Thursday, May 27, 2010 is empty of publication info!

Check it out:

I don't care if the copyrights are expired. To throw text out there without the context of publication date and place is a bibliographical sin and a shame.


Oh my. What a challenge to the thought process. All subsequent copies of any book should be the same as the original, unless revised, or misprinted, Yes?

Is the purose of Fullbooks to provide e-access to reading material or a research data base?

Bibliographic sin, isn't tha t a new sin catagory?
All I know is the publication history of a book is part of the book.
As for the sin, it's burglary. Picking up something you find. Not a new sin.
With all due respect, if the copyright of a work has lapsed, it is NOT theft for anyone to do anything with it. By definition, it exists in the public realm, and anyone can pick it up and do with it what they will.

Providing access to these works online is a wonderful service. I see nothing wrong with it. As for lacking publication info, it seems to me that this would be a problem if and only if it was unacceptable to cite URLs in notes and bibliographies, but that is no longer the case.
Yeah, yer right, technically. But this is just one more slipshod online barfing of data for teachers and perfessers to warn students away from. I mean, I would not accept an URL citation to this cite in a paper -- because there is no way to verify that the text, as presented on this site, is accurately rendered. Somebody typed, or scanned, it in. Nope. Public domain or not, to slop these works onto teh webbertubes like this, without sourcing it at least minimally, is "criminal."
It is only "criminal" if there is something more sacrosanct about words printed on paper as opposed to on a computer screen. Books contain errata all the time! You of all folks should know this; rendering them in a paper, and citing same, always creates the opportunity for manipulating words, for manipulating meaning. Whether the citation is from a book or online.

I guess we shall just have to disagree on this point is all.
Yes. There is something sacrosanct about words on paper as opposed to a computer screen: Words on the paper in my hand cannot be changed or manipulated by someone else. Words on all computer screens can, and are, manipulated by others all the time. On the Net, I mean. But it's OK if we disagree.
The content of the book is public domain but the publication citation is not, in that if you cite the specific publication it is not in the public domain. The pagination, page numbers, covers etc. are property of the publisher even when the content is not.
Good points. I'm still gonna gripe, though. It's new! It must be bad! ;-)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?