homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.243.12.156
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

    
MS, Yahoo and Amazon team up against G
Taking a stand against recent book deal
willybfriendly




msg:3976583
 8:14 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Per BBC [news.bbc.co.uk]
Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo will sign up to the Open Book Alliance being spearheaded by the Internet Archive...."The techniques we have built up since the enlightenment of having open access, public support for libraries, lots of different organisational structures, lots of distributed ownership of books that can be exchanged, resold and repackaged in different ways - all of that is being thrown out in this particular approach,"

It also appears that US Department of Justice is conducting an anti-trust investigation into the impact of the agreement between Google and publishers/authors regarding scanning of books.

 

tangor




msg:3976605
 9:06 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)


System: The following 3 messages were spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/3976603.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 8:32 am on Aug. 22, 2009 (utc +1)


The battle to derail Google's Book Rights Registry has been joined by three heavyweight warriors: Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo!.

The New York Times has reported that the three tech giants are planning to join efforts to block the court settlement of a 2005 copyright-infringement class-action suit that would give Google the right to digitize, host, and sell ads against millions of published works.

The full settlement is nothing if not complex. At its core, however, is a mechanism that would allow Google to pay $125m to establish an independent Book Rights Registry to resolve copyright claims from authors and publishers in conjunction with Google's scanning of their works for its Book Search project.

Copyright holders who sign up with the Registry would receive a portion of Google's future Book Search profits, and if Google has already scanned their books, they could receive a cash payment.

One of the stickier parts of the multi-tenacled settlement, however, is that it gives Google the right to scan and host so-called "orphan books" - that is, books whose copyright holders can't be found.

Depending upon whom you ask, the settlement is either a breakthrough in knowledge distribution or a monopolistic grab of the intellectual wealth of nations.

Reported at The Register
[theregister.co.uk...]

zett




msg:3976780
 10:01 am on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Good. Very good. Finally, the Davids are joining to meet the Goliath that threatens to take over the Internet and all the content that exists (be it on the Internet or not). Bravo!

JS_Harris




msg:3976946
 7:26 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm sure Google saw this legal fight coming and though they didn't want to fight they were prepared to do so. Google wants to be a source of all information and they are relentless in that pursuit, as a search engine should be.

Everyone gets their day in court to argue and even Google deserves theirs imo.

swa66




msg:3976965
 8:11 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Good. Very good. Finally, the Davids are joining

Hmm, calling MSFT a David ... just seems wrong.

Let's see (annual data from Yahoo! financial)
GOOG:
- 2008 revenue: 21,795,550
- 2008 gross profit: 13,174,044
- 2008 net income: 4,226,858

MSFT: (their year ends in june)
- 2008-2009 revenue: 58,437,000
- 2008-2009 gross profit: 46,282,000
- 2009-2009 net income: 14,569,000

If you want a david vs. goliath analogy, MSFT is the Goliath, _not_ Google.

The other 2 might be smaller than Google, they're by no means tiny:
YAHOO:
- 2008 revenue: 7,208,502
- 2008 gross profit: 4,185,140
- 2008 net income: 424,298

AMZN:
- 2008 revenue: 19,166,000
- 2008 gross profit: 4,270,000
- 2008 net income: 645,000

zett




msg:3976968
 8:18 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

MSFT is the Goliath, _not_ Google

If you just look at the Internet, things are looking entirely different. As far as I know, MSFT has never made any profit from their Internet ventures, and their market share is, well, neglectible.

swa66




msg:3976979
 8:27 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

And amazon makes money by selling physical books, not e-books. Google makes money from adwords, not from their search engine, ...

It's all what you want to count once you allow for not counting parts of the company, the only solution is to count all of it as at least then you have consistent rules of the likes of the SEC.

[edited by: swa66 at 8:28 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2009]

shivamodi




msg:3976980
 8:27 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Exactly, we shouldnt categorize MSFT like that, One can refer to Live and Bing which are the MSFT's Internet Brands but not MSFT as a whole. After all, its MSFT's OS that most of us still use to log onto these websites.

ispy




msg:3977002
 9:10 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

One of the things I most like about books or a library is that you can escape for awhile into them without being sold something or having to look at ads. It would be a shame to lose this.

It's only a matter of time until Google moves to control the information available in order to generate more revenue. Seems like an obvious course with little choice really.

We should keep books safely in the hands of public institutions.

willybfriendly




msg:3977062
 12:29 am on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Rather than D&G we should think of this as the Battle of the Titans.

Not only will it be an enjoyable spectacle, but I rather look forward to the possibility of Google's control being restrained a bit.

Information and knowledge are so intangible that most people don't give them due value. It is worrisome to think of them coming under the control of corporate America.

A perfect example of how the common wealth of mankind can be converted into the personal wealth of the elite.

oodlum




msg:3977106
 4:11 am on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Clash of the Titans. I like it!

signor_john




msg:3977243
 3:03 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's worth noting that Microsoft had its own book- and journal-scanning project until it stopped funding the effort last year.

Maybe MSFT's attitude is "If we can't afford to do it, Google shouldn't be allowed to do it, either"?

J_RaD




msg:3977250
 3:45 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

google needs to be stopped before they eat everything and control all sources of information. I feel they are destroying the internet for their own profit.

Laxon




msg:3977277
 4:55 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Such strong words everywhere! And what exactly are they destroying the Internet with? A search engine that brings it all together? Google isn't destroying anything more than Microsoft or yahoo or amazon. In fact google is creating open source content everywhere unlike the other three. They are building aps and programs for the future infrastructure.

But I agree that information should be easily accessible like this whole ordeal demands. I just don't see them actually doing that besides trying to poke holes in their competitors.

Does anyone really care about us? Its how they will monetize it is what matters to them. Same goes for google.
But thats business and not the destruction of worlds.

swa66




msg:3977380
 9:08 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's worth noting that Microsoft had its own book- and journal-scanning project

Not only Mircosoft, Amazon just as well scans the books they sell (their "look inside").

Maybe they are unhappy that Google managed to get a better deal than they have ? :)

Seriously, bashing Google over making a deal with the publishers: why is that needed? What's so wrong with them striking a deal with those who manage the rights?

Similarly why is the Internet Archive all of sudden so "good" and well respected? Those are the folks who copy *our* sites without any permission whatsoever (archive.org).

tangor




msg:3977386
 9:23 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

My problem is "eggs in one basket" and that the basket carrier charges me extra to access my own eggs (public domain and orphaned works in particular). I also look to the library at Alexandria and what happened there... Putting everything in one place is a pretty sure way to make it disappear someday.

Not that the books themselves will disappear, but access to them might.

Examining the deal struck is commonsense. I'd like that to proceed. Anything that might migrate the public domain into private hands should be examined.

mack




msg:3977409
 10:11 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Such strong words everywhere! And what exactly are they destroying the internet with

Google is a search engine. When we think in terms of search engines, they are almost like the reporters of the web, but with Google they don't just report it, they shape it.

No company has ever had so much control over the internet. Is this a good thing? Personally I don't think it is.

From a webmaster point of view Google works. adwords and Adsense help us generate money and gain leads, but if you take a look at the web now, do we realy need. All these low quality "information" sites crafted by low paid off shore content writers?

There are some great sites that run adsense, there is also a lot of clutter. There are sites that simply wouldent be online if Google hadn't started the contextual ads ball rolling.

This is a prime example it how Google have damaged the web.

Mack.

swa66




msg:3977432
 10:53 pm on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

There are sites that simply wouldent be online if Google hadn't started the contextual ads ball rolling.

This is a prime example it how Google have damaged the web.


Mack,

Isn't this a bit like blaming "Detroit" for bank robberies due to them making the getaway cars ?
[Trying hard to avoid pulling in guns and the politically loaded sensitivities associated with them into this]

Isn't the real problem those who feel they can pollute the Internet in exchange for a quick half buck a day? The low wages in certain countries? The sweat shops doing this, even the mere existence of sweatshops? The ability to make money out of crappy sites? Or even the ability to promote one crappy site after the other?
I don't think all of those are the doing of Google alone.

And did we not have enough dancing hamsters before Google even existed ?

signor_john




msg:3977466
 12:32 am on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

There are some great sites that run adsense, there is also a lot of clutter. There are sites that simply wouldent be online if Google hadn't started the contextual ads ball rolling.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what do junk sites with AdSense ads have to do with the merits of the Google book settlement?

mack




msg:3977708
 2:19 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Isn't this a bit like blaming "Detroit" for bank robberies due to them making the getaway cars

A bit, but bank robbers don't efect everyone who uses a bank, to an extent Google effects evetyone who surfs the web.

Mack.

hutcheson




msg:3977803
 4:18 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

>There are some great sites that run adsense, there is also a lot of clutter. There are sites that simply wouldent be online if Google hadn't started the contextual ads ball rolling.

Someone is showing their age here. If you were a bit older, you'd remember that the same sort of affiliate pond scum who are using adSense now, were generating the same sort of bilgewater sites using amazon affiliate links (oh, the irony!) or taking orders for the SMC ("Giftworld") drop-shippers.

Google didn't create affiliate pond scum. Google just created ponds (allegedly for, say, catfish) and the scum just grew. But it was already growing worldwide.

>bank robbers don't efect everyone who uses a bank, to an extent Google effects evetyone who surfs the web.

That's rather missing the whole point of the analogy. Sure, auto makers affect virtually everyone on the highways (except the Amish...but what other exceptions.) Just like Google -- and most everyone thinks that's a good thing (the Amish may differ, and their opinion HAS to be respected. But small-time village robber barons also differ, and their opinion HAS to be despised.)

Bank robbers affect everyone also, as they drive up the cost of doing business -- just like the spammers harm everyone on the net. (I'm especially conscious of this as an ODP editor, looking for the non-spam sites. EVERYONE is harmed -- the people looking for unique content (surfers), and the people trying to publish unique content (website owners, whether personal, nonprofit, or business-related.)

But Google isn't the bank robber. Google is like the bank--enabling more commerce, not like the bank robber, stealing from people engaged in commerce.

J_RaD




msg:3977859
 5:43 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

google enables you to do things they way they think they should be done.

sure they make open source software and give it out for free but that is just really a way to let people take "their idea" and go spread it more rapidly. The best things on the internet have been thought up and developed by the users (take P2P for example) not because some company keeps dropping seeds (calling it open source) then waiting for their tree to grow.

Things online get more popular because googles search engine says it should be, take blogs and video (youtube) for example, and just take a loook at youtube most of the content on there makes you want to remove webcams and microphones from peoples posession. Same goes with blogs.

So yes they shape they web the way they think the web should be shaped, that is damaging espcially since the web mainstream now. Why do you think they are getting behind netbooks..cause google wants to you throw away your silly desktop and laptop and only use netbooks cause all you need is the internet (because they control most of it) yea just store all your personal info online so we can take a look at it(we say we won't though)

whos internet is it really? OURS the users?
or is it googles?

Every day google gains share its becoming more and more just the web the way google wants it to be. The internet is far to vaulable to everyone to let one company take it over.

web 3.0 - when the internet becomes so ruined and commercialized by companies we all unplug and go grassroots to rebuild a new network not controlled by a few that shape and control our information for profit.

swa66




msg:3978493
 8:37 pm on Aug 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

The best things on the internet have been thought up and developed by the users (take P2P for example)

So P2P, used in 99.9999% of the cases for infringing on copyright is a good thing ? The law will disagree. Laws made by and for "the people".

Things online get more popular because googles search engine says it should be, take blogs and video (youtube) for example

Google didn't make youtube. Let alone make it popular. Google bought youtube for a lot of money after it was made popular by its users.

Same goes with blogs

Blogs link to each other so heavily, create so much entries that they float to the top of the SERPs hiding real content. And rest assured that Google has tuned their algorithms over the years to *counter* this effect, not encourage it.

We're all users of Google's Search engine. If their results are not what their users want they loose users of the search engine , which indirectly means they loose on the advertising they can sell. Hence it's in their best interest to give those results to users that the users like enough not to go elsewhere.

If you think Google controls the Internet, think again, they were not the first search engine -not by far-, they became what they are by making the best search engine. Anybody making a better one can in principle take over, ut be ready for Google to react and make theirs better in turn, not everybody will roll over like Altavista.
If you never had to type "+red +widgets" to search for red widgets and not get thousands upon thousands of other colored widgets and other things red, but no red widgets in sight, praise yourself lucky.

albo




msg:3978556
 11:11 pm on Aug 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Blaming GOOG for destroying the web isn't quite like 'blaming "Detroit" for bank robberies due to them making the getaway cars'.

GOOG has gone to extreme efforts to shape the web. In major browsers (IE, FF, Safari, Opera), you may note GOOG is the default (in Safari, ONLY) search engine in the browser toolbar. Monetization per click for this browser investment certainly counts for something. The non-profit status of FF was brought into question due to the level of GOOG's investment.

You all know, of course (and seek it?) when I perform a GOOG "knowledge" search (as *I* perceive it) my results screen will be taken up maybe 40% by commercial content.

GOOG proffers free services (notably, gmail in both personal and GAfYD forms) replete with ad-targeting software.

Yes, GOOG does know evil. The GOOG user responsiveness consists, often, of, "Don't like it? Don't use it!" Yet it is downright difficult these days to avoid using the web without running into GOOG.

J_RaD




msg:3978854
 1:41 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)


So P2P, used in 99.9999% of the cases for infringing on copyright is a good thing ? The law will disagree. Laws made by and for "the people".

Google didn't make youtube. Let alone make it popular. Google bought youtube for a lot of money after it was made popular by its users.

p2p might be misused but it does a great job at moving large amounts of data around quickly. when is the last time you downloaded your favorite linux distro via a torrent rather then a server download. i'll take the faster torrrent any day.

yes i know google didn't create them and yes they did buy them, and now we get lovely youtube videos in our search results which are mostly garbage.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved