Google's Struggle To Reach Authors — of Every Book Ever Written 153
eldavojohn writes "There's no lack of news surrounding the settlement of Google's controversial move to digitize books — but how do you even start this endeavor? A New York Times story reveals the obstacles they face just to get the word out that they want to settle with publishers and authors everywhere. They turned to a world-wide ad campaign to start the $125 million settlement process and they're spending $7 million to $8 million in paper print ads and telephone hot-lines (handling 80+ languages) to reach as many people as possible. From the article: 'We looked at how many books were published in various areas and we knew from the plaintiffs and Google that 30 percent were published in the US, 30 percent in industrialized countries. The rest of the world is the rest.' That's quite the herculean task! Hopefully Google's efforts in digitizing books will breathe new life and revenue into authors and publishers the world over."
free books? (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:free books? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe. Probably a better question is why are we allowing google to continue doing this at all? Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out? Shouldn't it have always been that way?
I am not an author, so I don't know, but.
Are libraries required to ask permission of the author to offer their books? I have to imagine not.
This brings up a very interesting topic for debate...thinking about digital libraries, that is. Why, legally, can a dead-tree library exist, but a digital one cannot? Why can I not get digitized books for free on my Kindle?
I would have absolutely no problem at all with a DRM-locked file that sits on my kindle one at a time. I only get to keep one (or two or 3 or 20 or whatever *your* local library has at its limit) at a time, and only get a new one if I delete the old one etc. etc. etc.
Are there laws that explicitly allow dead-tree libraries, but forbid digital ones?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, legally, can a dead-tree library exist, but a digital one cannot? Why can I not get digitized books for free on my Kindle?
The cost/effort of copying a dead-tree version of War & Peace, for example, outweighs the cost/effort of purchasing a copy. Likely it may even cost more with inferior results. Digital copies take little to no effort and the result is identical.
Re: (Score:2)
But if everyone could easily "check out" a digital copy from the library cheaply, why would they want to keep their own copies of digital books at home? Eventually people would realize that hording thousands of digital books just wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense.
they are pack rats (Score:2)
Everyone dreams of a JBOD with all music ever published.
Or something like that..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At some point we simple become the nexus of all this data. On one hand we are freed from having to hoard information like many professional had to in the past. On the other hand personally I find it addicting. I haven't gone mor
Re: (Score:2)
People horde things; however, I think you are ultimately correct. After a generation people would stop hording.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't get it on a kindle, but if you have a netbook running windows, the digital library is here. If you're using an e-book reader, or use any other OS, you're scre
Should we accept DRM? (Score:2)
Is DRM really the only solution here... ? Should we accept evil* like DRM!
Seriously, can't I just promise to be nice... and delete the file...
Or maybe implement the DRM in javascript, so that it runs everywhere, (and is easily cracked).
Is DRM really acceptable here?
* Yes, my world is very simple, everything related to DRM, Microsoft or security through obscurity is evil
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the DRM needs to be 100% cross platform, and should be such that you can access the content offline (a self deleting file format come to mind).
There are many solutions which could work (Adobe's PDF has a built in self destruct option, and could be implemented across the board).
These are the only times and ways that I would accept DRM. If the file is purcha
DRM doesn't work (Score:2)
There is no DRM that works 100%, and if you want an openstandard to make it cross platform it gets even harder since you can't hide your methods anymore.
Someone should state this as a fact, there is no DRM that can work.
Re:free books? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those are some interesting questions, and I think many of them highlight how much digital media changes things. IANAL, so proceed with caution.
As far as the legal distinction, it is in the fact that you can buy a copy of a copyrighted work and you can lend that copy, but you cannot copy that copy and distribute your copies. So your library can buy 10 copies and lend each one out, but they can't buy one copy, make 9 other copies, and lend them out. It's complicated further by the fact that we're constantly copying data, backing it up, caching it, etc. So pretty much anything that's not covered in some kind of "fair use" provision usually ends up needing a license.
It might be interesting if someone came up with a "digital library" model where they licensed X copies of a book, the license allowing them to then "lend" that book to X customers at a time. It would probably need to be DRMed and be subscription based, and you'd have to get authors/publishers to agree to it. I'm not sure they would agree to it.
To talk about it on a slightly less legalistic tone, I think it's an important distinction that public libraries do have to buy the books they own, or even if the books are donated, someone has purchased them. That means that the publisher, and therefore the writer, still gets some amount of money. Also, because of the increased use each book gets, I would guess that libraries have to periodically replace old books, assuming they're getting lots of use.
If you're suggesting that everyone could download books for free and never have to replace them, then I don't know where authors would get money. As a society, I do think it's good for us to have some kind of laws surrounding "intellectual property" that allows for business models where the creators get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there laws that explicitly allow dead-tree libraries, but forbid digital ones?
Actually, the problem is that they can't let more than one person have the book at a time. With physical books, that's obvious, but with digital ones, it necessitates special measures to ensure that only one person can have the e-text at any one time. Creating that management system is a bit too much work for most libraries, I guess, because digital libraries are few and far between compared to their dead-tree relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly true. AFAIK, libraries still *pay* for the copies of books that come into their system. They have budgets taken from taxpayer dollars for (a) the library staff, (b) the costs of maintaining the property where the library is located, and (c) buying new books.
Basically, the authors still get paid from the funds generated by the books that sit on library shelves. It's possible that Google wants to digitize (a) and (b) out of the revenue streams and figure out how to fund (c) so that all de
Re: (Score:2)
single reason to ensuring that power mongers like Google or the government can't deliberately or inadvertently make subtle changes to the text without it being independently verified to be the "incorrect" version.
How do you know power mongering publishers aren't making subtle changes to the written version?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably there are enough copies in circulation that have been vetted by the author at the time of publication that they are readily agreed to be correct.
I've found type-o's in Neil Gaiman books. That sort of good-natured wrongness is fine to fix from printing to printing... it's mere copy-editting. But the type of changes I'm thinking of erode the context of the manuscript by changing the fundamental story. That's what is feared could be easily lost when all the power is in one set of hands.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know power mongering publishers aren't making subtle changes to the written version?
They are. In fact, they're even up-front about it. This is why you'll book collectors talking about "edition"...1st edition, 2nd edition etc. etc. and "marks".
Generally, if a publisher finds a type or something in a book, they will fix it and release a new "edition". "Marks" are the things that they have changed and are what make rare books identifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they'd be quieter about the government-mandated thought-control edits. :)
But the question is a good one, books are hard to diff, especially if font/margin/etc have been changed to make it difficult to match text.
How do you know Mark Twain hasn't been changed, only recently, to be anti-racism? (After all, the moon is a ridiculous liberal myth.) Presumably someone trying to redact the past wouldn't blatantly rewrite up as down, going in one revision from pro-slavery to anti. Instead of changing the
Re: (Score:2)
Printed copies should always exist [...] ensuring that power mongers [...] can't [...] make subtle changes
You're far safer with e-texts actually! You can hash (SHA, etc) a file instantly, and compare that hash to someone around the world quickly.
Imagine trying to look for a subtle comma-change in a printed book ("I helped my uncle Jack, off the horse"). It could totally change the meaning and yet be almost invisible, especially because once you knew how the sentence was meant to be you'd never notice the comma not matching. You can't diff dead trees.
Also, you can print an ebook. Once you've verified the hash an
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a matter of how many books you have on your Kindle as it is a matter of how many people have book X on their Kindles. If the latter can be regulated (i.e. DRM'ed), digital libraries would be possible. However, as we all know, digital data can be copied at virtually no cost. And that basically means DRM will not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait, they are just starting to gather strength. Fahrenheit 451 here we come!
Re: (Score:2)
Because not everyone has a Kindle and people would probably print the book otherwise.
So, maybe a completely locked up device like Kindle would encourage publishers to create digital libraries (and charge a lot of money, esp. to universities for students to access them).
Re: (Score:2)
Becasue we haven't figured out a way to reliable expire a book you check out.
Now of you checked out a kindle like device with the book on it, then sure that would work.
That said, it is totally within the concept of a library to ahve works available to anyone at anytime.
There will be a time very soon where Actors, Musicians, Authors will no longer get million dollar royalties* or contracts. they'll be paid, just not in large sums. The good new is, it will get rid of most of the hacks.
*I know, very few get la
Re: (Score:2)
> Are there laws that explicitly allow dead-tree libraries, but forbid digital ones?
Yes. Copyright laws. Loaning out a paper book does not involve making a copy.
Re: (Score:2)
This brings up a very interesting topic for debate...thinking about digital libraries, that is. Why, legally, can a dead-tree library exist, but a digital one cannot? Why can I not get digitized books for free on my Kindle?
The answer to your last question has been discussed at length in other threads. In answer to the first, however, FYI you can "check out" and view electronic editions of books from the San Francisco Public Library. There is some form of DRM involved, and the restrictions are the same as for regular books: The library owns X number of copies of the e-book, and each can be checked out by one reader at a time. When I have a copy of an e-book checked out, nobody else can check it out until I "return it." That's
Re: (Score:2)
Are libraries required to ask permission of the author to offer their books? I have to imagine not.
No, but they pay royalties to publishers/authors based on what is borrowed. Google does not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A library only has a finite number of copies of a book and they can't lend more copies than they have. I guess a digital library could be legal if:
1: the library paid for, or was given the rights to lend a fixed number of 'copies' of each book.
2: when the copies were 'checked out' the library couldn't lend any additional copies until the copies were 'returned'.
3: the host and client software would have to co-ordinate the deletion of the returned copy from the user and the checking in to the library of the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
but if I write a book, I want to be in control of where, when, and how it gets presented to the reader, at least initially anyway
See, this here sentiment - this pervasive idea of 'I want to control the data I create' - is just fucking crazy. If you don't think that it is an unnatural, unjustifiable hack to our system of ethics to teach people that they should be allowed to own information, just look at this statement and think of someone applying it to a knock-knock joke, a piece of gossip, a new translation of the bible, or a speech. It's just crazy, though maybe it doesn't seem it because we're used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the speech - which is publicly disseminated - you have no clue as to who the authors of your examples are.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out?
It is an opt-in service, for books that are in print. For books that are not being published anyway, it's opt-out.
if I write a book, I want to be in control of where, when, and how it gets presented to the reader
That's nice that you want that, but you have to explain why society should spend money on police and courts, etc., to make sure that you get what you want, given that information is naturally infinitely replicable.
The purpose of copyright is to benefit society, not authors. The way it works is that we grant you a temporary, strictly limited monopoly in exchange for your effort to produce and
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what he wants and answers your own question about the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what he wants
"I want to be in control of when, where and how it's presented to the reader" is not a limited monopoly. Perhaps you missed the point that the "temporary" and "limited" are not redundant -- the limitations are in scope as well as time.
Re:free books? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll give you several arguments to the contrary:
If we had reasonable copyright terms then maybe (Score:2)
If copyright expired 7 years after publication we could talk about strengthening it. Until that happens the answer is a flat no.
it's called "releasing" for a reason (Score:2)
Sure google could probably make me more money through exposure that I might not otherwise have, but shouldn't that be my choice?
It is your choice to opt out.
If you don't want the world to read your stuff in the first place, don't publish it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Probably a better question is why are we allowing google to continue doing this at all? Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out? Shouldn't it have always been that way?
I can understand indexing web based content that is already on line and publicly accessible, but if I write a book, I want to be in control of where, when, and how it gets presented to the reader, at least initially anyway. I don't mind (or care) what an individual does once it's 'out there' - from format shifting to selling it at a used book store or giving away. I'm not so keen on the idea of google making a copy for the entire world to readily view a large chunk of it all.
Sure google could probably make me more money through exposure that I might not otherwise have, but shouldn't that be my choice?
Let me sum up. Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Every married man knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
Since they can't put something up that hasn't been published in some manner, your point is moot.
Unless Google is breaking into your home and stealing* it off you computer.
*literally.
Re: (Score:2)
And what about all the orphan books, where the publisher is long out of business, the author has no contact address known, may have used a nom de plume, and may well be dead? There are many millions of books in this group, millions of authors, and "opt in" means these will never be included.
These obscure books are exactly those that make such a project valuable (and by "valuable" I mean contributing to the culture, not Google's stock price).
Sure
Re: (Score:2)
if I write a book, I want to be in control
Yeah, we know.
But the purpose of copyright is to enrich the public domain, by offering authors a limited monopoly on their works. It's not intended to let you control who can read your work, merely to guarantee you whatever profit is to be had selling it.
but shouldn't that be my choice?
No. You already get paid for your words. Anything else merely lets you use copyright law in place of trademark law (Sega v Accolade), or post-facto NDAs for censorship (Scientology v World).
Once a movie like Little Black Sambo has been released it's in our
Re: (Score:2)
Technically they've only bought one copy, which is a license for one person to read the book. Now, it's transferable (the copyright holders haven't managed to take that one away from us yet), but it's still only allowed to be in one person's possession at any given time.
If Google made such a system, they'd undoubtedly have to buy many copies of the book in order to not have there be ridiculously long waits when you're competing with a global audience. Even small local libraries will buy multiple copies of c
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, you're wrong. I don't know about theory, though. In theory, you might be right. That's not how the laws are written, though, so you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The "safe" route is the same path dead-tree libraries take: when appropriate, a short blurb that wouldn't infringe on copyright since it's an insignificant portion of the text (no, I don't know the legal definition of what I'm describing, but I do know that CD stores can freely distribute 30-second previews of songs, so I expect that printed media would be no different - how else would you quote from it?). Other than that, only one person sees the text at any one time.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally I'm against all this copyright hoopla, and haven't been that happy with the current IP laws etc.
But in this case, this is exactly the sort of situation I think the founders and everyone else was thinking about when they crafted copyright law. A person or company can't (under current law, and should not be able to) take someone's book or whatever and endlessly copy it and then make money off of it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The article has a link to this page [googlebooksettlement.com], which explains that Google is only "scanning their Books, creating an electronic database and displaying short excerpts without the permission of the copyright holders."
Seance at Google??? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear that it might be kind of hard to reach that Moses guy ...
Re:Seance at Google??? (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Aesop was unavailable for comment, Hans Christian Anderson is too busy being sued by the MPAA for street performances, and Shakespere may owe SCO royalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the way the US keeps changing the definition of copyright, don't be so sure!
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing about Shakespeare, Plato, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Pity the guy who has to hand over the royalties cheque to the author of Mein Kampf [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I think the headline should probably read "— of Every Book Ever Copyrighted".
Re: (Score:2)
I hear he is a gun shot away~
Don't be evil! (Score:1)
Sounds almost as hard... (Score:2)
As finding two of every kind of animal and getting them onto a boat.
It'd take divine intervention...
Quit making the president... (Score:2)
...do everything! He's got a financial meltdown and some thorny foreign policy issues to deal with. There's no sense in bothering him with this kind of trivia (yet). :-)
US not industrialized? (Score:1)
Google that 30 percent were published in the U.S., 30 percent in industrialized countries
So does this mean that the US isn't counted a a industrialized country?
Or that all the books from industrialized countries are from the US.
Amazing numbers (Score:2, Funny)
Either the U.S. isn't an industrialized country, or it's the only one on the planet.
"The rest of the world is the rest."
Amazing!
awful for technical searches (Score:2)
This will be awful for technical books, because Google's search algorithm ignores special characters, like the dollar sign, and Google has no intention of fixing this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's search algorithm ignores special characters, like the dollar sign
Don't use Perl or Basic. Problem solved.
Ick. Ugh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully Google will realize that most everything published had, as a condition of publication, the loss of the author's rights to that work either temporarily or permanently. If Google really wants to digitize books en masse, why not start by killing the concept of the exclusive contract and the equally nefarious "work for hire" clauses that are cropping up around the world... Meaning that NO MATTER WHAT an author retains the right to his/her own work. Call it the "It's Mine, Dammit" Doctrine. Because I think it's easier to convince an individual author of the social benefits of digitization than it is to convince some f*ck in a suit. If you want an example of this -- find some work that's totally void of any social benefit -- say a coupon booklet or one of those pamplets sitting in waiting rooms around the world. Now, try and get permission to reproduce it... understanding you've picked the most useless thing you could find to duplicate.
Better yet, let's just tell governments around the world to go to hell, and start digitizing this stuff on our own and making it available for free, and on page one, write "In Memory of Corporate F*cktards Everywhere". But that would be too inflammatory, so someone with slightly more tact should write that page. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
But that would be too inflammatory, so someone with slightly more tact should write that page. ;)
Meh..too much work.
Lets just go with your version.
Re:Ick. Ugh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no. It's quite common for authors to retain copyright when they sign a contract with a publisher. For instance, here [lightandmatter.com] is a list of some short stories I've had published. Some of these were published in print magazines, some in electronic magazines. None of them asked me for a copyright assignment. Whether or not a publisher requires a copyright assignment depends completely on the publisher, the genre, and the customs of that particular market segment. I pulled the first three books off of the bookshelf next to my computer. How to Brew, by John Palmer, is (c) John Palmer. Programming Perl, by Wall, Christiansen, and Orwant, os (c) O'Reilly. Pragmatic Version Control, by Travis Swicegood, is (c) Travis Swicegood. So your "most everything published" is has a batting average of 1/3 in my sample.
Lots of problems with your suggestion:
Re: (Score:2)
There are times when I wish I could sacrifice mod points to my own comments to give them to a far better post. Yours is such a post. Thank you for your insightful commentary; I wasn't aware of any of that.
Re: (Score:2)
"why not start by killing the concept of the exclusive contract and the equally nefarious "work for hire" clauses that are cropping up around the world... Meaning that NO MATTER WHAT an author retains the right to his/her own work"
Where by "right" you mean "exclusivity"? (Since that's what it means: the ability to deny other people from publishing).
So you want all "authors" to have the absolute right of exclusivity... yet at the same time you don't want exclusivity to exist at all. Uh-huh. How's that going
I hear the Internet is a good way to reach people (Score:5, Funny)
"A New York Times story reveals the obstacles they face just to get the word out..."
Too bad Google doesn't run a really popular website. If they did, they could just put a note up on the front page or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but then they'd have to get rid of the "Privacy" link again so they'd still have 28 words on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
And only IE6 users without Google toolbar would see it, because others use search plugins and never go to the front page...
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as an author... (Score:3)
Speaking as an author, I do not want my works digitized by Google because it screws me out of the ability to sell digital copies myself.
Re: (Score:2)
But they only post excerpts, not the entire book. At least that is the case with every book I have seen so far.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, nice try at FUD though.
Maybe you should look into it so you can adapt instead of sticking to that dying business model?
And yes, I am an author.
Re: (Score:2)
What alternative business model do you suggest? Advertising? Screw that.
Re: (Score:2)
As an author, I do want my works digitized by Google because I am damn unlikely to ever sell another copy of a book that has "Advanced Turbo C: Updated for vers. 1.5!" emblazoned on the cover, so any cash is unexpected.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's lucky for you then that you can just tell Google and they won't make your stuff available.
What's great about this whole thing is that the world was missing out on easy availability of massive amounts of information in tons of old books because it was illegal to scan them and make them available. Getting some law passed to make this stuff available might not have b
Re: (Score:2)
Take that (Score:2)
Alexandria!
Originally posted in another thread. (Score:2)
Sorry for cross-posting, but my post in the other thread was buried. It seems that Google is actually trying to do SOME of what I suggested. Here is the original post. Yes, it IS a wall of text, and I do apologize for that, but it is a complicated issue, and I could't really thin it out.
"From a writers perspective, one of the most satisfying aspects of writing is the permanency of putting words to paper. Generations of people will have the opportunity to enjoy your story. It is, in a sense, a little bit of
Good or Evil? History will decide... (Score:2)
Whenever Google does something big like this, the "Do No Evil" manifesto gets brought up. The question then, irrespecitve of profit motive, is: Is this move going to be of net benefit or not?
If Google pull this off, the net impact over the years will be absolutely huge. Ultimately I envisage it resulting in the final shift of the prime medium for creative work from physical to digital.
In 20 years, when people look back at all the physical media we used to hoard (from the context of a society in which near
Google will popularize the long tail. (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has the opportunity to popularize the long tail of publishing. This is such great news.
Depends on how you view the tail... (Score:4, Funny)
...Now we're in an age where content costs $0 to bring to the masses but we have a long tail of content of huge value that no one ever sees because bookstores only popularize the hits. Google has the opportunity to popularize the long tail of publishing. This is such great news.
Ah, depends on how you look at it. There's a whole lot of awful crapola that justifies itself sitting on the "long tail" (or ass-end) of publishing.
If you need further proof, do a quick Google search for the word "blog".
Re:Depends on how you view the tail... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ah, depends on how you look at it. There's a whole lot of awful crapola that justifies itself sitting on the "long tail" (or ass-end) of publishing."
There's also a lot of interesting literature on many subjects that is not widely read outside academia or the research community but which many people nonetheless find fascinating. I can't count how many times I've found great books I've bookmarked for later reading via google.
Remember you get results based on key words, if you're going to get crap it's likely you were looking for it to begin with. One man's crappy book is another man's treasure.
Re:Depends on how you view the tail... (Score:5, Funny)
I keep trying to find this person for whom my crap is their treasure, but so far everyone I show it too agrees that it's crap. I hope I find them soon, or I'm going to have to start flushing this potential treasure, which just seems like a waste.
Someone once told me I have a poor grasp of metaphor, but I'm not sure what they meant.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep trying to find this person for whom my crap is their treasure,
I meant along the lines of what someone is not interested in / considered crap is not universal.
Also you may be interested in the story of Emily dickinson
"The Poems of Emily Dickinson was published by scholar Thomas H. Johnson. Despite unfavorable reviews and skepticism of her literary prowess during the late 19th and early 20th century, critics now consider Dickinson to be a major American poet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Dickinson [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And I was talking about literal excrement, because I'm a silly person.
Re: (Score:2)
And I was talking about literal excrement
I just noticed and it certainly stinks...
because I'm a shitty person.
Fixed that for you ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you ;)
Ha, you got me there. That's mud in my eye. Wait that's not mud...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google will popularize the long tail. (Score:4, Interesting)
With diminishing cost of publishing books also comes book spam [wikipedia.org].
overabundance is a GOOD thing (Score:4, Insightful)
won't we have as much trouble getting useful content from Google's collection of books as we do from its collection of websites?
Google made it EASY to search websites. It's now possible for anybody to publish a website in a sea of noise, and get noticed, provided someone is looking for their content. This was impossible before google.
Given that we have tools to organize, having an over-abundance of something is a healthy sign. It means people are being stimulated to provide, and consumers are consuming. If the consumers AREN'T consuming, then the system will naturally find a balance where mostly only consumables are being provided.
Right now (via tv, cinema, book publishers, record labels, radio, etc) we have a system where consumables are being shoved down throats to make a buck. Kinda sucks, don't you think?
I can't wait till this archaic model of distribution goes the way of the dinosaur.
Re: (Score:2)
Before Google, there was Lycos (one of my early favorites) and several other web search engines. Some of the earliest simply were slight modifications and improvements of ARCHIE and VERONICA... the search engines of Gopher content that was pervasive before http became a common protocol.
Google wasn't really a first mover, but they did have the advantage of doing it somewhat better and had some phenomenally good public relations to get people to try them out and keep them coming back.
This said, web search en
Re: (Score:2)
Google's Struggle To Reach Authors -- of Every Book Ever Written
They're going to have a hard time reaching Mark Twain and Bill Shakespeare!
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone can find a good medium, Google can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on... mod me all the way to -1? I thought it was interesting, and even if admittedly off-topic, it was on-topic to the post I replied to.
In fact, I'm not even going to post anonymously, so do your worst, if you must. I'm not trolling or being a jerk, and my karma can stand an off-topic now and then.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)