Slashdot Log In
95 (thousand) Theses (for sale)
from the do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do dept.
"I am shocked that that this company is engaging in what amount to piracy of my work. Actually, it's worse than that since they are offering it for sale. Imagine the lawsuits and jailtime I would get (a la FBI Warning) if I burned a few hundred CDs of the latest movie release and sold them on the Internet.
"I imagine a great deal of Slashdot readers have completed graduate work. I just wonder what they make of this?"
Well, we'll see. Contentville is funded by CBS, NBC, a huge book distributor and a database aggregator - it launched last month. These companies are in Congress right now lobbying for a law to protect databases - that is, to make re-using information from places such as Contentville illegal. Not just copying the information, but even using any of the data or facts from databases would be illegal. A number of database-protection bills are in Congress right now, and if one of them passes (very likely), the poster above won't be able to make use of his own thesis without paying Contentville - since Contentville went to the effort of compiling their database, and the law would protect that effort.
Steven Brill, so-called "media watchdog", is just in the process of settling with thousands of freelance writers whose work he also, uh, appropriated.
It looks to me like a crystal-clear violation of the No Electronic Theft Act, passed a few years ago. Will Steven Brill go to jail for not more than three years? No. He's a "media watchdog", and only "pirates" go to jail. (Aside to Steve: if the NYT or Washington Post start referring to you as a pirate, best flee the country - the FBI will take an interest in the case then.)
Contentville. We get our Content the old-fashioned way - by stealing it.
Here is the agreement on my MA thesis (Score:4)
other rights: the University of Alblerta requires the following
University of Alberta Library release form -- this is verbatim
and in full from my MA thesis:
Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Library
to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell
such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research
purposes only.
The author reserves all other publication and other rights in
association with the copyright in the thesis, end except as
hereinbefore provided neither the thesis nor any substantial
portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any
material form whatever without the author's prior written consent.
That certainly does not sound like I have given away rights for third
parties to print and sell my thesis -- it sounds like I assigned that
specific right to the University of Alberta Library, and no one else,
nor does it appear to entail the U of A the right to transfer
reproduction, distribution, or resale rights to other parties. Yet,
UMI, and thus, contentville have it listed for sale.
Or do I misunderstand the relevant rights and laws in play here?
Why's that? (Score:4)
(Kidding.)
--Threed-Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!
Re:We sighn away copyright when turning it in.. (Score:4)
Depending on the state, any such policies may be unenforceable. My Assignment agreement with my employer (governed by the State of California), not only cites, but quotes section 2870 of the California Labor Code:
a) Any provisions in an employment agreement which provide that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
ii) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
Since I actually live in Minnesota, I thought I'd look up our (similar) assignment law:
Chapter Title: EMPLOYMENT; WAGES, CONDITIONS, HOURS, RESTRICTIONS
Section: 181.78
Text:
181.78 Agreements; terms relating to inventions.
Subdivision 1. Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer shall not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, and (1) which does not relate (a) directly to the business of the employer or (b) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (2) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
Subd. 2. No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by subdivision 1 as a condition of employment or continuing employment.
Subd. 3. If an employment agreement entered into after August 1, 1977 contains a provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to an employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, and (1) which does not relate (a) directly to the business of the employer or (b) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (2) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
HIST: 1977 c 47 s 1; 1986 c 444
I also looked at my alma mater's policy [umn.edu], I didn't sign anything over (current policy, not the one while I was there).
Now, IANAL, but I'd like to think that MN and CA's employment agreement laws could be extended to academia, especially because students generally pay for their education, rather than get paid for it. In fact, since no pay occurs, I'd like to think that those assignments would also be null and unenforceable.
Ahem. Do you guys ever actually read the links ? (Score:3)
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
From this I conclude:
1. Contentville are actually selling stuff that was already for sale off-line.
2. If your thesis is there, and you did not license it, presumably you gave a license to your University, which did. This is not unusual. Its generally in the agreement you sign in a hungover stupour during freshers' week.
But... (Score:3)
And don't think for a moment that Napster doesn't have some plan to make money off what they do eventually. They are funded by VC's, and VC's are not known for their charity when it comes to fudning decisions.
Read this first, don't get to upset yet. (Score:5)
http://www.contentville.com/c ontent/dissertations.asp [contentville.com]
*from the page*
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing, whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
--Brandon
Re:GPL your thesis! (Score:3)
FSF introduced a "content" license last year; it would probably be applicable.
> Would anyone be willing to GPL their research the same way they GPL their source?
Academic research has for the most part been "free" for centuries. You write your theses with the expectation - nay, hope - that thousands of other people will get a free copy out of their library, read it, and quote it extensively in their own work. And that their work will build on it.
What is not expected is that they will appropriate the whole thing, or major chunks of it, and stick their name on it.
--
Re:Why for sale? You can get them from the authors (Score:4)
Re:Ideas should be free, this isn't... (Score:3)
It's nice in some ways - I can easily link to it from an on-line resume, for example, and it might help some researcher find my work.
But overall, I don't approve of Contentville's use of my copyrighted material: in particular, selling it for a profit.
It's not that I don't want people reading it. After all, I wrote it with the expectation that other researchers would use it and hopefully benefit from it. That's the whole point of the scientific method.
My thesis is copyright by me. I have allowed the University of Victoria library unlimited rights to make FREE copies of it for the purposes of interlibrary loans and whatnot - that's part of the deal with publishing it at UVic. But I'm sure that no-one is supposed to profit from copying it except (optionally) me.
I'm going to check the details of the copyright on my thesis tonight. Then I'll be writing a letter to Contentville demanding that they give my thesis away for free (or at most the cost of copying and postage).
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
This is NOT a big deal (Score:5)
I keep the copyright, and if UMI ever sells more than a few copies, they pay me royalties. (Although I'd be shocked if they ever sell another copy after the one my mom bought) Contentville is forwarding orders on to UMI, so I'd get paid if someone bought my thesis through Contentville.
The reason for requiring theses to be published is to ensure that the research they contain is always accessible. Sure, I'll send you a copy of my thesis if you ask me, and so will most other academics, but it's nice to have a central repository where theses are always available. Sometimes it's hard to find or get in touch with an author (try getting Ted Kaczynski's thesis directly from Ted!).
Basically this story seems like someone writing a book and then complaining when they discover Barnes & Noble selling it.
Well.. (Score:3)
Why do you think /. will be sympathetic? (Score:3)
We sighn away copyright when turning it in.. (Score:5)
I am in biology (molecular immunology), so your field/school may be differant (sounds like it is) but I would not say the blanket statement that all of these thesis's (?thesi?) are taken without permission.
Re:GPL your thesis! (Score:4)
If you GPLed your thesis, anyone could then rewrite the whole thing, change your conclusions to something you don't agree with, change the rev number, keep your name on it, and republish it without your permission. That would truely suck.
All of a sudden anyone could attribute any quote to your work by just reving the docutment.
Quack
Not GPL - FDL (Score:3)
FDL takes some approaches that it would be very hard to take on programs. It contemplates invariant sections, which should always appear. It also provides for invariant texts which should appear at the cover, back or first/last pages of the book.
Re:corporate hypocrites (Score:4)
My Ph.D. thesis is there. I'm going write them a note telling them they cannot sell it.
They may not be selling it. UMI makes available abstracts for papers they can't (and don't) sell.
UMI is at http://www.umi.com [umi.com]. They have answers on their site to a lot of questions that are coming up here. It might be worth peoples' time to do a little research before flying off the handle...
Done with resumes too (Score:3)
I can't completely blame them, though. I didn't put a robots.txt on my site, so all of this content is up for grabs. Sad, in a way.
Contentville made FC (Score:5)
They say they are from 'UMI' database (Score:5)
Where do Contentville's dissertations come from?
Excerpts from the UMI® Dissertation Abstracts database are being used by Contentville, which, in turn, collects orders for full-text dissertations. Dissertation orders are fulfilled by UMI® Dissertations Publishing [umi.com], whose mission is to expand scholarly communication and improve access to academic research. All Dissertation Publishing Agreements with authors remain in effect. Dissertation authors retain all rights to their dissertations. All sales will be tracked for royalty payments. All contracted royalties will be paid, per the agreement. The UMI program continues to expand access to research and maintain a permanent archive of scholarly works. Wider distribution of dissertation research is intended to support the international scholarly community.
UMI [umi.com] is a Bell & Howell" [bellhowell.com] company (I think that's the company that makes educational film strips, and slide projectors). All I can find on copyright from UMI, is how they are will to act as your agent in applying for a copyright. (see this [umi.com]) But on a page [umi.com] linked from there, they say:
UMI publishes dissertations and theses only from accredited institutions and only with a signed publishing agreement from each author. We offer free informational packets with comprehensive details about the publishing process and other UMI services, along with the forms to fill out.
So my guess is that only the abstracts have been 'stolen', and that if you haven't signed an agreement your dissertation isn't really available.
Ideas should be free, this isn't... (Score:3)
If a private institution wants to profit off (An unbound copy of my works is $29.95 -- Which seems like alot).
Do I need to attach a friggen license to my papers now?
I just spoke to them -- here's the deal (Score:5)
In their standard agreement they make everyone sign, they set themselves up as technically being a publisher and they reserve the right to distribute your work in printed and electronic form. They say that if your thesis generates more then $10 in sales in a calendar year, they will pay you a 10% royalty. The ownership of the copyright remains entirely with the author. This is the same agreement they have used for a long time when theses are ordered by other libraries and sometimes by individuals. The only part that's new is the aggressive marketing.
They are running this as an opt out program. If you do not want them selling your thesis online you can call 800-521-0600 x2873 and they will remove your work from the database.
In all, this seems to me like it is not theft. They are taking advantage of the small print in an existing contract to sell books. This isn't too different from conventional publishing except they didn't inform the authors that they were cranking up the marketing machine. They were not able to give me any cases where they had actually generated sales through Contentville or where they had paid any authors, but they have only been up about a month. The woman I spoke to also said that they will only be issuing royaly statements to authors who generate more than $10 in sales.
Because of the minimum sales requirement and the lack of accounting statements for all writers, this gives them the opportunity to underreport sales and steal from people if they want. Time will tell how they will handle this part
I've talked to Contentville (Score:3)
So, it might benefit you more this way because it'll be easier when doing research to track down dusty theses chock full of unpublished results.
If I recall, the UMI agreement works out to something like $7 for every thesis sold if more than 5(?) are sold in one year. OK, the chances of my seeing dime of $$$ is slim (although my thesis was a big hit in Russia and Eastern Europe, so I"m told :-), but it's
not the rip-off that was initally portrayed
although it WOULD have been nice if Contentville
had had a FAQ explaning things.
If I learn more, I'll post it.
GPL your thesis! (Score:5)
Hypocracy? - slightly OT (Score:5)
Mine is there and I never gave them permission to sell it. As far as I know, I am the sole owner of the copyright on my thesis.
How many musicians on napster gave their permission for their work to be distributed? Why do people on slashdot complain about *their* copyrights being violated, yet vehemently defend their right to violate the copyrights of musicians? It all seems silly to me...
Why for sale? You can get them from the authors! (Score:5)
I've asked for theses from the original authors before, and they are always happy to oblige by sending a copy.
Academic people have given up their rights to a thesis,which is owned by the university (who provide them happily too).
So what the heck are they trying to do?
If anyway is interested in my thesis (when I am done in a few years that's it
Why the generosity? Research is sponsored mostly by public funds, so the research goes back to the public.
Besides, it's always gratifying to know your thesis is interesting to some people
Re:Hypocracy? - slightly OT (Score:3)
Errrm, do you work for ContentVille, mate?
It's one thing to distribute freely something that is not meant to be distributed freely (i.e. music) under current copyright laws (*), as in the Napster case, and it is another thing to distribute for a price something that is meant to be distributed for free.
Now, did I short-circuit your brain on that one? What makes /.ers upset is that this information (the theses) are meant to be distributed freely and some tossers at NBC want to make money out of it instead. The same exact tossers that sue you for freely distributing their copyrighted products! Isn't that rather ironic?
People (Napster users) take goods for sale and distribute them freely.
Corps take free goods, claim their rights and distribute them for a price.
'Nuff said.
Trian
Re:We sighn away copyright when turning it in.. (Score:3)
Bzzt. Thanks for playing, please try again:
A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. U.S. Copyright law, 17 USC 204 [loc.gov]
"by operation of law" covers inheritance, seizure of assets for bankruptcy, etc...
Database protection (Score:3)
It's similar to the arguments for open source software's security: if you think there might be something sketchy inside, open it up and take a look. You don't neccesarily even have to have the right to change or copy it, but you should be given the opportunity to see exactly what's in there, if only to check for security risks, illegaly copied code, etc. With big, aggregated databases protected, we will lose the ability to know exactly what kind of data is being collected about and from us, and from where.
The sad thing is, this company will probably do quite well. They're using the most realistic model for online publishing that I've seen in a long time, and I don't see Congress going against the combined will of just about every major media company, advertiser, and retail company in the nation just to protect trifles like consumer rights or privacy.
Re:GPL your thesis! (Score:3)
You might do better with the GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org]:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that d