DoJ Recommends NY Court Reject Google Book Deal 124
eldavojohn writes "The BBC and others are reporting on the US Department of Justice's recommendation to a New York court that they reject the Google book deal. The deal has received considerable attention, but for the most part it has been negative."
Lets just... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Only a good thing if (Score:3, Interesting)
However, that is probably not what you were asking. In my opinion, the worst part of the deal is that it's exclusive to Google, and that third parties cannot get into it. This makes Google kind of the digital gateway for a lot of content. And I like Google, but at one time I liked HP, too. Organizations change over time, and it can be dangerous to make one group the digital gateway.
The best way to change it, in my opinion, would be to make the same deal available for anyone; create a mechanism whereby anyone can enter into this agreement with the publishing companies, including you. I don't think everyone would be in favor of this mechanism, some authors might oppose it, for example, but I think it would be a fair arrangement and get rid of some of the worst consequences of copyright.
Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are so woried about not making any money from your out-of-print books, maybe you should consider printing them again?
Re:Worst summary ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lets just... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should you have the right to use my programs for free?
Normally you would have a point. But:
Why do I have to pay TV contribution when I don't have a working TV?
Why do I have to pay compensation for local copyright holders' when I buy a photocopier? I use it explicitly for my job (replication of technical studies done by me).
My cousin has a traditional morning cafe. Why did he have to pay compensation for the local RIAA? He did not have a radio in his cafe until recently.
There is a, state owned, special newspaper which publishes all the new laws that are made by the parliament. We do I have to pay for it (much more than a few euros which is the printing cost)? Do they have the right to copyright, when they are paid by my tax to do what they do (law making)?
There is a tendency to outlaw P2P software because it can be abused. If this sounds rational to anyone, then, by the same rationale, the right to copyright should be outlawed because it is very often abused.