HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Google settles book scann...

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:15 PM

Google settles book scanning lawsuit

Source: BBC News

Google has settled a seven-year legal spat with the Association of American Publishers (AAP).

The row blew up in 2005 over Google's plan to scan and digitise books for a vast digital library.

The AAP said that the project could involve massive copyright infringement because it could make available digital copies of copyrighted works.

The settlement lets US publishers decide which works should, or should not, be in Google's library.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19835808

13 replies, 1909 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:48 PM

1. Another win for corporatism.

 

This means the only books that will be in Google's library are the ones no publisher sees any money in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:35 PM

3. This is a win for authors and their property

Google is not some benign entity, it's a huge corporation with the goal of controlling all the information of the world.

Authors who want their books added to googles library will probably have no problem requesting that. But a copyright is something that even google has to respect.

Authors write books and deserve to get paid for the sale of their books and to own the contents of what they write.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:48 AM

8. I don't have a problem with that as long as works go into the public domain within a reasonable time

 

I don't have a problem with that as long as works go into the public domain within a reasonable timeframe, and do not get extended and extended and extended by some living trust or corporation to milk whatever long-life content there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 06:14 PM

2. Very sad. Who will read these books? Will they ever be republished?


Will anyone even be able to identify the current copyright owner at some future time?

Best way to kill your books, your music, your prose and poetry is to make them unavailable, to keep them unavailable until the copyright owner can't be identified, to hide them away while a myriad of other books, music, literature are published.

Who has the time, much less the desire, to track down and read an old book, listen to old music with all the new books, new music being made available?

Only the elderly will even remember your book, your music, your prose, your poetry exist. The young won't know, won't care, won't bother with your books, your music, your prose, your poetry.

I take that back. Historians might care. A few young caught up in a fad might take an interest in old things. Swing enjoyed some popularity among the young.

Google, if it is around, still doing book scanning one hundred years from now, should refuse to include any books, music, prose, poetry, that was previously denied it. Alternatively, Google should insist the copyright owner of material it was previously denied, pay Google to have the works finally included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:40 PM

4. Why would they be any more readable in googles vast library?

If an author wants their book online, it is their choice to do so. A copy right is something that even google has to respect. google has made a practice of taking ownership of a lot of information. For example, any thing you write in a gmail is kept permanently on googles servers. You can not delete it, ever. They own what you write in an email. they own pictures that you send. They own your content. Now, imagine if your content was also your livelihood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:35 AM

6. I agree it should be their choice

But knowledge should be shared. There are lots of research books for example doctoral students (like myself) could benefit from. My university only has a set amount of money to subscribe to services that are wildly expensive. I had to beg and plead with them for months to get back a database which was cut.

The only other option is to buy books, in which case is very expensive or perhaps impossible if it is out of print.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:24 AM

10. Have a book online is only the first step. Get potential customers to notice your book is key.


Deny Google the right to scan your book. Make it so Google can't return your book for searches.

I use Google to scan for topics.

I won't notice your book unless I hear about it through word of mouth or it shows up on a Google search.

You just lost a customer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:45 AM

7. What a bizarre attitude you have

Google, a commercial corporation, was trying to find ways around the copyright laws. And yet you think Google should demand payment from people who wanted to keep the rights they own. You seem to think that Google should have the rights to anything published. Why are you so in favour of giving one of the world's largest corporations the rights that belong to individuals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:19 AM

9. Bizarre? No. Google doesn't have to help distribute their book. They don't want help.


Let their book vanish, lost and forgotten.

What is the problem an author of a book has? Getting published?
Getting shelf space if the book is published?
If you're lucky, getting the book displayed in the new book section.
Getting the book noticed by people interested in their book?

The old paradigm, going to Barnes & Noble is fading.
Browsing books, not knowing what I will pick up, start to read, finally buy, is fading.
Seeing the new book section, the top seller books, the local books, is fading.

Everything is online. I go to Barnes & Noble. They tell me, order it online.
I only search online for what I already want. I don't browse for books online.

Try to interest me in your book? How will you get your book noticed?
Tell my favorite search engine, no, it can't scan your book.
It can't suggest your book if I happen to search for a given topic.
It can't suggest your book in general.

You just lost a customer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:45 AM

11. Google may also make it unnecessary to buy the book

if they put 20% of it up on the net. The author and publisher should have the right to distribute the book in the way they want to, not Google. And they shouldn't have to search Google to see if Google has made it available without asking. It's up to Google to approach them with a business proposition, not break copyright and wait to see if the owner complains. But it was your idea that Google should charge someone in the future for not giving up their rights now that was bizarre, and, frankly, supportive of corporate blackmail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 03:17 PM

12. And why shouldn't Google have a right to charge someone for helping with the distribution?


But you are right. I should not have said Google should punish them in the future if they don't let Google scan the books in the present. That wasn't nice of me.

I would make a very bad politician. I would have an enemies list much like Nixon.
I would remember who stood against me much like Johnson.

I would remember what the Republican House did to me if I were President Obama.

When those Republicans, in the House, who say they want private enterprise, they don't want government competing with private industry, come calling for government help, I would remember.

I would tell them and their districts the next time they ask for FEMA help because the next hurricane hit their district, they told me it's not fair for government to compete with private industry. I would tell them they said the government shouldn't compete with private insurers. They should have gotten hurricane and flood insurance. They believe in private industry. Let them depend on private industry.

Regarding the copyright holders, it's their books. They want to claim copyright. Fine. When they finally want help distributing their books, they can go to someone else, someone quite willing and able to take a cut of any profit.

I vaguely remember hearing about Apple, with its clout controlling iTunes and the iPad.

If I remember, Apple dictated terms to the music industry.

Did Apple save or destroy the music industry? Come to think of it, I don't listen to much modern music.
I honestly don't know. Did Apple save or destroy the music industry? I actually want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:46 PM

5. Often the people who end up with the copyright are not even the authors.

It's not always the authors/artist's rights that are being protected. But the argument sells better when it is spun that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 03:21 PM

13. Isn't that because

in some instances assignment of copyright goes hand in hand with publishing rights ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread