'Great', even more competition
Well, it's a nice alternative to killing time with YouTube. :-)
Seriously, are there many people here who feel threatened by Google's decision to index old copies of JET, POPULAR SCIENCE, or CINCINNATI BRIDE? I'm inclined to think that this is good for Web publishers (or at least for those who rank decently in Google), since it will make Google an even more useful starting point for readers who are seeking information.
|'Great', even more competition |
So the new page one is page three.
This is only an expansion of what Book Search indexes and not a completely new vertical for Universal Search called "Magazine Search" or anything like that. So I don't really see much of a competitive threat on the SERPs for now - maybe if there are lots of magazine articles about your topic but no true books at all.
I think they need to change their mission statement. Rather than organizing the world's information they clearly want to monetize it. Copyright means little in their quest to form a monopoly of information, and the process is so incremental that few see the ture threat that it presents.
Just a service?
Or, a route to servitude?
|Copyright means little in their quest |
According to the announcement at the top of this thread, Google has partnered with the magazines.
|In its 2006 Annual Report to shareholders, Google also acknowledges: |
We have had copyright claims filed against us alleging that features of certain of our products and services, including Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search, Google Book Search and YouTube, infringe their rights.
From "Google: Copyright infringement lawsuit risks ‘could be substantial’" March 13th, 2007 - zdnet
|Not long ago, Google agreed to pay $125 million to the book industry to settle claims of copyright infringement over its BookSearch scheme. The agreement means Google can now legally scan copyrighted books and put them online as long as they are no longer in print. |
From "Google Pays $125M For Copyright Infringement" Oct. 6, 2008 - www.infopackets.com
|Google Inc., owner of the world's most popular Internet-search engine, lost two copyright lawsuits in Germany over displaying photos and artworks as thumbnails in a preview of search results. |
From "Google Loses German Copyright Cases Over Image-Search Previews" Oct. 13, 2008 - Bloomburg
|Viacom and its companies file a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube and Google seeking at least $1 billion in damages. |
From "Viacom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against YouTube and
Google Over Unauthorized Use Of The Company's Shows" March 13, 2007 - www.findlaw.com
I would suggest that copyright is an afterthought for Google, and that they are more than willing to buy their way out of any claims that might be brought against them.
A "free" service?
I use G because they are the best at what they do. If Y, MS or anyone else could do as well I would run from G in a hot second. The above quotes might suggest that this is not just a tin hat reaction...
Willybfriendly, you seem to be ignoring the fact that they've partnered with the magazines in question. Digging up unrelated copyright cases doesn't change the reality (nor dos it have much, if anything, to do with Google Search).
The entire area of intellectual property and copyright has been stood on its end by the web. There's a whole lot to sort out here - even internationally - and it's getting worked out in practice, instead of in the abstract and "ahead of time".
Lawmakers have been extremely sluggish, to say the least, in realizing what information technology has unleashed on the world. So I can't fault any organization for just forging ahead and then picking up the pieces that fall off as they go.
Copyright law isn't some kind of gospel. It's always been a work in progress, and it's time for it to progress again. The minute the Grateful Dead sanctioned "bootlegging" the writing was on the wall. The challenge today isn't can an artist/author protect their intellectual property. The challenge is whether they can even find their audience at all, in such an information overload.
A related concept - information "wants to be" free, but information also wants to be expensive. Finding the balance is the job we all will be working on for a few years.
|they've partnered with the magazines in question |
Nevertheless, copyright isn't always so simple, unless all of the articles in the publications in question were provided by staffers. If some of them were provided by freelancers then the terms of republication may be more complicated, because freelancers don't always sell full copyright. There's a big difference between one issue of a magazine and making it available on the internet to everyone, in perpetuity.
|If some of them were provided by freelancers then the terms of republication may be more complicated, because freelancers don't always sell full copyright. |
True, but that's an issue between the magazines and the freelancers, not Google and the freelancers.
As Tedster points out, copyright matters can be complicated. A good example is the archiving of old magazines and newspapers on microfilm. When a writer sells First North American Serial Rights to a magazine (as U.S. freelancers typically did until recent years), does that give the magazine the right to license the article to a research service that sells microfilm copies to libraries? Some writers might say no, just as some "First North American Serial Rights" freelancers might think they're entitled to royalties from copies of newspaper articles in electronic library databases. But the practice is accepted, and I'm not aware of any microfilm publishers who have been forced out of business because of complaints from writers.
Microfilming, the archiving of published articles at Findarticles.com, and (now) magazine scanning by Google Books may be topics of interest to lawyers or concerned writers, but--again--that doesn't change the fact that Google has made a good-faith arrangement with the magazine publishers (who, by licensing their content, are asserting that they have the right to do so).
signor_john, you miss my point entirely, and the technical details of IP laws do not change that point.
Google is monetizing the world's information - and monopolizing it as well. Step by step, incrementally. Scanning magazines is just another step in the process.
I don't think it is tin hat material to express dismay over a company that is acquiring such influence and control over information. In fact, I would suggest if you are not concerned, then you are not paying attention!
Willybfriendly, complaining about Google "monetizing and monopolizing the world's information" is one thing. Suggesting that scanning magazines in partnership with those magazines is copyright infringement, as you did in your post above, is another matter altogether.
Google _can't_ monopolize the world's information. All sorts of other projects, like the Internet Archive, are presenting similar material. The whole point of public domain is that all publications of information are intended to break any possible monopoly.
As for "monetizing", that's simply a non-issue. So long as I can get information from Google at no cost and pass it on without limitation, Google's monetization is limited to be something less than the added value of their contribution to society. In other words, it can't possibly be anything other than a good thing. But it's better than that. Google's monetization puts practical limits on other people's attempts to monetize or monopolize that same information--and that also can't possibly be anything other than a good thing.
I can see the old-style monopolists getting squeezed, since they're USED to "monopolizing and monetizing", and now they can't do the former, and are limited in the latter due to Google's more efficient distribution. And that also can't be other than a good thing.
As for "controlling" the information, that's just absurd. Google indexes pretty much what they can find, not merely the portions of it that agree with whatever control or influence Google wants to exert. If you publish a book or magazine, I understand Google will allow full text access if you wish--that's regardless of whether or not they condone your opinions.
This is all a process of "cutting out the socially non-valuable, economically overpriced middlemen in the publishing industry." I'm really enjoying seeing who gets hurt by Google, because that's such an accurate gauge of who's been most egregiously, well, gauging the customers.