A group representing authors in a copyright case slammed Google in court on Thursday, saying the company’s book-scanning project has hurt millions of authors whose works have been digitized.

The Authors Guild is seeking class-certification status for its claims case in order to represent all copyright holders in the U.S whose books have been scanned by Google as part of its Library Project. Around 20 million books have already been digitized by Google since the project started in 2004, and the guild is seeking minimum statutory damages for the authors it wants to represent.

The case brought by the authors was filed in 2005 and is one of three separate lawsuits tied to Google’s book-scanning program. Groups representing publishers and photographers also claim that Google has infringed copyrights via the Library program, in which digital copies of scanned public domain and in-copyright books from participating libraries are stored on Google servers and are searchable via its search engine. Google presents only snippets of in-copyright books, while public-domain books are fully accessible.

Google is asking the court to dismiss the authors’ case, saying the group does not represent the copyrights owned by individual authors or publishers. Google maintains that it is not violating copyright law, and that its actions are protected by the “fair use” principle, which allows for reproduction of limited copyrighted material without permission.

The authors filed a document requesting class-action certification in December last year after a proposed settlement between Google and the authors and publishers was rejected by the judge earlier in the year.

To continue reading please follow this link to the computer world article. 

E-book consumers’ preference for tablets is accelerating rapidly as dedicated e-readers drop in popularity, according to the Book Industry Study Group’s (BISG) closely watched Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading survey. The second installment in Volume Three of the study shows that, over the course of just six months, consumers’ “first choice” preference for dedicated e-readers such as those from Amazon and Barnes & Noble declined from 72 percent to 58 percent. Tablet devices are now the most preferred reading device for more than 24 percent of e-book buyers, up from less than 13 percent in August 2011. Further, the increase in tablet preference was not primarily for Apple’s iPad (which rose by just over one percent), but for non-Apple tablets – overwhelmingly from Amazon and Barnes & Noble. These non-Apple devices increased from five percent to 14 percent over the same period.

“The movement from dedicated e-readers to multi-function tablet devices is an important one for publishers to understand, as it allows them to deliver a richer, more interactive e-book experience,” said Angela Bole, BISG’s Deputy Executive Director. “One of the strengths of this study is that it can plot such evolution, preparing publishers for what e-book readers want and expect from them next.”

The Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading study, powered by Bowker® Market Research, points to a buoyant book market. Nearly 30 percent of respondents in the February 2012 survey reported an increase in dollars spent on books in all formats since they began acquiring e-books, while nearly 50 percent reported an overall increase in the volume of titles purchased in any format. The numbers are even rosier for the e-book market: more than 62 percent of respondents reported an increase in dollars spent on e-books, and more than 72 percent said they have increased the volume of e-titles they are buying. Some publishers are reporting that even when overall revenue has declined, profitability—particularly for e-books—has increased.

In addition to “Power Buyers” (those who acquire e-books at least weekly), this report looks at the behavior of “Casual Buyers,” who purchase one or two books a month. The study reveals that this second generation of e-book and e-reader adopters is catching up with Power Buyers in a number of ways. More than 27 percent of Casual Buyers now exclusively purchase e-books rather than print, compared to 30 percent of Power Buyers. Further, Casual Buyers are only slightly more likely to play games you can win real money with (37 percent versus 35 percent) or watch video content (23 percent vs. 21 percent) on their devices. However, Casual Buyers lag significantly behind Power Buyers on the uptake of multi-function devices. Only half of Casual Buyers use a tablet regularly, compared to 83 percent of Power Buyers.

Since November 2009, Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading has been tracking the habits and preferences of print book consumers who say they have acquired an e-book or a dedicated e-reading device within the past 18 months. Volume Three is sponsored by Baker & Taylor, Barnes & Noble, and Harlequin. In addition to quarterly PDF Summary Reports, Volume Three of Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading is published as a dynamic online report via Real-Time Reporting: a unique web-based tool set displaying the raw data derived from responses – drillable, sortable with on-demand accessibility.

Data for Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading was derived from a nationally representative panel of book consumers (men, women and teens). Each month a new group of 3,000 respondents complete surveys about their book purchasing behavior for Bowker Market Research. Out of nearly 65,000 possible panelists drawn from the last 18 months, respondents were qualified for the BISG e-book survey by indicating they had either purchased a “digital book or e-book”” or owned a dedicated e-reader device (such as Kindle, NOOK, or Sony Reader). This process yielded a survey sample of more than 1,000 e-book consumers.

The survey findings are available for sale both as a PDF Summary Report and as a complete data compendium, accessible online. A substantial discount is available for BISG members. For more information, or to order a copy of Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading, visit www.bisg.org/publications/product.php?p=19&c=437.

New evidence shows that A-levels in a range of subjects fail to equip students with an appropriate level of mathematical skills.

This, and research revealing the differences in mathematical difficulty between different exam boards’ papers, has led leading learned societies and education experts to make recommendations for the upcoming A-level reform.

SCORE (Science Community Representing Education), a collaboration of leading science organisations, publishes a new report today, Friday 27 April, which analyses the type, extent and difficulty of mathematics  within the 2010 A-level examination papers for the three sciences – Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

Also published today, is the Nuffield Foundation’s analysis of the mathematical content in six other A-level subjects that require quantitative skills (Business Studies, Computing, Economics, Geography, Psychology and Sociology).

The reports consider whether the type of mathematics in the examinations was suitable for progression within the subject’s field (type), the proportion of the examination that depended on mathematical knowledge (extent), and the complexity of the mathematical questions (difficulty).

Mathematical content in Physics, Biology and Chemistry

Professor Graham Hutchings, Chair of SCORE, said, “Our findings are worrying.  A significant proportion of the mathematical requirements – put in place by the examinations regulator, Ofqual, for each of the sciences –  were simply not assessed and, if they were, it was often in a very limited way and at a lower level of difficulty than students will need to progress to degree level or into relevant employment.

“Mathematics enables students to understand and describe many scientific phenomena.   Without learning some mathematical techniques, students are missing out on gaining a full understanding of the scientific ideas.”

The proportion of the assessments that required the use of mathematics varied between exam boards’ papers for each subject and the level of difficulty of the mathematics – judged by number of steps in a calculation, the complexity of the question and the familiarity of the context – also varied.

Professor Hutchings continues, “A framework must be developed to regulate the way mathematics is assessed within science A-levels to ensure parity across exam boards. We would also like to see a review of the current mathematical requirements for each of the sciences at A-level to ensure the inclusion of underpinning areas of mathematics within that science.

“These reports identify the important role professional bodies can play in A-level design.  As independent organisations, capable of bringing together teachers, academics and representatives from industry, the professional bodies are perfectly placed to ensure A-levels are fit for purpose and could provide the basis of a National Subject Committee for the development of A-level qualifications.”

Mathematical content in Business Studies, Computing, Economics, Geography, Psychology and Sociology

The disparity in mathematical content across exam boards was even greater in the A level assessments in the Nuffield Foundation study. For Psychology, for example, one exam board required students to use mathematics in exam questions worth just 10% of available marks, but, for another, this figure was over 40%. This is despite psychology having mathematical requirements set by Ofqual in its subject criteria, akin to the three sciences.

The amount of mathematics required to earn a particular grade is also affected by which units of study the school or student chooses, and by which questions students choose to answer in exams. For example, two students studying Business Studies could get the same grade, with one using no mathematics at all, and another gaining almost 50% of their mark from exam questions that require mathematical work.

The report concludes that with the exception of Computing, the variation in mathematical content is so great that the qualifications do not give universities or employers a meaningful indication of the level of mathematical skill or understanding of students who have them.

Anthony Tomei, Director of the Nuffield Foundation, said, “It is a common complaint from higher education that students come unprepared for the quantitative demands of their subjects, so the question of what mathematics should be required in A level teaching is important.

“These findings are timely given the current review of A-level content.  Subject communities and universities should take the opportunity to agree the appropriate mathematical content of their subjects and to work with exam boards and Ofqual on the best way to assess mathematical skills in a consistent manner.”

Research for both reports was undertaken by subject expert groups – comprising practising A-level teachers, teachers with experience in curriculum research and individuals working for exam boards as markers. For the SCORE study, an online survey was undertaken to ask stakeholders in subject communities whether they felt the mathematical content of the examinations was appropriate for progression.

The research was undertaken in response to evidence that two-thirds of undergraduates do not have the necessary mathematical skills for their course (ACME, Mathematical Needs, 2011).

For further information about SCORE’s report, contact IOP Senior Press Officer, Joe Winters.

For further information about Nuffield Foundation’s report, contact the Foundation’s Communications Manager, Frances Bright.