent bookselling, and, to many of us, truth, justice and the American way.”

But before approaching Amazon, Pearl’s agent shopped the reprints to the 20 top publishers in New York, and not one of them was interested. She says she stands to earn only “a couple of hundred” dollars per book. David Streitfield writes in The New York Times:

Ms. Pearl still seems a little shaken by the intensity of the response. “I knew the minute I signed the contract that there would be people who would not be happy, but the vehemence surprised me,” she said. To protect herself, she did not read Facebook or Twitter or any of the social media sites.

Pearl says that she is not sure at this point whether she would do it again, but she “would still want those books back in print.”

Perhaps the interesting thing is how polarizing the issue is. The PaidContent piece seems to me to be a little unnecessarily snide, harping on some (admittedly silly) comments Pearl or the Times made and suggesting that six books per year is few enough to clear rights on that Pearl should just have self-published them instead. (Of course, even if she had self-published them, guess what on-line bookstore would still be selling the majority of them?)

Meanwhile, the New York Times piece calls out the Nazi iconography in the burning-book Bloomberg Business Week cover of the issue that profiled Larry Kirshbaum, and suggests the most remarkable thing about it is not that it used that iconography, but rather that nobody complained about it. “In the struggle over the future of intellectual commerce in the United States, apparently even evocations of Joseph Goebbels and the Brown Shirts are considered fair game.”

The article in question is a 36-year-old investigative report into football injuries which was scanned and uploaded in PDF form to the New York Times’s website and linked from an article and blog post talking about it. (At the time of this writing, the link seems to be gone from article and blog post, but when I manually typed in the URL displayed in the Phoenix piece, I found the PDF is still on the server.)

Presumably, the Times had the permission of Clark Booth, the story’s original author, to repost it. However, his permission only covered the text of the article, not the photos, ads, and layout featured in the original paper story.

Carioli uses this as a springboard to discuss the thorny matter of copyright in the digital age.

[Former New York Times executive editor Bill] Keller would like you to believe, even though he thinks of the world as being populated by digital pickpockets, that a sane anti-piracy legislation will be enforced only against the largest and most egregious copyright offenders. It’s as if he lives in some alternate universe where major labels haven’t already sued individual downloaders and their parents for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The onus isn’t on the public to prove that copyright legislation won’t be used against us: it’s on legacy media protectorates to come up with solutions that don’t punish their customers.

He brings up the matter of the Pulse RSS reader, which the New York Times got yanked from Apple’s app store because it had the temerity to incorporate a publicly-available RSS feed of the Times’s articles into its app on launch. He also mentions a copyright case that the New York Times lost to freelance writers that has made it more expensive and difficult for newspapers to post their own archives online.

And he notes that the state of indexing and archival surrounding old newspaper articles such as the one the Times reprinted is something of a mess. Indeed, if it hadn’t been for the Times reprinting it, it is likely few people would ever have had the chance to read it again. And if the Phoenix did have a lawyer request the article be taken down, it would probably cost more money than either they or the Times would make out of it, and due to those thorny archive rights issues, it is doubtful that the Phoenix could post it anywhere itself.

So here’s my best suggestion: the Times should help us track down the photographer, pay him or her the going Times rate for the photos they republished, and then, with our permission, upload the Booth article to Scribd.comor a similar service, so that anyone can embed the piece wherever they want. (In the case that Clark Booth didn’t already give the Times permission to reprint his words, they should pay him, too.) Then the Times should promise never to do it again. On pain of — let’s say — taking down their paywall for a month.

I suspect the article will just end up being taken down instead.

Regardless, it’s amusing and perhaps instructive that one of the most distinguished newspapers in the world is capable of making this kind of copyright mistake, at the same time it blasts “pirates” for misappropriating other people’s material. If even the New York Times can’t keep it straight, what chance do the rest of us have?

(Found via BoingBoing.)

IndieCommerce director Matt Supko wrote in an email announcement that the move was in response to Amazon’s policy of “locking in e-book exclusives which other retailers are not allowed to sell.” IndieCommerce has adopted a new policy of listing only “titles that are made available to retailers for sale in all available formats”. Individual bookstores can still choose to carry Amazon titles as custom products.

The odd thing is, the titles Amazon is publishing will have e-book versions available for sale in all e-book formats by retail channels who wish to carry them, via Amazon’s distribution deal with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Even publishing-industry observer Mike Shatzkin noted that in the article I covered last night. But IndieCommerce and the ABA seem to be acting as if this is not the case. Wonder why that is?

(Found via The Bookseller.)

Shatzkin recapitulates the recent history between Amazon, the Big Six publishers, and the bookstore chains. Amazon is in the process of inspiring much fear and loathing in the publishing industry by luring away the big celebrity writers whose megahits subsidize less popular works. Meanwhile, it continues to be able to undercut physical bookstores like Barnes & Noble on price, gradually stealing away their business.

B&N’s decision seems to me like the right move for them. Most very regular bookstore customers aren’t really surprised if any particular store doesn’t have any particular book. Indeed, the impossibility of stocking everything anybody might ask for in a store is part of the reason that online bookselling is such a useful service. In this day and age, most people who want a particular book don’t go to a bookstore to buy it; they just order it online. They go to bookstores to browse and shop and choose from what is within the store. So, yes, there may be some disappointed customers if B&N doesn’t have a high-profile Amazon title, but I don’t think that disappointment will be widespread.

On the other hand, authors and agents who might have considered an Amazon publishing deal will have to think twice if they know very few bookstores will carry it. Amazon can do some remarkable things to sell books to their mammoth online customer base and that won’t change. But there is both a practical and a vanity aspect to getting store display that will still be seen as indispensible by many authors and agents who otherwise might have taken the leap to sign with the newest big checkbook in town.

He draws a parallel to Random House’s original decision not to join the agency pricing cartel—puzzling industry observers at the time. Shatzkin said then, as now, that Random House was essentially taking advantage of Amazon’s largesse to turn a short-term profit, while its competitors raised their prices and cut their royalties.

Whether the move was sensible or not, I expect Amazon will probably not be hurt too badly in the long term—especially if it decides to open a chain of boutique stores where it can hand-sell the books itself. Will more authors think twice about signing with Amazon, or will they figure that the giant e-tailer’s marketing clout will make up for the lack of physical store placement? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Over the next few months, Cringely will be reposting the entire book to a blog, and inviting reader participation to help him update it for the final e-book form.

Like most blogs, this new one will allow reader comments. And it’s those comments I’ll use in part to update the work when it later appears in eBook form.  What happened to these people?  What stories do you remember? Where did it go from here?

Once the entire book has been serialized, my friend and eBook expert Parampreet Singh (he of the Toronto Singhs, of course) and I will pick the best of these reader annotations along with several thousand words of new material I’ve been saving-up and publish what ought to be an enormous number of electrons — Accidental Empires Rebooted.

And the e-book promises to be interesting, as well: Cringely talks about giving readers the ability to flip back and forth between the original 1996 version and the newly-updated one. Cringely can do this because the original contract from 1989 didn’t mention e-book rights, thus leaving them with him. (Hopefully his print publisher won’t try to pull a HarperCollins.)

This promises to be an interesting experiment, and I will certainly read right along—leaving all e-book experimentation aside, it sounds like a very interesting book in its own right.

(Found via Slashdot.org.)