Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DoJ Recommends NY Court Reject Google Book Deal

Posted by timothy on from the march-of-unprogress dept.

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."

5 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Lets just... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lets just reform copyright law and eliminate this problem altogether.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Lets just... by cyberthanasis12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should you have the right to use my programs for free?

      Normally you would have a point. But:
      Why do I have to pay TV contribution when I don't have a working TV?
      Why do I have to pay compensation for local copyright holders' when I buy a photocopier? I use it explicitly for my job (replication of technical studies done by me).
      My cousin has a traditional morning cafe. Why did he have to pay compensation for the local RIAA? He did not have a radio in his cafe until recently.
      There is a, state owned, special newspaper which publishes all the new laws that are made by the parliament. We do I have to pay for it (much more than a few euros which is the printing cost)? Do they have the right to copyright, when they are paid by my tax to do what they do (law making)?

      There is a tendency to outlaw P2P software because it can be abused. If this sounds rational to anyone, then, by the same rationale, the right to copyright should be outlawed because it is very often abused.

  2. Re:Only a good thing if by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In my opinion? The optimal solution would be to reduce copyright to a reasonable number of years, and increase fair use protections.

    However, that is probably not what you were asking. In my opinion, the worst part of the deal is that it's exclusive to Google, and that third parties cannot get into it. This makes Google kind of the digital gateway for a lot of content. And I like Google, but at one time I liked HP, too. Organizations change over time, and it can be dangerous to make one group the digital gateway.

    The best way to change it, in my opinion, would be to make the same deal available for anyone; create a mechanism whereby anyone can enter into this agreement with the publishing companies, including you. I don't think everyone would be in favor of this mechanism, some authors might oppose it, for example, but I think it would be a fair arrangement and get rid of some of the worst consequences of copyright.

    --
    Qxe4
  3. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you are so woried about not making any money from your out-of-print books, maybe you should consider printing them again?

  4. Re:Worst summary ever by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the case of authors I know, they are neither dead nor are there works out of print. But as their works were in print outside of the U.S. (though orderable online, that is how the works got into the libraries to be scanned), the Google settlement treated them as out of print, so Google was going to treat their books as orphaned works. I can understand the enthusiasm inside the U.S. for the deal (we can take everything published elsewhere in the world and take control of it), but the DOJ has to respect the copyright of other countries, as per the Berne convention. I wouldn't be surprised if a final result is based off the Google Partners program, which is the existing Google book search system where Google actually asks the authors permission. Asking people's permission solves all kinds of problems, and isn't normally considered evil. While it would still leave the genuinely orphaned works a problem, that is a problem created by stupid copyright extensions, and is ultimately solvable only by copyright reform.