Library Groups Ask DOJ To Oversee Google Books 108
adeelarshad82 writes "Three library associations have asked the Justice Department to oversee Google's plans to create a massive digital library, so as to prevent excessively high pricing for institutional subscriptions. They said that there was unlikely to be an effective competitor to Google's massive project in the near term. They also asked for academic author representation on the Registry board. Google's plan to digitize millions of books has been criticized by a variety of sources and has recently been shut down in France."
Why do I get (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do I get the feeling that if it came down to it, it would be these library associations who would be charging large amounts of money to access their archives rather then Google.
Re:Why do I get (Score:4, Insightful)
They probably think that people will use Google to "steal" what should be in the public domain to begin with. They think that it will ruin their business, just like how the internet "ruined" the newspaper business.
Re:Why do I get (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
By extending Copyright, they effectively robbed all of us of our rightful property. What hypocrisy for them to crack down on "piracy".
Then why don't you vote "them" out of office?
Oh yeah, copyrights don't win elections. Neither do civil liberties. Seems the only thing that wins elections are vague promises of "change" that manage to penetrate into the minds of the electorate in between viewings of American Idol......
Re: (Score:2)
That or scaremongering and presenting a face of someone the voter thinks they might like to have a beer with.
No side is innocent.
Re: (Score:1)
The public pays the taxes that support all of the government necessary to enable Copyright. The public, therefore, rightfully owns those works after a limited time. By extending Copyright, they effectively robbed all of us of our rightful property.
No way.
The public doesn't own intellectual property after copyright expires on the theory that, because we fund the government that enforces (or, enables enforcement of) copyright, we get "paid back" with the rights to it once the copyright expires.
The public owns intellectual property because intellectual property isn't really property. "Intellectual property" is a legal fiction we've (the United States, at least) set up on the theory that property rights in fixed expression will encourage creativity. Th
Re:Why do I get (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about fair prices for consumers, it's about control. ... They probably think that people will use Google to "steal" what should be in the public domain to begin with.
I think you've got it exactly backwards. Here's the key line from TFA:
The library groups also express "great disappointment" that the DOJ did not not urge the parties to require representation of academic authors on the Registry board, even though academic authors wrote the vast majority of the books Google will include in its database, and those authors--unlike those in the Authors Guild---"probably would want the Registry to price the institutional subscription in a manner that maximizes public access rather than profits."
Get that? The library associations are the good guys here. Most librarians are very much in favor of public access (it kind of goes along with the whole concept of a library) and academic librarians in particular are really sick of seeing their limited budgets eaten up by absurd journal costs. What they're worried about, I think, is that Google will end up as a partner with the publishers in making it more expensive for people to get access to information which, as you correctly point out, they've already paid for with their taxes. Whether or not this concern is justified, I don't claim to know, but it's certainly worth raising the issue. And speaking as an academic, I can say that they're absolutely right about what academic authors in general would want. I'll never make a dime on any article I publish in a journal, and that's fine; the whole point of writing journal articles is to publicize the work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are tough questions, and I don't have all the answers. As for the first one, although there are a lot of separate laws and court decisions which led up to the current situation, I put much of the blame on Bayh-Dole [wikipedia.org]; read up on it and decide for yourself if that's where the blame lies.
As for the second, yes, sometimes it is a bit of a deal with the devil, and I'm no happier about it than anyone else. There are, fortunately, many good open-access journals in my field (bioinformatics) but not all field
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed its like these people almost have devoted their lives to free repositories of information to educate society...what would a place like that be called?
Re: (Score:2)
The librarians and the Author's guild and essentially everybody in this fight except Google are the Good Guys this time. The grandparent has the issue right, but the party to be concerned about wrong - this is about control, Google's control and their legally questionable and ethically objectionable attempts to be awarded a permanent legal monopoly on maintaining an electronic archive of out of print books.
Re: (Score:2)
The "supported by my tax dollars" thing is a bit of a red-herring. A lot of things are supported by your tax dollars, yet still have various fees associated with them (such as camping in a National Park.) The research may be funded by your tax dollars, or it may not be (a lot of university research is privately funded) but the distribution of the paper still needs to be paid for institutionally. And academic writing may not even be funded at all.
Re:Why do I get (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. I mean, most libraries exist to provide free or low cost access to as much of this information as they can.
I wonder if the library association is interested in this because they worry about their own existence?
Personally, I don't think this is a terrible idea. I mean, many of us don't doubt Google's intentions... But I like this sort of mindset when someone has a de facto monopoly. I'd rather err on the side of suspicion and actually put emphasis protecting competitors.
Re:Why do I get (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do I get (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason no one else has bothered to do it is because it is illegal to make available copies of works still under copyright without express permission from the author.
I really wish people would get this through their heads. Google is breaking the law, and is attempting to get a courts blessing not only to continue breaking the law, but to award them the sole and unlimited right to break the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright. Let's follow your logic. The roofing company does asphalt shingle roofs at the rate of $80/square. I negotiate with them to have it done for $60/square. That's illegal? WTF?
As has already been pointed out, Google NEGOTIATED for the right to publish all this stuff. We might squabble over the prices paid, and those people who may have lacked representation - but they NEGOTIATED, in good faith. How, exactly, is this illegal?
I sure hope you don't use coupons, and respond to sales, because by you
Re: (Score:2)
Had that been what happened, you'd have a point.
What happened was Google was caught selling my house. When some random guy in New York objected, Google negotiated with him to purchase my house from him. Then Google negotiated a contract with that same random guy to purchase every house that comes up for sale in the US,
Re: (Score:2)
Who has the rights? Did any rights holders object? Nope? They've ABANDONED their rights, and/or they approve of Google's use of their works. Vacant houses and vacant properties (from your analogy) are sold at sheriff's auctions all around this country - I almost said daily, but certainly monthly. This looks like a sheriff's auction to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Google is not only stealing, they are seeking to change the law ex post facto to legitimize their stealing. (The latter, in and of itself, is illegal under US law.) Then you fail to mention that Google is also trying to rig the game such that not only will they be the are only people with the right to steal, but also so that in the future they won't have to steal because the rights will automatically be awarded to them regardless of the will of the actual owner.
In short, you *are*
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the books themselfs will still be available, it's amazing everyone is still ignoring this simple fact.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
but if people actually thought competition would help, there would already be a competitor.
What type of logic is this? Competition isn't about helping! It's about running the other guy of business and taking all of the money yourself. (Or as TMBG put it, "I don't want the world. I only want your half." Or perhaps better, Conan's description of the best in life, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women") Do you think Pepsi exists to help Coke? If so, you clearly are more confused than most Ayn Rand reading parent's basement dwelling "capi
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I just assumed that it was an exclusive deal since, that's how these things work. You want to limit the number of people rummaging through your library and the rare books collection in order to protect them, and still be able to function as a library while the books are being scanned you know?
I can't find a link. Just talk about "virtually exclusive" due to GOOG's deep pockets to ward off the numerous lawsuits that have and will come out. Keep in mind, every publisher lawsuit was settled. Noth
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What, you mean no one else has bothered to break the law? There's a reason why Google have the biggest scanned collection, and it's this: they got their collection illegally.
Surely you're not arguing that breaking the law is innovation? There's the reason why Google has no competitors on this.
Copyright doesn't allow *anybody* to scan all the books in a library and make them available online to the public willy nilly. Google got sued for it,
No respect for the law (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Ptolomey had no respect for the law either, first he nicked Egypt from the Pharohs and then he had an army of scribes copy all the scrolls he could find and stuffed them in his so called "library" of Alexandria. Eratosthenes and other authors tried to sue but lawyers hadn't been invented so he was SOL.
Actually the Alexandrians were more in the habit of swiping the physical originals. There's one notorious case where the Mouseion borrowed the Athenian state copies of some of their top tragic playwrights -- Sophokles and the like --, and sent an enormous sum of money as a deposit to ensure the safety and return of the originals after they'd copied them. However, Alexandria was very very rich, so they could afford to lose the deposit; Athens only got the copies back. That would be harmless enough these days
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you're not arguing that breaking the law is innovation?
Often times, innovation requires just that.
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do. Why should they be punished for being the only ones who want to digitize everything?
Keeping an eye on someone, and watching what they do != punishment. It's called oversight. My impression from TFA is that the ALA wants to make sure Google doesn't try to leverage what it creates to become a monopoly.
Currently, the academic and research libraries
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd like to compete against Google on this project, there's just the small matter of the tens of millions of pounds
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you are wrong, but your idealistic notion is a good one.
Libraries are there to provide books that people want to read. Often they throw out books, some that are really good to read, but not popular. What Google is doing is valuable for those who want to have access to the books their library does not / will not / can not carry.
I think that the ideal library has all books... old and new. Realistically that is not possible. There are inter-library loans and such for books with some libraries, but find
Re:Why do I get (Score:4, Insightful)
That's certainly the precedent set by JSTOR [jstor.org], a more traditional non-profit initiative with closer ties to libraries. An individual not affiliated with a subscribing institution basically can't get access, outside a few narrow exceptions (like access to a specific journal if you're an individual subscriber to the paper version of the journal). They won't even allow public access to old journals that are in the public domain! Google so far is being much more public-friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
JSTOR is limited by its agreements with the publishers, of course. If Google can push through a more user-friendly publisher agreement, good for them, but the librarians quite reasonably do not want the ability to make such agreements limited to one organization, not even one with Google's well-earned reputation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because that's exactly how it would be. I used to work in libraries. They're just suffering an existential crisis, and will react this way each time someone comes up with a better idea than they can make good on themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. Most of these library groups are just that groups that represent public and semi-private libraries who exist with a non-profit mandate and purpose.
Because you believe people want to make money? (Score:2)
Because you are coming from a philosophical mindset of believing that people want to make money out of any resources that they have access to?
My experience with library associations is that they are motivated by finding ways of getting information to as many people as possible for as little money as they can and free where where ever possible. Their model is one of service, often funded by the public sector and having a lot of people in their organisation who philosophically tend towards social mode
Re: (Score:1)
Because you're paranoid, didn't RTFA, and you don't understand the concept of not-for-profit. Library associations don't possess or provide access to this content, and they don't charge anyone anything (other than institutional membership fees), even if it "came down to it". They have the power to lobby, which is exactly what they're doing here.
Associations a library chooses to belong to have no control over setting cost of services. If that was the case, costs would be uniform, and they're not. That is f
what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the institutional subscription is more expensive than what they're doing now, maybe they shouldn't use it. If it's less expensive, then what's the problem?
The problem is that google will have a monopoly.
Instead of waiting for the free market to screw things up, the librarians are being proactive about seeking oversight.
Good Grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe Google should do what it will, and tell the people who run libraries to piss up a rope.
Libraries sell off or throw away many books so they have space for new ones. With digitization, there is no need to sacrifice old material.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What Google gets out of this is the right to include all the content of most books ever written in their search results. That's a huge deal that would secure Google's position as the ultimate search engine. Google isn't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And their self-interested motives make their actions less beneficial how?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably just my bias showing - I usually have several windows up at once, I probably just confused the conversation flow.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine, actually throwing out older books to make way for Twilight? I shudder to think.
Re:Good Grief. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or point out the deal Google got and claim that THAT's where the monopoly lies, and thus get the same thing [or something similar] for themselves? We now have precedent for what has to happen to get access to all the works like this and what one can do with the digitized results. Why can't another company strike the same deal [or something reasonably similar] and then do all the work Google's doing? Did Google's deal really say "And this shall be the only deal of its kind ever in the history of the Unive
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're missing how beautifully google did this.
Google started scanning books, somewhat illegally. A _class action_ suit was then filed against google, by _some_ book writers but on behalf of _all_ book writers. This is the key point here. The purpose of a class action lawsuit is that you don't tie up the courts for years while every single person individually sues some company for something that they did wrong. Instead you have one big lawsuit and, and here's the kicker, no more lawsuits are all
Re: (Score:2)
"This is a major barrier to any competition."
Not so much as you seem to imply. It was as large, or maybe even a larger, barrier before Google got started. Google has done a lot of homework, and legal work, pointing toward all those rights holders that must be negotiated with. Some freeloading corporation can follow all the legal work, which will connect him with each and every rights holder that Google had to find in the first place.
As for the actual negotiations - I would imagine that the freeloader cor
Re: (Score:2)
You take that back!! He never was, and never will be as smart as a retard, you retard!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The DoJ is already in their business, by virtue of the settlement. What the librarians are trying to do is limit the damage which this in-their-business-ness may do. It's not analagous at all to someone who bitches about the cops but then calls 911 at the first sign of trouble. It's more like someone who was once tasered for asking an officer why he was getting a speeding ticket trying to figure out, the next time he gets pulled over, what he can do to avoid it happening again.
Re: (Score:2)
The DoJ is already in their business, by virtue of the settlement. What the librarians are trying to do is limit the damage which this in-their-business-ness may do. It's not analagous at all to someone who bitches about the cops but then calls 911 at the first sign of trouble. It's more like someone who was once tasered for asking an officer why he was getting a speeding ticket trying to figure out, the next time he gets pulled over, what he can do to avoid it happening again.
Yeah, that was a bad analogy. Someone call BadAnalogyGuy and tell him we got one for him.
Still, I find it hypocritical that librarians, who are paid by the government after bitching about federal regulation, are asking for the feds to regulate potential competition. Regardless of you opinion of the feds getting in your business, when your business is paid for by the government, the government has a right to regulate it. That's kinda what "government run" means.
(Analogy V2)
It would be like the post office
Re: (Score:1)
So? Doesn't make it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You and I and Google don't get to choose which laws we obey and which we don't, just to suit ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it now? IANAL, but I believe that so long as you have paid for the book in question and you're not distributing that material, you're at liberty to do just that. The DMCA need not apply, as books a) aren't digital and b) aren't copy-protected.
But again, IANAL. And as it's past 2am, I can't be bothered to do any research.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to violate YOU, you whining little bitch!
Re: (Score:2)
Although to be fair bounc
Re: (Score:2)
Then the typical undergrad is a moron who shouldn't be pandered to.
No competition? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is already being undercut [thepiratebay.org].
(may not want to follow link at work due to ads on site).
There are lots of people digitizing books, for free - so there's already some pressure on Google to be reasonable about pricing, even if they will probably have a much more comprehensive selection.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From your link, I clicked one of the top results, and the note was:
Recreated as best as I could from memory and information I was able to locate through Google Book Search.
No competition?
Competition is easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Just don't use their service. Everyone survived w/o it before, so its clearly not something you must have. If you decide to use it, STFU about the price.
Next ?
Asimov saw this coming (Score:1)
Will all good the intentions I'm sure Google has (and I give them an A+, much higher marks that the norm of corporate America, which gets a C-). the problem is which Isaac Asimov pointed out in the Foundation Trilogy Series and his visions of tomorrow some 50 years ago is technology is that nothing out lasts simple tech, Steel, Stone or Paper to document things when technology changes or gets lost or power goes out. Google is doing a great things but old tech archives must also be renewed and kept alive jus
Economics... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're the monopolist, agreed.
Who owns the copyright once a book is digitized? (Score:1)
OK, let's say Google creates a digital copy of a public-domain work... Is the digital copy still a public-domain object, or does it belong to Google?
Sorry Sir, but... (Score:1)