User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-30881616-20191012033635

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-30881616-20191012033635 User:Amorkuz, I think you misread my post—my actual main question was simply “are such things as screenshots or the like of the previous thread be admissible into evidence? With all sensitive personal information censored, of course.”

It is a question for which I still have not yet received an answer, as of this moment. I do fully understand, of course, that all our admins are busy people who have kindly volunteered their time to help build our community, and I have no desire to be mean-spirited to anyone for taking a reasonable time to answer questions. At the same time, I would like the same courtesy to be given toward me, and for everyone on this thread to be kindly understanding toward why I disliked having to feel as if everything we said has been in vain—as if valid counterpoints that had been raised or point-blank questions that had been asked could just be ignored, and one has to repeat themselves again and again.

As it happens, posts #6, #19, and #34 above do rather illustrate why I needed to ask that question, I believe—for I had already addressed the point about ISBNs in the last thread. Fortunately, according to post #9 above, I should be able to refer to the former thread so long as I do “provide information or context” in my post; as I have kept a draft of my former post on my word processor, I will now adapt that draft into this post, and be able to reproduce and present the evidence I provided in the former thread with as much information and context as possible.

Apologies if this risks running afoul of Thread:223085, or if everybody else on this thread finds it repetitive to read through the same bit of fact-checking again and again:

CreateSpace (or more precisely, “On-Demand Publishing LLC, doing business as CreateSpace,” to quote its Bloomberg profile) was a company which provided on-demand printing services, “[allowing] publishers and authors to publish their work” (emphasis added). Now, according to the International ISBN Agency,

"It is always the publisher of the book who should apply for the ISBN. For the purposes of ISBN, the publisher is the group, organisation, company or individual who is responsible for initiating the production of a publication. Normally, it is also the person or body who bears the cost and financial risk in making a product available."

Furthermore, in the info section about “Assigning ISBNs to joint publications”, the International ISBN Agency further states that

In the case of a joint publication, both publishers are entitled to have an ISBN on the book. It should be made clear which number identifies which publisher. However, if only one publisher is to hold stock and distribute the publication, then it is recommended that the ISBN of the publisher who is responsible for distribution appears in bar-coded form on the back cover of the book.

As a print-on-demand business, CreateSpace naturally would be “responsible for initiating the production,” in the sense of starting the printing process once a copy had been ordered, as well as distributing said copy once it had been produced, with the demand for the company’s service—and the profit the company might make from providing said service, through fees and suchlike—tied to the demand for the publication itself. There is nothing surprising, then, for CreateSpace to be considered “the publisher” for the purposes of ISBN.

That is not all, though. I was intrigued by this logic of using ISBNs to determine what does or does not count as “officially released” for the purpose of Rule 3, and looked further into the information provided by the International ISBN Agency. This is what I found:

"ISBNs are assigned to text-based monographic publications (i.e. one-off publications rather than journals, newspapers, or other types of serials). Any book made publicly available, whether for sale or on a gratis basis, can be identified by ISBN. [. . .] With regard to the various media available, it is of no importance in what form the content is documented and distributed; however, each different product form (e.g. paperback, EPUB, .pdf) should be identified separately."

The ISBN is an identifier and does not convey any form of legal or copyright protection. 

In principle, publications that are monographic (i.e. one-off publications not periodicals or serials etc), text-based (or predominantly text-based) and available to the public are considered eligible within the scope of the ISBN Standard. 

As everyone can see, the International ISBN Agency’s understanding on who counts as a publisher, or what counts as a publication, is very, very broad. And, well,. ..

I own a printer.

Per the International ISBN Agency’s terms, in theory I could print out just about anything tomorrow and have it be given an ISBN with just a few simple steps. I would not need to do any proofreading or quality control, or worry about copyrights, or even convince anyone to put money into my so-called book (given that the International ISBN Agency counts books made publicly available “on a gratis basis”) like Arcbeatle Press and other traditional publishers have to do, but so long as mine was the hand that turned the printer on, “AthenodoraKitten” would count as a legitimate publisher for the purposes of ISBNs—and thus for the purposes of T:VALID, according to the logic of posts #6, #19, and #34 above.

In practice, of course, it is very unlikely that a DWU rightsholder would ever grant me a license (especially given that DWU rightsholders are almost by default professionals familiar with copyright and licensing, and would have some proper understanding of professional standards), so the chances of my hypothetical book actually passing our “four little rules” as currently defined is virtually nonexistent. Nevertheless, this broadening of the scope of Rule 3—this apparent broadening of the scope of T:VALID into something along the lines of Anything printed by anyone with a home printer would be considered officially released so long as it has an ISBN attached to it—is so uncharacteristic compared to the position the author of posts #6, #19, and #34 above has otherwise been advocating for since the beginning of the previous discussion (as I understand it), that I would like to take a moment to ask: User:Amorkuz, can you please confirm that this is actually what you are arguing for?

Furthermore, least my post accidentally derail the conversation, may I bring attention back to the ongoing matter of (to quote post #37):

"Also also also, Shambala above wants to hear from the other two admins who made the decision with you, could you kindly give us their name and/or notify them on their talk page, we have been asking for this for ages, thanks."