Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Recommends NY Court Reject Google Book Deal
eldavojohn writes "The BBC and others are reporting on the US Department of Justice's recommendation to a New York court that they reject the Google book deal. The deal has received considerable attention, but for the most part it has been negative."
Lets just reform copyright law and eliminate this problem altogether.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I'll be the first to admit I haven't kept up with any of this business, but reading the summary gave me absolutely no idea what any of the articles are about.
This is only a good thing if it leads to a better arrangement. The google book deal is not ideal, but at least it gets the books out there. If as a result of this deal being struck down we have copyright reform (not likely, since at the moment people dying of lack of health care is a significantly bigger issue), then it is good. If as a result of this deal being struck down, a better deal is negotiated with Google (which is possible), then it will still not be ideal. If as a result of this deal being struck down, nothing ends up happening, which is possible, it would be worse for the world.
Qxe4
If the settlement was "any other company may also have the same rights under the same terms", it would be a VERY good deal.
But with the exclusivity, it is very bad. Without the exclusivity, someone else could take the time to do the scanning, and the sales. EG, Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, or even a new startup.
But with the exclusivity, you give Google a monopoly over out-of-print books.
Test your net with Netalyzr
In other words, they're terrified of the prospect that Google is extending the doctrine of squatters' rights to intellectual property.
There must always be some large, slow-moving body (like a Mammoth, but preferably evil like a corporation or government) which We The People assault to prove our virtue if not virility.
Yesterday, Microsoft and George W. Bush; today, Google and Nancy Pelosi. So it goes.
Futurist Traditionalism
Where in the agreement are other groups prevented from establishing similar agreements? If Amazon, or Microsoft want to spend the time and money to develop the technology and scan millions of books, and make similar deals with publishers, I don't see why they couldn't. They don't seriously think they should get to profit from all the work Google has put into this, do they?
Google has even offered other groups that choice, for a fee no doubt, but they _should_ be compensated if the other company doesn't have to scan a million books to offer them.
Isn't the judiciary branch supposed to be independent of executive?
Is this the same DOJ that has been packed with "ex" Microsoft lawyers? The same Microsoft that's run by some Mussolini-lookalike who's supposed to have said, "I'm gonna fucking kill Google!"
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
> The Google book deal has received considerable attention but
> for the most part it has been negative.
Surely most of the general public has viewed this Google project as a positive thing. Only large multinational corporations such as the large publishing houses, the RIAA [sic], Sony, and Microsoft (with their copyright and DRM interests) are the ones squeeling about Google making a fair-use amount of a book available for a reader to peruse.
Lets face it, MP3s make it easy for listeners to decide in a fair-use way if an album is worth buying (much like walking into a shop and asking to listen to the album). Fair-use viewing of a book is much the same as standing in the store and flipping through the book.
Oh my, we can't have just anybody reading printed manuscript, think of the trouble it could cause. THEY have to pay for it, that will put a limit on the political uprising this could bring about, can't have them reading "Animal Farm" or other such nonsense., make them read one of GW's drivel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Or just rethink "work" in general:
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
Also:
"Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
Regarding: "what reason would the guy have to make the music in the first place? Sure, there's the love of music, but some people ... have to put food on the table."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
But with the exclusivity, you give Google a monopoly over out-of-print books.
We're talking about works that the publishers had decided to let die. The copyrights are still in force, but there are not enough sales to justify printing another copy. As a result, they are not currently available at any price.
The damage to both the consumers and authors took place when the books were taken off the market. As long as they are both out of print and still protected by copyright, without an agreement such as this, we would be forced to wait 100 years or more before the works to fall into public domain and be available again.
Google may get a monopoly on them, but the bottom line is that the authors will start getting paid again while they are still alive, something which no one else was apparently offering to do. And the copyright owners can let anyone collectively manage their individual monopolies (copyrights) in any way they see fit.
Just because the agreement with Google didn't say that "any other company may also have the same rights under the same terms" does not constitute exclusivity. It would have to say that someone like Amazon (or your other examples) could not negotiate a similar deal. Exclusivity cannot be implied from what the agreement does not say.
Since they got on it first, I wouldn't think it out of line if Google did receive exclusivity for a certain number of years before the publishers opened it up to competition. This would let some sort of standard be worked out before people like Microsoft get in and start trying to bastardize it.
Overall, this is a good deal for consumers (who get access to "lost" works) and authors (the intended beneficiaries of copyright law). The DOJ is against it because it's filled with RIAA lawyers and the concept of paying the authors is foreign to them.
The prison niggers resemble that remark and want to instead come to a peaceiful resitution. We would prefer to rape some slashdot nerds in the asshole while they play their wow of warcraft. Big Tyrone hasn't taken a slashdot nerd in 3 days, da last bein' Abreu in Mexico. Man was he a spicy motherfucker. We took him and his beaner wife for 60 hours straight. Dun worry we bought them tacos an' shit. Too bad tyrone had to kick in his teeth to get a better blo' job but thats how tha prison niggers work. To bad you be a anonymus coward cause i wood say call us at 212-534-4785. We'll come by yo place as an' be sure to bring yo tears.
- The Prison Niggers
There are probably only a handfull of corporations with the resources to accomplish this on the scale that it's being done, and Google is the only one that has expressed enthusiasm for doing it. Instead of breaking the deal up, in which case everyone loses and noone wins, they should broker a more favorable deal with Google.
The answer was to add some trivial content to the old story, sex it up, and present it live in a comfy theatre where people would go be seen viewing it because it was cool. His marketing team was awesome.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
For 5000 years the deal has been that if you stuff was worth listening to, people would pay to hear you play it. After a while, if you did well, the song became part of the culture.
It's only since the invention of eternal copyright that an artist expected residuals. And even that is a trap... The old must be forever deprecated for the new, so your art that might become an eternal theme must be abolished for the latest pop tart. This can't be done if copyright is rational.
Help stamp out iliturcy.