| 7:21 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
. . and thusly the end of the it's better to ask forgiveness than permission era began.
| 9:18 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|The detailed terms of the agreement between Google and the AAP have not been made public. |
Why? What are they hiding?
| 9:31 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Probably that it does not apply to anyone who is not a member of the AAP..( including all those non USA authors ) and so Google will continue scanning and copying their books without asking for permission..
| 10:17 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Why? What are they hiding? |
Standard clause in court settlements. You get more money in exchange for agreeing to keep your mouth shut.
| 11:24 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The public is apparently not supposed to know HOW publishers can "decide which works should, or should not, be in Google's library", the scanning continues.
| 1:02 am on Oct 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
One of the unintended consequences Greedy Google grabbers caused.
I notified an author friend that G had copied his books into their database and put them online.
He was stunned, and contacted his US publishers, they decided to re-publish all his OOP titles. He wrote back to me very pleased to get them back into print.
| 2:35 am on Oct 17, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Angonsec, I would say that is a foreseeable consequence. Free copies generates interest, which generates sales.
Some authors report very good results from using free licences on some (or even all) books: Cory Doctorow comes to mind - and that was with books that are in print anyway.