Slashdot Mirror
Google's Plan For Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged
Death Metal writes to tell us that a growing tide of complaints are being piled at Google's feet in response to a far-reaching settlement that some feel will grant the giant too much power over the "orphan books" they have been scanning into digital format. The settlement could give Google near-exclusivity with respect to the copyright of orphan works — books that the author and publisher have essentially abandoned. They are out of print, and while they remain under copyright, the rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. "Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information. And without competition, they say, Google will be able to charge universities and others high prices for access to its database. The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly.'"
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly.'
Why is it that books -- of all things -- should be the last thing to be digitized?
... I'm not even going to get into the jump they
see in sales when their books are digitized.
Your resistance is futile. It perplexes me that you -- a university librarian -- cannot see what is so obvious to me but I will spoon feed it to you. We live in a capitalistic society where supply rises to meet demand. I am a ravenous consumer of books and for sometime have desired an all-encompassing repository of books. You, the writers guilds, the publishers, the industry as a whole have failed to meet this demand for sometime now. Unfortunately for you, the early bird gets the worm. The early bird being Google, the worm being my rewarding eyeballs and possibly pocketbook. I may have been the minority of your consumers but that has changed and it is no longer you against a few nerds. It's you against the world. You will lose. Your industry has successfully prevented this. Why, I'm not quite sure. Greed? Stupidity? There are so many good words to pick from.
You will have to forgive me when I lack sympathy for your position on the books your archaic publishing system fails to make available to me. Oh no, no one will ever be able to publish them now! Alas, woe is me. Instead of being permanently unavailable to me, they will soon be available to everyone
If Google's inevitable monopoly is nigh, why don't you draw up your own business plan to garner venture capital and get all the universities to back you on it? Google's taking a risk and in the end, it's going to be good for the end consumer.
Either shit or get off the toilet. You had your chance, you squandered it. This should have been started almost a decade ago and completed five years ago. I'm sick and tired of the greed factor inhibiting such a useful tool for mankind. As head of an ivy league university library, I would have guessed support for what could well be the modern digital version of Alexandria before it was burned. I'm shocked a librarian would take this stance.
My work here is dung.
It seems fine that Google could sell the books if the existing copyright has expired or can't be upheld. But there should be no problem with someone else downloading the material and reselling it or giving it out or copying it. Once the copyright expires, doesn't the work go into the public domain? Google can charge for access, but they can't charge for the work persay.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Honestly, this seems like Google-bashing for its own sake. Who else is making a serious effort to get a hold of these orphan books and put them out there? Last I checked, absolutely no one.
If the choice is a monopoly over the digitized copy of these books, or letting them fade into obscurity un-digitized, do we really want to choose option B?
If these books are truly orphaned, it would be vastly preferable if Google were able to find it in themselves to donate some of their vast resources to putting the works up on Project Gutenberg.
That would go a long way towards telling the world that their intentions are honest.
While the creation of such a database would be a good thing, in my mind, I do not think it anyone should have sole control of the works contained there in; at least not for very long. I admire and respect the financial burden such a system will cost to create and maintain, particularity during the starting phases.
However I feel that if Google are to be given any rights over works as the ones mentioned then it should be for a limited time only. Perhaps as a reward for taking the initiate and as way for them to profit from their endeavour. But as I said, only for, say 5-10 years, after that the rights to any such material should be freely available to everyone.
In any regards I would consider any sort of long-term or permanent rights given to Google would be a very bad thing.
The Long Now Foundation
I would say that a monopoly of one is better than a monopoly of zero...
I fail to see the problem. It is not as if Google is taking away the card catalogs or the inter-library loan system or anything else. It is simply adding to the existing access abilities. The libraries are afraid that Google will charge too much for access? Libraries do not buy the access and can continue to use what they have today.
Your rant may well be spot on in terms of the general attitude of librarians. But please note what the man actually said:
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly
Given that specific bit you quote, the man is concerned about Google being the exclusive source of access to these books; he's not expressing fear that his industry is going away, but that what's replacing it will have less freedom of access. You can debate if that's the case or not, but at least address what the man's talking about.
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,
Funny. It sounds like Google is going to steal the soul of these book and jail them in their databases. Hehe. There is no logic in this argument. The books are still available at the respective libraries. What is the problem in making them available at other place?
Instead of bashing someone who decides to spend the money to implement a solution, why don't you just compete with them. Scan these books yourself and offer them online.
Oh, you don't have the financial resources to pull that off and you cannot get any backers? Well, I guess you really have nothing to say then.
Nothing to see here...move along.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
What's preventing others from scanning those same books again? Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but that's exactly why Google should be allowed to ask for whatever the market is willing to bear.
The only problem I can see if various ideas for the copyright protection of databases come to pass. Then Google could indeed have a perpetual monopoly for their list of orphaned copies.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Pwning Dickens is just the start. I don't think even Annie is safe.
Libraries often compete with one another on collections. They strive to be the foremost collection on some topic, maybe it's 17th century farming techniques, or modern optics. They compete and they gather rich alumni at major universities to donate private works and give them money to expand their very special collections.
Now along comes Google. Scanning books and keeping copyright on works that have been long abandoned. Some Universities were happy to take Google's money to be part of the scanning project, but now some want to turn and bite that hand.
If I can find a long since out of print book that no library has, or at least that no library would dare loan me, online and in a reproducible format - explain to me how that is different from assembling a rare collection in a library? Explain how the term monopoly is used in this context, because I do not think that word means what Senor Darnton from Hahh-vahhd thinks it means.
Google is adding to the diversity of publications in the world, and giving it to mankind. What they are doing, IN ACTUALITY, is removing the monopoly that university libraries once had. So I can see why they might be upset about it.
The implication is that Google is destroying said books after scanning. The problem is that no one nowhere has actually said this.
AFAICT there is nothing stopping another entity from creating their own copyrightable anthology of orphaned works. Simplistic solution, yet not impossible to achieve in the real world.
It also helps to highlight one of the major issues with the long length of copyright in the United States. Given that information is owned by the Public once it is produced and We the Public actually limit our own rights to reproduce a work for a limited period of time in the form of copyright, isn't someone witholding the work or getting this effort tangled up actually a violation of the spirit of the agreement between the creator and the Public?
In that sense, I think what google is doing is Right. In the interest of the Public their actions will do more to promote mankind than the perversion that copyright has become in the United States.
When it comes to Google's right to reproduce such works for profit, I become hesitant, but my level of fear from this sort of action only rises to a level I might call 'slight concern'. I HOPE that Google's effort succeeds. If they end up being able to charge a reasonable (w/ respect to cost) amount for the imaging, processing, storing, and production of this database, I think that would be more than fair.
Our Government should have done this years ago.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
What is preventing anyone from rescanning the books or getting a similar agree? Personally, I often scan important journal articles that aren't already electronic and often chapters of books that are popular amongst researchers yet hard to find.
"Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information. And without competition, they say, Google will be able to charge universities and others high prices for access to its database."
So is Google burning the books after they've scanned them?
To orphaned books? How exactly does Google do this? If the rights holders can't be identified, I mean? If Google thinks it can scan them and make them available (on line or otherwise), fine. That might be the only way we have to gain access to some of these works. But I don't see how Google can stop a third party from scanning a copy themselves. And making it available at competitive rates wrt Google's.
Now, I can see a problem if Google manages to obtain all (or most) of the copies of a certain work, making it impossible for others to scan it or even read it. But that will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The monopolization will have to be balanced against the value of access to the public. And for extremely rare books, the access provided by Google may outweigh the monopoly. Odds are that the public was never going to get to see a hard copy anyway.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are books that no one is printing anymore, we all know this, and most of us have probably wanted one at some time or another. Here is Google putting together a solution, and people are bitching? I understand the general complain of 'monopoly', but as other people have stated they aren't destroying the other books out there. If it's in a library and you don't want to pay Google, go look it up in the library.
As for the other people who are complaining, again, go start a business and start digitizing them yourself. At face value I don't see a problem with this, they have the means to fill a niche that no one else wants/can. Why aren't publishers already doing all this? I should be able to go to a publisher's website and purchase/download any book they have rights to, but they don't, so let Google step in and attempt to create a new market.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
"Some of Google's rivals are clearly interested in the settlement's fate. Microsoft is helping to finance the research on the settlement at the New York Law School institute. James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the institute, said its work was not influenced by Microsoft. Microsoft confirmed this but declined to comment further."
Microsoft used to grow by buying or copying what others do, but it doesn't work with Google. It didn't work trying to copy its search functionality, or its maps functionality (M$ has a negligible share of both markets) so what they do is trying to destroy google's business. They don't even try to compete anymore.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
NOBODY CAN!
Damn, and I was really looking forward to the 1939 edition of "Cooking with possums."
So, is Google asserting copyright on the scans of the books whose copyright Google doesn't own? Could I just copy and redistribute Google's scan of the book? After all, I have as much claim to the book as Google, and the scan itself is not a creative work.
People, you live under a government that believes public property is a public nuisance and liability. Ownership creates both liability and responsibility, which are critical tools to governmental use and control of a thing. If they could, they'd legislate a tax on air consumption, because air shouldn't be free (they've already done this on food and water, but air remains elusive). Even at that, we have air quality standards and emissions controls and all this talk about global warming. Even things that have no real physical counterpart (copyrights on digital copies of things) still adhere to this concept of "no public ownership".
All Google is doing is fulfilling your government's vision of having everything owned.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Those books are not yours. That's the fundamental thing. THAT PROPERTY IS NOT YOURS. If I am Joe author of a book, and Google scans it, I have every right to demand Google yank it back out. Convenience is not an excuse to violate civil rights.
This is my sig.
For some reason, I'm thinking about the story of the dog in the manger. Would they rather see the books vanish into obscurity than be digitized by Google?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Does anyone know how Google managed to get exclusive rights to orphaned books especially when, by definition, the owners of the materials weren't present for any negotiations?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
What a load of FUD!
- Google isn't charging for access.
- Universities do charge for access (or membership).
- Why wouldn't libraries find their own copies of orphaned books and include them in their catalog?
What is really in danger here is the university library business model: charge a premium for things that should be open to the public.
Far too many establishments seek to control access to information / and thus knowledge. I for one hope Google scans as many books/papers as possible. At least we'd be able to find them.
"no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create"
Um, why not? If something is *out* of copyright entirely (not merely out of print, but actually in the public domain because the copyright term has expired) what exactly is stopping competitors from copying the same book and putting it on the web? I've seen plenty of examples of 19th-century books done that way -- people interested in those works sitting down with a scanner and laboriously scanning each page, then putting them on the web. Google a monopoly? Hardly, when every shmoe with a copy of the book and a scanner can duplicate it.
Oh, and university libraries are the *last* people that should be complaining about this, given that they're the ones with huge collections and they COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING decades ago, and still could now, if they wanted to serve their customers better. Years ago they should have gotten off their lazy posteriors and scanned *everything* in their library that is out of copyright. EVERYTHING. It means they could put the books in long-term storage (save money on shelf space), preserve the books better (no broken brittle paper or book bindings from further handling), and deliver copies of these old and rare works via interlibrary loan at far less expense and time (and wear-and-tear) than running them through a photocopier over and over again. At the very least they should be doing this only once, and then saving the copy digitally. It's freaking obvious.
Now they want to complain because google is doing their job for them? Sure, there's an important legal difference between "orphan works" and "copyright expired", but, really, why couldn't libraries have pushed for more flexibility with "orphan works" a long time ago? Some kind of broad, general license could have been negotiated. And why haven't they generally made all expired works available electronically, and let google walk into the market unchallenged?
There's hardly grounds for complaining about something they should have been doing a long time ago.
At the time the publishers and authors complained and sued Google, there were warnings about this happening. But the publishers and authors, who regard our pocketbooks as their property, were satisfied with the bribe... er... settlment Google offered. And only NOW, after the Big G fought alone on this front, are they complaining.
Just curious, is the tale of the Little Red Hen, who could find no help with planting, cultivating and harvesting the corn that everybody who hadn't helped wanted to eat when the work was done, in the public domain? Send a copy to the complainers and require reciting it verbatim from memory as a requirement for filing any complaints.
This is a non-issue.
"And he said that nothing prevented a potential rival from following in its footsteps â" namely, by scanning books without explicit permission, waiting to be sued and working to secure a similar settlement. "
If the library association, or other large literary institutes wants (what they feel is) a more open version of the database, by all means, get to work scanning the millions of books.
It is not like the paper copies are going to be under lock and key at Google. Google is creating a vast digital copy of them. And providing that copy in various forms as a service that is paid for by advertising, licensing the copy to universities, and FREE to local libraries on one computer.
If you don't want to pay Google's alleged "high prices" for copies of out of print books, then go to the library and scan them yourself. Or pay someone else to do it. Problem solved. Next please!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Seriously, what the hell? As many posters said before me, it's not Google's fault that books like these are not more widely available...
When my university library made a deal with Google Books to have everything scanned, part of the deal was that Google delivered an electronic copy of everything they scanned TO THE LIBRARY ITSELF. That way, libraries can organize the information in any way they see fit, unlike the popularity contest/keyword search that Google excels in.
Sounds like lies to me.
"Now millions of orphan books may get a new legal guardian"
.. But what does raise an eyebrow is the source of New York Law's funding on this matter: Microsoft. The chief investigator of the New York Law School project is James Grimmelmann. In an earlier career phase, associate law professor Grimmelmann worked as a programmer for Microsoft'
Where in the text of the settlement is ownership transferred exclusively to Google?
"Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information"
Where in this settlement does it forbid anyone else creating an online archive of orphan works, Project Gutenberg for instance. Would one source of this spontaneous concern be out of Redmond?
'at least one party nudging its way into the settlement is an Internet-issues oriented group from New York Law School
davecb5620@gmail.com
While the registry's agreement with Google is not exclusive, the registry will be allowed to license to others only the books whose authors and publishers have explicitly authorized it. Since no such authorization is possible for orphan works, only Google would have access to them, so only Google could assemble a truly comprehensive book database.
"No other company can realistically get an equivalent license," said Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.
Her analysis of Sony V. Universal is required reading. Other articles can be found here
How do you make the case for a monopoly when it is an emerging "industry"? That would be like Hot-Air balloon makers saying, "since no one else in our industry has the capacity or desire to make a heavier-than-air flying machine, The Wright Bros. will be a Monopoly if we don't prevent them from flying!" Besides, I doubt Google will actually charge anybody, they make their money off of advertising, and who is to say another company can't scan the same orphaned works themselves?
There seem to be two classes of work in question here. One is out of print works for whom the rightsholders are identified. The other is what is being called "orphaned" works, for whom the rightsholders cannot be identified. The identified works are being non-exclusively licensed to Google and a new Books Rights Registry. The complaint seems to be over the non-identified works; if no one claims them, the Books Rights Registry won't sublicense them, so only Google can use them.
This wouldn't be a problem in itself; under normal circumstances, Google couldn't use those books anyway unless it was willing to risk a copyright lawsuit when the rightsholder came forward. But this _class action_ settlement changes that. Not only does it settle any claims from those authors and publishers involved in the suit, but it settles future claims from every other author and publisher who may have a complaint about those books in the future. But only for Google. So if Google wants to provide access to an orphaned work, they can do so without risk of copyright penalties. If anyone else scans and provides access to that same work, they could be hit with a copyright suit if the missing rightsholder comes forward.
Google isn't exactly being evil here. But they are solving a major problem (orphaned works) in such a way that the solution benefits only themselves. And it is, IMO, a misuse of the class action process.
If this doesn't cause all large publishers to steal the idea and add digitized, "out of print books" to a section of thier websites, then they deserve what they get. Publishers were just handed a fantastic business plan to expand thier companies. I'll bet that they don't do anything but hire lawyers.
"Instead of bashing someone who decides to spend the money to implement a solution, why don't you just compete with them. Scan these books yourself and offer them online."
The only "problem" that Google is attempting to solve is how to make more money for Google. Nobody has been clamoring for these books to be scanned.
If he has copies of out-of-print books and he is worried about a monopoly, why doesn't he start off a little project of scanning them himself, or allow some students to do it.
Seems like a quick solution to his worries to me.
Just because someone else can try, doesn't mean that someone else is likely to succeed.
Google has a deal with publishers for the publishers' non-orphan works. They have access to all of the orphan works.
Someone else trying to get into the game would have to scan everything, and get a deal with the publishers for the non-orphan works.
So the writing is on the wall, and everyone can see that even though nothing is actually barring anyone else from attempting to build a like database, any such attempt is probably going to get stopped by the publishers, who already have a deal with Google for their works and are therefore unlikely to cut another deal with someone else for the same thing. If such a venture can't provide the same level of access to non-orphan works that Google can, the venture is likely to fail.
Also, the works on Project Gutenberg are public domain. They are not orphan - they are no longer covered by copyright. Orphan works are still covered by copyright, there's just no one around saying 'Hey, I own that copyright'.
The Greed Factor is the thing that is getting this thing done. Google wants to sell advertising. Having all the books helps them do this.
And they provide a good service for humanity.
But I don't think they should get sole rights to orphaned works, but they get the advantage of being the first company to decide to do it.
Primarily because they have the money and resources.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
While the registry's agreement with Google is not exclusive, the registry will be allowed to license to others only the books whose authors and publishers have explicitly authorized it. Since no such authorization is possible for orphan works, only Google would have access to them, so only Google could assemble a truly comprehensive book database.
(emphasis mine.)
Why not extend the Public Library model to the internet? Would that make books too convenient to read?
On the Media, a weekly NPR show, had an interview with Robert Darnton last week.
Some people are clearly worried that Google is getting so big. I doubt we'll see too many companies even attempt to do the massive book scan that Google is. If/when Google tries to abuse its digital monopoly power over these books, antitrust regulators will almost certainly step in and force Google to license the data to competitors. Worrying about their potential monopoly power is hardly good reason to try to stop them at this point; some access through Google is certainly better than none.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
I have a specific concern about the Google Books settlement. While doing research into topics of interest to me, there are often US federal government documents that would be useful to me. These publications are in the public domain; however, Google Books almost always treats them as copyrighted, unless they were published before 1923. You still have restricted pages, legal images being blanked out as "copyrighted images," and so forth.
There has been a lot of speculation about why Google does this (one theory being that Google is worried about third-party materials that may be embedded in the federal government documents, like newspaper articles entered into the record during hearings). However, I worry that with this settlement, Google may be incentivized to never make these documents freely available. Instead of verifying that they are public domain, they might find it more lucrative to treat them as "orphaned works" that may be under copyright, sell them, keep their 37%, and hold the 63% in escrow for an "author" who never collects.
Now, I realize that this may sound like I'm whining that we're entitled to free PDFs from Google. However, many of these partnerships with university libraries were accompanied by press releases touting how the program would further the dissemination of knowledge, and how it would make available public domain works (that are often out-of-print). I would regard that as an unfulfilled promise if Google continues to treat these public domain works as copyrighted.
As part of their settlement, Google got an exclusive license to orphaned works, so no competitor can now do the same thing Google is doing.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What does the actual settlement say regarding ownership and access to the original works. Is any other entity prevented from doing the same.
How is this worse than the current solution? Even if google gets away with this, the current solution is still applicable - hardly a monopoly. Google will merely have a monopoly on the new solution. You can always still go find the copy in some dusty bookshelf somewhere.
Doing something better than currently available is called innovation - not monopoly.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
It's not like I've seen anyone else doing this. These books aren't available at all right now. It's only because Google has gone out and done all the hard work that now everyone else wants in on the pie. I applaud Google for making available something that simply wasn't there before -- and if they profit from it, well they earned it!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sorry, but that's a bit abstract for me to get excited about.
Anyone can digitize books and put them in a database. Its just that Google is the first to do it in a grand scale but that does not in any way hinder anyone else doing the same. The "monopoly" is just Googles exclusive access to their own database, not the books in themselves.
Whenever i read these things i always wonder what astroturfer from Microsoft is behind the complaints. Until Google proves half as bad as Microsoft i will regard them as a company i can trust. I strongly suspect thats the thorn in Microsofts eye they so desperately is trying to change.
HTTP/1.1 400
Let them pay to scan tons of dusty old books in the basements of university libraries and then work out a class action lawsuit with all the people representing the authors.
Of course Google has a monopoly; no one else wanted to take the time or money or risk. Nothing prevents any other company from doing exactly what Google has done, except of course the things that could have prevented Google from doing it, but didn't.
No, now that Google has put the brunt of their weight and money on the issue, I would dare to say the next person who comes along will simply need to pay for the scanning service and access to the library.
Yeah, good luck with that. You'll notice that Project Gutenberg still gets nastygrams with no real legal backing; there's a reason they retain legal staff, despite being incredibly diligent about their copyrights. (I'm unaware of any cleared work turning out to actually be restricted; they generally take down a work temporarily on request, giving the contacting party a certain amount of time to come up with a renewal record.)
The result of this system is that, no matter what you think the law says, anyone with lawyers at their disposal can ruin you if they wish.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Google spends billions providing free services.
Now, we are expected to believe that they are going to over charge us for e-books?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Isn't it much more likely that they are going to figure out how to place ads next to each page so that the entire cost of reading the book is free? They want everyone to win: the author, the reader and advertiser.
Sometimes, I think people underestimate how simple it is to be "good" once you have a cash cow like Google's search and ads businesses. These businesses depend on one thing: your trust. If Google were ever to cheat you, you will stop using them. So you don't have to worry. Google can't be "evil" (see microsoft) because their business model doesn't work otherwise.
They do make mistakes, misjudge, and try to move faster than others are willing to move. But they aren't going to lock you in. They aren't going to over charge you.
The Wikimedia people have staked quite a bit on the assumption that Bridgeman v. Corel will hold up in situations like the one you describe, so it seems at least plausible. (Note that Google could copyright scans in Britain, since their copyright law recognizes new copyright on simple slavish reproductions, as ridiculous as that is.)
Of course, the best thing would be for Google to simply not claim a new copyright on their scans.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Unless Google plans to scan these books then somehow eradicate all other copies of the books from the face of the earth, then no, they are not going to be the only source or have a monopoly. Nothing stopping you from doing the same thing they're doing.
The fear comes from the fact that Google will make it so easy to access these works that people will wonder how they ever lived without this easy access. And suddenly a luxury type service becomes a necessity with Google the sole supplier.
Well good for them. Now if you hate that idea so much, you are free to do the same as they are and build your own repository to compete with them, or maybe not even to compete, just to exist as an alternative. Google is just ahead of the times. Ie- innovative.
Project Gutenberg clears works under "Rule 6"; some works which appear to be orphaned, published before 1963, are in fact in the public domain, but it takes a significant amount of legwork to prove this.
They've also advocated for reform on orphan works, so they have been active on this.
Distributed Proofreaders harvests a lot of data from Google Book Search, already, as well.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Everyone interested in patents or copyrights, and why they suck, should read Against Intellectual Monopoly, a book by two profs at Wash U in St. Louis: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280
So if I read this correctly, Google is stealing orphans and locking them up in a database? Sounds like win-win all around!
You're only as smart as your brain.
What the Google Class Action suit basically does is give Google DEFAULT permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden for everyone else. This puts Google in a relatively unique position regarding copyright of orphaned works. One cannot legally get to the same position that Google is in without doing something illegal and compelling similar terms.
This being said, I support the Google suit, and hope that it is the starting point of a dialog regarding how we address orphaned works. I hope the outcome is a compulsatory licensing regime. The only thing I am concerned about is that this sort of deal removes Google's interest in seeing comulsatory licensing for orphaned works made law since they got this through the courts.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf
My grandmother wrote a book, and self published it. There are very few copies in existence. I recently approached Google about getting it published. They told me to send it in for scanning and OCR. And I'm inclined to do that, but haven't yet. My question to Slashdot readers, is: is there a better way for me to get this book online? I'm not fussed about rights, cash for rights, or copyright. Clearly the book was copyrighted in the original, 50+ years back, but my drive right now is to get this thing online free and gratis. I know about the Gutenberg project; however they don't have the resources to scan + publish the thing. Honestly I just want it online, free for all, and in some kind of meaningful index. For those who are interested, the book talks about my grandmother's surprising experiences in the early days of South Africa, including war, depredations of wolves, interaction with indigenous people, mores of the time, the way people lived back then, and the consequences of political decisions. I want to get this online, as it is insightful and historically relevant.
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
Of course, the best thing would be for Google to simply not claim a new copyright on their scans
Very good point. I'm pretty sure they don't. Have a look at the first page of the PDF's they let you download of out of copyright works; they just have a request that the image not be put to commercial use. IIRC there is nothing that even sounds like a claim of copyright, just a request.
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
Who has invested heavily in the exercise of book scanning ? Google has. Do other companies have access to the same books ? Of course they do. Could they also invest in book scanning to create a competitor ? Of course! Will they ? Probably not, unless Google starts price gouging. Since Google has funded the whole exercise, they have a right to exclusivity on the scanned library they have created. We should not expect them to give this up for free, as that would discourage other companies from investing in similar digitisation initiatives. If you want a competitor, find an investor and start scanning! Otherwise your options are to rely on Google, or travel to the library to view the books. Sounds like a typical bureaucratic storm in a teacup.
2nd. Libraries that are thinking ahead (the one I'm working at tries to keep a 10 year strategic plan in place) are building digital repositories. There's this thing called ILL or inter library loans. It's an archaic form of P2P where libraries share books that the other one doesn't have. The only difference is that the book has to be returned where true P2P a copy is just made.
The author of the TFA is well aware of this and I believe he is trying to summon any troops not making a digital repository to get into gear.
If Google tries to go RIAA on books the ALA will go limited Napster on Google. If libraries don't prepare now, then yes they will be at the mercy of Google in the arena of orphan works.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
Not only in 'orphan' books, but also in web advertising, in geographic information, in web search, etc, etc. So what about a bit of external control?
What's in a sig?
Did you mean: do no evil
No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - monopoly - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
Many of these books are available to the public already, in the secondhand book market. Some are available in libraries. Anyone who has invested in obtaining existing physical copies, or in setting up a business based on this activity, has the potential to lose their investment, when copies of their book are scanned and made publicly available. This includes booksellers and libraries. Who else is going to be unhappy about having more access to information? Not many people, I bet. This is unfair to those who invested in those books, but that won't stop it from happening.
It's also conceivable that in some cases, having a scanned version freely available will increase demand, making the existing physical copies more valuable.