Why buy a cookbook if Google makes it free?

[Mottmott]

On Ya Rayi Our Rai nothing can be reproduced in any manner without the permission of the respective contributor.

←

How sad - that means that no one can ever read it.

Strictly speaking, if I view that web page, I'm reproducing it. If I were to dare to print a page for later reference, I risk being hauled off in irons. Evidence of my criminality would be readily preserved, as a copy of the forbidden material would be 'reproduced' and preserved for an indefinite time on my hard drive in the web cache. View a web page, go to jail.

You may think I'm exaggerating, but that's what your words above mean, in a paranoid legal sense. And when dealing with lawyers, the only way to be is paranoid.

←

Nevermind, not worth it.

←

chefzadi, I will visit you again and even cook something from your website in defiance of the legalities.

[chefzadi]

On Ya Rayi Our Rai nothing can be reproduced in any manner without the permission of the respective contributor.

←

How sad - that means that no one can ever read it.

Strictly speaking, if I view that web page, I'm reproducing it. If I were to dare to print a page for later reference, I risk being hauled off in irons. Evidence of my criminality would be readily preserved, as a copy of the forbidden material would be 'reproduced' and preserved for an indefinite time on my hard drive in the web cache. View a web page, go to jail.

You may think I'm exaggerating, but that's what your words above mean, in a paranoid legal sense. And when dealing with lawyers, the only way to be is paranoid.

←

Nevermind, not worth it.

←

chefzadi, I will visit you again and even cook something from your website in defiance of the legalities.

←

Please do.

[dougery]

Not being able to pay to participate in our culture today should not disqualify anyone from participating in it. Many who write books today were not able to afford them when young.

←

Although I agree with the sentiment, I have to disagree with the logic. Most of the poor, though deserving, can not afford a computer and internet connection to enjoy these e-books.

US CENSUS BUREAU:

-- Nearly 9-in-10 family households with annual incomes of $75,000 or more had at least one computer and about 8-in-10 had at least one household member who used the Internet at home.

-- Among family households with incomes below $25,000, nearly 3-in-10 had a computer and about 2-in-10 had Internet access.

-- Two-thirds of households with a school-age child had a computer, and 53 percent had Internet access.

-- Single-person households were the least likely to have a computer (30 percent) or Internet access (24 percent). In households with two to four persons, 58 percent had a computer and 47 percent had Internet access.

-- Households in the West were the most likely to have computers (57 percent) and Internet access (47 percent). Those in the South were the least likely to have computers (47 percent) and Internet connections (38 percent).

I agree that the segments of society that can not afford to buy the book should not be restricted access to art due to their income but to openly share these books in an unrestricted manor is not the answer. I am willing to bet that for every 1 person truly deserving access to this information, 50 people who could easily afford the book would access this as well. The reality is that the people who could afford the book would benefit, and the people that couldn't would still be out in the cold.

My other beef is that libraries are public institutions that for the most part have the publics best interest at heart. Google on the other hand is an IPO who's sole interest is growth and profits. They will undoubtedly try to get away with offering what they can (at minimal expense to them) to keep their stockholders happy at the expense of the creators of the materials they offer on-line. If a company is going to profit from someones work, they should at least reimburse the creator of the work.

(BTW, MottMott, a sincere thanks for continuing this thought provoking discussion. This is truly something worth the time and effort to think about!)

[Tess]

In answer to the original question, I like to print recipes from the internet when it's something I'm already pretty familiar with. But I like to sit with a cookbook and read through whole sections to get new ideas. A decent cookbook is about the whole collection of recipes and other materials, for me.

[Busboy]

I will probably use this feature the same way I used Napster back in the good ol' days: I'll take one recipe, and if I like it, I'll try another. Then I'll more than likely buy the book because I like the artwork, and I prefer the tactile sensation of holding a book over reading a screen.

I was the Napster user the record industry loved (and since I work in a field that CD and book buying keeps me employed) because even if I downloaded the whole CD, I'd still buy the disc.

So, those of you who buy cookbooks a lot? I sure wish you all bought them at my store. 

←

The Napster analogy is interesting because, despite what people would like to believe, Napster and its bastard children have had a very damaging effect on the record industry. According to the RIAA, revenues fell from $15 billion to $12 billion between 1999 and 2004. Unit sales are down 8% ytd from 2004.

I'm not going to carry any water for the music industry, but to pretend that -- as someone did upthread -- that the evidence to date supports a "Napster is good for the business" interpretation is plain wrong.

On the cookbooks, I think they might be a little different from, say, a novel or a CD. Cookbooks have utilitarian side to them. Admittedly, utilitarianism isn't what's fueling the unchecked spread of 11-pound, lavishly illustrated, poetically annotated and exorbitantly priced cookbooks -- maybe people really would rather put them on the coffee table than cook with them. But, where I need a paperback novel that goes with me on the bus, to the john, on camping trips, the front porch and my bed, I can live with a cookbook that just stays in my computer. In fact, given the choice between a hard copy of, for example, The French Laundry Cookbook and a reasonably good free bootleg on line, I'd be sorely tempted to go with the latter edition. Free, portable, takes up no space, the binding never rips out, the pages don't get stuck together, and you can print out the recipe and tape it above the counter while you're cooking.

Since Ruhleman and Keller are alll about the craft, I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

[*Deborah*]

I love my cookbooks, but I still source recipes online, and print them, too, from places like Epicurious. Sometimes I want to have different versions of a similar item to compare ingredients and methods; sometimes I need to pick up the groceries on the way home and don't want to forget anything...

BUT, even though I spend far too many hours online (at work and at home), and even though I now have a laptop and thus the ability to have the recipe onscreen in my kitchen while I'm cooking, it's nothing like sitting on the couch with three or four or thirty cookbooks spread out around you, looking for the perfect recipe or the complementary dish for your dinner party. No Google product will change that.

I'm crazy about books. The internet if anything makes me buy more of them by letting me know what's out there and giving me the eeeville Amazon Wish List.

[Mottmott]

Not being able to pay to participate in our culture today should not disqualify anyone from participating in it. Many who write books today were not able to afford them when young.

←

Although I agree with the sentiment, I have to disagree with the logic. Most of the poor, though deserving, can not afford a computer and internet connection to enjoy these e-books.

US CENSUS BUREAU:

-- Nearly 9-in-10 family households with annual incomes of $75,000 or more had at least one computer and about 8-in-10 had at least one household member who used the Internet at home.

-- Among family households with incomes below $25,000, nearly 3-in-10 had a computer and about 2-in-10 had Internet access.

-- Two-thirds of households with a school-age child had a computer, and 53 percent had Internet access.

-- Single-person households were the least likely to have a computer (30 percent) or Internet access (24 percent). In households with two to four persons, 58 percent had a computer and 47 percent had Internet access.

-- Households in the West were the most likely to have computers (57 percent) and Internet access (47 percent). Those in the South were the least likely to have computers (47 percent) and Internet connections (38 percent).

I agree that the segments of society that can not afford to buy the book should not be restricted access to art due to their income but to openly share these books in an unrestricted manor is not the answer. I am willing to bet that for every 1 person truly deserving access to this information, 50 people who could easily afford the book would access this as well. The reality is that the people who could afford the book would benefit, and the people that couldn't would still be out in the cold.

My other beef is that libraries are public institutions that for the most part have the publics best interest at heart. Google on the other hand is an IPO who's sole interest is growth and profits. They will undoubtedly try to get away with offering what they can (at minimal expense to them) to keep their stockholders happy at the expense of the creators of the materials they offer on-line. If a company is going to profit from someones work, they should at least reimburse the creator of the work.

←

No argument. My reference to people's right to participate in the culture is strongly dependent upon libraries being available to everyone. As far as I'm concerned, the web seems best suited to disseminating information accumulated in books, magazines, journals, not in formulating it. Books, for me, are the touchstone. Nevertheless, I would hope that more poor families had computers and web access. Fortunately most libraries do have online capacity as well as books. My fear is that as books are available online, library purchasing budgets may be cut back. In principle, I'm for anything that spreads knowledge and culture widely. As for Google's project I actually haven't formed a real opinion (yet) as I've not explored what it's all about. If it is exploitative, I would think that could be controlled.

I do appreciate your research on computer availability. I had no idea that it's use in homes is still so restricted. Perhaps the dearth of computers among singles may reflect the elderly who are intimidated by new technology as well as constrained by their income limits. By "access" do these figures mean only in the home or do they also include at school and in libraries?

As for the well-to-do also having access to books online not buying books, does library access stop the affluent from buying books? Indeed, sometimes I will buy a book after I've read a library copy as I discover it's something I want on my shelf for reference or rereading. And I will sometimes buy more than one copy so I can give it as a gift to someone else, too.

Many of us share Deborah's love of cookbooks and won't be without them. And with my other book-buying vice, art books, I am sure the web will never supplant the physical book. I probably wouldn't even read those online, though I do sometimes find it convenient to google up some images that aren't available on my own shelf. For example, I was reading a history of cathedrals which had limited illustrations and it was handy to be able to check out some of the churches that were not pictured in the book itself. There as with recipes and pictures of some dishes, the web can be a valuable supplement to books. I don't believe it can supplant books.

[Human Bean]

The Napster analogy is interesting because, despite what people would like to believe, Napster and its bastard children have had a very damaging effect on the record industry. (Emphasis added --HB)  According to the RIAA, revenues fell from $15 billion to $12 billion between 1999 and 2004.  Unit sales are down 8% ytd from 2004. 

I couldn't disagree more the bold part above.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Napster existed; the record industry made less money. To say that Napster caused the record industry to make less money would require some actual evidence, which is (debatably) sadly lacking. Other factors in a decline of recorded music sales are far more plausible (ie, fewer 'good' albums released, excessive CD prices, entertainment dollars going elsewhere (DVDs, cable, games).

But getting back to books, I think they can survive long-term - they're still here long after the advent of public libraries and photocopiers, just as music and movies have survived many hysterically-stated 'threats' to their continued existence.

[dougery]

I agree as well Mott, those of us who buy books will continue to do so. Old books are like old friendships and wine, they just get better with age.

I whole heartedly agree with your principals in sharing knowledge and culture, I just continue to have a difficult time with it when one company is reaping the benefits and profits, and the artists and writers receive no compensation.

I'm sure there is a win/win solution, I just hope google makes an informed decision and studies the potential impact this decision may have on arts and literature.

[Busboy]

The Napster analogy is interesting because, despite what people would like to believe, Napster and its bastard children have had a very damaging effect on the record industry. (Emphasis added --HB)  According to the RIAA, revenues fell from $15 billion to $12 billion between 1999 and 2004.  Unit sales are down 8% ytd from 2004. 

I couldn't disagree more the bold part above.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Napster existed; the record industry made less money. To say that Napster caused the record industry to make less money would require some actual evidence, which is (debatably) sadly lacking. Other factors in a decline of recorded music sales are far more plausible (ie, fewer 'good' albums released, excessive CD prices, entertainment dollars going elsewhere (DVDs, cable, games).

But getting back to books, I think they can survive long-term - they're still here long after the advent of public libraries and photocopiers, just as music and movies have survived many hysterically-stated 'threats' to their continued existence.

←

Actually, as far as I can tell, CDs are no more ridiculously expensive now than they were in 1999 and popular music is no more wretchedly awful (generally speaking) now than it was in 1999. Billions of songs have been downloaded over that time, to say that this has had no impact on sales is sheer nonesense: I know serious and less serious music people who haven't actually paid for an album in years. The factors you point to are even more subjective and less verifiable than those the record industry points to.

The movie industry survived DVD and video because people pay to rent or buy them, not because they give content away free on-line. The situations are not at all the same.

I'm sure free on-line cookbooks won't kill off the hard-copy version. But it makes no sense to pretend that if free versions are available, a non-trivial number of potential customers won't choose that option.

[Mottmott]

... I just continue to have a difficult time with it when one company is reaping the benefits and profits, and the artists and writers receive no compensation. 

I'm sure there is a win/win solution, I just hope google makes an informed decision and studies the potential impact this decision may have on arts and literature.

←

I hope you're right that writers, artists will get a fair shake. If they own the copyrights, I don't see how publishers can waive the writers' rights. If the publishers own the copyright, the writers have already lost their rights beyond whatever their contracts entitle them to. It's all in the fine print, I suspect.

[chefzadi]

Good cookbooks can cost alot of time and money, sometimes years of research like Clifford Wright's A Mediterranean Feast. If google makes the entire contents of that book available for free without compensating him it's just not right! And in the future the publication of such books would be damaged.

The only reason I can do my Algerian cookbook online and make it available for free is because I've already done most of the research by simply being Algerian myself and having lived there and working on a farm with very traditional foods and cooking techniques. So traditional in fact that even Algerians are telling me that they did not know people still lived this way. Even so the cost of food and web fees are things that are not easy for me to absorb. It's a bit of a struggle. I'm pretty confident about getting sponsorship in the very near future.

[dougery]

Well,

Yahoo is now following suit:

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=79360

Let's get the debate heated up again!

[pounce]

Yes, this is getting interesting. The difference between Google and the Open Content Alliance is that it appears that the later is geared toward multiple uses and Yahoo! isn't going to own the scanned data, but rather index it. Google owns the db they are using for thier Print service.

Here is a link to the OCA's FAQ:

http://www.opencontentalliance.org/faq.html

I think this new alliance is a pretty clever strategy and has the potential of making Google look "evil" in their nonchalant attitude toward copyrights.

[chefzadi]

I'm curious why this isn't a more hot topic. Seems like a very serious one to me.

[Mottmott]

I'm curious why this isn't a more hot topic. Seems like a very serious one to me.

←

Perhaps because it is so very complicated. Even before the Google/Yahoo brouhaha began. Understand that I am all for protecting the work of artists and writers. But keep in mind that all too often the copyrights actually belong to corporate entities and not the writers and artists. (Hence the move on the part of many musicians to self-produce.) I know that the original period of copyright protection under US law was considerably shorter than at present. Materials are kept out of the public domain for ever greater periods of time, extending long beyond the lifetime of its creator.

For example, we all want to see that intellectual property is protected, but the fact is that the time span of that protection has been considerably extended, so that very little will be going into the public domain at the rate we're going. Also, such property rights are becoming so expansive that even parodies are now being sometimes characterized as property thefts. And if you throw patents into the mix, the issues multiply. Do you know, for example, that some people are obtaining patents (or at least trying to) on genes and that any researcher who wants to do research on, say, genes that might be implicated in diabetes, etc., would have to have permission, pay frees, etc. to the patent holder. (Not sure what the status of this issue is at present, but last I heard it was happening.) It's a thoroughly complicated issue and as far as I can judge, there's no obvious right side.

It would be good if someone with a grasp of the legal ins and outs of this were to help us out to understand it. I think I've seen something about copyright on Findlaw's site: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/

[Mottmott]

This article in the NYTimes illustrates how complicated copyright can become in a culture like ours that is so self-referential. We're surrounded in our daily lives with so many items that are copyrighted, patented, or trademarked, that we may soon have to get permission to take snapshots to send without Christmas cards!

As for recipes, I'm waiting for the first brouhaha when some chef makes a legal claim over something presented on a TV demo by another chef! We're fast losing all sense of the "commons" or that part of the environment that belongs to everyone by virtue of belonging to the community. Just look at what's happened with water being "branded." Even at today's prices, some people spend more on a gallon of water than a gallon of gasoline.

The question I keep wondering about it how long protection of intellectual property extends? For example. When I buy a book I can give it away, lend it out, sell it. When I buy a computer, ditto. But it is, I believe, technically illegal for the person I bought it from to use the software I've installed on the computer. And even granting that someone who wrote a bit of music played as a cellphone's "ring" has a right to be payed, how far does that extend? If it inadvertently intrudes into a documentary made in a public space is it just that the filmmaker should pay for it?

Personally, I'm annoyed at the promiscuous broadcasting of logos, jingles, advertising images, and junk music that one can't escape from. It's ironic that by planting all these into the public space corporation create a right to be recompensed when a creative person, willy-nilly, includes those images in his/her own work. Can I sell a photo or painting of a city skyline if it includes some corporate logo? Or must I pay them for their having cluttered my view with their logo?

Perhaps we should all pay a fee to Maillard whenever we make something that depends on achieving that! And what about all those restaurants (and home cooks) making little cones of this or that in imitation of Keller's salmon amuse? Surely at some point, sounds, sights, ideas enter the culture and don't require a change of money at every manifestation. We need a balance that will enhance and expand our culture not stifle it.

And what we often lose sight of is that few of the real writers and artists benefit very much while those in charge of the machinery of production and dissemination benefit greatly. It's a bit of bait and switch. The arguement for copyright, patent, etc. usually rests on protecting and encouraging creativity, but the big profits go elsewhere.

The Hidden Cost of Making Documentaries

[chefzadi]

Thanks for the thoughts mottmott. it will be intersting to see all of this plays out.

I thought that publishing my Algerian recipes online would be the end of my cookbook. quite the contrary, to my surprise the readers still want a book or a series of books. It's created even more demand in multiple languages. There are internet users who will sit around googling recipes all day and there are still others who will still want the hard copy. I did not find this argument so compelling before, but now my experience is that this is quite true.

(No I do not plan on publishing a cookbook that is basically a print out of my recipes. )

[Mottmott]

Thanks for the thoughts mottmott. it will be intersting to see all of this plays out.

I thought that publishing my Algerian recipes online would be the end of my cookbook. quite the contrary, to my surprise the readers still want a book or a series of books. It's created even more demand in multiple languages. There are internet users who will sit around googling recipes all day and there are still others who will still want the hard copy. I did not find this argument so compelling before, but now my experience is that this is quite true.

(No I do not plan on publishing a cookbook that is basically a print out of my recipes.  )

←

Actually, many of us do both. I buy lots of cookbooks, but I'll still grab a recipe off the net from time to time.

First most of the time I cook out of my head unless I'm doing something unfamiliar. But much of what's "in" my head came from studying cooking in books.

A recipe here and there off the web is not a substitute for a book which reflects a knowledgeable writer/chef putting together a coherent package of which the recipes per se are only one part. One of the most important and useful things I've learned from cookbooks (versus at my mother's knee or recipes from here and there) is the idea of a repetoire of elements to be used in different dishes. For example, I may have a recipe for making preserved lemons and then use it in a wide range of dishes including various braises or salads or even try it out in a savory bread. (Hmmm, there's an idea.) I read them to expand my repetoire of techniques and building blocks. A gastrique or lemon infused oil can be part of many dishes. When you read a cookbook whether about a food region or a particular chef, it gives you a sense of the characteristic way that area or person puts together elements cooking. Grabbing a particular recipe from the web (or out of a cookbook for that matter) doesn't do this.

Well, you may say, what if Google or Yahoo or whatever puts whole books or chapters online? I can only offer one person's opinion that it would not equal the book as object. Perhaps it is my age and having grown up in a book culture, but I do NOT find even my laptop (which is portable of course) a satisfying substitute to curling up with a book. Being able to research recipes for particular food or dish online or grabbing a recipe here and there has not curtailed my cookbook collecting. It probably stimulates it.

When you write your book, I have no doubt, judging by your posts that I read and your website, you will have a point of view and context for your recipes. Your commitment to your work and ideas and desire to share them is strong.

edited to add: I just found this article on copyright to throw into the mix:

here

Edited October 18, 2005 by Mottmott (log)

[lou_31]

I often wish I had a complete listing of all recipes in my cookbook library ("where did I see that recipe for green tomato ketchup?")

How about this for a community project eG?

Count me in. I had cooked up a similar idea recently.

I would *love* to see this project get going. I have tried various methods of cataloguing (sp.) my own meagre collection, but can never keep up with the new ones.

Has there been a new thread started for this one? If not, we should get one going!

Louise

[thecuriousone]

I often think that no electronic medium, no matter how flashy or easy to access, will ever take the place of a book you can curl up with.  To some degree, I like the idea that you can peruse a few pages of a book before you purchase.  A very few.

Unfortunately, the internet has made it incredibly easy to pilfer information.  Since copyright laws differ around the world (please correct me if I'm wrong, Steven), there is barely any way to track it, and little that can be done when it does happen.  When I see our recipes and photos pilfered, my blood boils (is a link so difficult?). 

Gray area or no, I agree that the law is the law.  Just because it's easily accessible does not mean someone should feel free to take it.

←

Jennifer- I am with you. I often check out www.recipesource.com, but nothing takes the place of curling up with a cookbook.

This may start to wane as the, "Newsprint" generation ages".