Slashdot Mirror
Publishers Protest Google Library Project
gollum123 writes "A group of academic publishers is challenging Google Inc.'s plan to scan millions of library books into its Internet search engine index, highlighting fears that the ambitious project will violate copyrights and stifle future sales. In a letter scheduled to be delivered to Google Monday, the Association of American University Presses described the online search engine's library project as a troubling financial threat to its membership -- 125 nonprofit publishers of academic journals and scholarly books. The university presses depend on books sales and other licensing agreements for most of their revenue, making copyright protections essential to their survival."
Shouldnt non-profit people be in favour of this?
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
"making copyright protections essential to their survival."
The question you really have to ask is: is THEIR survival essential?
Do we really need their services?
Side note: WTF is up with this crap to "confirm you're not a script" that I have to type in...jesus christ it's not like slashdot is giving free email. Man, I remember when you could post as much as you as many times as you want now there's all these ridiculous rules. No wonder I barely read this site anymore.
Making the texts searchable - provided they only show a small snippet and a reference to the book for the rest - sounds EXACTLY like fair use to me.
Especially for academic papers, where being able to find the reference is critical to advancement of the field, and the citer would have to obtain and read more than the snippet anyhow.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If the journals don't like being published online by google, they will stop publishing, fizzle, and something else will come and replace them...
Now if only the RIAA/MPAA would have the same fate... Google, help me out here!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
So if I understand correctly, group of "non-profit" publishers is worried this will have negative effect on their potential profit?
Exactly. You may lose some sales by making it available over the internet, but most people want to read a book in hand. Reading hundreds of pages at the computer screen is not my idea of fun (or comfort).
Besides, most of these academic presses end up selling books to libraries, who will always have a hard copy on hand in case people do want to read the physical copy. A good example of this can be seen in the academic journals available online. The journals are available in both electronic and hard copy at the same time.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
Non-profit doesn't mean No-money-at-all. They still have to pay for the ink, paper, binding, (possibly)writers, rental space, light bulbs, heat... Or do you expect these people to donate money to something they're working on for free?
Also, very frequently, non-profit organizations pay their workers. Where do you think that money comes from?
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
With a caveat...that author chooses to have his books in digital format to give for free. Again, he *chooses*. Each author/publisher should have the right to choose.
Google, in the end, is making a profit from offering this service. So there plans to scan these copies (at no direct monetary benefit to the author/publisher), make them available *for free*, and they make a profit... That is a bit unfair...and even if they didn't make a profit - the author should still have a say. A lot of people put time and effort and it is their right to choose - not some third parties right.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
For the sake of argument lets just say that you cannot have the book from library for ever (well may be by paying a fortune in fines), so just add that DMCA crap or something and give me the text for a week. I don't see how Google is stopping people from buying books. Its not like average joe says - "Oh jeez I gotta go to library, I might as well head to mall and buy the book from BN"
How dare Google make information more readily available to the general public while reducing the need to use physical resources at the same time! How dare they!
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
The library: You are borrowing the book and must return it
If you really liked the work you had to buy your own version.
Digital Copy: You have a free digital copy. Now the only incentive into buying the work is so you have a physical book in your house - which, in and of itself is not enough reason for many people.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
of course universities would hate a freely searchable index ... means they can't sell the 17th edition of "Introductory Number Theory" or something equally trivial [and well covered in the textbooks spanning the last CENTURY]...
... last I checked Calculus hasn't changed that much [specially at the level 1/2 levels] in the last century to require a 2nd edition let alone a 7th.
If you can look up quotes/citations/etc without shelling out for overly expensive dead trees... they'd lose their valuable money pit.
Personally I'm glad to be out of College. Not that I bought the books while I was there [well the ones I could avoid I did]. Even in my community college we had 7th edition level 1 and 2 calculus books
To me "7th edition" says two things. Purposeful re-write and "sloppy editors".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Google makes it extremely clear that they won't be violating copyrights. So what more do these publishers want?
Perhaps they just want to cast a pall of doubt over something that (quite legally) diminishes their reasons for existing.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
I am sorry but I feel no pity for the Universities and book publishers. They 'make money' on selling the same recycled crap year after year and calling each one a new edition.
I think the key here is that the typical use pattern for academic works is different than for works intended for the general public. Frequently the reader of an academic journal is interested only in a specific fact, and they will often be able to glean this fact from the small amount of context provided in the Google search results. This threatens the revenue model of academic journal publishers, which is a form of bundling, namely, charging the university libraries for the whole journal or for several related journals put out by the same publisher.
Totally. Not. The. Issue. If the works google is adding to the database are copyrighted, then they should only be reproduced by google under fair use terms. That means small snippets for search purposes (so if you find a reference in a book, you can make sure it is in the right context). Regardless of what the publisher's business model is, or what it should be, they own the copyrights and as such, largely get to dictate how the works are copied.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
The key is the "small snippets" and how they're given out. TFA didn't say, but I suspect that the questions that they sent to Google concern how Google is going to keep people from coercing Google into giving them the whole book a piece at a time.
It's been done before; some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were first released because somebody reverse-engineered a concordance. One could imagine somebody writing software to pull up part of a book, then search on the last sentenece of each snippet to get it to reveal some more (as context). Repeat and get the whole book.
It might not be all that simple or all that effective, but publishers do have a right to worry about the possibility. It takes a lot of work to publish a book, and it would be nice if Google were able to give them some assurance that it wouldn't become common for people to get the books for free.
Even without that, even publishing small snippets of reference books can be problematic. Sometimes you only want a short snippet of the book at a time, and the rest of the book goes unused. The publisher spends money assembling the whole book, so they want you to pay for all of it (amortizing the cost), or at least use the library's copy (which can be very expensive if they expect to sell only to libraries).
Personally, I'd like to see Google honor a publisher's request not to index a book, the same way google honors the robots.txt file. If they're losing sales that they might otherwise get via Google's free advertising, that's their own lookout.
If copyrights holders had their way, there would be no libraries. Libraries usually buy one copy of a book and let multiple read it without paying additional royalties to the copyright holder. It is only through the Doctrine of First Sale that libraries are even allowed to do this. Although some academic publishers do make much of their money selling books to libraries, there has always been a somewhat conflicting relationship between libraries and book sellers, who would rather sell lots of copies to individuals than a few to libraries.
I think the goal was more along the lines of cultural enrichment, but perhaps that is an outdated idea.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
The point is moot. Google is only going to offer those works that are out of copyright (70 years after the death of the author I *think*) so no one should be making money off them in the first place.
i thought they were only putting up books that didnt have authors because they were dead and their copyrights ran out in the 1920s or something. those non-profit companies are also third parties, what gives them the right to hoard great literary art?
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
The market for fiction and the market for academic journals aren't exactly comparable, especially in this context. Have you ever heard somebody say, "Dude, you must read Am. J. Chem. Bio. pages 133-137!!!"? I doubt it. But even if you have, that doesn't result in a purchase. It results in a print-out or a copy from an institutional subscription that already existed.
Personally, I've never heard of word of mouth (based on content) resulting in an institutional subscription.
There's a serious problem here in inviting publishers to submit their material. Publishers seem eager to submit their reprints -- for which they only have copyright over the book's design -- of public domain works. As a result, completely free works are listed in Google Print as "Copyrighted Material" -- in turn, allowing the publisher to misappropriate copyright w/in G. Print over written material they do not have copyright over.
See, for example, The Canterbury Tales in Google Print. This was written in the 1300s. I would very much like to see Penguin's proof of copyright over the works of Chaucer, who died in 1400.
Likewise, see Romeo and Juliet , written by Shakespeare, who died in 1616. Or The Legend of Sleepy Hollow , first published in 1819. Clearly no present-day entity has copyright over any of these works. Regardless, the publishers who have submitted their versions of them are able to enforce a 3-page-view limit on them without legal right to do so.
Google Print should be scrapped, and instead, the spotlight shined on Project Gutenberg.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Q: Who said that Google was giving away free copies of books?
A: Nobody!
I believe what they intend to do is:
Google isn't some magic fairy company that is above copyright law, and Google isn't dumb either. This is probably just another example of an idiot scared of a disruptive technology crying wolf. Google's new feature will probably just bolster book sales for these folks in the long run (and the short run too!).
That is because, usually, the author is selling his/her license to the publishers who provide the upfront money to produce the books/pay the author. If the author produced the books on his own, he would have more of a say, but since he is essentially a paid contractor he has less of a say. It is a trade off...and one made willingly. Authors do not have the same excuse as some people give to musicians - authors I would expect are a bit smarter and can read their contracts.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
why? if the work being 'published' is either not copyrighted or public domain, why should they pay?
If someone sees his business model threatened by that, well, time to think of a new way to make money.
You can't stop this kind of thing (which would significantly facilitate access to information and benefit society in many ways) just because it hurts someone's sales.
As someone said before, where would we be now if the pony express had managed to outlaw the telegraph because it 'hurt' its sales?
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
"By having all of these publications online, people will have a digital copy of them for free. This *will* hinder book sales."
So being able to search a book, but not being able to read it will hinder book sales how?
What magic do you possess that will let you get a copy of the book from google for free?
"While some people might want the nice hardbound copy - most people will just settle for the digital copy which is just as good."
Except you can't get a digital copy from google, just a link to buy the book.
Oh I see what you're saying. Now that I'll be able to tell whether or not a book has the information I'm looking for, I won't be forced to buy a book I didn't want in the first place because the description was misleading. That *will* lead to less book sales.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
About a month ago I was talking to my wife (a librarian) about the prospect of these books being available for electronic "readers". Basically a tablet you could download the books to and read. I thought it would be great if the display was good enough.
She looked at me like I was some kind of alien or something.
Apparently for some people, the tactile (feel of the paper & book), auditory (sound of the pages turning) and olfactory (smell of the book) senses are all part of the "reading experience". And they take it serious!
I just had to ask her if she really preferred to spend her time with heavy, smelly things that mostly just sit around and take up space.
She just mentioned something about being married to me.
The original motivation for libraries was to keep books in them. The only copy. Since copying books was a long, expensive, and laborious process for all but the last 600 years of human history.
The modern purpose of libraries depends on who set up the library and why, but among the typical motivations are:
There's a theme here. The public library exists to provide access to knowledge and information. I've never heard it said that libraries exist as an extension of the publishing industry. In truth, something like a library is a bit misplaced in a capitalistic society, but we've determined that the benefits of its existance far outweigh the hassle it is to deal with in our economy.
The internet, however, has changed that formula. You are not permitted to check a book out from the library and make 1,000 copies of it. You are also not permitted to distribute digital copies of the contents.
Again, there is no fundamental difference between what the Internet has done to these issues and was possible before. The Internet and digitalization technologies have merely reduced to the energy barrier so far that near-perfect replicas of most media can be created with literally the push of a button, and distributed nearly as easily.
Unfortunately for the copyright owners, this seriously threatens a business model that has served them well for generations and they must find a way to protect their property. Unfortunately for us, the way most have chosen is suiting us into oblivion and trying to jam legislation through our government that is intended to deter criminal behavior but mostly just makes life inconvenient and annoying for the majority of us who are doing no wrong.
When the innocent masses must compromise their liberty at the whims of a few powerful individuals who are motivated by "stopping the bad guys," we've taken the first step onto a bad road.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Being able to read a contract doesn't help when they all say "We own you". It's an industry standard contract and they like it that way.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Plus they don't go obsolete.
They don't require special equipment or power sources to use.
One book is very cheap compared to a digital book reader.
Can be dropped, kicked, thrown, sat on, with no real damage.
Can be partially destroyed without total data loss.
Can even stand a fair amount of water damage, with proper care for recovery.
Books don't have all the advantages, but they sure do have some real big ones.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The problem with e-books is that good hardware simply isn't available yet. I've read hundreds of e-books on various notebooks and palmtops and currently I use a Palm Tungsten E. It's acceptable, but the screen is very small and the battery doesn't last anywhere near enough - sometimes I have to recharge twice in the same day in the middle of a long book. 32 MB isn't much but it's enough to have a couple of dozen fiction e-books and a few technical books, too.
When the hardware improves (preferably on a DRM-free reader), I'm sure a lot of people will switch to e-books. It is a fad already in Japan, using smart-phones.
If you remember back when digital cameras where starting, there were a lot of people who insisted they'd never catch on - the resolution would never be enough compared to film, no one will want a photo on a screen, etc.
And we all know how that prediction turned out.
Of course there will always be the paper book lovers that like the media more than the content... But they will probably be a fringe group, when decent hardware is available and everyone else is used to the idea.
That is because, usually, the author is selling his/her license to the publishers who provide the upfront money to produce the books/pay the author.
At least with peer-reviewed journals, that does not hold true. The author usually has to actually pay to have their submissions printed in such publications.
For textbooks, it depends. For few-author textbooks, the author makes a few bucks, so your argument holds. For the sort of textbooks with dozens of authors, in some cases the authors don't even know they have their name attached to the book, and those who do usually get "non-financial compensation" only, ie, no cash but they can list the book on their CV as a publication.
Don't mistake the world of academic publishing for the "real" world of publishing. Academics publish for fame, not fortune, and the leeches that do the physical printing get to rob both ends of the process (thus the massive interest in purely on-line peer-reviewed journals, with a massive backlash by traditional journal publishers such as Elsevier).
Sure, but why do we still need university presses in the era of personal electronic publication? The idea behind a university press is distribution -- but that need has been now filled by technological advances. Let the scholars publish their material using their normal desktop tools. To allow university presses to continue as revenue sources amounts to nothing more than an ill-gotten tax / rent.
Yes, traditional modes of distribution have changed and jobs (and owner revenue streams) are being displaced. Boo hoo.
Unless I read this incorrectly, this goes completely against what copyrights were intended for. Copyrights were not about ensuring that the creator wuld make money, but instead that the legal monopoly they provide will encourage them to create and be creative, and/or bring further reasearch and information public. With copyrights lasting beyond what is needed, sometimes for 100yrs+ easily now, and the fact that people now care more about using copyrights for financial gain instead, we can say goodbye to conventional copyrights... for now.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I am in graduate school and when my boss says 'hey, read this book' i have to drop about 100 bucks on a book.. that is, if Dover publishing hasn't made an older text on the subject available for 12 dollars instead of 112 dollars.
I dont think that google providing free access for books is the solution, but i KNOW that paying some university publishing company 100 bucks for a book that i might read once isn't the awnser.
yeh and when your copyright ends in 70 years or whenever and your work becomes public domain and google v3 puts your stuff up on the net, no one will need to go to the library to read it. if you index something it doesn't mean you will show all of it, the work will just be searchable. and these are non-profit why do they have a financial stategy other than "don't go bankrupt"?
i suggest you read print.google.com before acting like google is trying to rip off all the poor authors
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
>> >>Plus they don't go obsolete.
>>No, they decompose
Very slowly, which is why the original Domesday Book from 1086 is still perfectly readable, while the "new" BBC Domesday "book" (on laserdisc) from 1986 needed to have special emulators written so that we could still read it, less than 20 years later.