4 ms·

Google has scanned more than seven million volumes from several university libraries. ... The settlement ... provides for a way for Google to sell digital acces

by pj 17y ago

Google has scanned more than seven million volumes from several university libraries. ... The settlement ... provides for a way for Google to sell digital access to the scanned volumes. The authors and publishers said Google is stealing our content, violating our copyright. So Google replied that their intent is benevolent. They didn't want to harm the publishers or take their money, they didn't even want to make money. They said they were scanning these books to create searchable knowledge. Then they strike up a settlement so they can sell those scanned in books? Now they want to compete with Amazon to sell ebooks... It was a lie from the start. They were just scanning in these books because they knew they'd be selling them one day. They wanted a head start. They lied about the race to give themselves an advantage over Amazon now. This doesn't sound "not evil" to me. Lying is not "good." Maybe it isn't evil, but is "not being evil" the standard now? Shouldn't companies rise above merely "not evil" ?? They lied, they violated the law and the copyright holders and now they are going to be allowed to profit from this illegal behavior. Their words are not matching their behavior and that is a real negative sign in my opinion.

sown 17y ago
I don't think it's quite like that. Google still has to pay royalties and depending on how much the royalties end up being publishers would probably be happy. There's no need to make this out to be a conspiracy, though.
- berntb 17y ago
  >There's no need to make this out to be a conspiracy, though. You don't generally keep up with the times, do you?
  - berntb 17y ago
    People took that seriously or was it too low class humor? (Is it just me that hears conspiracy theories much more often now than, say, ten years ago?)
zouhair 17y ago
Even if it's like you say, I don't really see the problem. If it's just a matter of principle I'll agree with you, else I welcome a good and healthy competition between Google and Amazon, and on the other hand I don't think Google can sell those ebooks if the owners of the works are not agreeing. Edit: I hope they'll make some open ebook reader, with no proprietary stuff like the kindle.
ahoyhere 17y ago
It's not that I don't agree with you, but did you read the whole article? This ebook selling bit is a new gambit, for new titles, not scanned books.

by pj 17y ago

sown 17y ago

I don't think it's quite like that. Google still has to pay royalties and depending on how much the royalties end up being publishers would probably be happy. There's no need to make this out to be a conspiracy, though.

berntb 17y ago
>There's no need to make this out to be a conspiracy, though. You don't generally keep up with the times, do you?
- berntb 17y ago
  People took that seriously or was it too low class humor? (Is it just me that hears conspiracy theories much more often now than, say, ten years ago?)

zouhair 17y ago

Even if it's like you say, I don't really see the problem. If it's just a matter of principle I'll agree with you, else I welcome a good and healthy competition between Google and Amazon, and on the other hand I don't think Google can sell those ebooks if the owners of the works are not agreeing. Edit: I hope they'll make some open ebook reader, with no proprietary stuff like the kindle.

ahoyhere 17y ago

It's not that I don't agree with you, but did you read the whole article? This ebook selling bit is a new gambit, for new titles, not scanned books.