Slashdot Mirror
Google Book Search Settlement Receiving Criticism
waderoush writes "While James Gleick, Lawrence Lessig, and other pundits have reacted positively to this week's proposed settlement of the publishing industry's lawsuit against Google over the Google Book Search project, a deeper study of the agreement turns up some worrisome provisions that could make online access to books much more costly and difficult than it needs to be. Harvard University's libraries, for example, declined to endorse the settlement over concerns that it provides no mechanism for keeping the cost of access to books reasonable. And while the parties to the settlement have made much of the clause providing public libraries with free full-text access to Google's database of over 7 million out-of-print books, Xconomy has a post pointing out that this access is restricted to exactly one Google terminal per library. So, you can read books for free — as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
"So, you can read books for free -- as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
Or, y'know, if you... check out a copy of the book. 'cause that's what libraries are for.
"So, you can read books for free â" as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
It's much worse than that. If you were to read those same books electronically from the comfort and convenience of your own home, then your eyeballs would explode and your body would spontaneously combust, possibly killing your entire family and burning down your house. At least that's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for why I would have to sit in front of a computer in the library to access an online resource instead of using my own computer.
Better known as 318230.
Just create virtual libraries for one.
Problem solved.
The right to read.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I wonder if there is a stipulation on what defines a library. Perhaps it's time to open my own, new, single computer library in my house. Of course membership would be somewhat limited.
This is where inter-library loans are great, a little wait, but free access to most books and journals that aren't ridiculously rare, without any cost.
"...Xconomy has a post pointing out that this access is restricted to exactly one Google terminal per library. So, you can read books for free â" as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
OK and if I want to access one of my libraries databases on CDROM how would that be different than this?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Well, maybe libraries need to build a string of tiny booths outdoors, each with a little consecutively numbered sign: Library 0, Library 1...Library N and one terminal, comfortable chair and window in each of them. It would seem to meet the letter of the agreement. ;-)
I've been reading Lessig's Free Culture (available online somewhere; I have a local copy). From the preface:
He's no Isaac Asimov; the book isn't exactly gripping, but what he has to say is incredibly important.
Ironically, searching Google Books for Lessig's freely available book yields this: "This is a preview. The total pages displayed will be limited."
You can read/download it here at. Here is a PDF version.
Free Martian Whores!
Look...everybody here should be familiar with basic logic...
Google's own policy is "don't be evil"
The Slashdot article implies that Google is evil.
Therefore the Slashdot article is wrong.
Simple predicate logic.
If I pull the book via some cURL-like software to my flash drive, is that "reading" it online?
I just finished a term paper for University on this very subject, my argument and topic of discussion was why an online book resource and/or library differs from a traditional library.
If Google were to purchase a copy of a book and lend it out electronically, and a library were to purchase a copy of a book and lend it out physically how do they differ?
The main difference is that the library likely has only one copy and only one copy can be borrowed at a time. If they were to have more than one copy they could thus lend out more at one time but would thus have to pay for each additional copy. Google, on the other hand, has purchased one copy of a book which can be borrowed simultaneously by X number of people around the world without the need to purchase additional copies.
The issue of volumes being out of print should be of no direct concern to the publishing industry. They have no desire or need to republish the book, hence it being out of print, so it really should just become part of the public domain and freely available to anyone who wishes to read it.
Of course the problem with that is that the price of rare out of print book sales might be effected negatively. There is no easy answer, just a more preferable one depending on which side of the fence you are on.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
when your google, and putting up the settlement cash then you can dictate terms.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Do these 7 million out-of-print books include porno mags? I'd love to see Marilyn Monroe pop up while searching the archives!
"Mama always said life was like a box a chocolates, never know what you're gonna get" - Forest Gump
The reading issue is better addressed with Congress than it is the publishing industry. Sure, the publishing industry has a lot more friends in Congress than the public seems to, but ultimately, the best solution is not to hope that a large company can force the industry into favorable terms, it is reasonable terms for copyright.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
What I said in it was that not everyone agrees on what 'evil' means anyhow. One man's evil is another man's justice.
My blog
I think it will become clear that the public access terminals are a tiny part of the program as it evolves. What most readers will see will be a tremendous expansion their ability to browse, consult, and even read books online--particularly the huge reservoir of books that are still copyrighted but out of print.
It won't always be free, so some will always complain. Still ...
I'm really not a pundit, but an author. I have an interest. I'm on the board of the Authors Guild, and worked hard on this, so you may take what I say with the appropriate grain of salt. But I can tell you that everyone involved, whatever their differences, cared profoundly about readers above all.
I agree with that, too. I consider the death penalty to be barbaric as well as evil, some consider it justice. As they say, one man's meat is another man's poison.
Free Martian Whores!
Why do people keep thinking out of print means impossible to find, not being sold, etc?
OUT OF PRINT means it's NOT BEING PRINTED.
Current copies can be sold.
If those are gone (VERY rarely does a book actually sell out. Even rarer is a book selling out, and a publisher not immediately printing more.), the used market kicks in.
Libraries are just that - LIBRARIES. They collect books, and they just happen to let you check them out for a while.
Books go out of print and are reprinted later all the time. They are printed for different countries. They are collected into compilations or collections, which are printed when finished. They are updated by the author, and a new revision is printed. They are reprinted when the author writes a new book or a sequel, wins an award, dies, the book is turned into a movie, etc.
Out of print means just that.
There is currently not a printing press making new copies of the book. Copies are often hard to acquire from a store, and maybe even a library. But all you nerds have this thing called the internet where you can get together and buy and trade things.
I seem to recall a certain website named after a certain river/rain forest/tribe of warrior women getting it's fucking start by making is vastly easier to access books in general.
No really. I doubt it was their intention to launch this program just to be sued. Considering you can find almost any book through google, even in audio format, for free... I think they did a pretty good job. They are not evil. They are more like "ok, ok guys, just don't poke us with sticks" while usable code from book project is already in main search engine itself.
We let the RIAA and the MPAA bully us, and now the print publishers want a slice of the pie. Public libraries put them in their place years ago, but as we take things to the digital age, they are going to try to restrict things again. Intelectual rights reforms are more important now than they have ever been.
The library can just operate several terminals behind a NAT router.
God provides the meat. The devil provides the cooks.
You're all gonna regret these attacks on Google when the books start burning.
Nice. A Redundant Array of Independent Libraries. Good idea.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
One google terminal should be enough for everybody.
What's happening now is that large publishers are increasingly scanning their own reference-book back-catalogues, so that any further short-run printing can be done using "print on demand" technology.
Most (if not all) of the university presses have been converting their catalogues to POD for years. So if you want to order an obscure technical work on satellite electronics or sewer maintenance, and the book had a limited print run (say, just enough to sell a copy to every educational institution that'd need a copy), then what you'll tend to find when you order a copy from Amazon is that the book that they send you will have been printed off specially in response to your order, on a great big industrial laser printer.
If you order a book from Amazon.com and track your order status online, and you find that it's being sent to you from somewhere in Tennessee, then chances are it's not actually coming from a warehouse ... it's being printed off specially by a company called Lightning Source. They have a big plant in Tennessee that's hooked into Amazon's ordering system, and when you order a book that's on their database, they print one off and put it into an "Amazon" box, with an Amazon receipt, and post it to you on Amazon's behalf.
Eric Baird
I don't know if the clause still exists. I guess that part of the problem with enforcing it was that although publication dates of individual printings are easily established, there's no corresponding "official" date for unavailability. If a book hasn't been printed for fifty years, but the publisher still has one copy on a shelf somewhere that they're willing to sell under duress, then technically its probably still "in print".
Eric Baird