Slashdot Mirror
Google's Struggle To Reach Authors — of Every Book Ever Written
eldavojohn writes "There's no lack of news surrounding the settlement of Google's controversial move to digitize books — but how do you even start this endeavor? A New York Times story reveals the obstacles they face just to get the word out that they want to settle with publishers and authors everywhere. They turned to a world-wide ad campaign to start the $125 million settlement process and they're spending $7 million to $8 million in paper print ads and telephone hot-lines (handling 80+ languages) to reach as many people as possible. From the article: 'We looked at how many books were published in various areas and we knew from the plaintiffs and Google that 30 percent were published in the US, 30 percent in industrialized countries. The rest of the world is the rest.' That's quite the herculean task! Hopefully Google's efforts in digitizing books will breathe new life and revenue into authors and publishers the world over."
In other news, Aesop was unavailable for comment, Hans Christian Anderson is too busy being sued by the MPAA for street performances, and Shakespere may owe SCO royalties.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Maybe. Probably a better question is why are we allowing google to continue doing this at all? Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out? Shouldn't it have always been that way?
I can understand indexing web based content that is already on line and publicly accessible, but if I write a book, I want to be in control of where, when, and how it gets presented to the reader, at least initially anyway. I don't mind (or care) what an individual does once it's 'out there' - from format shifting to selling it at a used book store or giving away. I'm not so keen on the idea of google making a copy for the entire world to readily view a large chunk of it all.
Sure google could probably make me more money through exposure that I might not otherwise have, but shouldn't that be my choice?
Maybe. Probably a better question is why are we allowing google to continue doing this at all? Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out? Shouldn't it have always been that way?
I am not an author, so I don't know, but.
Are libraries required to ask permission of the author to offer their books? I have to imagine not.
This brings up a very interesting topic for debate...thinking about digital libraries, that is. Why, legally, can a dead-tree library exist, but a digital one cannot? Why can I not get digitized books for free on my Kindle?
I would have absolutely no problem at all with a DRM-locked file that sits on my kindle one at a time. I only get to keep one (or two or 3 or 20 or whatever *your* local library has at its limit) at a time, and only get a new one if I delete the old one etc. etc. etc.
Are there laws that explicitly allow dead-tree libraries, but forbid digital ones?
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.