4 ms·

How The Google Book Settlement Will Change The Future of Reading

43 points by javanix 17y ago

blhack 17y ago
I wrote a little tongue-in-cheek blog about what I think google is trying to do with books a while ago (it's here: http://newslily.com/blogs/75 http://newslily.com/blogs/75 if you care to read the whole thing). Basically, I think that google is run by a couple of hugely wealthy nerds who really do just want to do good things. Google isn't trying to steal copyright away from anyone, they're trying to prevent a bunch of human art and knowledge from disappearing in the basement of some demolished library somewhere. One of the major things that people who are against what google is doing here don't seem to understand is that they don't gain exclusive rights to the book, they gain distribution rights to their own digital copies (which they will still have to license from the copyright holders if they want to sell). This isn't different than if I were to go home right now and start scanning my book collection, then go to their respective publishers and try to work a deal with them to distribute the digital copy. I will admit that I might be horribly wrong about this, but this is how I understand it works...
- dantheman 17y ago
  My understanding is that if anyone else wants to embark on a similar endeavor they will have to make their own settlement with the copyright holders. Which mean google gets a special legal advantage that it shouldn't.
  - blhack 17y ago
    My understanding is that if anyone else wants to embark on a similar endeavor they will have to make their own settlement with the copyright holders. Which mean google gets a special legal advantage that it shouldn't. What? Wouldn't that just mean that if somebody wanted to do the same thing that they would have to...do the same thing?
    - dantheman 17y ago
      Sorry, it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to get the same settlement that google received. In essence they have a special right to "orphaned" works that no one else will have. Also, I should not I'm all for google books. I think that copyright/patents no longer need to exist in the modern world, but if they are going to stay around they need to apply to everyone equally.
      - electromagnetic 17y ago
        How is it a special right, the settlement basically grants them a special license. The reason they had to go to court is because no one would give them a license for free publication so they played the 'orphan' card and got the other party to the table for a settlement. Please don't argue the naive copyright shouldn't exist because my-head-is-stuck-so-far-in-the-sand-I-hit-rock-and-forgot-common-sense angle. With hollywood virtually cloning every successful movie that has ever existed, do we really want to give them a free pass to actually clone every successful movie that has ever existed? As for every successful book/movie/TV franchise to ever exist, well they'd be gone out the window with masses of meaningless fan-wank shot out by every publisher known to man trying to make a dollar. Copyright has an important clause in it of preventing derivative works by unauthorised people, this means that Harry Potter remains being written by Rowling and actually ends in a way fans are likely to actually enjoy rather than see a Harry Potter: Failed To Graduate Again - New Mystery Edition! By removing copyright you negatively effect the common person more than you positively affect them. For all I know you could be a fantastic photographer, I myself have worked as a reviewer and have sold my work, you as a photographer have all the rights to sell your photographs no matter where you've posted them. Do you really want to give any company permission to take your photographs from your Flickr account and use them in a national campaign without your permission? Or would you prefer to get the $20,000 check that those license purchases usually come with? The RIAA and MPAA are the problem, not copyright. The better way to resolve this problem is to reform copyright to limit actions taken on the copyright holders behalf without the copyright holders permission. Legally speaking the copyright holder has to be the person to file the claim, however due to the licensing agreements musicians sign with their label they're actually giving license authority to the MPAA too, which they actually don't agree too.
lolcraft 17y ago
If we go on doing it [Google's] way, we end up with a wholly-owned list of digitized books, many stolen from their owners, totally controlled, managed, opened and closed to public use, by a profit-making corporation interested in furthering its monopolistic control of information. - Ursula Le Guin As opposed to, what exactly, how the publishers of the United States of Fictionalamerica do? Or did Le Guin really thought her publisher was a honest non-profit interested on sharing and expanding the public domain?
- tjgabbour 17y ago
  Yes, that quote seemed odd, so I looked deeper at Le Guin's position. * Most authors weren't represented in the Google Book Settlement, though they will be severely affected by it. * The settlement is extremely complicated, and it's difficult to put across all her objections in (say) the span of an interview. * She does want a global digital library, but not under the control of a corporation like Google. Google of course acts in its own interest (and those of its shareholders), and is not even minimally under popular control. I agree with these points. However, I wish she'd discuss (more than just in passing during an interview) a fair alternative to Google -- one which is free-as-in-freedom and compensates authors/staff. (Or did I miss it?) Because digitalization is very important, and authors' interests do conflict with those of consumers, under our economic system. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-ursula-le-guin.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-ur...
naner 17y ago
Preservation and proliferation of culture are more important than strict copyright adherance. I am in favor of Google's agressive approach. But if they're ad-wording books that seems clearly unethical.

43 points by javanix 17y ago

I wrote a little tongue-in-cheek blog about what I think google is trying to do with books a while ago (it's here: http://newslily.com/blogs/75 http://newslily.com/blogs/75 if you care to read the whole thing). Basically, I think that google is run by a couple of hugely wealthy nerds who really do just want to do good things. Google isn't trying to steal copyright away from anyone, they're trying to prevent a bunch of human art and knowledge from disappearing in the basement of some demolished library somewhere. One of the major things that people who are against what google is doing here don't seem to understand is that they don't gain exclusive rights to the book, they gain distribution rights to their own digital copies (which they will still have to license from the copyright holders if they want to sell). This isn't different than if I were to go home right now and start scanning my book collection, then go to their respective publishers and try to work a deal with them to distribute the digital copy. I will admit that I might be horribly wrong about this, but this is how I understand it works...

dantheman 17y ago
My understanding is that if anyone else wants to embark on a similar endeavor they will have to make their own settlement with the copyright holders. Which mean google gets a special legal advantage that it shouldn't.
- blhack 17y ago
  My understanding is that if anyone else wants to embark on a similar endeavor they will have to make their own settlement with the copyright holders. Which mean google gets a special legal advantage that it shouldn't. What? Wouldn't that just mean that if somebody wanted to do the same thing that they would have to...do the same thing?
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Sorry, it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to get the same settlement that google received. In essence they have a special right to "orphaned" works that no one else will have. Also, I should not I'm all for google books. I think that copyright/patents no longer need to exist in the modern world, but if they are going to stay around they need to apply to everyone equally.
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      How is it a special right, the settlement basically grants them a special license. The reason they had to go to court is because no one would give them a license for free publication so they played the 'orphan' card and got the other party to the table for a settlement. Please don't argue the naive copyright shouldn't exist because my-head-is-stuck-so-far-in-the-sand-I-hit-rock-and-forgot-common-sense angle. With hollywood virtually cloning every successful movie that has ever existed, do we really want to give them a free pass to actually clone every successful movie that has ever existed? As for every successful book/movie/TV franchise to ever exist, well they'd be gone out the window with masses of meaningless fan-wank shot out by every publisher known to man trying to make a dollar. Copyright has an important clause in it of preventing derivative works by unauthorised people, this means that Harry Potter remains being written by Rowling and actually ends in a way fans are likely to actually enjoy rather than see a Harry Potter: Failed To Graduate Again - New Mystery Edition! By removing copyright you negatively effect the common person more than you positively affect them. For all I know you could be a fantastic photographer, I myself have worked as a reviewer and have sold my work, you as a photographer have all the rights to sell your photographs no matter where you've posted them. Do you really want to give any company permission to take your photographs from your Flickr account and use them in a national campaign without your permission? Or would you prefer to get the $20,000 check that those license purchases usually come with? The RIAA and MPAA are the problem, not copyright. The better way to resolve this problem is to reform copyright to limit actions taken on the copyright holders behalf without the copyright holders permission. Legally speaking the copyright holder has to be the person to file the claim, however due to the licensing agreements musicians sign with their label they're actually giving license authority to the MPAA too, which they actually don't agree too.

lolcraft 17y ago

If we go on doing it [Google's] way, we end up with a wholly-owned list of digitized books, many stolen from their owners, totally controlled, managed, opened and closed to public use, by a profit-making corporation interested in furthering its monopolistic control of information. - Ursula Le Guin As opposed to, what exactly, how the publishers of the United States of Fictionalamerica do? Or did Le Guin really thought her publisher was a honest non-profit interested on sharing and expanding the public domain?

tjgabbour 17y ago
Yes, that quote seemed odd, so I looked deeper at Le Guin's position. * Most authors weren't represented in the Google Book Settlement, though they will be severely affected by it. * The settlement is extremely complicated, and it's difficult to put across all her objections in (say) the span of an interview. * She does want a global digital library, but not under the control of a corporation like Google. Google of course acts in its own interest (and those of its shareholders), and is not even minimally under popular control. I agree with these points. However, I wish she'd discuss (more than just in passing during an interview) a fair alternative to Google -- one which is free-as-in-freedom and compensates authors/staff. (Or did I miss it?) Because digitalization is very important, and authors' interests do conflict with those of consumers, under our economic system. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-ursula-le-guin.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-ur...

naner 17y ago

Preservation and proliferation of culture are more important than strict copyright adherance. I am in favor of Google's agressive approach. But if they're ad-wording books that seems clearly unethical.