[bksvol-discuss] Re: better quality book rejected
- From: "Paula and James Muysenberg" <outofsightlife@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:32:42 -0500
Thanks, Mike. Your comments make sense. How long do you figure it took
you to write this message?
I'm not being sarcastic, but simply trying to make the point that any
Bookshare staff member could have included a similar explanation in the
volunteer guidelines. Had this information been provided for volunteers, I
could have avoided the headache of trying to clean up material, such as
tables, before submitting those books. I know Bookshare is understaffed, but
adding a few sentences to clarify submission really should be a priority. I
may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the current guidelines are simply
not clear enough.
Your explanation is very clear and concise, and I am saving it for
future reference.
Paula
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pietruk" <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: better quality book rejected
> PPaula
>
> What I think we have here is a difference between theory and practice.
> Yes, anything copyrighted is elligible for BookShare.
> However, what Benetech appears to want is something verifiable beyond what
> is printed on the title page.
> Here are 2 red flags that I've discovered:
>
> (1) If a book from the last 30 or so years doesn't contain an isbn
> number, you are inviting potential headaches.
>
> (2) Same goes if the book doesn't show up in the records of the Library
> of Congress office.
>
> Anyone can claim a copyright on anything they write -- I could claim one
> on this msg if I chose.
> However, it is more defensible if it can be verified from an independent
> source.
>
> Do others have similar or differing observations as to what is required
> for successfully supporting a copyright for purposes of Bookshare.
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
