Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Google Patents News

Google Looks To Convert Print Pubs Into E-Articles 42

Posted by timothy
from the one-at-a-time dept.
bizwriter writes "A patent application by Google (GOOG), filed in August 2008 and made public last week, shows that the company is trying to automate the process of splitting printed magazines and newspapers into individual articles that it could then deliver separately. Although this could allow Google to convert stacks of periodicals into electronic archives, it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Looks To Convert Print Pubs Into E-Articles

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:35PM (#31276306)

    SI's Swimsuit Issue is not a run-of-the-mill issue of the magazine... and sometimes when sports issues warrant they'll even publish a normal SI on the same day. But, like special issues of Time and Consumer Reports... those don't have to even go to subscribers if they don't want them to. Easy to exclude such things, or include them if Google really wants them, in the eventual contract.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:37PM (#31276344) Journal

    it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law.

    They've already proved with the blatently illegal settlement on the book scanning deal that the law doesn't apply to them.

    What is that famous ruling anyway? That sentence just calls for a link.

    It's right there in the article:

    There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. [cornell.edu] Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.

  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:38PM (#31276372)

    Did you read my original post? Google has a paywall for old newspaper content, they could easily erect one for old magazine content if needed.

  • Re:Which ruling? (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:39PM (#31276382) Journal
    Seriously, folks, it's in the article:

    There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. [cornell.edu] Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.

    Obligatory Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @02:45PM (#31276486)

    In the UK, Australia and NZ, "pubs" are what americans call bars.

  • by dave562 (969951) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:16PM (#31276928) Journal

    The summary makes it sound like Google is trying to do yet another end run around actually paying publishers to access their content. Every single major publisher out there already has their article content in an advertisement free format. They have templates that they copy the content (and advertisements) into when it comes time to print. If Google wants the content, they can pay the publishers for it. They don't need to reverse engineer the final printing. They need to stop being cheap and pay content creators.

Money is the root of all wealth.

Working...