3 Major Publishers Sue Open-Education Textbook Start-Up - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Open-education resources have been hailed as a trove of freely available information that can be used to build textbooks at virtually no cost. But a copyright lawsuit filed last month presents a potential roadblock for the burgeoning movement. A group of three large academic publishers has sued the start-up Boundless Learning in federal court, alleging that the young company, which produces open-education alternatives to printed textbooks, has stolen the creative expression of their authors and editors, violating their intellectual-property rights. The publishers Pearson, Cengage Learning, and Macmillan Higher Education filed their joint complaint last month in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The publishers’ complaint takes issue with the way the upstart produces its open-education textbooks, which Boundless bills as free substitutes for expensive printed material. To gain access to the digital alternatives, students select the traditional books assigned in their classes, and Boundless pulls content from an array of open-education sources to knit together a text that the company claims is as good as the designated book. The company calls this mapping of printed book to open material “alignment”—a tactic the complaint said creates a finished product that violates the publishers’ copyrights. “Notwithstanding whatever use it claims to make of ‘open source educational content,’ Defendant distributes ‘replacement textbooks’ that are created from, based upon, and overwhelmingly similar to Plaintiffs’ textbooks,” the complaint reads. The complaint attempts to distance itself from attacking the legitimacy of open-education resources, but goes on to argue that Boundless is building its business model by stealing. “Whether in the lecture hall or in a textbook, anyone is obviously free to teach the subjects biology, economics, or psychology, and can do so using, creating, and refining the pedagogical materials they think best, whether consisting of ‘open source educational content’ or otherwise,” it reads. “But by making unauthorized ‘shadow-versions’ of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, Defendant teaches only the age-old business model of theft.” To illustrate this claim of intellectual theft, the publishers’ complaint points to the Boundless versions of several textbooks, including Biology, a textbook authored by Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. The Boundless alternative, the complaint alleges, is guilty of copying the printed material’s layout and engaging in what the complaint calls “photographic paraphrasing.” In one chapter of the printed book, for instance, the editors chose to illustrate the first and second laws of thermodynamics using pictures of a bear running and a bear catching a fish in its mouth. Boundless’s substitute text uses similar pictures to illustrate the same concepts—albeit Creative Commons-licensed images hosted on Wikipedia that include links to the source material, in accordance with the terms of the open license. (The end of each Boundless section also includes links to the text’s source material, which often includes Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of Earth, and other Web sites.) The complaint goes on to allege that Boundless’s choice of bear photographs in that chapter reflects “only the previously made creative, scholarly, and aesthetic judgments of the authors and editors of Campbell’s Biology.” Ariel Diaz, Boundless’s chief executive, defended his company in an interview with The Chronicle. He accused the publishers of “using litigation to protect an antiquated business model.” And beyond employing what he called “anti-competitive tactics” to insulate themselves from market forces, Mr. Diaz said the publishers are also trying to monopolize elements of learning that should be freely available to everyone. “They’re wrongfully claiming ownership of open knowledge,” he said. When asked to describe how his company pulls together the open-education content to produce its digital textbooks, Mr. Diaz declined to elaborate on the process. He also declined to respond to the publishers’ claim that Boundless is “hiring individuals to copy and paraphrase from Plaintiffs’ textbooks.” He noted that Boundless is not charging students for access to its textbooks, but may create a suite of premium paid features in the future. “We deny the claims, and we plan on defending the company,” Mr. Diaz said. The lawsuit comes during a time of growth for the year-old outfit, which is led by a trio of young education entrepreneurs. Last month Boundless secured an $8-million investment led by the venture-capital firm Venrock, Mr. Diaz said. That boost of cash brings Boundless’s total investments to nearly $10-million. And, in an odd twist, even the company’s investors appear to be under attack in this case. “This funding has financed the copying and distribution of the Boundless Versions of Plaintiffs’ Authentic Works, which, in turn, Defendant uses to draw in potential customers for pay services,” the complaint reads. The complaint’s allusion to Boundless’s investors could help explain why the publishers named a group of 10 anonymous defendants in their case in addition to the start-up itself. The anonymous group, which the complaint said will be named later, includes the people responsible for producing the Boundless textbooks and “those individuals and/or entities that financially benefit from the infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works and fail to exercise their right and ability to control the infringement, and/or that have knowledge of the infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works and encourage or materially contribute to it.” A representative from Cengage Learning declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing a company policy against discussing pending litigation. Pearson and Macmillan Higher Education have not responded to requests for comment as of the time this post was published.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/3-major-publishers-sue-open-education-textbook-start-up"]Source[/URL], [URL="http://www.osnews.com/story/25774/Major_textbook_publishers_sue_open-education_textbook_start-up"]alternative source[/URL], and [URL="https://www.scribd.com/doc/88132655/Publisher-Complaint"]the complaint[/URL]. Unbefuckinglievable.

Bastards

What. Are you guys seriously surprised? All major publishers are in it for the profit, if they give a shit about your education don't you think it wouldn't actually be shit?

Copyright: Halting innovation so you can line your pocket since when people started to abuse it

If the open company loses it will be a good proof of how law is broken.

And then they turn around and sell their textbooks for ridiculous prices and everyone who wants to actually compete in an education environment has to buy them. Yep, the usual sickening bullshit.

So the software dynamically builds a relevant textbook for what you need? Now that sounds like a pretty cool technology, no wonder the publishers are shitting themselves.

Pearson and Cengage can fuck off. Their books are overpriced. Not to mention, the assholes basically have a monopoly on the college textbook market. It's very, very uncommon not to see a book that isn't published by pearson or cengage. In a lot of cases, the other publishers are child companies of a bigger company.

[quote]To illustrate this claim of intellectual theft, the publishers’ complaint points to the Boundless versions of several textbooks, including Biology, a textbook authored by Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. The Boundless alternative, the complaint alleges, is guilty of copying the printed material’s layout and engaging in what the complaint calls “photographic paraphrasing.” In one chapter of the printed book, for instance, the editors chose to illustrate the first and second laws of thermodynamics using pictures of a bear running and a bear catching a fish in its mouth. Boundless’s substitute text uses similar pictures to illustrate the same concepts—albeit Creative Commons-licensed images hosted on Wikipedia that include links to the source material, in accordance with the terms of the open license. (The end of each Boundless section also includes links to the text’s source material, which often includes Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of Earth, and other Web sites.)[/quote] we used bear pictures and they used bear pictures! if that's the best they can bring to court they're boned

Intellectual rights have always been abused by companies. We really need new restrictions on what can, and cannot, be patented and copyrighted.

Maybe they should stop making shitty overpriced textbooks

God damn it pearson [editline]8th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;35486431]Maybe they should stop making shitty overpriced textbooks[/QUOTE] They're not really shitty, but yes, overpriced.

Disgusting.

What nerds fighting over some books.

[QUOTE=Karmah;35486772]God damn it pearson [editline]8th April 2012[/editline] They're not really shitty, but yes, overpriced.[/QUOTE] I'd argue that a load of them are pretty shitty. Feynman wrote an essay on how the books are chosen in education, and he had a load of issues with the books themselves. [quote=Richard Feynman]The reason was that the books were so lousy. They were false. They were hurried. They would try to be rigorous, but they would use examples (like automobiles in the street for "sets") which were almost OK, but in which there were always some subtleties. The definitions weren't accurate. Everything was a little bit ambiguous -- they weren't smart enough to understand what was meant by "rigor." They were faking it. They were teaching something they didn't understand, and which was, in fact, useless, at that time, for the child. [/quote] [url]http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm[/url] The main point that he was on about is corruption in the industry, but he describes why he disliked the textbooks offered by publishers.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35487287]What nerds fighting over some books.[/QUOTE] You're on a website based on a [I]modification to[/I] a video game [I]about a physicist[/I], your avatar is making a spelling joke that turns a statement about legislation (that pretty much only people on the internet a lot care about or even know about) into a statement about [I]how little you bathe.[/I] And you've made 4000+ posts on this site in less than 6 months. You're an idiot.

[QUOTE=Karmah;35486772]God damn it pearson [editline]8th April 2012[/editline] They're not really shitty, but yes, overpriced.[/QUOTE] Yes they are lol. They're overpriced, therefore shitty. To add to the fact that they're stifling education and advancement says a lot

To be honest they aren't attacking the concept of Open textbooks as much as they're attacking the sheer similarity between their textbooks and the open alternatives which are generated based on needs from choosing the publishers textbooks. Now the end question is if there is enough differentiation or not.

None of you guys read the article. The lawsuit is because this group ripped off the copyrighted textbooks and put the stuff in their's.

This somehow reminds me of online piracy for some reason

[QUOTE=Raptor_Girl;35484456]Pearson and Cengage can fuck off. Their books are overpriced. Not to mention, the assholes basically have a monopoly on the college textbook market. It's very, very uncommon not to see a book that isn't published by pearson or cengage. In a lot of cases, the other publishers are child companies of a bigger company.[/QUOTE] I agree so fucking hard. The shit they pull is ridiculous. We have no choice but to pay outrageous prices for their shit

[QUOTE=Ridge;35496060]None of you guys read the article. The lawsuit is because this group ripped off the copyrighted textbooks and put the stuff in their's.[/QUOTE] No shit. “They’re wrongfully claiming ownership of open knowledge,” I completely agree with him. Book prices are such shit anyways. My college actually has special edition books just for my college only by pearson, so I get to pay 300$ for a book that I won't even read half of, and now has no resale value. Such a fucking scam.

[QUOTE=Ridge;35496060]None of you guys read the article. The lawsuit is because this group ripped off the copyrighted textbooks and put the stuff in their's.[/QUOTE] Not really, they just succeeded with the same outcomes. It's like one refrigerator company suing another because they have the same amount of drawers. IMO the other text book companies need to get with the times, open sourcing of knowledge is the way that it's going to happen, them dragging their feet is going to get nowhere. I paid nearly 1000$ for my textbooks last semester. If I could get eEditions for free, then I'm down.

You are allowed to legally copy 10% of a piece of work before it is copyright infringement... Just use 10% of a bunch of books on the same subject to create a complete educational resource.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35487287]What nerds fighting over some books.[/QUOTE] yeah lol nerds who wants an education for reasonable money anyway That is the dumbest comment I've seen in a while, congratulations.

[QUOTE=AceTub;35496581]No shit. “They’re wrongfully claiming ownership of open knowledge,” I completely agree with him. Book prices are such shit anyways. My college actually has special edition books just for my college only by pearson, so I get to pay 300$ for a book that I won't even read half of, and now has no resale value. Such a fucking scam.[/QUOTE] Except they are not claiming copyright of the knowledge. But the design of the textbooks. That's two different points. [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;35497478]Not really, they just succeeded with the same outcomes. It's like one refrigerator company suing another because they have the same amount of drawers. IMO the other text book companies need to get with the times, open sourcing of knowledge is the way that it's going to happen, them dragging their feet is going to get nowhere. I paid nearly 1000$ for my textbooks last semester. If I could get eEditions for free, then I'm down.[/QUOTE] No, it's closer to a well known fridge company sueing a less known one for using very similar visual designs, clearly inspired by their fridges. Of course fridges isn't a great example. A much better example would be some drink in a specific bottle. A well established company has a generic drink in a specific container, specifically arranged. And another makes a similarly tasting drink, made differently in very similar looking packaging.

FUCK THEM. They change the pages around every year so students attempting to use older books instead of buying new ones have a harder time. They slap a bunch of public domain stories together and call it a "literature book". They charge insane prices for what amounts to 500 pieces of tissue paper stuck together (some books quality is horrible) I hope this start-up wipes the floor with these assholes.

Why hasn't an anti-trust suit been brought against these publishers? I shouldn't be paying $80 minimum for a used book.