And Google also provides these snippits for free. They do not sell them. They have competitors in this field as well.
One might as well claim that libraries making copies (as allowed by the above reference) are trying for a competitive advantage by having a complete collection to attract patronage, and funding.
I've been called out by a librarian when she felt I was copying "too much" from a book. Why does Google get carte blanche to copy millions of books in their entirety? At a minimum, shouldn't Google at least have to purchase each book that they copied?
On October 28, 2008 the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, and Google announced that they had settled Authors Guild v. Google. Google agreed to a $125 million payout, $45 million of that to be paid to rightsholders whose books were scanned without permission.
Note that these authors were not aggrieved, they were simply complainants. Not one of them alleged that google copied THEIR book fro the universities that partnered with google.
They do so only within the exemptions for fair use as provided in the copyright law. And a word to each person can hardly be considered distribution of a book. Each person walks away with essentially Nothing.
Google compensated the copyright holders too. On October 28, 2008 the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, and Google announced that they had settled Authors Guild v. Google. Google agreed to a $125 million payout, $45 million of that to be paid to rightsholders whose books were scanned without permission.
They do not provide entire works. Simply short excepts. If you want the entire work that is still under copyright they will show you an except and then direct you to where you can buy the book.
You can read a few pages, but you invariably hit a page that says:
you have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book
Then there will be links on the side for places to buy the book, one of which MAY be google books, or maybe not.
Any author, or his estate can opt out. None but a tiny minority do, because it sells books.
This is old news, and you obviously haven't kept up with this issue. The only item under contention are abandoned works by unknown or dead authors with no heirs published after 1923. That is all. You've gotten yourself all worked up over nothing.
Where, in any of the legitimate arguments against Google, is there the suggestion that Google wishes to withhold money from or steal content from authors with a claim to profits generated from the sale of their content?
Additionally, where is the claim that Google plans on making available copyrighted material for which an author is known and interested in claiming their legitimate profit?
This!
However, I doubt you will make any headway with these people who are convinced that this is blatant copyright violation on a grand scale. Their mind is closed on the subject.
At issue is a tiny TINY number of Unknown Authors who in most cases are dead, leaving no known heirs, who published something after 1923, but which is now out of print. Abandoned works by and large. Google does not violate copyrights, and uses the power of their own search engine to find these authors.
But every time this story comes up, the same google haters jump up and scream copyright infringement.
And you have not a single shred of leverage to get the carrier to remove it.
Unless and until the hue and cry becomes so loud and congress takes an interest, they will all continue to foist this stuff on the user, so your threat to take your business elsewhere means nothing.
If you don't object this camel's nose, you'll have the neck and forelegs soon.
CarrierIQ makes its living selling burglar tools. They can't survive without your acquiescence. Your carriers won't help you.
This was known days ago. Of course that fucks up your nice little conspiracy theory, so it wasn't posted.
Carrier IQ has admitted that it records URLs of every web site you visit on your mobile device, and sends it to the carrier. So there is another subpoena target for the authorities. Even your ISP doesn't necessarily get that information. Why should your carrier?
The best thing about the Simpsons is that it's the best way to tell if someone's funny or not. If they quote it, they're not.
For the word "funny", substitute "intelligent" and you are just as correct as your original statement.
Discounting content, the problem with TV is Scheduled Delivery.
People want to watch when they have time, not when the networks want them to watch. Some, like comcast have some shows that you can watch whenever you want, and lots of people use DVRs. But these are all crude means to get around the fact that the programs only appear on a schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
You've done nothing but blurt out your pin headed opinion.
And you stand up and thump your chest like you have Won the Internet.
How are those wool pants smelling?
Including that his phone didn't work any more?
Was he traveling out of country or what? That must have been one fast shopping spree.
The decision as to what is fair use is significantly above your pay grade.
I suggest you let the legal experts decide this issue.
They charge you NOTHING. No profit.
But nice try.
And his books still appear on Google Books. So if there was a point, I missed it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Scalzi&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1
And Google also provides these snippits for free.
They do not sell them.
They have competitors in this field as well.
One might as well claim that libraries making copies (as allowed by the above reference) are trying for a competitive advantage
by having a complete collection to attract patronage, and funding.
I've been called out by a librarian when she felt I was
copying "too much" from a book. Why does Google
get carte blanche to copy millions of books in their entirety? At a minimum, shouldn't
Google at least have to purchase each book that they copied?
On October 28, 2008 the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, and Google announced that they had settled Authors Guild v. Google. Google agreed to a $125 million payout, $45 million of that to be paid to rightsholders whose books were scanned without permission.
cite
Note that these authors were not aggrieved, they were simply complainants. Not one of them alleged that google copied THEIR book fro the universities that partnered with google.
They do so only within the exemptions for fair use as provided in the copyright law.
And a word to each person can hardly be considered distribution of a book. Each person walks away with essentially Nothing.
Hey, I bet Google scanned more than a few law books. This should be easy.
The scans provide only snippits, and are insufficient for any legal research, but hey, thanks for proving my point.
Google compensated the copyright holders too.
On October 28, 2008 the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, and Google announced that they had settled Authors Guild v. Google. Google agreed to a $125 million payout, $45 million of that to be paid to rightsholders whose books were scanned without permission.
Dozens is fair use.
But google hasn't lost.
How many threads are you going to shop that worn out link around on?
Google has already prevailed on all of these points. Only the abandoned works issue is still at issue.
Had you not issued a cease and desist order, you might be selling some books. As it is you post on slash dot.
By any legal definition of the word "distributed", you DID NOT.
Why?
What they do now is legal. The Authors like it that way. It sells books.
Would you get less in a library or a book store?
What you consider is of no importance here. What the law says is.
They do not provide entire works. Simply short excepts.
If you want the entire work that is still under copyright they will show you an except and then direct you to where you can buy the book.
You can read a few pages, but you invariably hit a page that says:
you have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book
Then there will be links on the side for places to buy the book, one of which MAY be google books, or maybe not.
Try it out on this book.
Any author, or his estate can opt out. None but a tiny minority do, because it sells books.
This is old news, and you obviously haven't kept up with this issue.
The only item under contention are abandoned works by unknown or dead authors with no heirs published after 1923. That is all. You've gotten yourself all worked up over nothing.
Google's defense is that they are doing nothing illegal.
Please take the time to educate yourself on this issue.
They give excerpts away, under fair use exemptions. You do not get entire works. Check your facts.
Where, in any of the legitimate arguments against Google, is there the suggestion that Google wishes to withhold money from or steal content from authors with a claim to profits generated from the sale of their content?
Additionally, where is the claim that Google plans on making available copyrighted material for which an author is known and interested in claiming their legitimate profit?
This!
However, I doubt you will make any headway with these people who are convinced that this is blatant copyright violation on a grand scale. Their mind is closed on the subject.
At issue is a tiny TINY number of Unknown Authors who in most cases are dead, leaving no known heirs, who published something after 1923, but which is now out of print. Abandoned works by and large. Google does not violate copyrights, and uses the power of their own search engine to find these authors.
But every time this story comes up, the same google haters jump up and scream copyright infringement.
Only if your mind id very small.
Please take the time to investigate the issue at hand before revealing your ignorance.
No one forced your provider ti install CarrierIQ
And you have not a single shred of leverage to get the carrier to remove it.
Unless and until the hue and cry becomes so loud and congress takes an interest, they will all continue to foist
this stuff on the user, so your threat to take your business elsewhere means nothing.
If you don't object this camel's nose, you'll have the neck and forelegs soon.
CarrierIQ makes its living selling burglar tools. They can't survive without your acquiescence. Your carriers won't help you.
Go Senator Franken!
This was known days ago. Of course that fucks up your nice little conspiracy theory, so it wasn't posted.
Carrier IQ has admitted that it records URLs of every web site you visit on your mobile device, and sends it to the carrier.
So there is another subpoena target for the authorities. Even your ISP doesn't necessarily get that information. Why should your carrier?
The best thing about the Simpsons is that it's the best way to tell if someone's funny or not. If they quote it, they're not.
For the word "funny", substitute "intelligent" and you are just as correct as your original statement.
Discounting content, the problem with TV is Scheduled Delivery.
People want to watch when they have time, not when the networks want them to watch. Some, like comcast have some shows that you can watch whenever you want, and lots of people use DVRs. But these are all crude means to get around the fact that the programs only appear on a schedule.
The same applies to the SR-71.
Or did you forget that bit?