Publishers Protest Google Library Project 454
gollum123 writes "A group of academic publishers is challenging Google Inc.'s plan to scan millions of library books into its Internet search engine index, highlighting fears that the ambitious project will violate copyrights and stifle future sales. In a letter scheduled to be delivered to Google Monday, the Association of American University Presses described the online search engine's library project as a troubling financial threat to its membership -- 125 nonprofit publishers of academic journals and scholarly books. The university presses depend on books sales and other licensing agreements for most of their revenue, making copyright protections essential to their survival."
cory said it well (Score:5, Interesting)
"When reporters ask me why I give away the full text of my novels online, for free, the day they're available in shops, I tell 'em: "It's about word of mouth. My readers have large social circles of friends whom they never see face to face. Books like Sisters of Ya Ya Sisterhoood became a success because one friend went to another friend and handed her a copy of the book, saying, 'You must read this, it changed my life.' I want to give my readers the same ability, so I have to give them a form of the book that they can 'hand' to their friends over the Internet. Even if it displaces some sales, the most valuable thing an author can get is a personal recommendation, it's the thing that is most likely to sell more copies of my books."
Linky: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/03/wordofmouth_
Re:cory said it well (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, most of these academic presses end up selling books to libraries, who will always have a hard copy on hand in case people do want to read the physical copy. A good example of this can be seen in the academic journals available online. The journals are available in both electronic and hard copy
Re:cory said it well (Score:2)
That is fine for an established author who may receive significant compensation based on things other than raw book sales. It doesn't mean much for an author being judged on book sales. Specifically, "Well, your last book sold really well so we would like to give you a contract for another." Compare and contrast to "Too bad your last book didn't sell all that well.
Re:cory said it well (Score:5, Insightful)
She looked at me like I was some kind of alien or something.
Apparently for some people, the tactile (feel of the paper & book), auditory (sound of the pages turning) and olfactory (smell of the book) senses are all part of the "reading experience". And they take it serious!
I just had to ask her if she really preferred to spend her time with heavy, smelly things that mostly just sit around and take up space.
She just mentioned something about being married to me.
I like... (Score:3, Interesting)
I like the fact that I don't have to worry about a book running out of batteries or recharging it.
The display never gives me a headache (reading small, lit displays in the dark sometimes does)
If I'm on a page that I know I will want to get back to, I can stick my finger between the sheets. For longer storage, I can place the bookmark there.
If I want to reference a previous event, I can usually flip to it within seconds.
I have
Re:cory said it well (Score:3, Interesting)
This thing is looking better and better.. maybe I should get one.
Re:cory said it well (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't require special equipment or power sources to use.
One book is very cheap compared to a digital book reader.
Can be dropped, kicked, thrown, sat on, with no real damage.
Can be partially destroyed without total data loss.
Can even stand a fair amount of water damage, with proper care for recovery.
Books don't have all the advantages, but they sure do have some real big ones.
Re:cory said it well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:AMEN.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google, in the end, is making a profit from offering this service. So there plans to scan these copies (at no direct monetary benefit to the author/publisher), make them available *for free*, and they make a profit... That is a bit unfair...and even if they didn't make a profit - the author should still have a say. A lot of people put time
Re:AMEN.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AMEN.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:AMEN.... (Score:5, Interesting)
True in general, but there are some interesting exceptions in academia.
For example, last year the publishers of Nature changed their copyright rules. They now require that the authors retain copyright of anything published in Nature (and require a contract stating that the copyright can't be assigned without Nature's permission, preventing heavy-handed university admins from demanding the copyright after publication).
They have announced that they are returning the copyright of all previously-published papers to the original authors.
They also stated that papers published in Nature can be put online, but only on sites that give the authors complete control over the paper's files. In fact, they actively encourage putting your papers online, six months after publication. They also strongly encourage making all original data available online, unless there's a good technical reason that it can't be done. Information on obtaining physical materials (such as biological samples) should also be available.
This is significant in a number of fields for which Nature is the top-status publication. If you've accepted research money that requires giving the copyright to the funding agency, you can no longer get your results published in Nature. If your institution claims the copyright on your work, you can't be published in Nature.
Their stated goals were that published authors should retain the rights to their own work, and that others should be able to build on your published results.
There is serious discussion going on in academia about forcing other publishers to adopt a similar policy. This may not be possible with for-profit publishers. But many publications are produced by professional societies that are controlled by their members. There's a good chance that they will all soon adopt similar rules.
Loss of control of your own work is a growing scandal in much of academia. But people are figuring out that they just might have the power to fix the problem. After all, if Nature can do it, why can't every other academic society?
(It'll be interesting to see if Nature maintains these policies)
Re:AMEN.... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least with peer-reviewed journals, that does not hold true. The author usually has to actually pay to have their submissions printed in such publications.
For textbooks, it depends. For few-author textbooks, the author makes a few bucks, so your argument holds. For the sort of textbooks with dozens of authors, in some cases the authors don't even know they have their name attached to the book, and those who do usually get "non-financial compensation" only, ie, no cash but they can list the book on their CV as a publication.
Don't mistake the world of academic publishing for the "real" world of publishing. Academics publish for fame, not fortune, and the leeches that do the physical printing get to rob both ends of the process (thus the massive interest in purely on-line peer-reviewed journals, with a massive backlash by traditional journal publishers such as Elsevier).
Re:AMEN.... (Score:4, Informative)
In ever peer-reviewed journal I've ever published in, page charges are always optional. Along with the copyright form that gives the journal permission to reproduce the author's work, the page charge form allows the author to decline -- no questions asked -- the page charge fee.
Re:AMEN.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AMEN.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AMEN.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: Who said that Google was giving away free copies of books?
A: Nobody!
I believe what they intend to do is:
Google isn't some magic fairy company that is above copyright law, and Google isn't dumb either. This is probably just another example of an idiot scared of a disruptive technology crying wolf. Google's new feature will probably just bolster book sales for these folks in the long run (and the short run too!).
Above copyright law? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. And that, as I've pointed out here before amid cries of trolling, does make legal justification for other Google features -- Google Cache in particular, but also Google Groups and potentially things like Google Image Search -- uncertain at best.
If anything, it sounds like this project would be on much safer legal ground, as long as (a) they really are only reproducing content that's no longer covered by copyright, and (b) they pay suitable licensing fees for all the material they transfer to their database that's still covered by copyright.
Re:Above copyright law? (Score:3, Informative)
Years ago DejaNews, the predecessor to Google Groups, tried inserting advertizing links into Usenet postings -- e.g., if you mentioned a book, DejaNews would turn the title into a link to Amazon. This peed more than a few Usenetters' Wheaties -- DN was alte
I disagree. (Score:5, Funny)
I think we've got to nip this problem in the bud, and pronto! I think the most expedient system would be some sort of coin operated hood that could be welded onto consumer's heads. If you want to see or hear art, you simply need to drop some coins into the mechanism to open the shutter for a set amount of time.
This would mean a constant flow of income that could be distributed to all creative people as follows:
46 % - 'administration'
28 % - Lawyer fees
22 % - car payments
13 % - more lawyer fees
21 % - distribution
12 % - math consultants
8.2% - contingency
The only possible flaw with this plan is that the percentages add up to more than %100 percent, meaning that there would be an actual loss of profit, but I think the 'artist' could kick in an make up for that loss since they started this whole thing.
Re:Google Should Pay Royalty For Every Access (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone sees his business model threatened by that, well, time to think of a new way to make money.
You can't stop this kind of thing (which would significantly facilitate access to information and benefit society in many ways) just because it hurts someone's sales.
As someone said before, where would we be now if the pony express had managed to outlaw the telegraph because it 'hurt' its sales?
Re:Google Should Pay Royalty For Every Access (Score:3, Interesting)
It defies logic to deny that people who make money selling books will not be harmed if someone else provides free copies of those books.
I don't know about you, but I hate reading anything over a few pages online. Who wants to read an entire book on computer? Not many people I'd imagine. Printed books are far superior technology to the electronic kind.
The publishers should sue Google and Google should be required to pay the publishers each time a publication is accessed via Google.
Unless of course
Re:Google Should Pay Royalty For Every Access (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of an "anecdotal proof" that I like to use to confuse people who think that anecdotes can't prove anything.
Hereabouts there are a number of "tech" bookstores, mostly at colleges but not entirely. If you walk in, the first thing you see is the display of the current tech bestsellers. A quick check will verify that almost all of these are available online, usually in PDF form, and most of the downloads are free. But there the hard copy is, sitting in the display that's reserved for bestsellers.
It's even worse: If you open the books, most of they have a foreword that tells you about the online download. Most give the URL.
So how can the sales possibly be nonzero? They're being given away free, and they tell you right up front that you can get them free. But people walk into the bookstores and buy them. Are these people idiots? Given the usual clientele of these stores, I'd guess not.
Now, I'll point out that this is in fact "just another anecdote". I haven't given any numbers. I haven't said anything that would prove that there are any sales at all.
But these books wouldn't be on those particular shelves unless the people running the store thought that they'd sell. Some of these stores have been there for years. The people running them aren't idiots. They are successful businessmen making the judgement that these books are good ones to display up front.
So here we have rather convincing "anecdotal evidence" that giving things away free doesn't necessarily kill sales. It may well be helping sales (but that's really hard to infer from anecdotes).
Actually, I also wonder if there are real numbers on the topic. I haven't yet seen any that I trust. But seeing things being listed as bestsellers when they're available free online is sorta convincing that something funny is going on here.
Re:Google Should Pay Royalty For Every Access (Score:5, Informative)
Baen free library has some pretty solid numbers to substantiate that. They've seen clear increases in the sales of books which are available for free (both compared to similar books which aren't available online, and compared to the sales of that same book before online distribution)
Re:cory said it well (Score:5, Informative)
Granted it works slightly different than the grandparent's post regarding how fiction spreads but it has the same net effect -- more sales for journals (or books) that are really good and useful (or great entertainment).
I do have some real insight into this, I served on the Dean of Libraries student advistory committee one year while I was in college. Doing so was quite enlightening, and you'd be surprised how much a small committee of students like that can get changed if the Dean of Libraries is really listening (which ours was, and in my experience most librarians listen to complaints/suggestions/etc. quite well as they feel their job is to provide the information needed by others.)
Re:cory said it well (Score:4, Informative)
My advisors said something like that many times. And ``must'' meant ``MUST''. I eventually subscribed to JEL, AER and JEP (the three American Economics Association rags), in part because of this.
I doubt it.
Believe it.
Personally, I've never heard of word of mouth (based on content) resulting in an institutional subscription.
That's the only way institutional subscriptions happen: some professor decides that he needs some journal to stay current in his field, so he recommends it to the librarian and lobbies his collegues to do the same. That process starts when he hears (either from a collegue or through some service like Citeseer or google) about some important content in that journal.
Re:cory said it well (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, traditional modes of distribution have changed and jobs (and owner revenue streams) are being displaced. Boo hoo.
I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought that was flagrantly illegal, and the fines for willful copyright infringement are steep, even for a company with Google's money.
What's going on?
D
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:4, Insightful)
For the sake of argument lets just say that you cannot have the book from library for ever (well may be by paying a fortune in fines), so just add that DMCA crap or something and give me the text for a week. I don't see how Google is stopping people from buying books. Its not like average joe says - "Oh jeez I gotta go to library, I might as well head to mall and buy the book from BN"
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really liked the work you had to buy your own version.
Digital Copy: You have a free digital copy. Now the only incentive into buying the work is so you have a physical book in your house - which, in and of itself is not enough reason for many people.
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:2)
Are eBooks and the like really so popular?
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the goal was more along the lines of cultural enrichment, but perhaps that is an outdated idea.
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The original motivation for libraries was to keep books in them. The only copy. Since copying books was a long, expensive, and laborious process for all but the last 600 years of human history.
The modern purpose of libraries depends on who set up the library and why, but among the typical motivations are:
There's a theme here. The public library exists to provide access to knowledge and information. I've never heard it said that libraries exist as an extension of the publishing industry. In truth, something like a library is a bit misplaced in a capitalistic society, but we've determined that the benefits of its existance far outweigh the hassle it is to deal with in our economy.
The internet, however, has changed that formula. You are not permitted to check a book out from the library and make 1,000 copies of it. You are also not permitted to distribute digital copies of the contents.
Again, there is no fundamental difference between what the Internet has done to these issues and was possible before. The Internet and digitalization technologies have merely reduced to the energy barrier so far that near-perfect replicas of most media can be created with literally the push of a button, and distributed nearly as easily.
Unfortunately for the copyright owners, this seriously threatens a business model that has served them well for generations and they must find a way to protect their property. Unfortunately for us, the way most have chosen is suiting us into oblivion and trying to jam legislation through our government that is intended to deter criminal behavior but mostly just makes life inconvenient and annoying for the majority of us who are doing no wrong.
When the innocent masses must compromise their liberty at the whims of a few powerful individuals who are motivated by "stopping the bad guys," we've taken the first step onto a bad road.
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:5, Informative)
Wait to see if google really is violating your copyright. If they are sue them.
I'd be willing to place a large bet that google is not going to break copyright, they arn't stupid.
Re:I'm not sure if I understand this. (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine the guys and gals working at Google doing nothing but scanning in books.
Do I need to decypher a billboard from a highway to get a job like this? Do I need a phd in computer science before I'm even considered being put on a list of people that will be called to go stand in the line leading up to filling out the application to work there? Isn't it like a 10 month interview process to where you have to be on-call 24/7 to give yet another interview to someone?
All this and you end up scanning books.
For those who might say "libraries are free" (Score:4, Informative)
FOr example, in my life, there are very few books that I have read in digital format that I have bought to have as a hard copy.
Disagree (Score:2)
Re:Disagree (Score:2)
Also, not all books are $5-8...many many books are 20+.
But this is all argumentative...I am saying the author/publisher should have an Opt-in choice. There are PLENTY of authors/publishers who would be OK with this...and there are many more publications that are public domain.
Re:For those who might say "libraries are free" (Score:5, Informative)
This *will* hinder book sales. While some people might want the nice hardbound copy - most people will just settle for the digital copy which is just as good.
The digital "copy" offered by Google is certainly not "just as good" as a real copy. It is better in one way and worse in several others. First, it is better because you can find passages by searching. If I type "hemoglobin rupture" I can find a number of specific references. It is worse in that reading on a screen sucks, it hurts your eyes after a time and ties you to a screen and electricity. More importantly, Google is not allowing anyone to read a whole book, only a small passage from the book. In a few very specific cases (like a dictionary, or reference with very short entries) this might be as good, but for the most part it is not. Google has taken great care to limit this and design the service to help you find the name of the book you need, not to let you read it for free.
There are three real reasons scholarly publishers are against this. First dictionaries and references with very short passages are made obsolete (as I mentioned above). Second, many modern scholars do not really want to read a work, merely cite it to back up some point and these people would be better served by just using Google's service. Finally, it allows a researcher to read a short, relevant passage from a book which is often enough to know that a book is useless and prevent someone from buying a work that sounds useful, but is not.
FOr example, in my life, there are very few books that I have read in digital format that I have bought to have as a hard copy.
You seem to be under the impression that Google is just offering up books for free in digital format. That is not my understanding of the service at all.
Re:For those who might say "libraries are free" (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, fortunate you! I tried reading Small Gods on line just now, and when I tried to look at page 8 (having already read 1-7), it told me:
Re:For those who might say "libraries are free" (Score:3)
> actually have gone after libraries in the past too, because they felt
> that if people could check out their book from the library, it would
> hurt their sales.
Yes, many authors and publishers hate the idea of lending libraries, usually the medium volume outfits. For a small circulation book getting a majority of libraries to buy a copy represents the bulk of copies sold, for a blockbuster they are pulling in so much cash they d
Dinosaurs (Score:2, Funny)
The horror.
Making them searchable sounds like "fair use". (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially for academic papers, where being able to find the reference is critical to advancement of the field, and the citer would have to obtain and read more than the snippet anyhow.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Re:Making them searchable sounds like "fair use". (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. Have you worked in academia much?
"Smal snippets" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been done before; some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were first released because somebody reverse-engineered a concordance [wikipedia.org]. One could imagine somebody writing software to pull up part of a book, then search on the last sentenece of each snippet to get it to reveal
That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if only the RIAA/MPAA would have the same fate... Google, help me out here!
Re:That's great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you suppose that the only function a journal (for example) provides is to physically print what they publish, bind it, maintain business relationships with its consumers, and distribute it? No. They also have editors, reviewers, and usually other organizational players that keep the journal credible and worth the subscription. Certainly leaving the paper behind would reduce their overhead (and thus the pri
I heard this story on NPR this morning... (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, this can be a great financial gain for those publishers, if they get together with Google on how to best select enticing pieces of their copyrighted works in order to drive sales, the academic community will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Books (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Books (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Books (Score:2)
Sorry Charlie (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2)
Fucking idiots. Instead of working with the industry on a micropayment systems that would allow me to buy books in electronic form at way less than $50 a piece (of which the author is lucky to receive $1) they will sabotage this stuff, and when it finally comes of age three or four years later they'll cite decreased revenues (of course, you morons) and "intellectual property violations".
Re:In other news (Score:2)
What are you reading?
Also, where does it say an author only receives (on average) less then $1 per book sale?
Also you need to realize, there are more then just authors who need to get paid: editors, publishers, printing presses, marketing, book tour costs, etc. So your $20/book needs to be spread out.
UPAA (Score:5, Funny)
Please rename yourself University Presses Association of America so that we may refer to
all evil bastard organizations as *AA.
Thank You!
I think it's the best since the card catalog (Score:2)
How many books could there be about a 1-eyed ex-programmer turned fencing instructor who was the original programmer of a computer made of cloned brain tissue that is the server for a MMRPG but has developed consciousness due to another ex-programmer who, dying of cancer, imprinted himself into the game just before he
Google Monday (Score:4, Funny)
Did anyone else do a double take on this? I almost crapped myself (Google fanboy)... "OMG, Google is going to customize my weekdays!"
Saturday will be in Beta 18 months.
Difference... (Score:2)
Maybe they will register googlez.com and start a w
Re:Difference... (Score:2)
gasp! (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the difference? (Score:2)
Technically, to my non-lawyers knowledge, what Google does with the internet is illegal but is granted a free pass, in part because the material on the internet has to be copied via the internet to be vie
Pricing model (Score:2)
1) Google charges a small fee to the content consumer to view the entire content and conveys that back to the publisher (perhaps taking a small cut)- publisher does not have to thus pay the costs associated with producing a dead-tree version- all profit. Google also makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to reconstruct the entire content from excerpts (algorithm up to them). Optional/devious: Google makes small changes to the wording/grammar/punctuation
Copyright & Extensions (Score:5, Interesting)
However, a more serious concern is that Congress seems to perpetually insist on extending copyrights to the point that they are virtually perpetual. (I suspect that they are up to about 100 years.) If a publisher has a copyright, but decides that a work should not be in print - it is effectively censored.
This perpetual extension of copyrights (likely soon to be followed by business process patents,- Quick, give me $.05 for viewing this web page;) limites the use of useful works to those whom can pay the entrance fee. Assuming that the works are still in print.
If a publisher has a work that is unavailable (e.g. not in print), but copyrighted then they should have some way to disseminate it before they complain. The perpetual extensions of copyright are an issue that everyone should have their representatives address. (I can't help you. I live in DC, my representative has not voting power on the floor of Congress)
If you want change, you have to speak up.
Responsible for closed knowlege system? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they the ones that feel that its justified to charge 200 dollars for a 5 dollar-value book ('journal') because they control the distribution... in which case... I hope they DO lose out.
Re:Responsible for closed knowlege system? (Score:2)
I can't believe how difficult it is to find electronic information at a university. Probably trying to keep librarians (as they're the only ones who know how to operate these things thanks to $2500 refresher courses provided by the software developer) and the middleware pushers employed.
um .. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can look up quotes/citations/etc without shelling out for overly expensive dead trees... they'd lose their valuable money pit.
Personally I'm glad to be out of College. Not that I bought the books while I was there [well the ones I could avoid I did]. Even in my community college we had 7th edition level 1 and 2 calculus books
To me "7th edition" says two things. Purposeful re-write and "sloppy editors".
Tom
Re:um .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Academic Luddites (Score:5, Interesting)
Like street-sweepers protesting the loss of horse manure to sweep, these publishing houses seem to have trouble following historical trends.
Another way to look at it is that they have missed their first calling, which is to disseminate academic information, by becoming enslaved to the profit they make on a particular method of doing so.
Cynically, perhaps they are afraid that once the bulk of their collections are online people will discover that most of what they publish is rehashed from older work. No, I don't seriously think that.
But I do seriously think that the academic publishing business, like the newspaper business, is transitioning to the Internet.
It's time to lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Re:Academic Luddites (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they RTFM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they just want to cast a pall of doubt over something that (quite legally) diminishes their reasons for existing.
No One Reads On Screen (Score:2, Interesting)
People will use this to find a resource, then go to the bookstore or library and BAMO it works, the customer wins finding obscure resources, and the vendor wins with more sales.
What's their mission? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's their mission? (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, University Presses (and publishers of academic journals in general) stand to make HUGE profits because of the stranglehold they have on the market, however narrowly focused a market it is. University libraries are forced to continue subscribing to journals in order to stay respectable, even as those subscriptions climb upwards of ten or even one hundred thousand annually. The people who actually use the journals, mostly faculty, never see the cost. (Incidentally, prestigious journals do no
sorry, time for the Universities to evolve. (Score:2, Insightful)
why they're really up in arms (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong approach (Score:2)
After that, we can see how Google likes it.
omg (Score:2)
How about stifiling innovation, education and learning? It would seem that capitalism is at odds with general betterment of humaity.
never heard such foolishness (Score:2)
The whole goddamn IP thing should be abolished, I say. True, copyrights are less worse then patents, but still; it's just not of these times anymore. Just as the feodal system didn't work anymore in the industrial age, so doesn't IP work anymore in the cyberage.
In any case, if the authors gave permission, or, if it is in the public domain (which in first i
Survival does not depend on copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
That is so wrong. Copyright has nothing to do with their survival as it has not played a real role in publishing profits for centuries(expect for betwixt publishers). Libraries have always provided copyrighted materials to the public free of charge to a limited use. The publishers have relied upon the library as being too bothersome, too far away, too hard to use, etc for their survival. Most people would rather order a book than sift through their local library to try to garner the same material or item. Publishers have depended on that, not the copyright, as books have always been free for the asking.
Now Google is poised to remove a significant portion of the 'library hurdle' that stops most people from using that resource before their local Barnes and Noble retail outlet. That is what they are upset over, not the copyright. The copyright is the only legal paper the have to hang onto and cry into. Therefore they try to raise your ire over that and hope you will miss the real point.
Do you really know anyone that steals books? Do you know anyone who downloads books illegally? Doesn't that sound a bit proposeterous when the same material can be had in an hour or two from your local library? It sure does to me.
As information moves to the electronic format, as most all of it will in the coming years, are we ready and or willing to lose our access to published materials freely? Will information truely become a comodity for the wealthy only too? Shame on the publishers for clouding the issue in such a way. We are not the dumb (are we?).
Open Letter to Google Print (Score:5, Insightful)
See, for example, The Canterbury Tales [google.com] in Google Print. This was written in the 1300s. I would very much like to see Penguin's proof of copyright over the works of Chaucer, who died in 1400.
Likewise, see Romeo and Juliet [google.com] , written by Shakespeare, who died in 1616. Or The Legend of Sleepy Hollow [google.com] , first published in 1819. Clearly no present-day entity has copyright over any of these works. Regardless, the publishers who have submitted their versions of them are able to enforce a 3-page-view limit on them without legal right to do so.
Google Print should be scrapped, and instead, the spotlight shined on Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org].
Re:Open Letter to Google Print (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open Letter to Google Print (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, you and I may realize that this can't possibly cover the notes. It obviously covers only that specific print edition. But the copyright notices never seem to make that clear. They're always a vague copyright notice with a year and publisher, but no information at all
These need to get some perspective. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, uneversity presses are generally non-profit organizations, so they generally price their materials to cover the costs associated with producing, storing and distributing them.
If the materials are available free online, then all those costs are eliminated.
If someone still wants a nicely bound hardcopy, then that person has the choice of getting one printed at a local print shop. The university press can also offer on demand printing for a cost covering fee.
I guess I don't understand their objection to having their materials available without any work required from them.
Copyright's intent (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless I read this incorrectly, this goes completely against what copyrights were intended for. Copyrights were not about ensuring that the creator wuld make money, but instead that the legal monopoly they provide will encourage them to create and be creative, and/or bring further reasearch and information public. With copyrights lasting beyond what is needed, sometimes for 100yrs+ easily now, and the fact that people now care more about using copyrights for financial gain instead, we can say goodbye to conventional copyrights... for now.
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:2)
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, very frequently, non-profit organizations pay their workers. Where do you think that money comes from?
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:2)
Seems to work fine for open source projects.
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:2)
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:2)
You don't say
Actually, I think *you* misunderstand "non-profit" (Score:2)
Once again: Non-profit.
Which doesn't mean they can't charge money for their services in order to support their activities.
So; what *exactly* are you trying to say in that deliberately simplistic manner? That those responsible for putting together such journals should be able to do so on an income of precisely $0?
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:2)
Effectively, non-profit just means that they don't have owners who are driven by a desire for huge shares of dividends and profits. Inst
Re:I think they need a dictonary. (Score:2)
Once again: For-profit.
So why should a for-profit company (Google) do so without paying the people who they are copying from?
Re:125 nonprofit publishers (Score:4, Informative)
not correct (Score:5, Informative)
Re:125 nonprofit publishers (Score:2)
Non-profits still have employees, and a lot of them do get paid. Non-profit means that the company's main goal isn't to generate profit.
Re:125 nonprofit publishers (Score:2)
Distinguish non-profit from non-revenue. These publishers may not be making profits but they still need revenues to continue to publish current and future books. Books cost money to author and print. If the publishers believe that Google's effort will impact their revenue streams they should oppose it. Whether they are right about the Google impact is a different question, of course...
Re:125 nonprofit publishers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:125 nonprofit publishers (Score:2)