46 ms·

It's a monopoly because Google has been granted the exclusive right (via a lawsuit) to digitize and distribute orphaned books. It would be a copyright violatio

by apowell 17y ago

It's a monopoly because Google has been granted the exclusive right (via a lawsuit) to digitize and distribute orphaned books. It would be a copyright violation on a grand scale if anyone else were to try. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
It wasn't Google that initiated the lawsuit. If this turns out to be a landmine, it will be the publishing industry that planted it.
ErrantX 17y ago
Reading the whole article I cant come to the same conclusion really. As I read it Google has "sidestepped" the copyright violation via this lawsuit; a step which any other company doing the same thing would also have to do. It's untested (and therefore somewhat difficult to assert with way) whether anyone else could win a similar lawsuit to attain similar rights. Also it is not yet tested whether publishers could be approached with a license model for orphaned work without it having to go to the courts. I think granted the exclusive right is simple an opinion; because none of the court documents appear to grant an exclusive right.
- apowell 17y ago
  Today Google is the only entity with the legal right to do what they do with the books. If I were to try it, I'd be sued into oblivion by the publishers. For Google, forgiveness was easier than permission. For anyone else, forgiveness won't be an option. The settlement and ruling applies to Google and only Google. Perhaps in the future some organization will slog through the legal system and change that situation. If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. But today it is. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-worlds-greatest-library-the-wiredcom-faq/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-wo... (Questions #17 - #21 make the point much better than I am able)
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. I think the problem is the definition of monopoly. It's arguably a very good thing (tm) [for consumers] that Google have done - if the fact they had to fight the legal system in a way that is beyond the means of most companies makes it a monopoly then that, to me, seems a bit screwy logic. What about the argument they have now paved the way for much simpler lawsuits - or even opened the way for people to convince publishers to license content without needing the courts.... Till someone else bothers to try (note: bothers) this is impossible to judge either way. Also lets be careful here: monopolies aren't necessarily (in a legal sense) "bad". Unfair monopolies are what we have to avoid - and evil ones. This was evidence for Google being an evil corporation; to my eyes it seems hard enough to argue this is really a monopoly let alone one with "evil" intent :) (ultimately the argument does seem to come down to: Congress needs to fix a silly situation)
    - apowell 17y ago
      I think we're viewing the same situation through slightly different lenses, but mostly in agreement. You're right - this is a silly situation, and Congress ought to fix it. I was about to make the same point about monopolies, fairness, and evil. I agree that this particular example isn't strong support for the "Google is evil" thesis.
    - lmkg 17y ago
      Specifics of the particular case aside, I do not like that Google has the weight to simply buck the system if it disagrees with it. It sets a terrible precedent. The legislative process for changing the laws is flawed, but there are good reasons it exists: for example, multiple voices and interests can express their concerns. I think it's a rationally defensible position that, in the books case, Google is substituting an democratic process for an enlightened dictatorship. If nothing else, that's a problem because it's a single point of failure. Obviously, that way of phrasing my viewpoint is rather severe and totally loaded, but I think it's also a concise summary of both my opinions and my feelings on the topic.
      - 17y ago
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by apowell 17y ago

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

It wasn't Google that initiated the lawsuit. If this turns out to be a landmine, it will be the publishing industry that planted it.

ErrantX 17y ago

Reading the whole article I cant come to the same conclusion really. As I read it Google has "sidestepped" the copyright violation via this lawsuit; a step which any other company doing the same thing would also have to do. It's untested (and therefore somewhat difficult to assert with way) whether anyone else could win a similar lawsuit to attain similar rights. Also it is not yet tested whether publishers could be approached with a license model for orphaned work without it having to go to the courts. I think granted the exclusive right is simple an opinion; because none of the court documents appear to grant an exclusive right.

apowell 17y ago
Today Google is the only entity with the legal right to do what they do with the books. If I were to try it, I'd be sued into oblivion by the publishers. For Google, forgiveness was easier than permission. For anyone else, forgiveness won't be an option. The settlement and ruling applies to Google and only Google. Perhaps in the future some organization will slog through the legal system and change that situation. If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. But today it is. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-worlds-greatest-library-the-wiredcom-faq/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-wo... (Questions #17 - #21 make the point much better than I am able)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. I think the problem is the definition of monopoly. It's arguably a very good thing (tm) [for consumers] that Google have done - if the fact they had to fight the legal system in a way that is beyond the means of most companies makes it a monopoly then that, to me, seems a bit screwy logic. What about the argument they have now paved the way for much simpler lawsuits - or even opened the way for people to convince publishers to license content without needing the courts.... Till someone else bothers to try (note: bothers) this is impossible to judge either way. Also lets be careful here: monopolies aren't necessarily (in a legal sense) "bad". Unfair monopolies are what we have to avoid - and evil ones. This was evidence for Google being an evil corporation; to my eyes it seems hard enough to argue this is really a monopoly let alone one with "evil" intent :) (ultimately the argument does seem to come down to: Congress needs to fix a silly situation)
  - apowell 17y ago
    I think we're viewing the same situation through slightly different lenses, but mostly in agreement. You're right - this is a silly situation, and Congress ought to fix it. I was about to make the same point about monopolies, fairness, and evil. I agree that this particular example isn't strong support for the "Google is evil" thesis.
  - lmkg 17y ago
    Specifics of the particular case aside, I do not like that Google has the weight to simply buck the system if it disagrees with it. It sets a terrible precedent. The legislative process for changing the laws is flawed, but there are good reasons it exists: for example, multiple voices and interests can express their concerns. I think it's a rationally defensible position that, in the books case, Google is substituting an democratic process for an enlightened dictatorship. If nothing else, that's a problem because it's a single point of failure. Obviously, that way of phrasing my viewpoint is rather severe and totally loaded, but I think it's also a concise summary of both my opinions and my feelings on the topic.
    - 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]