Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: goodroi
Mountain View, Calif. Nov. 3, 2005 – Today, Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced the availability of the first large collection of public domain books on Google Print. This collection, scanned as part of the company's book digitization project with several of the world's largest libraries, includes works such as U.S. Civil War history books, government documents, the writings of Henry James and other materials.
Although, it's got the usual BETA on it.
"There is a long line of cases that say you can use your own copy machine at home to make a copy of a book you own. But you can't take the book to Kinko's and do the same thing, or Kinko's will get sued and it knows that,"
"Without seeing the complaint, it's fair to say that DiMA members generally agree that the reproduction of sound recordings for commercial purposes without a license is problematic," said Jonathan Potter, DiMA's director.
as I said above, I think that merely scanning them will be the biggest issue.
>> The only way for Google, or any other service, to make books searchable is to index them.
This is the weakest argument: who said that Google has to offer this service, and go about this way (no permission)?
As someone who works primarily in print, I am sensitive to the copyright issues and I suspect that my publisher is one that would opt out (if Google ever starts going for obscure academic titles in French).
The main thing that bothers me , though, is that no search seems to actually bring up a public domain title. I think this is far far worse than the "vaporware" accusations often levelled at Microsoft. I think Google has just completely lost its direction (record earnings notwithstanding) and this beta release is another example.
It's also very strange that no one is seeing the parallels between book searching and web page searching. We all know that the lines between different types of media are getting fuzzier every day, so why doesn't that apply here?
Or perhaps it would if everyone hadn't already lit their torches. ;-)
The authors did not wish for this so google should not be doing it
When the first indexing spider hit one of my sites well over 10 years ago I did not "wish" for it. Not once, however, did I feel invaded. If the response then had been like the response here to book indexing, the web as we know it would not exist.
It seems to me that there is a real danger of this happening retroactively if too many more of these anti fair use lawsuits win. Even if the contributors to this thread don't see the merging of media, the law eventually will have to.
who said that Google has to offer this service, and go about this way (no permission)?
In essense you're saying that you'd rather the project didn't exist. It doesn't take a logistical genius to see that this concept cannot work based on opt-in, much like web searching.
Note that libraries do not seek permission to put donated books on their shelves. There's also the microfilm archiving thing, and more recently, digital archiving. Maybe the only real difference between that practice and what Google is doing is that libraries are not corporations.
In essence, I didn't say that, but even if I did, what I say or want doesn't matter. I do not NOT own those works. Personally, I wish I could download the music from the old napster, but I know certain companies don't agree. A lot of things could be better, but with private property, the owner has a lot of say (iTunes still doesn't have all the music onlien because some artists don't want it there).
I would it be better if all movies were online, or if the Da Vinci manuscripts was displyed on a different city each day, but Bill Gates doesn't agree to it. It would also be GREAT if I posted Google's algo on my site (think of how many backlinks I would get!), but Google would not be happy. Do you understand it better now? No matter how great or noble the idea is, if a company doesn't want to participate, they shouldn't have to.
If I was the owner, I would lean towards giving them permission, at least to try it out (a 2-3 year test and see period). Of course I'd try to get a cut of the adsense $$, but there's enough money for everyone to be happy.
Here's one more example, just to make sure. Ending world poverty is probably one of the best things we can do. Picture those poor kids dying of hunger, or going to sleep hungry night after night, after night. Should we tax Google, MSFT, Dell, GE, you, me etc., an extra 25% so we can end world poverty? Sure everyone can donate on their own, and many do, but this would be mandatory, whether they want to or not. After all, it is a great goal. Actually it would be even more altruistic, as the MREs would not have Coca Cola or McDonalds ads on ;)
Having access to all of those books is like tapping into the Borg collective of knowledge, except you don't have to have any body parts replaced with machinery or have your Galaxy taken over by aliens in the process. :)
Do you not understand that your free lunch is someone else going hungry? That someone else is the person who now has to get a 'proper job' because being an author doesn't pay any more.
This is in no-one's interest, not even yours.
You won't notice of course. How are you going to know that the book you wanted was, because of your own complicity in this epic thievery, never written?
Never written, never gonna be.
One or two, most likely.
How does copying the Koran grab you? Then using the contents to trigger advertisements, when, oddly enough, the Torah and the Bible seem to have escaped similarly insulting treatment?
Now if anyone at the Googleplex is worried about Islamic extremists coming to Get them, I wouldn't be concerned. They'll never get through the angry mob of webmasters, publishers and children's charities.
I see its been picked up by more news sites today. Its not going to go away. What are you planning to do about your copyright difficulty with the hospital?
It seems anyone can claim copyright, or public domain, on anything at all, and you just take their word for it! I have an email from your Print department proving exactly that.
I'm still deciding what to do with it. :)
You might also consider removing those ads from the Koran. They are offensive and they are not getting any less offensive the longer they remain.