Slashdot Mirror
After 7 Years In Court, Google Settles With Publishers On Book Scanning
redletterdave writes "After seven long years of litigation, Google Inc. and the Association of American Publishers have reached an agreement to settle over the search giant's book-scanning project, which will allow publishers to choose whether or not they want their books, journals and publications digitized by Google and accessed via its Google Library Project. The agreement, according to the two companies, acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright holders, so U.S. publishers can choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project, or choose to keep their publications available. For those that keep their works online with Google, those publishers will be able to keep a digital copy for their own use and sell their publications via the Google Play marketplace."
Also reported by Reuters, as carried by the Chicago Tribune, and the BBC.
I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?
I'm more concerned about orphaned works and the length of copyright causing a work to be completely destroyed before it can be preserved. I understand the desire to keep copyright, and I understand the idea that Google is infringing by creating these digital copies and then providing excerpts for users, but the wealth of knowledge that gets lost because of copyrights that last essentially forever is a real problem that needs a real solution.
Perhaps it's stupid to entrust that burden to a corporation, and it should be the job of a public or non-profit institution, but this knowledge must be preserved.
If only the Library of Congress in the US, national library of China, library of Russian academy of science, National library and Archives Canada, and the German National Library existed.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
You can't opt-in if you are dead, in a coma, clinically insane, etc.
Why should the public, who has granted a limited right to control copying, be denied use of your work after that right has expired because you didn't bother to leave us machine-readable version?
It sure as fuck is an argument. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN. We, The People have every right to tell IP holders to shove it up their ass, if we so desire. And I assure you that people will continue to make great art long after copyright bites the dust. To think otherwise completely ignores human nature.
Good-bye