5 ms·

They did not agree to this in the first place. Most of them were not happy about the deal google was given. I strongly believe it is google's job to ensure that

by nkassis 16y ago

They did not agree to this in the first place. Most of them were not happy about the deal google was given. I strongly believe it is google's job to ensure that their work is of good quality. This is similar to Wikipedia errors that find their way into newspapers and even research. The difference is that wikipedia isn't claiming to be a reliable source. Google is trying to build an exhaustive catalogue and they are the only one allowed to distribute a large amount of text due to a court settlement. Good metadata should be part of that deal. And like the article mentioned, there already exist much better catalogues (or whatever they are called) such as the library of congress one. They might not be perfect but they sure beat scanning a book cover and picking the first date found. Why not just license it?

angstrom 16y ago
That's what I've often wondered. Why isn't this a government initiative to take the Library of Congress and provide a digital layer on top of it for public access. Then just turn the regular libraries into community centers without the overhead cost of book storage, purchasing, & cataloging. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea of this being in the hands of a single corporation is unnerving.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I think the EU tried something like that... not sure what's happened to it in the end.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Why isn't this a government initiative to take the Library of Congress and provide a digital layer... There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the authority (let alone the responsibility to do this). the idea of this being in the hands of a single corporation is unnerving. And having it controlled by the government would make you breathe a sigh of relief? The opportunities for curating the collection as in 1984 are scary enough, but consider the accuracy of government data in other areas.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    Do favor abolishing the Library of Congress? It isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the FAA, NSA, Department of the Air Force, etc.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      The NSA, Air Force, etc. are branches of the armed forces. While not explicitly mentioned by name, they're pretty clearly implied by Article I Section 8. The FAA is a little grayer, and I wouldn't necessarily mind losing it. But I can see it sneaking in under the (much abused) Interstate Commerce Clause, also in Article I Section 8. I can't put my finger on anything authorizing a giant library. Maybe under the "necessary and proper" clause, with a claim that they need a comprehensive library at hand in order to research for the government's other responsibilities (in real life, do they actually use it for that?).
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        A modern air force gives the President the ability to push some buttons and annihilate entire American cities. At his sole discretion. With no judicial review. And no legislation needed. I cannot imagine how granting such unlimited power to the President is congruent with any rational reading of the Constitution. Do you really believe that the founders who insisted that the President couldn't be trusted with the ability to declare war would be happy giving the President complete authority to annihilate entire cities at his sole discretion?
      - _delirium 16y ago
        Considering the Library of Congress was established in 1800, and overseen by many of the same people who wrote and ratified the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson personally donated his book collection to it), you must have an understanding of the Constitution quite different from the founders if you think the LOC isn't authorized by it.
      - enjo 16y ago
        You would favor abolishing the FAA? Really?
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I think the answer is the same as for the question of why is copyright law so badly broken as to create a huge orphan works problem? I mean, there are easy tweaks to the copyright system that would alleviate the orphan works problem without interfering with the minuscule fraction of very old works that are still profitable. The answer in both cases is regulatory capture. The parts of the government that would deal with this have lots of interaction with publishers and authors lobbying them. And those groups hate all the digitization plans. From the perspective of a content producer, technology is the worst thing ever. Every year, technology advances and increases the number of ways that people can spend time not reading the works of any one author. A mass book digitization program would swamp the market with old books which means fewer sales for recently published books. It might allow people to get into hobbies that would sap up their time and prevent them from buying new books! Can you imagine if Wikipedia didn't exist? Think of the billions of person-hours that wouldn't have been spent reading and writing Wikipedia articles...that time would have gone somewhere, and part of it would certainly have been spent reading best seller books purchased at a book store.
nanairo 16y ago
I don't want to take anything away from Google: they bet big that scanning all books would have been worthwhile so all the best for them. But it seems the usual Google/hackery way of doing things where things are automatised (or semi-automatised), but when it shows (some) shortcomings, they just don't care. Another example (in my mind) was: the Nexus One customer service.
- nkassis 16y ago
  Yeah exactly, they just don't want to do anything if they can't automate it. I understand their viewpoint but like you said it when it fails they don't seem to want to fix it. Google does lots of good stuff but they don't seem to like to keep pushing to hard. When the road gets though they usually let the project go.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
But Google hasn't changed anything. Scholars can still use paper books just as they always have, if they don't like Google.
- enjo 16y ago
  The author is arguing that Google is going to be the only one that gets to do this in the first place. They've changed the game in that they can have no competitors. If Google wasn't doing this, it would still be possible for someone else to step in and do it right. In that light, they've changed quite a bit. * note: I'm not really familiar with the court case here, so I have no idea if the author is making a valid assertion or not.

by nkassis 16y ago

angstrom 16y ago

That's what I've often wondered. Why isn't this a government initiative to take the Library of Congress and provide a digital layer on top of it for public access. Then just turn the regular libraries into community centers without the overhead cost of book storage, purchasing, & cataloging. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea of this being in the hands of a single corporation is unnerving.

nanairo 16y ago
I think the EU tried something like that... not sure what's happened to it in the end.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Why isn't this a government initiative to take the Library of Congress and provide a digital layer... There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the authority (let alone the responsibility to do this). the idea of this being in the hands of a single corporation is unnerving. And having it controlled by the government would make you breathe a sigh of relief? The opportunities for curating the collection as in 1984 are scary enough, but consider the accuracy of government data in other areas.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Do favor abolishing the Library of Congress? It isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the FAA, NSA, Department of the Air Force, etc.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    The NSA, Air Force, etc. are branches of the armed forces. While not explicitly mentioned by name, they're pretty clearly implied by Article I Section 8. The FAA is a little grayer, and I wouldn't necessarily mind losing it. But I can see it sneaking in under the (much abused) Interstate Commerce Clause, also in Article I Section 8. I can't put my finger on anything authorizing a giant library. Maybe under the "necessary and proper" clause, with a claim that they need a comprehensive library at hand in order to research for the government's other responsibilities (in real life, do they actually use it for that?).
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      A modern air force gives the President the ability to push some buttons and annihilate entire American cities. At his sole discretion. With no judicial review. And no legislation needed. I cannot imagine how granting such unlimited power to the President is congruent with any rational reading of the Constitution. Do you really believe that the founders who insisted that the President couldn't be trusted with the ability to declare war would be happy giving the President complete authority to annihilate entire cities at his sole discretion?
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Considering the Library of Congress was established in 1800, and overseen by many of the same people who wrote and ratified the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson personally donated his book collection to it), you must have an understanding of the Constitution quite different from the founders if you think the LOC isn't authorized by it.
    - enjo 16y ago
      You would favor abolishing the FAA? Really?
MichaelSalib 16y ago
I think the answer is the same as for the question of why is copyright law so badly broken as to create a huge orphan works problem? I mean, there are easy tweaks to the copyright system that would alleviate the orphan works problem without interfering with the minuscule fraction of very old works that are still profitable. The answer in both cases is regulatory capture. The parts of the government that would deal with this have lots of interaction with publishers and authors lobbying them. And those groups hate all the digitization plans. From the perspective of a content producer, technology is the worst thing ever. Every year, technology advances and increases the number of ways that people can spend time not reading the works of any one author. A mass book digitization program would swamp the market with old books which means fewer sales for recently published books. It might allow people to get into hobbies that would sap up their time and prevent them from buying new books! Can you imagine if Wikipedia didn't exist? Think of the billions of person-hours that wouldn't have been spent reading and writing Wikipedia articles...that time would have gone somewhere, and part of it would certainly have been spent reading best seller books purchased at a book store.

nanairo 16y ago

I don't want to take anything away from Google: they bet big that scanning all books would have been worthwhile so all the best for them. But it seems the usual Google/hackery way of doing things where things are automatised (or semi-automatised), but when it shows (some) shortcomings, they just don't care. Another example (in my mind) was: the Nexus One customer service.

nkassis 16y ago
Yeah exactly, they just don't want to do anything if they can't automate it. I understand their viewpoint but like you said it when it fails they don't seem to want to fix it. Google does lots of good stuff but they don't seem to like to keep pushing to hard. When the road gets though they usually let the project go.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

But Google hasn't changed anything. Scholars can still use paper books just as they always have, if they don't like Google.

enjo 16y ago
The author is arguing that Google is going to be the only one that gets to do this in the first place. They've changed the game in that they can have no competitors. If Google wasn't doing this, it would still be possible for someone else to step in and do it right. In that light, they've changed quite a bit. * note: I'm not really familiar with the court case here, so I have no idea if the author is making a valid assertion or not.