Amazon, MS, and Yahoo Against Google's Library

anonymousNR writes "From the BBC, 'Three technology heavyweights are joining a coalition to fight Google's attempt to create what could be the world's largest virtual library. Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo will sign up to the Open Book Alliance being spearheaded by the Internet Archive. They oppose a legal settlement that could make Google the main source for many online works. "Google is trying to monopolise the library system," the Internet Archive's founder Brewster Kahle said.'"

Comments

This is not about competing to provide books

[symbolset]

It's about depriving us of access to out of print books. That is all.

Re:This is not about competing to provide books

[Brian Gordon]

This. If Amazon had any intention of selling these books, they'd be selling these books! They just don't like that Google is getting a slice of their market.

Re:This is not about competing to provide books

[KliX]

We have no access to out of print books. That's kinda the point.

Re:This is not about competing to provide books

[rtb61]

It is not the exclusive right to make out of print books that is a problem, you can't claim ownership of publishing writes unless you created the content or those rights were assigned by the person who created that content.

The privacy is the big problem. Should a person not have the same right to privacy, when they access a digital library as has been accepted through out the democratic world when they access a hard copy public library.

Google is really going to shoot itself in the foot and then stick the bloody stump in it's mouth. It claiming to be a public virtual library or at least creating the marketing pretence of being one it should be bound by the exact same expectation that people have when they attend a normal library, privacy, free access, non exclusivity of content and of course a complete absence of off topic advertising.

For authors of course, it means a huge amount of exposure and a huge amount of competition. So while the book now is continuously made available to a global audience it is also buried and obscured by a huge number of competitive titles. The best of 'class' books that get 'honestly' reviewed will get the bulk of the market and all the rest thousands upon thousands of titles will get basically nothing. Big profits for the best of 'class', no absolutely not because nearly as good as but one tenth the price will wipe them out. So the commoditising of books, 99 cents a copy anyone. Now add to that non-exclusivity and you can see why authors, especially publisher and, even retail sales are bitching.

You can also bet google will make 'open' books freely available on that site as well, so even more competition. With a world full of people who are more concerned with the knowledge imparted and of course with establishing a publicly acknowledged level of expertise, you can expect open books will inevitably become best of class because they will continue to be worked on, refined and improved, whilst remaining free.

So stop google, 'NO' absolutely 'NOT', let's just ensure non-exclusivity and, mandated strictly enforced privacy ;D.

Re:This is not about competing to provide books

[symbolset]

No, they're not trying to prevent Google from having the sole right. They're trying to prevent Google from having any right. That's evil.

I have concerns about the risk of Google having too much power too. A motto only goes so far. But from where I sit they didn't get the market dynamic they have from buying up ideas and forcing people out of business with dirty tricks like some of these. They get their markets by competing and giving better service - doing what they do very well. That might be an advantage, but I have trouble coloring it an unfair advantage. Others have the chance after all to step up their game if they're able.

Re:Open X Alliance

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm fairly sure that the Internet Archive is a nonprofit.

Yep. Ironically Kahle started it the same year Larry Page started the research project which became google.

But, even if it is a non-profit that doesn't mean MS/Yahoo/Amazon aren't supporting it for their own reasons. I just hope Kahle is shrewed enough to milk as much support out of these new-found 'friends' as he can without giving away the cow.

Google's initiative is remarkably one-sided. But a lot of the opposition seems to be from 'old-media' types who want to keep things locked up in dead trees and paywalls rather than a solution that opens up as much information to as many people as possible. Kahle's got the opportunity to do not just the right thing, but the best thing, I hope he can get away with it.

Re:A genuine question

[boarder8925]

Because when you have access so much information controlled by one organization, you are wholly at the mercy of that organization. If Google decides that they don't want you reading some book for whatever reason, then you're shit out of luck unless you've got a hard copy of it. When you have an organization comprised of and accountable to several organizations, then you [ostensibly] have a lesser chance of shit like that happening.

Re:Some has to do it

[shutdown -p now]

None of the companies in this coalition had the balls to step up and do this themselves.

Do what themselves? Get sued and settle?

I don't think that anyone would object if terms of the settlement were universally applied to everyone - so that e.g. Amazon could also go pay some reasonable fee to provide out-of-print books, and compete with Google. But as it is, it's clearly not a level playing field anymore.

Re:I'm all for it.

[shutdown -p now]

I'm all for an Open Alliance as opposed to a closed one, but I want what Google is offering.

University all access passes for their libraries and students.

Access to orphan books.

Easy for authors to claim rights and be compensated.

Easy reading on computers, mobile devices, and e-readers.

If you guys can accomplish all this as quickly and completely as Google will, I'll support you.

What I want here is for everyone to have the ability to pay fees and provide access to all those things the same way Google can do it now. It really is a very good thing they're doing, but I don't see why they should be the only ones legally able to do it.

If after that happens, Google is still the only one actually doing it - or if they're the ones doing it best (which is quite likely - where Google starts first, it's usually hard to beat them) - I don't mind. The free market will settle it there. But let it be free first.

Re:A genuine question

[QuantumG]

If Google decides that they don't want you reading some book for whatever reason, then you're shit out of luck unless you've got a hard copy of it.

So.. kinda like if Google did nothing?

Re:Google does have a bit too much power.

[Trepidity]

Well, there's no real official way into the market. If they just started violating copyright, it's possible someone might file a class-action lawsuit against them, and possible they might be able to negotiate some sort of settlement similar to the one Google got. But it's not at all clear that that would be the outcome. Google's basically found a very clever way of using the class-action mechanism's preclusion to violate the copyright of people who haven't agreed, because class-action lawsuits are opt-out rather than opt-in.

That's the thing

[symbolset]

The thing is, any one of these groups has the ability to strike a deal with the author's guild. Google doesn't have an exclusive license. All they have to do is get up in a business Google's adopted and out-compete them in quality of service.

I can see why they'd rather fight it out in court, but that doesn't mean I favor their cause.

Re:Some has to do it

[martin-boundary]

Perhaps you're unaware of the money and energy invested by the Internet Archive, or the scanning projects by Google's competitors and single university libraries?

Not that investing money and energy implies quality. Google's scanned books are very low quality, as a matter of fact. If you'd like to see good quality scans, try pointing your browser at the Center for Retrospective Digitization of Goettingen University for example.

The problem though isn't money or energy for scanning, there's plenty of that around. The problem is legal, as in Google have an exclusive agreement with the American Author's Guild, so others are not allowed to play. That's the problem here.

Maybe you believe in capitalism? In that case, don't forget that every time some one company has an exclusive right to exploit a resource, it inevitably leads to low quality, expensive junk passed off as gold.

Re:Some has to do it

[TheRaven64]

Have you read the settlement? As someone with a published book whose copyright is registered in the USA, I received a letter informing me that I am eligible to be considered a member of the class. The settlement outlined in this letter gives Google a large number of rights to in-copyright works that no one else has any way of getting. The only way for someone else to get the same terms is to infringe the copyright on a number of works, get sued, have the lawsuit made a class action and then persuade the other party to settle on the same terms they offered Google. There is no sensible way of any other company buying the rights outlined in the settlement. If, rather than a class-action settlement, this had been Google pushing for legislation requiring compulsory licensing of out-of-print books for a fixed fee in the same way that the US has compulsory licensing for recording rights to music, then no one would be complaining.

Google's attitude to copyright is 'infringe and pay up if we're caught'. They are not pushing for copyright reform, they are just pushing for Google to get better terms than everyone else.