Once Again, US DoJ Opposes Google Book Search 218
angry tapir and several other readers passed along the news that the US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers. This is a major blow to Google's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library. From the DoJ filing (PDF): "...the [Amended Settlement Agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation. As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright. Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity — Google."
Opposes? (Score:5, Informative)
The department continues to believe that a properly structured settlement agreement in this case offers the potential for important societal benefits. The department stated that it is committed to continuing to work with the parties and other stakeholders to help develop solutions through which copyright holders could allow for digital use of their works by Google and others, whether through legislative or market-based activities.
Seemed to me they weren't happy with Google 'ownership' of orphaned works and the fact that it's "opt out" not "opt in" for authors [pcpro.co.uk]. I guess you could see that as opposition but basically the amended contract failed to satisfy them. That's why they're having a hearing on Feb. 18, 2010.
A deal this big is bound to have lengthy negotiations and investigations as it's truly game changing for everyone involved and the world at large.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with Google's aim: Prevent orphaned works from disappearing.
I disagree with the way they are trying to do it because it tramples all over the law to do so, -and- guarantees a monopoly while it's doing it. I think the DOJ is saying the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Google's aim: Prevent orphaned works from disappearing.
I disagree with the way they are trying to do it because it tramples all over the law to do so, -and- guarantees a monopoly while it's doing it. I think the DOJ is saying the same.
Leave that up to the US Copyright Office to manage, not a corporation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If an author could opt-in for orphaned works, it would not be an orphaned work. I fail to see how requiring orphaned works to sit in the dark until copyright expires benefits anybody. The problem people have with this is that Google is attempting to use what is essentially an unused, untapped resource.
Re:Opposes? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your problem is orphaned works then there are two fair solutions I can see to fix the problems:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Opt out is evil. It's evil when spammers do it and it's evil when google does it.
If I create a work and hold the copyright on that work, google has no right to provide copies of that work without my permission, and they cannot say, "you can opt out!". That's backwards according to long established law.
This applies to much of what google does - online books, news stories copied from the organizations which create them, and providing cached versions of web pages.
Copyright law does not magically no longer matter if you add "on the internet" to it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How would you feel if a library had to get permission from copyright holders before offering books? It seems to me that there are some circumstances where an opt-out makes more sense than an opt-in.
Re:google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, libraries are also in support of expanding access to orphaned works [arl.org] for their own use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most libraries have copy machines. Some will even do the copying for you, as long as you don't ask for the whole book at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How would you feel if a library had to get permission from copyright holders before offering books?
It would be ridiculous. But I don't see how this has any bearing on the matter at hand. Libraries aren't out there scanning copyrighted works and trying to sell ads to make profit off of them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop with the idiotic library analogies.
Libraries are not producing new copies of a work. They're purchasing a work and loaning out that work.
It is not remotely similar to what Google is doing. So please stop using library analogies in copyright arguments, it makes everyone just a little bit more stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Opt out is evil. It's evil when spammers do it and it's evil when google does it
If spammers provided a single opt-out for all spam ever that they actually obeyed, no one would be unhappy.
The reason opting out isn't workable is that you'd have to opt out of every spammers efforts and almost no spammers actually obey opt-out requests (some actually do, believe it or not, because they're not in the business of spamming, but rather of maintaining mailing lists of likely suckers, the value of which they increase by removing people who request it).
The only concern I'd have, here is if Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I create a work and hold the copyright on that work, google has no right to provide copies of that work without my permission, and they cannot say, "you can opt out!". That's backwards according to long established law.
Google isn't just copying books and distributing them wholesale. Without publisher consent, they'll only show very brief snippets, well within fair use. Publishers can, and have, authorized google to show a few pages or show the entire book, but default is just a few lines. You, holding a copyright, can't veto a particular fair use just because it is on the internet. Whether the initial copy google makes to generate the snippets is fair use or not, that's a different and much closer question. That's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"No Copyright is Evil. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the ones and zeros on my computer in my house."
This is just rights according to you. The only reason I can't come in and take over your house (other than your weapons or fighting skills), is because there are laws that protect you.
I could always say that nobody has the right to tell me where I can live and property rights are EVIL, but wouldn't you be glad that the police wouldn't give a shit about my personal philosophy, and
Google : "WE supported Obama for this?" (Score:2, Funny)
Larry and Sergei : Guess the commander in chief's not getting any rides on Larry and Sergei's private party jet any time soon!
Obama : My current private jet is actually much better.
Larry and Sergei : We can play Call of Duty on a giant screen.
Obama : I play Afghanistan and Iraq on mine
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The right solution is to fix the brokenness of copyright law, not to write in a special exemption for a particular company.
For starters, we should have an orphan works provision, and the duration of copyright should be cut back down to reasonable levels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that shorter copyright durations should be granted, with a clearer expiration line for works, but the entire line of reasoning regarding 'orphaned works' should not be one enshrined in law anywhere.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You know, an 'Orphaned Work' isn't just works where the copyright holder doesn't make themselves known. There are examples of where an organization has spent a great deal of time and effort to just follow the trail of ownership of copyright where the ownership has changed hands several times, and apparently has been forgotten even by the other owner. Many times even with great effort to establish the owner, it simply can't be found.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
And then there are the situations where the copyright owner is known, but they have no interest in continuing to make the work available because there's insufficient profit in it.
For example, the movies "Spartacus" and "Lawrence of Arabia" were almost lost because the copyright owners decided they weren't worth the expense of maintaining, so they didn't bother to keep copies [in70mm.com]. And those were both Oscar-winning movies released only 50 years ago. If Columbia and Universal had refused to fund the belated restoration efforts, both movies would have been irretrievable by the time the copyright ran out.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Orphaned works are most certainly not a fiction. As someone who regularly works with libraries, archives, & museums, I can say with some certainty that orphan works are huge problems for such entities, and copyright law as it's currently instantiated ensures that these works may disappear forever. Orphaned works are the majority of works in existence.
See the Copyright Office comments (and the US Copyright Office favors strong copyright laws) ...and so on.
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
See the Association of Research Libraries comments to the Copyright Office
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/lcacomment0305.pdf
See the Society of American Archivists Best Practices
http://www.archivists.org/standards/OWBP-V4.pdf
See some of Peter Hirtle's comments.
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/09/orphan-works-and-the-google-book-settlement.html
Orphaned works is a huge issue, and will become more of an issue as we attempt to work with and preserve digital works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a copyright holder shouldn't have to make themselves known to anyone, regardless of the reason.
Then why should I support laws that grant them a copyright at all, permit a copyright to continue existing, or allow the copyright holder to enjoy legal remedies such as money damages and injunctions?
Copyright is meant to serve the public interest, by incentivizing the creation and publication of works that otherwise would not be created and published, while encumbering the public with minimal (preferably no) rest
Re: (Score:2)
not to write in a special exemption for a particular company. ... For starters, we should have an orphan works provision,
Calling the Slashdot research department:
Does anyone have a link to an article with the quotes from some Google exec saying that the reason this right should be conferred on Google, and not create a general orphan works provision, was because Google invested in the legal muscle to make the deal happen?
I just poked around for it, but could not find it. I remember being moderately swayed at
Re: (Score:2)
Google wants a compulsory license, like they have in Canada for orphan works, but they can't do that in the court system, the decision only applies to them. To get the same rights for everyone, the government has to actually make a law.
On the other hand, they do want everybody to have to do the scanning work for themselves instead of sharing, so they are a little naughty.
Samuel Clemens (Score:2, Interesting)
And he was actually serious, it seems (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty funny that the only reason why you could post that here, and the only reason I was able to read it, and check what was the context by searching in Google, is because, well, the copyright on it expired?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But you forget the next paragraph:
I agree with the DOJ (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the government's position on this one. What started out as a lawsuit over the scanning of books (to make them searchable, which I consider fair use) has now become an attempt by Google to gain rights they wouldn't have enjoyed without a contract with copyright holders. The idea of a class action lawsuit is to compensate plaintiffs for an alleged wrong, not to grant defendants new rights that could otherwise only be obtained through contract or legislation. In my opinion, the Author's Guild has sold out the class and acted against its best interests. Indeed, the proposed settlement affects even those authors who aren't members of the Author's Guild and does so in a way that is not in their best interests.
If Google wants access to people's copyrighted works beyond what's allowed by the fair use doctrine, let them negotiate with authors or else let them petition the government for sensible laws on orphaned works. The courts are not the way to secure such broad rights as Google has attempted to do through its settlement with the Author's Guild.
who fucking cares about author's rights (Score:3, Interesting)
for the vast majority of author's we're not talking about jk rowling: they're obscure. and their works are, frankly, unknown, out of print, forgotten. such that putting the artificial boundary of negotiating with thousands of random yahoos and working out arcane legal arrangements with all of them is completely unwieldy, unworkable, and monetarily not worth the effort
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IM
Re: (Score:2)
You're just rehashing the tired (and incorrect) old slashdot meme that somehow increased prominence is automatically economically beneficial (oh, they like when you pirate their software, that means more "marketshare").
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who fucking cares about author's rights (Score:4, Insightful)
copyright law is BLOCKING the long tail and therefore blocking profit making for authors via ancillary means
So your argument boils down to this: There is money to be made, so fuck the rights of everyone involved and hand that gigantic wad of cash as an exclusive deal to one of the richest corporations in the world?
Here's one for you: Just because you want something, even if you want it badly, doesn't give you a right to it.
it gets to a point where copyright law is simply gets in the way of technological, social, and cultural progress
Bold words coming from a guy who hasn't figured out punctuation or capitalization. How's that cultural progress working for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I agree with the DOJ (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, that you consider it fair use doesn't really matter. Fair use is defined, and it is not defined to include copying an entire work for your own commercial purposes, which is exactly what Google did.
Google should be sued for a vast sum of money over this, just like you or I did if we copied all the works the RIAA or MPAA get so jumpy about "just to make them searchable".
You don't get to abuse other people's property rights just because you're Google.
Re:I agree with the DOJ (Score:4, Informative)
This is how fair use is defined by copyright law:
As you can see, the law leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and nothing in the above text rules out the possibility of a successful fair use defense when books are scanned for the purpose of making them searchable (not to be confused with making it viewable) online.
You must change both sides of the equation (Score:5, Insightful)
> copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright
Which would be much more reasonable if copyright wasn't permanent (by any reasonable measure) now.
Copyright has been changed. As such, the rules governing it need to adjust to maintain the benefit of having it for society.
Do no evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Somewhere along the way Google forgot one of its own rules. Their subtle yet ever encroaching methods of "helping" the world seem more of an attempt to ensure that google is firmly entrenched in every aspect of our daily lives. IMHO their approach is just wrong. We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them? Many see them as an invasion of privacy.
I'm already concerned about google wanting to control the storage and distribution of medical records, financial records and other areas they seem determined to control.
It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China, but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well connected interests.
Their gmail, adsense, and cookie policies are well lets just say less than privacy friendly.
As for books and other media, this should be a opt in system rather than an opt out. If spam was opt out many more would be protesting but its violation is the same. Many argue its to protect media that would be lost in the future, but the proper fix for that is to change laws not skirt around them because your some big coporation.
I just dont see how "do no evil" and a great desire to become big brother can peacefully co-exist.
Re:Do no evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Google is just abiding by it's Golden Rule:
Make all of the world's data publicly available and searchable.
Most people still haven't fully considered the implications of this; or just how single minded Google is going to be about this goal.
Re: (Score:2)
And clean water and electricity and cars and computers and..... What a blatantly stupid argument!
"It took being bitten by the hand that fed them to finally come out againt their own willingness to censor in China, but still show a willingness to cowtow to political and well
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have lived for thousands of years without street level photos online of our homes and without navagable photos of the insides of public buildings and retail spaces, do we really need them?
Jesus H. Christ, you sound like my 78 year old dad. We lived thousands of years without computers, telephones, electricity, automobiles, airplanes, and indoor plumbing, do we really need them?
Opt-In Copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't these guys introduce some required opt-in copyright for works older than say 25 years? Make the renewal 20 years long and put a US$5 price on it.
Lawrence Lessig has been arguing for something like this for years... it would solve the orphaned works problem, and Disney probably wouldn't care, so they actually might let it happen.
This the same DoJ (Score:4, Insightful)
These fuckers are not only corrupt, but shamelessly corrupt.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is inevitable that someone is going to eventually do this.
While I fully understand where the copyright holders are coming from, why not work with Google and strike a deal instead of just saying no?
I know, I know...it was a knee-jerk reaction. Still, I feel like this is a missed opportunity for the publishers and the public.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Google does not want to strike a deal over my rights with me. Google wants to strike a deal over my rights with those other people.
This is slashdot. We think that copyright terms are way too long and so forth. This isnt the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
What google really wants is for books to have the equivalent of "mechanical licensing" that other IP works have.
However, they can't create it by negotiating with a million people, they can only create it by being sued and having the decision go their way and the lawmakers finding this intolerably vague and deciding put it on paper.
Same thing happened with radio royalties, rebroadcasting OTA on cable, and ring tones; and is currently happening with drug patents in poorer countries.
What's your point? (Score:2)
Only those who have actually been published can argue against Google's proposal? But it's OK to argue for Google without being published, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is there are lots of books out there where it is not reasonably practical to get in touch with the copyright holder. Hell with some of them the copyright holder probablly doesn't even know they own it (BTW does anyone what happens legally to a copyright a company owns but doesn't know they own when said company goes bankrupt?).
IIRC Google decided to make such books available anyway claiming that doing so was fair-use (a somewhat tenuous claim) and someone sued them over it, got the case made a c
Re: (Score:2)
If the companies buying the assets of the failed company do their work, it transfers. Otherwise it falls into limbo and no-one can legally do anything with it until copyright expires.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they're part of the companies assets that gets liquidated in bankruptcy court. It's similar to what happens if the bank that holds your mortgage goes under.
Good summation of the situation by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem is there are lots of books out there where it is not reasonably practical to get in touch with the copyright holder."
But because there's no necessity for Google to do this, it's not really a problem for anyone but Google. Google wants to do it, but the law prevents them from doing it. Tough.
A work lost versus a work preserved... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that the copyright maximalists always have to resort to LYING to make a point?
Companies engage in this nonsense all the time. All anyone ever asks of them is that they
comply with the license as soon as someone steps up and tells them to. These companies
don't just use "orphan" works, they use works very well knowning that they are actively
maintained and "belong to someone else".
Yet the all the community at large ever asks of them is to come into compliance.
So from the GPL compliance point of view,
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, Google could end up stealing a few pennies from someone that
can't be bothered to keep their work available.
Just because Google says that some work is "orphaned", doesn't mean that it actually is - especially when it's in their monetary interest to claim so.
The entire problem with Google settlement is that the burden of proof is on author to prove to Google that work is not orphaned (by contacting them and claiming that it's not). Until then, Google can legally treat any works as orphaned. To that extent, it places a burden on authors to 1) know that Google arranged such a convenient scheme for themselves, and 2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a monetary issue. If the copyright holder wants their work to languish in obscurity, it's within their rights to require that of potential distributors. Until the copyright expires, they have the full right to control how it's disseminated. And it defaults to 'hands off.'
There is something you are forgetting about writing and music: in the abstract, it doesn't belong to the creator. Sure, by copyright and any other law you want to mention it belongs to them...but the cultural significance of it doesn't belong to them.
People have chosen, on their own, to use a portion of their limited time and energy to incorporate my efforts into their existence. I am the creator of my music, and I control its distribution...but it isn't mine.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting philosophy, but other philosophies may have a different view. That's why we have laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It most certainly is yours. What isn't yours are the experiences of that people who listen to it, what importance the culture attaches to it, etc.
What's the difference between a chair that I build in my workshop, a photograph that I take or an essay that I write? (assuming that I build good chairs, take good pictures and write good essays) There is no difference. I created them, I own them. I may choose to sell them, give them away, lock them in my home unused or run them through a wood chipper. I fail
Re: (Score:2)
Why? They have periodical indexes. What's so different about Google?
Oh these poor book publishers and authors. Oh woe is them. I can search for subjects or bits of text and have results sent back to me including links to Amazon and B&N.
OH THE HUMANITY!
Give us a f*cking break with this nonsense already.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
The inevitable future where most if not all major (and likely minor) written works are available digitally.
The book industry is acting just like the music industry was in the early 2000's. Publishers should try to work with google instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are independently published, absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be my ignorance of the way the industry works (which is most likely), but what I'm getting at is this could be used as another avenue for income. What Google did was wrong, yes...but there is still money to be made (not to mention the public gaining even more access to information.)
I'm just curious why people want to shut it down instead of shaping it to work to their advantage. Right now, no one is benefiting...but everyone could be.
Re: (Score:2)
What Google did was wrong, yes...but there is still money to be made (not to mention the public gaining even more access to information.)
Here's an idea. Why doesnt Google make me an offer, either a blanket opt-in or personally to me, and then I can accept or reject said offer.
This doesnt require changing any laws. If there is money to be made, then surely they can make an offer that will be beneficial to both of us.
If Google was so concerned with preserving older works that arent being published, there would be an ad on all their services saying "Are you an author? Google would like to publish your old works. Click here to see our offer
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of striking a deal forcing google to not ignore those copyrights and let everyone make some money, you want to force google to not ignore those copyrights and let no one make money?
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, this book has been out of print for 45 years the author is dead and there are only a few hundred copies left on the planet. Lets scan it. Then let anyone who wants it dl it.... but it is copywritten, how about we charge people to dl it. With that we will pay the author money they certainly wouldn't be making otherwise. Hell, lets even throw in some extra money for when we put up each book as well.
And we'll email/phone/mail/fax every
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
Right now, they are trying to shut down Google's ability to do this. Instead of trying to shut it down, why not hammer out an agreement with Google that requires money up front or a portion of the money generated when someone views their content? Or, even better, with links to where someone can buy the thing.
Google makes a little extra, publishers make a little extra and/or get more eyeballs on webpages where their stuff can be bought, and subsequently authors
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't the publishers, the issue is the copyright holders who are difficult to contact. The publishers are actually on board.
The problem is that google wants the courts to assign rights to them that belong to someone else - but no one knows exactly who that someone is. There was a class action that said, "Hey I could be that someone - give me some money." And google said ok, but only if this class represents all the someones. The court doesn't think that because a class sued google that they ca
Re: (Score:2)
You still don't get it. It's not up to me, you, or Google to determine what's good or bad for a particular author or what sort of "deal" they might want to make.
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason I put some of my music online at no charge and with no DRM: Free exposure. [livingwithanerd.com]
Sure, a bunch of people will download it and not buy the album (when it becomes available)...but they still know my name and are aware of my work. That's as valuable as a sale, just in a less tangible way.
Re: (Score:2)
I specifically put the word financially in there knowing this would be the first response. This isn't about popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. This is about the money side of things, and I'm asking why any professional writer who lives by selling his written work would make a decision to give his work to the world for free.
You are implying popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. have nothing to do with making more money as a professional writer.
Do you really need me to point out what is wrong with that implication?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, please point out what is wrong with my implication.
Write a book, keep tight control, make profit on its sales = $X.
Write another book, put it online for free, make profit on its sales > $X.
Is that really what you're saying? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be an idiot.
Say you are either an obscure or not a top-shelf author. The publisher isn't going to spend a bunch of money on promoting you, so you are left to get your name out there. The hardest part about being a writer is getting people to recognize your name and read your work.
Fans will buy what you write no matter what, but you have to get the fans before that can happen. Slashdot favorite Wil Wheaton [typepad.com] is a great example of this. He makes the majority of his income from book and audio book sales...yet try to fin
Re: (Score:2)
I neglected to mention another thing I'm thinking. I understand where you're coming from -- give something out for free, get the recognition, and be able to sell more... IN THE FUTURE. Giving something away gives people no incentive to purchase that specific product. Giving something away would, perhaps, give people the incentive to purchase a product released by you for sale in the future. I agree with this, but to stand by this argument through hell and high water is to imply that every aspiring New York Times best selling author should release their first work for free, in full. Fundamentally, this theory is somewhat contrary to the structure of the IP industry and capitalism in general.
Take a look at the New York Times best seller list. How many obscure, non-promoted authors do you see on there? Hardly any, if any. These are people that have the full force of a major publication house to advertise their book.
Independent or smaller writers, even those on a major publisher, don't have that same luxury. All advertising costs something...what more effective advertising is there than giving people a portion of your work for free?
Re: (Score:2)
As a ghost writer by profession, I agree with the latter but disagree with the former. Feel me?
As someone just getting into freelance writing as a way to earn a little extra money to pad my savings account, absolutely :-)
Re: (Score:2)
But what if somebody makes an unauthorized recording of you on a particularly bad night and you sound horrible? Or you made a 'demo' album six years ago and sold a handful of cassette copies in the local record shop. It gets around and awhile later becomes viral and everybody starts sending it around to all their friends. "listen to the tard playing the shitty guitar" they would all caption it. And the name of your band is all over it.
This is a link to a super early concert given by Marilyn Manson. I could be wrong, but I believe it was one of the first concerts they ever did under the name "Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids". The production values are horrendous, the music quality is bad, and the whole thing is generally shitty. [cduniverse.com]
They could have chosen to let it go nowhere, but they decided to release it and make some money off it. And you know what? People who were big fans in the 90's and early 2000's (like myself) wanted it and
Re: (Score:2)
more to the point, google is saying you don't have an option of only making $X if that's what you want. They want to force you into a situation where your material is online - regardless of whether you'll make more money that way or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is The Big Dance (Score:3, Informative)
The book industry is acting just like the music industry was in the early 2000's. Publishers should try to work with google instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
Substitute "Napster" for "Google" in your statement to see how wrong it is.
Everyone on both sides know the digital transmogrification of the book publishing industry is inevitable. But Google has been the Barbarian at the Tea Party, acting like submission to Mountain View was the best and only route authors and pu
Re:This is The Big Dance (Score:4, Insightful)
Substitute "Napster" for "Google" in your statement to see how wrong it is.
OK. Here it is.
The music industry should try to work with Napster instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
...you do realize that the music industry did everything in their power to get Napster shut down, and now sells music THROUGH Napster, yes?
So, if anything, substituting "Napster" for "Google" just makes my statement more right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all the Napster of now and the Napster of old have nothing to do with each other other than the name. Secondly, why should Google be rewarded with exclusive rights to books, which the authors has to opt-out of Google getting, after blatantly ignoring other people's copyrights? This isn't even getting into the fact that not even all the authors that Google will be making money off of will get anything out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all the Napster of now and the Napster of old have nothing to do with each other other than the name
Are you trying to say that using the Napster name didn't have a hand in the new service's success? If you are, I disagree.
, why should Google be rewarded with exclusive rights to books, which the authors has to opt-out of Google getting, after blatantly ignoring other people's copyrights?
They shouldn't.
This isn't even getting into the fact that not even all the authors that Google will be making money off of will get anything out of this.
This is where my original point came in. What google did was messed up, I agree with that. However, by doing this, publishers and authors are shutting out an additional avenue for potential revenue and sales. Why would they deliberately do that? How is it a good idea to shut down more ways to earn money instead of coming to an agreement where everyone benefits?
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no need for intellectual property anymore. Information is moving and changing to fast. If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more. Intellectual property laws need a full overhaul to address the change in technology and how information is spread. Personally I don't believe we need any intellectual property restrictions at all; I believe they do more harm than good. I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good. I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge, but that it should be free to all. We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The NIH has a not-insubstantial annual budget of ~$30 billion.
Pfizer, by itself, had revenues of $48 billion last year.
Academic medical research is good at lots of things - developing new marketable drugs isn't one of them - nor is the government prepared to spend that kind of money.
We can't get the government to provide universal healthcare, what in the world makes you think that we can get the government to step up and cover pharma's R&D budget in the absence of patents?
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright laws which rely on creating artificial scarcity need to die. Compulsory "mass media" licenses like this are a step down that inevitable path.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the inevitable future is that Google gets certain rights which no one else has?
Say someone (be it Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, or some startup company) wants to become a competitor to Google books. He can't. He doesn't have the special rights Google would be given by this agreement. He would still have to hunt down every single copyright owner and get his permission for every single book, while Google can just publish it unless the copyright owner explicitly told them not to. That's a huge competitive advant
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Informative)
The objection that the DoJ and other companies have is that Google is being granted a wide license by way of a class action settlement. Normally a company can't make a licensing agreement with all copyright owners without contacting each and every one of them. But since this is a class action settlement, all members of the class are automatically opted in to the agreement. Interestingly, all the publishers who sued Google in the first place have opted out of this particular arrangement (they negotiated better deals with Google). So this settlement is being agreed to by a group of publishers who have nothing to lose.
The only way a competitor could get a similar agreement is by being sued and hoping that a similar settlement is the end result.
The proper way for something like this to occur is for Congress to modify copyright law to allow any company to set up a similar service (potentially with a single entity in charge of distributing royalties and managing any opt-in/opt-out process).
Re: (Score:2)
Says who?
Re: (Score:2)
Huzzah for delaying the inevitable future, fuckwads!
How I read it:
Google isn't being allowed to use other's people's stuff to make money! That isn't fair! I like Google, so they shouldn't have to follow the rules just like everyone else! They should be able to do anything and everything they want!
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't being allowed to use other's people's stuff to make money! That isn't fair! I like Google, so they shouldn't have to follow the rules just like everyone else! They should be able to do anything and everything they want!
Honestly, I was just trying to kick up a conversation. Despite my flamebait post, it turned into something quite productive :-)