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."

124 comments

  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 symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets just abolish copyright and eliminate this problem altogether.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Lets just... by Rogerborg · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Yup, abolishing copyright would certainly eliminate the problem. While we're at it, let's abolish children so that paedophiles don't have anyone to abuse.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Lets just... by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And whilst we're making sensible linkages (when you think about it, actual existing people really equivalent to arbitrary legally constructed restrictions on free speech) like that I think that standardised egg sizes is the solution to the problem.

      Just think of the pineapples.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    4. Re:Lets just... by BudAaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This whole objection thing pi$$es me off! I have about 20 old books that I wrote years ago. This deal is worth anywhere from $ 1200 to $ 2000 that I could sure use but now everyone is weighing in to prevent that. I WANT my books included!

    5. Re:Lets just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, not an artist, writer, or musician, are you?

    6. Re:Lets just... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

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

    7. Re:Lets just... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      You are actually right. Let's decide that only the copyright holders are allowed to read the books, and we're done. That's pretty much what they're aiming at for music, and books are sure to follow the same path.

      What will it mean for public domain books? Well... no copyright holders means that those books will be removed from the market altogether. That way, the situation is really clear cut.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    8. Re:Lets just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I can do something good with them, and it doesn't deprive you of them.

    9. Re:Lets just... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Uh, if you can just take them and sell them as your own, as many would do, what reason would the guy have to make the music in the first place? Sure, there's the love of music, but some people (and I'm not saying this includes you), have to put food on the table.

    10. Re:Lets just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...maybe they need, uhh, a job like the rest of us have to have. J.K. Rollin-in-the-dough is a goddamn billionaire; she's not merely "putting food on the table". There is a problem there and if you can't see it, maybe you're not paying close enough attention.

    11. Re:Lets just... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I don't want to use your programs. I know who you work for. You can keep 'em.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    12. Re:Lets just... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      And who do you think I work for?

    13. Re:Lets just... by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      Yeah, JK is rollin in the dough. she's also the most popular author on the planet, for about 8 years straight, and basically introduced half this generation to reading as a pleasure activity. She might not deserve as much as she got (about $200 million last year), but she still deserves a big stinking load of money.

      There's plenty of fat which ought to be cut, the copyright system is broken horribly, I agree with the rest of slashdot on that. But JK Rowling is the shit, don't pretend otherwise.

    14. Re:Lets just... by symbolset · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's just say that I don't run Windows for personal use even in a VM. It's just got nothing I need in it. And with very rare exceptions I don't buy software even for Linux. Sometime I do it just to encourage the vendor - RedHat, WordPerfect, X-Plane, Unreal Tournament 2003, World of Warcraft are I think the only ones (WOW under wine). In each case I tried the stuff for a few days and binned it.

      I don't steal the stuff - it's just been many years since there wasn't a free and open solution for something I wanted to do with a PC. In Linux the office packages are free. The 3d modeller is free. The photo editors are free. The video editors, mail clients, mail servers, web servers, scripting languages, programming editors, version control, iSCSI SAN solution, PC Imaging solution, management infrastructure, GIS, CRM, CMS - they're all free. There's even free antivirus (what for, I don't know), and free Linux Genuine Advantage for recent emigrees who need it for nostalgia. Any tool I need is a few clicks away, and the trouble isn't in getting stuff that's freely given, it's choosing the right tool from the diverse selection offered. In almost every case the stuff is at a level commercial software might come to in a few years (Inkscape?). In some few cases there are outstanding commercial apps that are more feature rich, but they've evolved so far beyond my needs that they're difficult to learn and use and I'm better off with something simple that just does the job I want do without getting in my way.

      That Windows doesn't have anything for me should be enough, but there's more... I have rather peculiar computing needs. I try a lot of platforms and I like my desktop image to stay fairly stable. In the past I've take a system image of this dual Xeon workstation and put it on by bl460c and my Atom demo board and my Via Mini-ITX board and a couple laptops too. Next month I might want to put it on the AMD quad core I'm buying. With linux I can do that as a practical matter, and it's fair game for licensing as well. With Windows that's a both a no-go and a no-no.

      Given your comments here - which seem informed, educated and well though out, but with a strong pro-windows and anti mac & linux bias, with a specialization in 3d graphics rendering perhaps - I'm unlikely to be interested in your software. You can keep your precious bits. I'm fine, thanks.

      Why I want copyright abolished has nothing to do with your precious bits any more than it does Michael Jackson or Inglourious Basterds. It has to do with Jazz and Rock and Roll, 1984 and Farenheit 451. It has to do with the social contract of copyright - you get protection for a short time, in exchange for which you are encouraged to create - but the works after a time pass into the culture as all intellectual endeavors must if we are to have the progress which is copyright's purpose . Your works, creative and inventive as they might be, were not built in a vacuum. You stood on the shoulders of giants that went before you. To make copyright eternal - either for code or for artists is to deprive my children not just of the privilege of extending your work, but even to stand where you stood when you did your work so they can make their own contributions to the pool of knowledge. It is to steal from them of their very culture. It's wrong and evil.

      Copyright as it is is broken. It should be abolished.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    15. 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.

    16. Re:Lets just... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      I doubt, she would have written another book, if she couldn't make a living from the first.
      There is a problem but the solution is not a complete abolishment of copyright.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    17. Re:Lets just... by Chrisje · · Score: 0, Troll

      Quite frankly I could have been without the Harry Potter series, thankyouverymuch. They're a load of hogwarts, and I don't understand the fixation on this universe by anyone between 5 and 85.

      Having said that, J.K. Rowling is also the Metallica of the publishing world. Got a bunch of money from her fans, then insults them.

    18. Re:Lets just... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nothing is stopping you from offering to license your books to Google (or anyone else) outside of this deal, or even releasing them under a license that permits redistribution by anyone for a fixed fee. The problem with the deal is that it gives Google the right to distribute a large number of works but doesn't provide any means for other people to acquire the same rights short of committing wholesale copyright infringement, being sued, and hoping for the same settlement.

      Oh, and $2000 is a bit low. If Google has already distributed your book then you might be better off opting out of the class-action suit; the statutory fines for wilful infringement start at $7500 and go all the way up to $150K per work.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:Lets just... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Some of us do have a real job. We write code that a company owns the copyright too and then sells. So I get a salary. No Copyright, no company salary...

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    20. Re:Lets just... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      J.K. Rawlings though doesn't show the abuse of copyright, however other authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien, George Orwell and other long dead authors who's work are still under copyright. The oldest HP book isn't even 20 years old yet, on the other hand 1984 is what? 60 years old? And still under copyright when the author has been deceased for almost as long? That is the abuse.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    21. Re:Lets just... by bentcd · · Score: 1

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

      If you absolutely hate the idea of other people benefiting from your software then you just keep it to yourself. It's that simple.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  2. Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Worst summary ever by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Summary: OMG searchable books! Think of the copyright holders!

    2. Re:Worst summary ever by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Troll

      Summary: OMG searchable books! Think of the copyright holders!

      So you think it's OK for Google to co-opt my rights as an author to control my work - for profit - without either my permission or compensation? What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Worst summary ever by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      That hasn't kept anyone from posting. The articles don't go into detail what exactly the deal is, either.

      Under the deal - the product of a legal suit - Google would establish a $125m (£77m) fund to compensate those whose works it published online.

      It would establish a Book Rights Registry so that authors whose work it digitised were paid when their material was viewed online.

      There already exists a open source download tool with which you can fetch 95% -- as much as Google offers/digitized -- of any book, so the fear is understandable.

      I guess flatrate for authors or making it a just a preview to find out if this is the right book might be options that the authors will agree on.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:Worst summary ever by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that depends. How long have you been dead and your work out of print?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Worst summary ever by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      So you think it's OK for Google to co-opt my rights as an author to control my work - for profit - without either my permission or compensation?

      So you think it's OK for you to maintain control of your out-of-print and otherwise unavailable work ad-infinitum?

      What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

      Money. Because you're no longer making any off of the out-of-print books that the Google book deal covers.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    6. Re:Worst summary ever by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

      Ego? Contribution to humanity? Bragging rights? The sales of books caused by Googles advertisement of them? It's not as if human creativity suddenly popped into existence when copyright laws started.

      On the other hand, this settlement seems pretty deeply wrong. It's pretty clear that the authors understood one form of the copyright law when they wrote their books. A change should involve serious debate and democratic processes. On the other hand, nobody but a big corporation could have pushed something like this. Try just declaring that your little volunteer organisation has the right to share books online; I think you'll find yourself declared "pirates" PDQ.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Worst summary ever by Jurily · · Score: 1

      If money is your only motivation for writing books, don't.

      If you can't write a book in the age of the internet purely for the joy that other people might read and appreciate it, or use a searchable database of books to market yours, go get a real job. I cannot help you.

    8. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If money is your only motivation for writing books, don't.

      If you can't write a book in the age of the internet purely for the joy that other people might read and appreciate it, or use a searchable database of books to market yours, go get a real job. I cannot help you.

      Wow, I hope that you dont ever intend to make a living writing software.

    9. Re:Worst summary ever by Shamenaught · · Score: 1

      Erm... Isn't part of the deal to set-up the Book Rights Registry, which pays authors when their books are viewed online? If you do get royalties then I don't see how express permission is necessary. Otherwise, how is what they're doing any worse than what a library does?

      --
      mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
    10. Re:Worst summary ever by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      So you think it's OK for you to maintain control of your out-of-print and otherwise unavailable work ad-infinitum?

      Yes. It's mine, I made it. Why should I *not* have a say over work that *I* created?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    11. Re:Worst summary ever by Jurily · · Score: 1

      I already am. I'm not responsible for marketing at work, and my fun projects are Open Source.

    12. Re:Worst summary ever by Torinir · · Score: 1
      Agreed in part.

      I've been doing some writing myself, and it's purely for the enjoyment of the writing itself.

      I'll not claim to be a great writer by any stretch, but it's relaxing, and a good way to pass the time when gaming just doesn't cut it.

      Some writers do, however, make it a full time job. They have to if they want to meet the demand for their works, or to meet a publishing obligation.

      Now, all things considered, I still think the suit against Google is not good. If they're working with out of print and PD works, then I say more power to them.

      For out of print works, telling them to "Suck it up, sweetcheeks" isn't going to help you sell your book, and will probably hurt sales of future works. Fighting your fans doesn't work, just ask Metallica.

      As for works in the public domain, there's no copyright issues there, so why the hostility toward making them available online?

      Just my random 2 cents worth here. Change available at the counter.

    13. 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.

    14. Re:Worst summary ever by erroneus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because it's simple:

      Copyright law is an agreement between "the people" (aka the government) and you. The first part of the agreement is that you enjoy protection and exclusive rights to copy and distribute. The second part of the agreement, that copyright holders often forget about, ignore or otherwise disregard, is that in exchange for said protection, the works would be released into the public domain upon expiry of the term of protection.

      Here's the problem. The agreement is now lasting longer than the media it is distributed upon. This makes the works for which the people offered you copyright protection, unavailable to the people by the time the agreement expires thereby depriving the people of their public domain works and in fact the cultural and historical value of the works.

      By having it available in digital archives, there is an increased chance that the works will still be available whenever the term of the copyright protection agreement has ended.

    15. Re:Worst summary ever by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yes,

      Searching books is useful.

      You should not have strict control over who sees your work if you publish it.

      Searching books costs you nothing (even in opportunity cost)

      each copyright holder implementing their own search is useless (the sum is more than the parts).

      The only authors I can see concerned are either plagiarists, embarrassed by their work, or control freaks.

      Unless your argument is that your profit scheme for your books was to license them for use in a gigantic book search database I don't see how this impacts motivation at all.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    16. Re:Worst summary ever by minio · · Score: 1

      Because you sold that book to me. It is mine now. How dare you to command me what I can do with book I bought? Wouldn't you like to tell me what i am allowed to do with my car? or camera? or refrigerator?

    17. Re:Worst summary ever by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      You dismissed his argument then supported it. Please think before posting. (how many hands have you got ?)
      If google have online publishing rights, what happened to your rights as the author ? Or the rest of us as members of the public domain ? Shouldn't these rights be the property of the state, i.e. the US, not a corporation ?

      Maybe I'm misled, and it is perfectly legal for me to publish out of print books once this thing is settled, but I have a sneaking suspicion that only google have the rights now.

    18. Re:Worst summary ever by smoker2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If google are going to assume rights over my work, without paying me for it, then I will not write. Why should I work for free ? Do you really think I have greater marketing power than google ?

      And no, this is not piracy come home to roost. I don't care if individuals take and read my work without paying. I seriously object to a massive corporation taking my work and making money from it, without giving me my dues. Google are legally monetising piracy here. If you can't see the difference, well, sucks to be you.

      I have a sad hope that google might actually forward royalties based on page impressions to the authors, even though they don't have to. Show some appreciation. But I'm pissing in the wind I guess.

    19. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should not have any say over the work you created if you are dead or unreachable or unable/unwilling to publish anymore copies

    20. Re:Worst summary ever by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, most software written is never sold, it's developed in-house as a custom solution. Thus copyright has almost no bearing on it, more likely would fall under trade secrets. See recent case of Goldman-Sachs coder getting arrested by FBI for example.

    21. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't the public hold the rights to the underlying language?

      What if we just rescind your license to the words?

      Oh, and the society you got your ideas and education from would like their cultural memes back as well.

      You didn't create your work out of a void. Without the supporting culture, you would be little more than a quick witted animal. Certainly, with no one educating you, you would not have produced anything. Where is your payment back to the thousands of people who influenced you?

      The very culture that produced you granted you a reasonable amount of time to control your cultural contribution. They did this to encourage you to contribute back to that culture. Unless you have a cure for cancer, face it, your contribution likely amounts to very little. The culture can probably do without it.

      Copyright is not some sort of natural or God-given right. It;'s a right granted by "the people" for *their* immediate benefit. Not yours. "The people" want to encourage people to share. The operative work: "SHARE". This is how a culture progresses.

    22. Re:Worst summary ever by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      The contract is: you make it public, eventually it will be public domain.

      The founding fathers give you a limited time to control it, and the moment you created it, you accepted the contract. If you don't want people copying it, keep it locked up. Otherwise, it will eventually be public domain and you get no say in the matter. Don't like it? Move to another country.

      Also, in case you want to whine some more, it was originally ~20 years. So you're getting more than was intended already.

      Besides, the real problem here is when someone moves on and doesn't care what happens to it, or just dies without cleaning up all of their business. The author would have to explicitly terminate the copyright, but an abandoned/orphan work just sits around for an entire lifetime after the author dies.

      There is no one to ask, no one to lift the copyright, no one to pay, no one to buy it from. It's stuck, because the copyright system is not opt-in, it's required and once you stop caring about your work it doesn't magically get freed.

      So, you write something and no one buys it, or people stop buying it. It's making you no money, you forget you even created it. It's not in your will, your heirs have no idea it's yours. You die. Now someone reads your obituary and looks into your stuff. Fascinating, where can I buy this work? You can't, it's not in print. Heirs? They know nothing about it, or aren't in the business, couldn't care less, never return phone calls, whatever. If you are against Google on this one, you're saying it shouldn't even be in search results. No one can find it in the back of a library and scan it, to make it available and searchable.

      I can't type in a quote that I remember reading when I was a child, and find that book, because you were selfish enough to die and not leave instructions on its care.

    23. Re:Worst summary ever by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The law dares to command you to not abuse the book. If the book costs $200,000 to $1 million to publish (adding up author royalties, and other publishing and marketing costs), the $20 pittance you paid does not give you the right to reproduce and sell it or give it away for free.

    24. Re:Worst summary ever by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The contract is: you make it public, eventually it will be public domain. The founding fathers give you a limited time to control it, and the moment you created it, you accepted the contract. If you don't want people copying it, keep it locked up. Otherwise, it will eventually be public domain and you get no say in the matter. Don't like it? Move to another country.

      The Google Agreement also covers books where Google can't seem to find the copyright holder. That Google can't find them doesn't mean that the holder's rights disappear. This is all just a big land grab by Google, and you know perfectly well that if it had been Microsoft, the cries here would be deafening.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    25. Re:Worst summary ever by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

      If you're worth a damn as a writer, you don't have to ask that question.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    26. Re:Worst summary ever by shentino · · Score: 1

      As long as Google makes a good faith effort to ascertain the owners of any copyright interest in its works, I have no problem with it opening the barn door to readers.

    27. Re:Worst summary ever by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I have a book whose copyright is registered in the USA, and I object to this deal. Not so much because people can download my book illegally - google for the title and the first hit is a site where you can do that - but because it gives Google an unfair competitive advantage that they obtained by breaking the law. I would have no objections if the settlement provided nondiscriminatory licensing, but Google wilfully violated copyright law and now gets to benefit from a monopoly on distributing a large number of works, and that seems wrong. If there is a consensus that these works should be made available[1], then they should be made available to everyone under the same terms. They should not only be made available to the company that tried distributing them illegally.

      Really, though, this shouldn't be something that the judiciary decides. The legislature should be addressing copyright reform (and I don't mean the DMCA), restoring the balance between the authors' rights and the public's rights.

      [1] I happen to believe that, but I don't get to make laws in the USA.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:Worst summary ever by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think we can all agree that changes to the system that allow out of print books to again be produced and distributed is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is creating a situation in which Google becomes the sole party responsible for the distribution of these books. I would feel much better if it wasn't Google, but rather a consortium of interests; corporate, academic, libraries, archivists, etc. Then one would feel that this wasn't simply a monopoly being handily delivered into Google's hands.

      Or to put it another way, I don't trust Google, Amazon, Microsoft or anyone else, so let's do this the right way.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Worst summary ever by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      It should not be up to Google to decide that they can publish a work that is still protected by copyright just because they can't determine who the copyright owner is whether they've made a good faith effort or not. Instead, Copyright law should be updated to take into account orphaned works and what one can and can't do with them.

      I can suggest three possibilities for handling orphaned works:

      • They should fall into the public domain so that everyone can take advantage of them
      • Require a standard fee to be paid into a fund if someone wants to exploit them commercially. This fund could be used to compensate an author of an orphaned work if they are later found, and be used to promote literacy or fund libraries etc.
      • Only allow not-for-profit use of orphaned works.
      • Don't allow their use until after their copyright period expires

      In my mind the solution is to reduce copyright terms to something more reasonable. Hardly any works earn money for their copyright holders after the first few years, and practically zero after a couple of decades. So set the copy period to be 20 years. Then there wouldn't be many orphaned works and society would be richer from all the public domain material.

    30. Re:Worst summary ever by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      No; I dismissed his argument (he deserves our charity because he's an author or else nobody will produce books) and supported his conclusion (the google settlement is crap and badly thought out). Maybe you should learn to read before posting?

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  3. IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    MADONNA IS THE BEST!
    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://marklipinskisblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/madonna_naked_023.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marklipinskisblog.wordpress.com/page/10/&usg=__EI6KjBYV9bqtQvKZaX091PG1eRU=&h=450&w=296&sz=21&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=DZTiCulVyePOKM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmadonna%2Bnaked%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

    I made it through the wilderness
    Somehow I made it through
    Didn't know how lost I was
    Until I found you

    I was beat incomplete
    I'd been had, I was sad and blue
    But you made me feel
    Yeah, you made me feel
    Shiny and new
    Like a virgin

    Erotica, romance [repeat]
    My name is Dita
    I'll be your mistress tonight
    I'd like to put you in a trance

    If I take you from behind
    Push myself into your mind
    When you least expect it
    Will you try and reject it
    If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
    Will you let yourself go wild
    Let my mouth go where it wants to

    Give it up, do as I say
    Give it up and let me have my way
    I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
    I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

    I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
    Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
    Erotic, erotic

    Once you put your hand in the flame
    You can never be the same
    There's a certain satisfaction
    In a little bit of pain
    I can see you understand
    I can tell that you're the same
    If you're afraid, well rise above
    I only hurt the ones I love

    Give it up, do as I say
    Give it up and let me have my way
    I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
    I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

    I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
    Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
    Erotic, erotic

    Erotica, romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, romance
    Put your hands all over my body

    I don't think you know what pain is
    I don't think you've gone that way
    I could bring you so much pleasure
    I'll come to you when you say
    I know you want me
    I'm not gonna hurt you
    I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

    Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
    Put your hands all over my body
    All over me, all over me

    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I like to do a different kind of
    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, romance
    Put your hands all over my body

    Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
    Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away

  4. Only a good thing if by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Only a good thing if by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      What would a better deal look like in your opinion?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:Only a good thing if by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A mechanism for individual authors to register and get paid directly, not for the money to go to a bunch of lawyers who have declared themselves to be working on behalf of those authors.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. 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
    4. Re:Only a good thing if by causality · · Score: -1, Troll

      not likely, since at the moment people dying of lack of health care is a significantly bigger issue

      In all the media coverage of the health care issue, I've yet to hear of a single bonafide case of a person in the USA dying because he/she was refused medical treatment by a hospital due to inability to pay. It just doesn't work that way. All of the big fuckin' deal about health care is because people who don't have insurance would prefer not to go bankrupt in the event of a sudden catastrophic medical expense. There's nothing "dying" right now that universal health care would save, except for a few credit scores. Don't get me wrong, bankruptcy is no fun for anyone, but please stop pretending like people are dying in the streets because the federal government has not yet dominated the health care business. Really, it'd be much easier to take the proponents of government or government-funded health care seriously if they would quit being so melodramatic.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Only a good thing if by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who die because of lack of healthcare don't die because they can't get treatment at the moment of the heart attack, it's because they A) don't have the preventative care leading up to the heart attack, and B) don't have the option to go for more expensive treatments. You're not going to get on a heart transplant waiting list if you can't afford it.

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Only a good thing if by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I've yet to hear of a single bonafide case of a person in the USA dying because he/she was refused medical treatment...

      Crystal Lee Sutton

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Only a good thing if by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      old friend of mine has recently lost most of her sight , she can't use her PC any more because of it.
      Her husband told me there is an operation which would restore her sight if she is operated on within the next three weeks, (about two weeks now it was about a week ago he told me). trouble is they don't have insurance, its not counted as a medical emergency and if medicaid will cover it , it normally takes 3 months or so to get the go ahead by which time it will be too late.

      so yes she isn't dying because of a lack of medical care but blind instead.

      As a European who gets the medical care I need when I need it regardless of my ability to pay, that is shocking.
      About her only chance now is if there is someone reading this, willing to pay for her surgery, I'd be more than willing to help this happen but somehow i doubt it will.

      --
      Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
    8. Re:Only a good thing if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She went two months without possible life-saving medications because her insurance wouldn't cover it, another example of abusing the working poor, she said.

      "How in the world can it take so long to find out (whether they would cover the medicine or not) when it could be a matter of life or death," she said. "It is almost like, in a way, committing murder."

      Dead.

      LOS ANGELES â" The family of a 17-year-old leukemia patient has sued health insurance giant Cigna Corp. for her death in 2007 after the company initially refused to pay for a liver transplant.

      Dead.

      In February, there was an outcry over the case of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old boy who died because his family could not afford private dental treatment.

      It was while he was at school one Thursday in February that Deamonte complained of toothache. On the Saturday he had emergency surgery. An abscess had spread to his brain.

      A few weeks later he died.

      Dead.

      Results of a new study show having no health insurance leads to 45000 deaths annually. The findings come from Harvard researchers, and show that patients who cannot afford to see their doctor or purchase their medications die. The high rate of annual deaths because of lack of health insurance is preventable.

      Melodramatic? Fuck you.

    9. Re:Only a good thing if by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      If I were her I would fly to Canada or Europe and see if they'll treat it.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    10. Re:Only a good thing if by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Actually you are dead wrong. If you are dead broke and receiving SSI disability and Medicare you will get that transplant. But if you have a bit of money and are not on SSI you would not be able to afford the anti rejection meds which cost about 3K per month and you will not receive the surgery, Insurance usually will not cover these medications.
                This gets even darker. If you go to a hospital with an emergency condition and no insurance you will be treated. However, if you have insurance and it does not cover needed surgeries or procedures you will die.
                Real bad example is a seriously ill diabetic who always received immediate care for his emergencies but was discharged without insulin or supplies and would have an emergency within twelve hours every time. It cost 70K every time the guy keeled over.
              Worse yet, Holy Cross Hospital in Ft. Lauderdale taking a dieing AIDS patient on a stretcher and dumping him on the sidewalk as dieing is not an emergency.

  5. wth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Is it any of the Doj'S business?! WHY ARE THEY RECOMMEDING SHIT. FUCK YOU! HAIL GOOGLE. cacacacacacaccacaccapsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  6. IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    MADONNA IS THE BEST! [madonna.com]
    madonnanaked.jpg

    I made it through the wilderness Somehow I made it through Didn't know how lost I was Until I found you

    I was beat incomplete I'd been had, I was sad and blue But you made me feel Yeah, you made me feel Shiny and new Like a virgin

    Erotica, romance [repeat] My name is Dita I'll be your mistress tonight I'd like to put you in a trance

    If I take you from behind
    Push myself into your mind
    When you least expect it
    Will you try and reject it
    If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
    Will you let yourself go wild
    Let my mouth go where it wants to

    Give it up, do as I say
    Give it up and let me have my way
    I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
    I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

    I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
    Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
    Erotic, erotic

    Once you put your hand in the flame
    You can never be the same
    There's a certain satisfaction
    In a little bit of pain
    I can see you understand
    I can tell that you're the same
    If you're afraid, well rise above
    I only hurt the ones I love

    Give it up, do as I say
    Give it up and let me have my way
    I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
    I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

    I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
    Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
    Erotic, erotic

    Erotica, romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, romance
    Put your hands all over my body

    I don't think you know what pain is
    I don't think you've gone that way
    I could bring you so much pleasure
    I'll come to you when you say
    I know you want me
    I'm not gonna hurt you
    I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

    Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
    Put your hands all over my body
    All over me, all over me

    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I like to do a different kind of
    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, romance
    Put your hands all over my body

    Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
    Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away

  7. We love Madonna! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    MADONNA IS THE BEST!!!

    I made it through the wilderness Somehow I made it through Didn't know how lost I was Until I found you

    I was beat incomplete I'd been had, I was sad and blue But you made me feel Yeah, you made me feel Shiny and new Like a virgin

    Erotica, romance [repeat] My name is Dita I'll be your mistress tonight I'd like to put you in a trance

    If I take you from behind
    Push myself into your mind
    When you least expect it
    Will you try and reject it
    If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
    Will you let yourself go wild
    Let my mouth go where it wants to

    Give it up, do as I say
    Give it up and let me have my way
    I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
    I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

    I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
    Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
    Erotic, erotic

    Once you put your hand in the flame
    You can never be the same
    There's a certain satisfaction
    In a little bit of pain
    I can see you understand
    I can tell that you're the same
    If you're afraid, well rise above
    I only hurt the ones I love

    Give it up, do as I say
    Give it up and let me have my way
    I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
    I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

    I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
    Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
    Erotic, erotic

    Erotica, romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, romance
    Put your hands all over my body

    I don't think you know what pain is
    I don't think you've gone that way
    I could bring you so much pleasure
    I'll come to you when you say
    I know you want me
    I'm not gonna hurt you
    I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

    Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
    Put your hands all over my body
    All over me, all over me

    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I like to do a different kind of
    Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
    I'd like to put you in a trance
    Erotica, romance
    Put your hands all over my body

    Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
    Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away

  8. Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. 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?

    2. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by gilroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just about making money. (I know -- the horror!) It's also about control and access. Why should any one company, even Google, get sole and exclusive rights to works in the public domain?

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    3. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by smoker2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Well spotted, and not only do you do that, you also make google the rights holder with the govt. being tied by contract. Let's let google handle the economy shall we ? Anything else we can put in the hands of profit driven private enterprise ? speaking as a UK resident, we gave gas, electricity and water over to private enterprise and they are all, without exception, owned by foreign powers and are much more expensive. Even though the public purse had paid dearly to develop the infrastructure. Go you liberals.
      I fully support forcible renationalisation, with no recompense, because they have stolen the profits from organisations I was a shareholder of, which were sold out from under me, and the service has got worse ! Where has MY investment gone ? I didn't play the stock market, I invested in powerlines, water mains, gas pipelines and oil rigs. Some stupid bitch took the quick profit and now I'M paying for it. Thanks a lot. Unless I'm mistaken, there are 60 million of us and less than 1000 oligarchs. FUCK THEM !

      And do you know how they slipped that past us ? They said that we would have regulators in place to make sure these private companies acted in our best interests. And who are the regulators ? People who kiss corporate ass and get appointed chief of unelected QUANGOs. Here's 100 grand a year to be in charge. You don't have to attend, we'll take care of it.

      Burn the fuckers down !

      this may seem like a rant, but google are getting a long way on goodwill. Sure they promise not to be evil, but we trusted the govt. not to be evil, and they work for us ! Now we are expected to voluntarily give power to a private corporation, who can only legally have their shareholders interests at heart. say goodbye to restricted copyright terms, fair use, freedom of information. These fuckers will own it all. You will be working a good proportion of your life just to pay google for access to your own data. Mark my words.

    4. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Eighty7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's only "exclusive" in the sense that google is the defendant. Any other company is quite free to go through the whole process again ie scan, get sued & make their own settlement. Anyway as I recall google is making these books available to other companies.

    5. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      [...] google are getting a long way on goodwill. Sure they promise not to be evil [...]

      I'm currently reading Confucious' works (thank you, Project Gutenberg), and in "The Sayings of Confucious" book 2 appears the quote, "Think no evil."

      I think Google is secretly a communist organization. :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Google is optionally making their scans available to at least one other companies. Some of them are reputed to be of very poor quality, but nobody else is allowed to make them. Sometimes because of this court decision, and other times because of the exclusive contracts that Google made with the various libraries that contained copies of the out-of-print works. (And sometimes, I guess, both.)

      I've not been well pleased by the way Google has been courting exclusive control.

      P.S.: The company that I'm aware of is in the business of printing books on request. But you don't seem to be able to order them over the web, you seem to need to go to a location where one of their book printing machines is installed. I'm not certain that this is true, perhaps things are still being set up. But I'd have been happier if they'd made the deal with Lulu or some other company that did printing to order, and took orders on-line.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet Archive, who has done a lot more copyright ignoring than Google, tried to join the case and the plaintiffs turned them down...

      You seem to be under the impression that this is The authors guild vs Google; In reality this is The Authors Guild and Google vs all authors, their heirs, and the public at large. This stylized abuse of a class action, having a strawman sue you so you can settle, is an unprecedented legal coup. If the practice is allowed to stand large corporations will have a blank check to rewrite any defaults established by the law.

      Even the Justice Department sees this, so I hope it's not too hard for the /. crowd to grok.

    8. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Kirijini · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't get exclusive rights. Read section 2.4 of the settlement agreement:

      Non-Exclusivity of Authorizations. The authorizations granted to Google in this Settlement Agreement are non-exclusive only, and nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as limiting any Rightsholder's right to authorize, through the Registry or otherwise, any Person, including direct competitors of Google, to use his, her or its Books or Inserts in any way, including ways identical to those provided for under this Settlement Agreement.

      Competitors would have to make their own deal with the rightholders - so, they wouldn't necessarily get the same terms - but that's normal business practice. You gotta negotiate your own contract, not piggyback on a competitor's.

    9. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you are not correct in this case because it was a class action suit.

    10. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It is not standard business practice for a company that breaks the law to get preferential terms. Well, maybe it is, but if so that highlights a fairly serious flaw in the system.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently reading Confucious' works (thank you, Project Gutenberg)

      Feel free to pay them back any time you fancy.

    12. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's nothing inherently evil about communism; like all governments it will slip into evil if not regulated by the people, but since that hardly sets it apart from capitalism (there are real lessons to be learned in that department by what America is doing in the world right now — shit, we filled up mass graves with Panamanians for the purposes of securing profits and now people are suprised when they hear about the same thing in the middle east?)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I have contributed time, not money, in their sister Distributed Proofreading project. And your tone could be improved, if you're actually with them and turfing for donations.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Communism part was a joke -- but I did like the similarity between way-old-school philosophy, and a modern corporation, and also find it easy to believe that the Google motto was influenced/written by someone familiar with Confucious' works.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  9. Screw the DoJ by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In its present form it would, it said, give Google sole authority for books whose copyright holder could not be found

    In other words, they're terrified of the prospect that Google is extending the doctrine of squatters' rights to intellectual property.

    1. Re:Screw the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to call this squatters rights when Google is the only authorized squatter.

  10. WE LOVE MADONNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    WE LOVE MADONNA

  11. The Modern Narrative by hessian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  12. i just got off the toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    i shit out an obama.

    plop!

  13. Put in the work so everyone else can profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Put in the work so everyone else can profit? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      They can make deals with publishers, that is not a problem.

      The problem is the case of "orphaned" (I'm not sure how strictly they are defining orphaned but other posts here imply it's not particularly strict) works, some body has through a class action sued Google on behalf of them. In a class action settlement the lawyers who brought the case essentially get to negotiate on behalf of the class and are trying to use this power to grant Google a settlement that lets them reproduce orphaned works.

      The problem is that without a proper judgement on this lawsuit anyone else who wants to enter the market is in a bind. They could go down the same route Google has gone and hope for a friendly plaintiff but there is no guarantee that a friendly plaintiff will get there before some group who plans to see the case through to the end. If the new scanner than loses that case then it would likely set a precedent and Google really would be left with a monopoly on orphaned works.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  14. Aren't courts independents? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    US DOJ recommending to a New York court

    Isn't the judiciary branch supposed to be independent of executive?

    1. Re:Aren't courts independents? by burner · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's why it's a recommendation.

      --
      MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
    2. Re:Aren't courts independents? by geonik · · Score: 0

      I am baffled! In most of Europe, it would be inconceivable for the executive branch (DoJ) to step into the proceedings of a court this way. The judiciary branch is indepedent of the whims of other branches - at least in theory - and such a recommendation would be met with outcry from just about everyone.

    3. Re:Aren't courts independents? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They're not "stepping in", they're making a position statement on the matter. It's quite common and, on the whole, useful, because the judiciary is not generally an expert on an arbitrary matter.

    4. Re:Aren't courts independents? by geonik · · Score: 0

      Courts can request help from any expert they deem useful. Higher court instances are also available when a court is not qualified enough.

      The DoJ stating it's position will probably influence court ruling one way or another, so it is really "stepping in" in my vocabulary.

    5. Re:Aren't courts independents? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      They're not "stepping in", they're making a position statement on the matter.

      So if the jury members have iPhones and access google it is a problem. But government making a statement on case in progress is fine? I agree with geonik's post - in Europe it would be inconceivable.

    6. Re:Aren't courts independents? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Amicus curiae is present in most common-law systems, including the UK. In France and Germany, at least, the courts are able to make requests for the opinions of third parties.

      So if the jury members have iPhones and access google it is a problem

      Yes, as it's a completely different situation. In this case, the opinion is provided to the court and could be presented to the jury if it meets judicial rules. If jury members simply look up information on their own on the Internet, there's no judicial vetting. (So, for example, a police organization could gather evidence illegally and then openly publish information about this evidence so that the jurors could read it, rendering the fact that it is barred from being produced as evidence in court moot.) An organization, governmental or not, cannot produce such an opinion and have it be presented to the jury without judicial review.

  15. cotton niggers, sand niggers, rice niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    kill all niggers

    1. Re:cotton niggers, sand niggers, rice niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

  16. DOJ?? by KwKSilver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:DOJ?? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean that *all* of their suggestions are bad. I distrust monopolies wherever they appear.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:DOJ?? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Is this the same DOJ that has been packed with "ex" Microsoft lawyers?"

      Perhaps they just jumped ship to be on the winning team (i.e. the DOJ won, MS lost). DOJ lawyers moving to MS would be the suspicious scenario, not the other way around.

    3. Re:DOJ?? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Is this the same DOJ that has been packed with "ex" Microsoft lawyers?

      You have to understand that lawyers are mercenary. They push the views of who ever is paying for their $3000 suits. That these guys once worked for Microsoft really doesn't say much, they work for the DoJ now so there's no telling who they are looking out for, but it isn't necessarily Microsoft.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:DOJ?? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Not to mention all the RIAA cronies...

  17. Who has been negative? by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

    > 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.

    1. Re:Who has been negative? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think it's the exclusivity that bothers me. I don't particularly trust Google any more than Amazon and anyone else. Beyond that, I question the legitimacy of Google and a group that alleges to represent all authors cutting a deal. How is Google, at the end of the day, any more trustworthy a gatekeeper than Amazon, Microsoft or anyone else?

      And I know a number of academics and authors have already called the deal into question as well, so its hardly just big multinationals.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Who has been negative? by mathfeel · · Score: 1

      But what's stopping other companies from making the same deal? Someone like Google, who wants to and seems to have the muscle to guard (or at least classify?) all digital information, made the deal first is not completely surprising.

      --
      The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    3. Re:Who has been negative? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Surely most of the general public has viewed this Google project as a positive thing."

      I disagree (and stop calling me shirley)

    4. Re:Who has been negative? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      What is stopping other companies is that the current deal gives Google exclusive rights. What the objectors want is a non-exclusive arrangment.

    5. Re:Who has been negative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between exclusive rights and the only one to have those rights.

      The former implies that noone else may have the rights.
      The latter implies that noone else YET has the rights.

    6. Re:Who has been negative? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      But what's stopping other companies from making the same deal?

      The fact that the settlement provides no mechanism for their doing so. The only reason Google got these terms is that they committed massive, commercial, copyright infringement and got sued. The group suing them managed to get their suit counted as a class-action, meaning that they got to represent anyone who didn't explicitly opt out. They then settled. Given that the minimum fine for wilful copyright infringement in the USA is $7,500 and the terms of the settlement amounted to a small fraction of this, do you think any other company would (or could, legally, if they were shareholder-owned) take the risk of going the same path and praying that they got the same (incredibly favourable) terms? The only other way they can do so is to negotiate with all of the copyright owners individually, or through some representative group. Without the class-action status or some government-granted authority this group would not be able to negotiate on behalf of the authors of 'orphaned' works, so Google would retain a monopoly on these.

      The reason so many are objecting is that, even though it isn't technically an exclusive deal, it is almost impossible for anyone else to get the same deal.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Who has been negative? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And this is precisely why the DoJ does not want the deal to go ahead. Worse, to my mind, than a natural monopoly, is a government (or in this case court) sanctioned monopoly. A considerable number of people, including, yes, other corporations, but also academics and librarians, are deeply concerned about this, and view Google's suddenly "opening up" to let other companies gain access as nothing more than a bandaid.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  18. Literate people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  19. That's what a basic income is for... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:That's what a basic income is for... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      ... do you live on planet Earth with humans? Humans... you know those creatures, right?

    2. Re:That's what a basic income is for... by sharkbiter · · Score: 1

      Ah sweet sweet welfare! Where the poorest and laziest of humanity can drive Cadillacs and dine on steak whereas everybody else is sweating there collective lives away, barely making ends meet, working for the "man".

    3. Re:That's what a basic income is for... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      And what about Debian GNU/Linux? Or the FOSS movement? And so on. Take a look at this video and tell me anything about mainstream economics is going to make sense soon:
          http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    4. Re:That's what a basic income is for... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Well, we also have robots on Planet Earth:
          http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

      What does that robot mean about the future of most jobs requiring hand-eye coordination?

      See also:
          http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm

      A basic income almost passed under Nixon. :-)

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    5. Re:That's what a basic income is for... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      I recommend you read up on social psychology in order to understand what drives people a little better.

    6. Re:That's what a basic income is for... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      How about "Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes": :-)
          http://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Trouble-Incentive-Praise/dp/0395710901

      Or:
          "No Contest: The Case Against Competition"
          http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
         

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  20. Re: Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this.. by MacWiz · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  21. renegotiation by chowdahhead · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. Shakespeare had this problem. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    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.
  23. For 5000 years by symbolset · · Score: 1

    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.