5 ms·
OK, sure. But shouldn't Google compensate their sources???
by Gargoyle 11y ago
OK, sure. But shouldn't Google compensate their sources???
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoPresumably somebody actually bought a copy of each scanned book. Aren't we just getting back to the same deal as the people who wanted Google to pay them to link to them? They were all screaming about how Google was making money on their backs. Even passed a law about it in a couple of countries. Then Google says OK, we're not going to pay you, we'll just stop linking to you. Suddenly everybody in one of those countries strikes a "deal" with Google where Google goes back to linking to them in exchange for no money whatsoever. The main difference with printed books is that so many of them are orphan works that nobody even knows who the copyright holder is, so the default being the opposite of what everybody actually wants means that all of those works actually disappear out of the index. Which is why I suspect the publishers want it that way. Then they can opt-in to being indexed but without all the competition from orphan works, works with uncertain copyright status, works by smaller entities that don't know how to opt-in, etc. Either that or it's like the news sites and they just don't realize how stupid the thing they're asking for actually is.
- Gargoyle 11y agoWell, no. Google did not in fact purchase a copy of the book they're making money on. So you do think Google should make billions from the minds of others without compensation. Before you accuse me of hyberbole, you used the term "screaming".
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> Well, no. Google did not in fact purchase a copy of the book they're making money on. The books they scanned weren't purchased? Google broke into the publishers' offices and stole them? > So you do think Google should make billions from the minds of others without compensation. That is the business model of every advertising company in existence. Also mapmakers, phone companies, movie critics, etc.
- Gargoyle 11y agoSo Google compensated the publishers? Are you sure???
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoYou are presumably trying to make some kind of point out of the books scanned from libraries. But unless you're claiming that the libraries stole the books... $20 is $20.
- Gargoyle 11y agoNeat with your distractional words. But your claim is what Google has offered reasoable?
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoThe courts seem to think so.
- kaybe 11y agoWith that kind of reasoning - unless you steal from the publisher right off the press somebody has already paid for the book, no? Even bookshops can only get refunds if they at least return the cover page, afaik. Additionally, if you steal from the right person, they might just go and buy another copy.
- sangnoir 11y ago> With that kind of reasoning - unless you steal from the publisher right off the press somebody has already paid for the book, no That is correct - this is well established in US case law as the "Fist sale doctrine"[1]. Meaning once bought, the book can be lended, resold, or scanned. However, I believe the Authors Guild was going for the copyright angle, and they lost. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- Natanael_L 11y agoPeople who owns copies of the scanned books have made them available to scan, at least. Not like they're stealing books to scan. Intellectual territorialism is nonsensical.
- 0991823719 11y agoOf course not! Only the digital robber barons moving content from place A to place B have a right to be paid! Actually creative people can go back to being underpaid servants like Mozart and Abel.
- VikingCoder 11y agoWait, I got lost for a minute - are we still talking about Google Books, or are we talking about Google Search? Because the use case is identical. You create a work, and Google indexes it to make it easy for me to find.