3 ms·
As much as I desperately want out-of-print books to be available, I really didn't like that court case. The idea of a small group of authors being allowed to ne
by TillE 13y ago
As much as I desperately want out-of-print books to be available, I really didn't like that court case. The idea of a small group of authors being allowed to negotiate away the rights of authors everywhere to one party only (Google) is absurd.
This is something that really needs legislative action.
- kamjam 13y agoI don't understand why. Any other company now (presumably) has the right to digitally offer out of print books too. No one else wants to do it, either out of lack of motivation, cost or potential revenue. You can't blame Google for that, this is a massive step forward for society. It's not really a win for free markets if you now need to legislate.
- waqf 13y agoI believe GP is talking not about this decision but about what would have happened if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books_Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books_Settlement had not been shot down in 2011. This outcome allows everyone to digitize out-of-print books, whereas the settlement would have granted Google a monopoly on them in exchange for a fee to the Authors' Guild.
- RexRollman 13y ago"Chin also rejected the theory that Google was depriving authors of income, noting that the company does not sell the scans or make whole copies of books available." I don't see how this would make out of print books available. It would only allow them to come up in a search result.
- Agathos 13y agoThat's why this decision is about a million times better than the settlement that was shot down years(!) ago. The settlement would have given Google a monopoly on the digitization of orphan books. A ruling sets a precedent that anyone can cite.