Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book & Author Page Issues
>
Books LLC
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
willaful
(new)
Sep 12, 2010 10:23AM
I think we really need to agree on a standard way of dealing with these, the author was updated from Books LLC to MJD just a few weeks ago. I don't like the feeling that we're all wasting time undoing and redoing each other's work!
reply
|
flag
Here's the books LLC FAQ, btw - it might be useful info to have available: http://booksllc.net/faqs.cfm
Anyone want to comment on how I did this one? http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83...Note that I changed the title to what was actually listed on the Books LLC website for that ISBN. It's also got the advantage of being more accurate/less deceptive.
I changed the author back to Books LLC for now, lacking a better suggestion.
♥Eva♥ wrote: "I'd rather buy a book than get a free e-book. I've tried and can't stand reading without the book in my hand. I don't listen to audio books for that reason and haven't yet spent the money on a Kindle..."Amen.
It just "isn't a book" if it isn't a BOOK. In addition to being easier on the eyes, I just like the feel and smell of a good book (crisp and smelling of fresh ink, or timeworn cloth and smelling of its years on a library shelf)...
But, back to the discussion, sorry to have sidetracked anyone with my nostalgic thoughts...
willaful wrote: "Anyone want to comment on how I did this one? http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83..."I think that looks professional and correct - I bet the people who reviewed this edition will be a bit surprised ^^.
Looks great, willaful, now just do it 63684 more times. ;P
Cait wrote: "That's what they all are, when they're titled with a bunch of fiction book titles and have a chapter for each book -- it's a little clearer on the Books LLC website, but really badly formatted ever..."'Compiler' sounds great Cait!
willaful wrote: "I think we really need to agree on a standard way of dealing with these, the author was updated from Books LLC to MJD just a few weeks ago. I don't like the feeling that we're all wasting time undoing and redoing each other's work! "Indeed. The question I have is, why was the author changed from Books LLC to MaryJanice Davidson? And by a Super, no less? (As can be seen from the change log.) The discussions about Books LLC have been going on in the Librarians group for months; surely a Super would be aware of them.
Willaful, where did the "study guide" part of the title come from? Did you add that, or was it there?
Lobstergirl wrote: "Willaful, where did the "study guide" part of the title come from? Did you add that, or was it there? "It was part of the title as listed on their website.
Kaion wrote: "Looks great, willaful, now just do it 63684 more times. ;P"Luckily I have a lot of time on my hands. ;-)
The thing is, if these are just Wikipedia articles, I think the appellation "study guide" is misleading. It makes it seem like the book was put together by educators or something. It also reinforces the logic of adding the original author's name - MaryJanice Davidson or whoever, since original authors are often the second author for other study guides, like SparkNotes or Barron's.If Books LLC were adding their own content, they should be able to call it a study guide. If they're only reprinting Wiki articles, I don't think they ought to be able to call it that.
I am finding a lot of Books LLC not-a-booked. It is true that some of them are lists - such as bird books, but some of the books are really well thought-out and make very good reading.There are very few books about where I live and they are often very expensive so research into historical events isn't easy. There are several titles by Books LLC where a collection of articles has been put together in a very logical way for histories, biographies, economics etc. that are absolutely excellent.
I have bought about 20 Books LLC titles so far, and all of them were worth the money. They do sell quite well, probably because they contain the same info as much more expensive books and being shorter are far less daunting.
Petra X wrote: ", but some of the books are really well thought-out and make very good reading."But if these are wikipedia articles in print, why pay the money? To people who aren't even the authors of those articles? Just print them out from Wikipedia!
Because you would spend a long time chasing up all the references and putting the articles together. I have one biography that must be a reprint of an old book, as its quite long, together with numerous articles which made it better than the biography of the person, which I have, as it was far less waffle and it included much more about events and laws current at the time in the UK, US, Caribbean and the island in particular. Every reference had been followed up, and then put into the correct order, not at all a jumbled-up set of wikipedia articles. The books I have are very readable. It seems to me that people are writing about Books LLC without having seen them themselves and have decided because they are reprints of books and articles they scarcely even qualify as books. Then other people read those opinions and take them for gospel without having seeing the books either.
I must admit, I fell into this category too, but then I decided to get a few books because there is such a paucity of (affordable) material about the islands and I was quite stunned at just how good they were. Obviously that wouldn't apply to all the books, but then that doesn't apply to all the output of a conventional publisher either.
Yes I could spend days or weeks tracking down each link on Wikipedia and the old books mentioned in the footnotes, and then sorting out what was relevant and what wasn't and putting them in the right order. I could then print the whole lot out myself, the whole 120 pages or so. But I don't have that kind of time when someone else has done the research and I can just read the book.
Thanks for the input, Petra, that's an interesting point of view.
Mod
Regardless, consensus was that these ARE books, and they should not be getting NAB'd.
rivka, do you agree with the suggestion here that "Books LLC" be listed as the author? (Except, presumably, the books that aren't collections of articles.)
Mod
Well, I can say that certain authors whose names are mentioned - like the C.J. Cherryh example which made me aware of this in the first place - are not simply not pleased but upset and taking legal steps, but this is outside of the GoodReads brief, from what I understood all this discussion to be.Having previously been paid for content I created on the web myself, I personally would be outraged if my article was collected somewhere without my consent. I guess the two-fold problem of what is good for the reader and what are the rights of the author to their own content remains, as it usually does.
Estara wrote: "Having previously been paid for content I created on the web myself, I personally would be outraged if my article was collected somewhere without my consent."If you write an article for Wikipedia, you are consenting to its republication in other collections; those are the terms of Wikipedia article licensing, which have nothing to do with Wikipedia being on the web.
Cait wrote: "If you write an articl..."No worries, I was talking about my time as a professional game editor for an online review magazine, not wikipedia.
Mod
I'm so not a lawyer, but I think it's pretty clear that the authors who are suing have no comprehension of what the Books LLC books actually contain (I've heard claims that they contain the author's actual copyrighted works, which is FALSE) and will lose at trial -- if it ever goes that far. Which it probably won't.
rivka wrote: "The wonderful/terrible thing about this country is that anyone can sue anyone for anything.I'm so not a lawyer, but I think it's pretty clear that the authors who are suing have no comprehension ..."
I'm not so sure... coming back to C.J. Cherryh again - even the reviews here on GoodReads.com make it clear that some readers are reviewing the original books and not the wikipedia collected articles.
If similar readers buy these article collections on Amazon -which also sells them - in the belief they are mega-omnibuses (omnibi?) - then
a) the author and publisher loses a sale
b) the reader loses money for not reading the fine print
c) the reader might transfer his annoyance with that to the author who isn't responsible.
Having said that I also want to say that I have no in-depth knowledge of US law to make an informed judgement.
Mostly I want neither readers nor authors to be ripped off.
As in: if there were large letters on the covers that said A COLLECTION OF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ABOUT...
I wouldn't say a word.
I think the best thing we can do as librarians is to clear up the author issues and make it clear what the books actually contain - noting when they're collections of public domain articles or public domain works. Then people are informed and can make up their own minds
I guess Petra has put to rest our wondering if anyone had ever actually purchased one of these Books LLC things...Thanks for the info, Petra.
A follow up question - are the covers actually as ugly as they look online?
Mod
I sincerely doubt anyone is actually BUYING them instead of the actual book. And should they do so, Amazon has a return policy. So do most other booksellers.
rivka wrote: "I sincerely doubt anyone is actual..."Well, I guess I can only reiterate what I've already quoted and this time simply link what C.J. said about this? That was when I im-ed you because I had seen you as a Mod on GoodReads.com and wasn't sure if my librarian reaction was fine by GR standards.
I still believe that this message in their description can lead to people buying this as the real deal:
"Purchase includes free access to book updates online and a free trial membership in the publisher''s book club where you can select from more than a million books without charge."
My worry remains that the bad experience will somehow stick to the author in the readers' minds even when they get their money returned.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the possible impact of this ^^.
Mod
The authors have every right to be upset about pirates selling illegal copies of their books. But that is NOT what this publisher is doing. Is the language they are using deliberately vague? Sure. Is it legally actionable? I really, really doubt it.
Lobstergirl wrote: "I guess Petra has put to rest our wondering if anyone had ever actually purchased one of these Books LLC things...Thanks for the info, Petra.
A follow up question - are the covers actually as ugly as they look online?"
Yes.
This is not a good way to do it:http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/92...
This is placing something in the title field that is not the title of the book. Librarians shouldn't be doing that.
I was thinking, as with free-source novels we would probably change the authorship to the original author, can't we change the collected article authorship to something like "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia contributors"?
Mod
Yeah, too hard to figure out for sure what came from where. Also, leaving it as Books LLC brings up the "author" information.
