Library Groups Ask DOJ To Oversee Google Books

adeelarshad82 writes "Three library associations have asked the Justice Department to oversee Google's plans to create a massive digital library, so as to prevent excessively high pricing for institutional subscriptions. They said that there was unlikely to be an effective competitor to Google's massive project in the near term. They also asked for academic author representation on the Registry board. Google's plan to digitize millions of books has been criticized by a variety of sources and has recently been shut down in France."

Comments

Why do I get

[OverlordQ]

Why do I get the feeling that if it came down to it, it would be these library associations who would be charging large amounts of money to access their archives rather then Google.

Re:Why do I get

[Ethanol-fueled]

You're right. This isn't about fair prices for consumers, it's about control. Why should I have to pay just to read a paper which was funded with my tax dollars?

They probably think that people will use Google to "steal" what should be in the public domain to begin with. They think that it will ruin their business, just like how the internet "ruined" the newspaper business.

Re:Why do I get

[lorenlal]

I don't think so. I mean, most libraries exist to provide free or low cost access to as much of this information as they can.

I wonder if the library association is interested in this because they worry about their own existence?

Personally, I don't think this is a terrible idea. I mean, many of us don't doubt Google's intentions... But I like this sort of mindset when someone has a de facto monopoly. I'd rather err on the side of suspicion and actually put emphasis protecting competitors.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Google get the exclusive right to all that information? Anyone else who wants to do what Google is doing will be forced to negotiate with each and every author individually which will put them at a great disadvantage.

Since Google controls the pricing they sell at any author who speaks out may find that Google starts running a sale on their works to reduce their payouts. If Microsoft was doing this people would be pissed.

Re:Why do I get

[spikenerd]

Well said. The public pays the taxes that support all of the government necessary to enable Copyright. The public, therefore, rightfully owns those works after a limited time. By extending Copyright, they effectively robbed all of us of our rightful property. What hypocrisy for them to crack down on "piracy".

Re:Why do I get

[Korin43]

But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do. Why should they be punished for being the only ones who want to digitize everything? I read constantly about how horrible it will be that Google will be the only ones doing this, but if people actually thought competition would help, there would already be a competitor.

Re:Why do I get

[DarkofPeace]

I agree, by the logic everyone is using, no one should do anything new because they would have a monopoly until someone copied them. The whole point is that Google is trying something no one else has bothered to do, and anyone who wants to put the money and effort can duplicate. The problem is having to drag the old school kicking and screaming into the new millennium.

Re:Why do I get

[Trepidity]

That's certainly the precedent set by JSTOR, a more traditional non-profit initiative with closer ties to libraries. An individual not affiliated with a subscribing institution basically can't get access, outside a few narrow exceptions (like access to a specific journal if you're an individual subscriber to the paper version of the journal). They won't even allow public access to old journals that are in the public domain! Google so far is being much more public-friendly.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because they charged large amounts prior to google.

Get a clue. These guys were google before there was a google. Sorry if that concept hurts your little head.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

Because BadAnalogyGuy is an insane scientologist cock smoker.

How would you know? Personal experience?

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're a Slashtard whoring for karma by being skeptical of everything?

Re:Why do I get

[timmarhy]

i know i do't follow this logic either, it's like someone complaining because i have a monopoly on wanting chicks to play with my junk.

the books themselfs will still be available, it's amazing everyone is still ignoring this simple fact.

Re:Why do I get

[Daniel Dvorkin]

This isn't about fair prices for consumers, it's about control. ... They probably think that people will use Google to "steal" what should be in the public domain to begin with.

I think you've got it exactly backwards. Here's the key line from TFA:

The library groups also express "great disappointment" that the DOJ did not not urge the parties to require representation of academic authors on the Registry board, even though academic authors wrote the vast majority of the books Google will include in its database, and those authors--unlike those in the Authors Guild---"probably would want the Registry to price the institutional subscription in a manner that maximizes public access rather than profits."

Get that? The library associations are the good guys here. Most librarians are very much in favor of public access (it kind of goes along with the whole concept of a library) and academic librarians in particular are really sick of seeing their limited budgets eaten up by absurd journal costs. What they're worried about, I think, is that Google will end up as a partner with the publishers in making it more expensive for people to get access to information which, as you correctly point out, they've already paid for with their taxes. Whether or not this concern is justified, I don't claim to know, but it's certainly worth raising the issue. And speaking as an academic, I can say that they're absolutely right about what academic authors in general would want. I'll never make a dime on any article I publish in a journal, and that's fine; the whole point of writing journal articles is to publicize the work.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

most libraries exist to provide free or low cost access to as much of this information as they can

You're thinking of public libraries. There are more corporate and academic libraries than public. And my unfortunate experience within charities has taught me that management is often more interested in creating nice jobs for themselves and their friends, than the organization's purpose -- libraries won't be immune to that aspect of human nature. So it's only reasonable to examine their claim for turf-war aspects.

Wiki thumnails of the three groups. They do look pretty good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Library_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_College_and_Research_Libraries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Research_Libraries

Interesting that ACRL is listed separate, but is a division of ALA.

Re:Why do I get

[Daniel Dvorkin]

JSTOR is limited by its agreements with the publishers, of course. If Google can push through a more user-friendly publisher agreement, good for them, but the librarians quite reasonably do not want the ability to make such agreements limited to one organization, not even one with Google's well-earned reputation.

Re:Why do I get

[Ethanol-fueled]

Point taken, but why are the authors/universities allowing conglomerates to scoop up their taxpayer-funded work and profit from it? If you academics make deals with the devil just to get exposure, then wouldn't Google's availability help and not hurt you? If anything, it would increase "exposure" and may even lower prices.

Re:Why do I get

[pjt48108]

Because that's exactly how it would be. I used to work in libraries. They're just suffering an existential crisis, and will react this way each time someone comes up with a better idea than they can make good on themselves.

Re:Why do I get

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Those are tough questions, and I don't have all the answers. As for the first one, although there are a lot of separate laws and court decisions which led up to the current situation, I put much of the blame on Bayh-Dole; read up on it and decide for yourself if that's where the blame lies.

As for the second, yes, sometimes it is a bit of a deal with the devil, and I'm no happier about it than anyone else. There are, fortunately, many good open-access journals in my field (bioinformatics) but not all fields have that. And there are a lot of very good traditional journals too; it's really not realistic, at this point, for any researcher to decide to publish only open-access. Will Google make it easier for people to get to information which until now has been locked away behind pay walls? If so, I'm 100% in favor. But I think the question on the librarians' minds is this: given publishers' historic reluctance to make any kind of deal that would permit this, how likely is it that a complex settlement engineered by the publishers, one giant media corporation, and government lawyers, with hardly any input from authors or librarians, will really accomplish this goal? The answer to that question may be a pleasant surprise ... but it's well worth asking, and it hasn't yet been adequately answered.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are wrong, but your idealistic notion is a good one.

Libraries are there to provide books that people want to read. Often they throw out books, some that are really good to read, but not popular. What Google is doing is valuable for those who want to have access to the books their library does not / will not / can not carry.

I think that the ideal library has all books... old and new. Realistically that is not possible. There are inter-library loans and such for books with some libraries, but finding those books can be difficult as well.

Libraries should be rejoicing that something like this can happen!

Re:Why do I get

[Lemmy Caution]

The "supported by my tax dollars" thing is a bit of a red-herring. A lot of things are supported by your tax dollars, yet still have various fees associated with them (such as camping in a National Park.) The research may be funded by your tax dollars, or it may not be (a lot of university research is privately funded) but the distribution of the paper still needs to be paid for institutionally. And academic writing may not even be funded at all.

Re:Why do I get

[Shakrai]

By extending Copyright, they effectively robbed all of us of our rightful property. What hypocrisy for them to crack down on "piracy".

Then why don't you vote "them" out of office?

Oh yeah, copyrights don't win elections. Neither do civil liberties. Seems the only thing that wins elections are vague promises of "change" that manage to penetrate into the minds of the electorate in between viewings of American Idol......

Re:Why do I get

[coaxial]

but if people actually thought competition would help, there would already be a competitor.

What type of logic is this? Competition isn't about helping! It's about running the other guy of business and taking all of the money yourself. (Or as TMBG put it, "I don't want the world. I only want your half." Or perhaps better, Conan's description of the best in life, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women") Do you think Pepsi exists to help Coke? If so, you clearly are more confused than most Ayn Rand reading parent's basement dwelling "capitalists".

So why hasn't this happened? Well let me introduce you to the ideas of "barriers to entry" and "limited returns." Keep in mind GOOG got $21,128,514 revenues from their advertising business last year. They can afford to lose money for literally decades (Google Books started in 2002) before beginning to recoop their investment. Google is the only group that can. Especially given that the exclusivity deals Google signed to begin this project.

And don't for once think that GOOG is doing this out of the goodness of their heart. Companies are heartless and amoral. Like the cylons, they have a plan.

Re:Why do I get

[Gerzel]

I doubt it. Most of these library groups are just that groups that represent public and semi-private libraries who exist with a non-profit mandate and purpose.

Re:Why do I get

[Gerzel]

That or scaremongering and presenting a face of someone the voter thinks they might like to have a beer with.

No side is innocent.

Re:Why do I get

[Gerzel]

Indeed its like these people almost have devoted their lives to free repositories of information to educate society...what would a place like that be called?

Re:Why do I get

[Kirijini]

The public pays the taxes that support all of the government necessary to enable Copyright. The public, therefore, rightfully owns those works after a limited time. By extending Copyright, they effectively robbed all of us of our rightful property.

No way.

The public doesn't own intellectual property after copyright expires on the theory that, because we fund the government that enforces (or, enables enforcement of) copyright, we get "paid back" with the rights to it once the copyright expires.

The public owns intellectual property because intellectual property isn't really property. "Intellectual property" is a legal fiction we've (the United States, at least) set up on the theory that property rights in fixed expression will encourage creativity. The fact of the matter is that once something has been expressed in a fixable way (i.e., written down, drawn, engraved, sculpted, digitalized, etc.), and it has been made available to to the public (i.e., published), anybody can come along and copy it. Normally, this sort of thing, the right to repeat something you've heard, is called freedom of speech.

The theory behind copyright is that without its protections, people won't create, and if they do, they won't release it to the public, because then anybody could copy it without paying the author.

So, yes, you should be outraged when copyright is extended, whether in duration or subject matter. But, no, not because "they've robbed us of our property." Instead, because they've magically created "property" that we're legally bound to respect. Let me put it in different terms: extensions of copyright directly limit our freedom of speech.

Re:Why do I get

[martin-boundary]

no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do

What, you mean no one else has bothered to break the law? There's a reason why Google have the biggest scanned collection, and it's this: they got their collection illegally.

Surely you're not arguing that breaking the law is innovation? There's the reason why Google has no competitors on this.

Copyright doesn't allow *anybody* to scan all the books in a library and make them available online to the public willy nilly. Google got sued for it, and will continue to get sued for it and all the other copyright infractions they do on a daily basis, you can bet on that.

This is a social problem which has no proper solution other than reducing dramatically the copyright laws.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

wikipedia

Re:Why do I get

[DerekLyons]

The librarians and the Author's guild and essentially everybody in this fight except Google are the Good Guys this time. The grandparent has the issue right, but the party to be concerned about wrong - this is about control, Google's control and their legally questionable and ethically objectionable attempts to be awarded a permanent legal monopoly on maintaining an electronic archive of out of print books.

Re:Why do I get

[DerekLyons]

he whole point is that Google is trying something no one else has bothered to do

The reason no one else has bothered to do it is because it is illegal to make available copies of works still under copyright without express permission from the author.
 
I really wish people would get this through their heads. Google is breaking the law, and is attempting to get a courts blessing not only to continue breaking the law, but to award them the sole and unlimited right to break the law.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here is an interesting aspect of this process that I haven't heard anything about, did Google indeed have exclusivity contracts signed for this? Citation please.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do.

Doing something no one else is doing is not a monopoly, that's called being unique.

Having a monopoly is PREVENTING others from doing what you are doing by some means. An act Google is not doing at all, at least as far as books and digitizing goes.

Don't allow other peoples incorrect use of words detract from the real issues.

They are not upset over any monopoly concerns as they know they do not exist. They are upset over uniqueness concerns, because someone else is bettering humanity and they don't like it.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave a link, now go suck your dad's dick.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that BadAnalogyGuy should be posting this shit anonymously. And, I was completely unaware that he was a scientologist.

Re:Why do I get

[Runaway1956]

Alright. Let's follow your logic. The roofing company does asphalt shingle roofs at the rate of $80/square. I negotiate with them to have it done for $60/square. That's illegal? WTF?

As has already been pointed out, Google NEGOTIATED for the right to publish all this stuff. We might squabble over the prices paid, and those people who may have lacked representation - but they NEGOTIATED, in good faith. How, exactly, is this illegal?

I sure hope you don't use coupons, and respond to sales, because by your logic, THOSE are illegal as well!

Re:Why do I get

[DarkofPeace]

I feel the need to preface this with "I am not a google fanboy". Yes Google is breaking current copyright law, but they had to do that to get legal standing to challenge the law and get the ability to either change the law or settle and get the rights to the works. Right now there is no way to reproduce all the "orphan" works legally, and in my opinion that is just stupid, we are losing valuable information because big business can't figure out who needs to get paid. All the big companies and authors get their money when Google publishes their works. What this case is all about is the works that are out of print and can't find who to pay. As an example, if Tolkin did not have an estate, His work would be stuck in a legal limbo and unless you were lucky enough to find an original copy, you would never be able to find a copy to read (much less have the movies, ect.). Once we have a legal mechanism in place to deal with these works, it is easy enough to extend this to other companies. Google is just doing all the legwork.

Re:Why do I get

[lorenlal]

But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do. Why should they be punished for being the only ones who want to digitize everything?

Keeping an eye on someone, and watching what they do != punishment. It's called oversight. My impression from TFA is that the ALA wants to make sure Google doesn't try to leverage what it creates to become a monopoly.

Currently, the academic and research libraries

Re:Why do I get

[morari]

Surely you're not arguing that breaking the law is innovation?

Often times, innovation requires just that.

Re:Why do I get

[ArundelCastle]

Because you're paranoid, didn't RTFA, and you don't understand the concept of not-for-profit. Library associations don't possess or provide access to this content, and they don't charge anyone anything (other than institutional membership fees), even if it "came down to it". They have the power to lobby, which is exactly what they're doing here.

Associations a library chooses to belong to have no control over setting cost of services. If that was the case, costs would be uniform, and they're not. That is for Directors, Deans, and Boards of each institution, and most every publicly funded institution has a mandate to provide as much as possible for free. If you don't like the fees one library may be charging you to fulfill a request, try another library. If that one is outside your "tax" region, check if they have a partnership with your local institutions to access the information for free. Odds are you'll only need to show your current library card.

You do have one, right?

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust my librarian to NOT share my reading history with any person, corporation, or government.

Google will sell my reading history.

If you read a book on cancer, that would interest your employer or insurance company. If you read a book on Islam, that may interest the FBI.

If you read the Anarchists Cookbook, that may interest the government.

Google, or anyone, knowing too much about you is a very, very, bad thing.

Re:Why do I get

[DerekLyons]

Alright. Let's follow your logic. The roofing company does asphalt shingle roofs at the rate of $80/square. I negotiate with them to have it done for $60/square. That's illegal? WTF?

Had that been what happened, you'd have a point.
 
What happened was Google was caught selling my house. When some random guy in New York objected, Google negotiated with him to purchase my house from him. Then Google negotiated a contract with that same random guy to purchase every house that comes up for sale in the US, with the money going to the random guy and the deed being transferred automatically to Google without the owner, the Realtor, or the bank being notified and requiring a cumbersome procedure for said owner, Realtor, or bank to get the deed back.
 
Or, in other words, the Authors Guild doesn't own the rights they sold to Google. The subsequent court decision then awards to Google further rights that it is not in the jurisdiction of the court to award.

Re:Why do I get

[DerekLyons]

In other words, Google is not only stealing, they are seeking to change the law ex post facto to legitimize their stealing. (The latter, in and of itself, is illegal under US law.) Then you fail to mention that Google is also trying to rig the game such that not only will they be the are only people with the right to steal, but also so that in the future they won't have to steal because the rights will automatically be awarded to them regardless of the will of the actual owner.
 
In short, you *are* a Google fanboy because you parrot their sugar coated version. Including the nonsense terms 'legal limbo' and 'orphan' - the legal status of the works in question is quite clear, the rights belong to the owner. Just because you can't find him, doesn't mean his rights evaporate. If he died without leaving a will, then we have laws that describe who gets what in that instance. You also repeat the bullshit notion that if someone dies without inheritance of his rights being clear his works will somehow evaporate and disappear and that only the 'lucky' will be able to find a copy. (As opposed to reality, in which anyone can purchase a book from a used book store.)

Re:Why do I get

[Runaway1956]

Who has the rights? Did any rights holders object? Nope? They've ABANDONED their rights, and/or they approve of Google's use of their works. Vacant houses and vacant properties (from your analogy) are sold at sheriff's auctions all around this country - I almost said daily, but certainly monthly. This looks like a sheriff's auction to me.

Re:Why do I get

[Anonymous Coward]

You also repeat the bullshit notion that if someone dies without inheritance of his rights being clear his works will somehow evaporate and disappear and that only the 'lucky' will be able to find a copy. (As opposed to reality, in which anyone can purchase a book from a used book store.)

If he is lucky enough to find a used book store that carries the book in question

Re:Why do I get

[coaxial]

Actually, I just assumed that it was an exclusive deal since, that's how these things work. You want to limit the number of people rummaging through your library and the rare books collection in order to protect them, and still be able to function as a library while the books are being scanned you know?

I can't find a link. Just talk about "virtually exclusive" due to GOOG's deep pockets to ward off the numerous lawsuits that have and will come out. Keep in mind, every publisher lawsuit was settled. Nothing was resolved in court, so the publishers can just sue the next person that try to repeat GOOG's scan effort.

So without a link, I guess they weren't legally exclusive deals after all.

Re:Why do I get

[DarkofPeace]

I forgot I was on Slashdot for a moment... No need for the personal attacks, I don't care if its Google or some other company. Our culture is being nickle and dimed away from us. Since the Bono copy write extensions, our grandchildren (asuming we have any, this is slashdot) might have the opportunity to see a copy. And for the orphan works, they are not Oprah's book of the month, most are limited runs and difficult to find now, much less in 70 years. This is not about all books, it is about those books that have no clear owner. As for your ex post facto argument, they are not seeking to change the law which requires lobbying , they are seeking to challenge the law which means they must have standing to go to court (IANAL).

Re:Why do I get

[tehcyder]

But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do. Why should they be punished for being the only ones who want to digitize everything? I read constantly about how horrible it will be that Google will be the only ones doing this, but if people actually thought competition would help, there would already be a competitor.

Well, I'd like to compete against Google on this project, there's just the small matter of the tens of millions of pounds it would cost.

As we know, anyone can dine at the Ritz.

what?

[larry bagina]

If the institutional subscription is more expensive than what they're doing now, maybe they shouldn't use it. If it's less expensive, then what's the problem?

Re:what?

[TubeSteak]

If the institutional subscription is more expensive than what they're doing now, maybe they shouldn't use it. If it's less expensive, then what's the problem?

The problem is that google will have a monopoly.
Instead of waiting for the free market to screw things up, the librarians are being proactive about seeking oversight.

Good Grief.

[Frosty Piss]

Maybe Google should take their ball and go home. They *are not* required to digitize millions of book for they general perusal of mankind, if they don't want to. Let these selfish "library groups" wallow in the absence of Google Books.

Re:Good Grief.

[couchslug]

Maybe Google should do what it will, and tell the people who run libraries to piss up a rope.

Libraries sell off or throw away many books so they have space for new ones. With digitization, there is no need to sacrifice old material.

Re:Good Grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has a sweetheart deal that no one else on the planet can get. They worked the writers guild and court system in such a way as to give themselves the rights to all this material in one swoop. Anyone who wants to compete with them would be required to find / negotiate with each copyright holder to get them to give them access. This is a major barrier to any competition.

Re:Good Grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or point out the deal Google got and claim that THAT's where the monopoly lies, and thus get the same thing [or something similar] for themselves? We now have precedent for what has to happen to get access to all the works like this and what one can do with the digitized results. Why can't another company strike the same deal [or something reasonably similar] and then do all the work Google's doing? Did Google's deal really say "And this shall be the only deal of its kind ever in the history of the Universe. Should anyone besides Google wish to do this, they shall have to personally call every single person on the planet and negotiate royalties"?

Re:Good Grief.

[Lemmy Caution]

What Google gets out of this is the right to include all the content of most books ever written in their search results. That's a huge deal that would secure Google's position as the ultimate search engine. Google isn't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.

Re:Good Grief.

[lwsimon]

And their self-interested motives make their actions less beneficial how?

Re:Good Grief.

[JohnFluxx]

I think you're missing how beautifully google did this.

Google started scanning books, somewhat illegally. A _class action_ suit was then filed against google, by _some_ book writers but on behalf of _all_ book writers. This is the key point here. The purpose of a class action lawsuit is that you don't tie up the courts for years while every single person individually sues some company for something that they did wrong. Instead you have one big lawsuit and, and here's the kicker, no more lawsuits are allowed after that.

So, google gets sued in this class action lawsuit, and comes to an agreement that they can scan the books. Again, the class action lawsuit is speaking on behalf of _every_ person that ever has or will write a book. Think about that for a moment.

Say that you now write a book, and Google and some other company scan that book. You wrote this independently and have nothing to do with any guild or anything. You _cannot_ sue Google, but you _can_ sue the other company. This is the wonderful situation that Google is now in.

This is the strangeness of the situation. For another company to do the same thing, they would have to do something established as illegal, then try to entice a class action lawsuit, then try to come to the same arrangement. It's pretty risky!

Re:Good Grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in this thread did someone imply their actions are less beneficial because they are self interested? The parent's post answers why Google may not easily roll over and let the Libraries attempt to create their own system: A huge database of search-able material could bring more eyes to Google's services.

Re:Good Grief.

[Runaway1956]

"This is a major barrier to any competition."

Not so much as you seem to imply. It was as large, or maybe even a larger, barrier before Google got started. Google has done a lot of homework, and legal work, pointing toward all those rights holders that must be negotiated with. Some freeloading corporation can follow all the legal work, which will connect him with each and every rights holder that Google had to find in the first place.

As for the actual negotiations - I would imagine that the freeloader corporation might have to match, or better, Google's deals. Who is in a position to do so? Maybe Microsoft? Anyone else?

Re:Good Grief.

[morari]

Can you imagine, actually throwing out older books to make way for Twilight? I shudder to think.

Re:Good Grief.

[lwsimon]

Probably just my bias showing - I usually have several windows up at once, I probably just confused the conversation flow.

Wait just a minute here

[ArcherB]

Aren't librarians notorious for telling the DOJ to stay the hell out of their business? Weren't these the same people who refused to give the DOJ the records of people who were checking out Jihad and bomb making books? Aren't these the same people who refuse to have any type of filtering software on their computers so that any perve can sit there and view gay-incestuous-animal-porn on a PC right in front of preschoolers sitting down for story time?

Reminds of people who protest and bitch about the cops all the time but are happy to call them when someone is breaking into their house!

Re:Wait just a minute here

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your example about cops. It's got a very "either-with-us-or-against-us" ring to it.

You may also note that their actions are, in fact, totally consistent with all that. They want information to be free, or as close to it as possible.

Re:Wait just a minute here

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a retard.

Re:Wait just a minute here

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The DoJ is already in their business, by virtue of the settlement. What the librarians are trying to do is limit the damage which this in-their-business-ness may do. It's not analagous at all to someone who bitches about the cops but then calls 911 at the first sign of trouble. It's more like someone who was once tasered for asking an officer why he was getting a speeding ticket trying to figure out, the next time he gets pulled over, what he can do to avoid it happening again.

Re:Wait just a minute here

[ArcherB]

The DoJ is already in their business, by virtue of the settlement. What the librarians are trying to do is limit the damage which this in-their-business-ness may do. It's not analagous at all to someone who bitches about the cops but then calls 911 at the first sign of trouble. It's more like someone who was once tasered for asking an officer why he was getting a speeding ticket trying to figure out, the next time he gets pulled over, what he can do to avoid it happening again.

Yeah, that was a bad analogy. Someone call BadAnalogyGuy and tell him we got one for him.

Still, I find it hypocritical that librarians, who are paid by the government after bitching about federal regulation, are asking for the feds to regulate potential competition. Regardless of you opinion of the feds getting in your business, when your business is paid for by the government, the government has a right to regulate it. That's kinda what "government run" means.

(Analogy V2)
It would be like the post office asking the feds to investigate UPS after complaining about being investigated by the feds. (better?)

Re:Wait just a minute here

[Runaway1956]

You take that back!! He never was, and never will be as smart as a retard, you retard!

It's all against the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's against copyright law to scan an entire book into your computer. And to store the entire text in a database. Even if you never show it to anyone. It's still against existing copyright law.

What they have done is a gigantic, brazen violation of existing law.

Re:It's all against the law.

[Andorin]

What they have done is a gigantic, brazen violation of existing law.

So? Doesn't make it wrong.

Re:It's all against the law.

[Frosty Piss]

Yes, it would. IF this where what Goole was doing. But it's not.

Re:It's all against the law.

[Firehed]

Is it now? IANAL, but I believe that so long as you have paid for the book in question and you're not distributing that material, you're at liberty to do just that. The DMCA need not apply, as books a) aren't digital and b) aren't copy-protected.

But again, IANAL. And as it's past 2am, I can't be bothered to do any research.

Re:It's all against the law.

[Haymaker]

It can still be argued that not everything against the law is necessarily wrong.

Re:It's all against the law.

[Runaway1956]

I'm going to violate YOU, you whining little bitch!

Re:It's all against the law.

[tehcyder]

What they have done is a gigantic, brazen violation of existing law.

So? Doesn't make it wrong.

You and I and Google don't get to choose which laws we obey and which we don't, just to suit ourselves.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

You call that a cock? I've seen bigger shrimp that that!

I work in IT in an Academic Library

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another stunt to try and keep a dying profession/organization alive. Librarians need to embrace Google and try to partner with them whenever possible. They know their usefulness is going away, but they won't try to figure out how to become more relevant.

Academic Libraries are turning into computer labs. They are even putting in "Gaming Labs" in academic libraries to lure more students in. This way the gate counts go up and they keep getting funds. Never mind the typical undergrad could care less about Librarians and just want a place to type their paper and print it out.

But don't take my public library away! I love mine and hope it continues to be funded.

Re:I work in IT in an Academic Library

[Anonymous Coward]

And BTW, what on earth is a "Masters in Library
Science" good for?

Any idiot can learn the Dewey Decimal system in about 5 minutes. Other than that and glueing broken book spines what else do they need to know?

Re:I work in IT in an Academic Library

[Trahloc]

Have you ever tried to organize any material worth a damn? I'm not talking about your pr0n collection listed by entry hole. I mean trying to categorize the entire spectrum of human knowledge? The Dewey Decimal system may be the most common one used but it is by far not the only type in existence. Try spending some time reading up on systems of organization/taxonomy... its quiet fascinating unless all you can find amusing in life is bouncing tits and the latest sports blooper.

Although to be fair bouncing tits and sports bloopers DO have a place, I believe they belong somewhere in the 790's.

Re:I work in IT in an Academic Library

[Anonymous Coward]

When did American Class Action settlements become binding on the rest of the world?

Re:I work in IT in an Academic Library

[tehcyder]

Never mind the typical undergrad could care less about Librarians and just want a place to type their paper and print it out.

Then the typical undergrad is a moron who shouldn't be pandered to.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

You call that a cock? I've seen bigger shrimp that that!

Hmmm...are you in the habit of looking? I would keep my personal orientation to my self if I were you.

No competition?

[SuperKendall]

Google is already being undercut.

(may not want to follow link at work due to ads on site).

There are lots of people digitizing books, for free - so there's already some pressure on Google to be reasonable about pricing, even if they will probably have a much more comprehensive selection.

Re:No competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

From your link, I clicked one of the top results, and the note was:

Recreated as best as I could from memory and information I was able to locate through Google Book Search.

No competition?

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking of a number between one and go fuck yourself.

Competition is easy

[Gothmolly]

Just don't use their service. Everyone survived w/o it before, so its clearly not something you must have. If you decide to use it, STFU about the price.

Next ?

Asimov saw this coming

[lcreech]

Will all good the intentions I'm sure Google has (and I give them an A+, much higher marks that the norm of corporate America, which gets a C-). the problem is which Isaac Asimov pointed out in the Foundation Trilogy Series and his visions of tomorrow some 50 years ago is technology is that nothing out lasts simple tech, Steel, Stone or Paper to document things when technology changes or gets lost or power goes out. Google is doing a great things but old tech archives must also be renewed and kept alive just in case.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that AC was male.

The correct way to analyse the situation ....

[Anonymous Coward]

is to consider the implications of Microsoft doing this. Statements such as '... but Google isn't Microsoft' or '... Google has said it will do no evil' are meaningless. Power once given, or taken, is never rescinded. One organisation, a for-profit organisation at that, in control of all books? Hmmm what could possibly go wrong?

Economics...

[allcaps]

lol. Natural monopoly? A lack of competitors doesn't necessarily make for a bad economic climate.

Re:Economics...

[tehcyder]

lol. Natural monopoly? A lack of competitors doesn't necessarily make for a bad economic climate.

Not if you're the monopolist, agreed.

The libraries problem are from copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

The libraries problem are from copyrights.

"They said that there was unlikely to be an effective competitor to Google's massive project in the near term."

The reason for this is that with copyright law as it is now pursued (which, incidentally, would ban libraries) requires you buy or negotiate a license to do what Google (and libraries) do. The only reason why there will be a looong wait for competitors is because THE PUBLISHERS and COPYRIGHT OWNERS demand their pounds of flesh. And government enforces this.

All it would require is less government action.

Don't enforce copyright for a library-like use and you'll see a dozen competitors in a year tops.

The fault is copyright owners, not google

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google and potential competitors didn't HAVE to pay to do this, then there would be plenty of competition and no control for Google.

But whilst Google have HAD to pay to do this and Google HAD to spend time (and time is money in business) negotiating and while those who Google negotiated with are refusing to allow the same terms to anyone else (NDA on the deal was from the copyright side, not Google), then competitors either have to spend time and money negotiating with the thousands like Google did, or pay google for the work they did in negotiations.

Or should any tom dick and harry get to sponge off the hard work Google did? If so, then why not cut out the middle man and sponge off the books direct? It's copyright that gives the control in both cases, so why break only Google's copyright control?

No respect for the law

[TapeCutter]

Yeah, Ptolomey had no respect for the law either, first he nicked Egypt from the Pharohs and then he had an army of scribes copy all the scrolls he could find and stuffed them in his so called "library" of Alexandria. Eratosthenes and other authors tried to sue but lawyers hadn't been invented so he was SOL.

Re:No respect for the law

[Petrushka]

Yeah, Ptolomey had no respect for the law either, first he nicked Egypt from the Pharohs and then he had an army of scribes copy all the scrolls he could find and stuffed them in his so called "library" of Alexandria. Eratosthenes and other authors tried to sue but lawyers hadn't been invented so he was SOL.

Actually the Alexandrians were more in the habit of swiping the physical originals. There's one notorious case where the Mouseion borrowed the Athenian state copies of some of their top tragic playwrights -- Sophokles and the like --, and sent an enormous sum of money as a deposit to ensure the safety and return of the originals after they'd copied them. However, Alexandria was very very rich, so they could afford to lose the deposit; Athens only got the copies back. That would be harmless enough these days, since it's not too hard now to ensure that information is copied 100% faithfully; but in those days you'd be very lucky to get even two 9s of accuracy in the reproduction. There's another story about Mark Antony effectively disestablishing one of the larger other libraries, the one at Pergamon, and bestowing its collection on Alexandria, but the source for that isn't very reliable.

(Incidentally, Eratosthenes was one of the head librarians at Alexandria, so he would have been the one being sued. Sorry to spoil the joke. But not very, because it wasn't that funny.)

Re:No respect for the law

[TapeCutter]

"Incidentally, Eratosthenes was one of the head librarians at Alexandria" - Yes I have been a fan of Carl Sagan since cosmos first aired in the 70's. Also Alexander the Great took Egypt from the Pharohs and installed Ptolomey who later declared himself a king, but I wasn't aiming for accuracy, I was aiming for sarcasm.

And google didn't write copyright laws

[Anonymous Coward]

And google didn't write copyright laws, which are why your statement in italics is true: COPYRIGHT LAW makes that true.

It isn't, however, illegal to negotiate with the rightsholders and PAY an agreed sum to do so. This is what Google did and this is the innovation they moved first on: not digitising the works but DOING THE WORK TO DO THIS rather than just going "Heck, it's impossible".

Google haven't patented the method they used.

It's completely legal for someone else to do the same.

All they have to do is go to the same people Google did and negotiate.

"Why should Google get the exclusive right"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why should Google get the exclusive right" That's because that's what a license IS.

Why should Dell get the exclusive right to distribute OEM copies of Windows Vista?

Because they paid for the license.

Why are there no competitors to google? Because nobody else is willing to pay for a license.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

It's apparently his, so he can call it anything he likes. The fact that he needs a magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers to find it has little to do with what he names it, right? And, because he squats to pee because it won't reach past his sandals shouldn't bother anyone - that is strictly his business, and his "special other" - whatever species that happens to be.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Whether a female looks at cocks says as much about orientation as whether a male does.

Because you believe people want to make money?

[fantomas]

Because you are coming from a philosophical mindset of believing that people want to make money out of any resources that they have access to?

  My experience with library associations is that they are motivated by finding ways of getting information to as many people as possible for as little money as they can and free where where ever possible. Their model is one of service, often funded by the public sector and having a lot of people in their organisation who philosophically tend towards social models of society. I have a suspicion more people work in libraries because they believe they can contribute towards a public good than because they believe can make a lot of money and get rich. Librarians get paid a monthly wage, are very unlikely to get financial end of year bonuses and are just keen to see their libraries full of people and breaking even.

Corporate information archives on the other hand... I think these are looking to make money out of their resources, probably are more likely to give financial bonuses to their staff for finding ways of maximising profits, and often have shareholders who are less interested in philosophical ideals than making money.

Who owns the copyright once a book is digitized?

[Harvey Manfrenjenson]

OK, let's say Google creates a digital copy of a public-domain work... Is the digital copy still a public-domain object, or does it belong to Google?

It wasn't somewhat illegally

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't somewhat illegally, it was legally. At least as far as the law says. Google is allowed to scan their own purchased books in to their database.

100% legal.

You are allowed to index them and let people find the book titles by content.

100% legal.

You are allowed to quote passages for fair use purposes (commercial is still fine)

100% legal.

The question comes "how does the law treat this new scenario AS JUDGES INTERPRET IT".

Which isn't a statute law issue.

Re:anal sex

[Anonymous Coward]

not if you bottom!

Sorry Sir, but...

[Balibaloodestroyme]

... Google's digitization plans haven't been exactly "shut down" in France. What's going on instead, is that they have been compelled to stop displaying and digitizing books belonging to the defendant's catalogue, the publisher La Martinière. Only books not in the public domain, and only books published by La Martinière. Please check your sources before this turns into yet another useless flamewar.