09-11-2009, 10:19 AM | #16 |
What Title ?
Posts: 1,325
Karma: 1856232
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bavaria Germany
Device: Sony Experia Z Ultra
|
|
09-11-2009, 10:25 AM | #17 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,790
Karma: 507333
Join Date: May 2009
Device: none
|
Quote:
Why isn't the government doing what Google proposes to do? Oh... yeah... because the Soviet Union existed 20 years ago. That's why. - Ahi |
|
Advert | |
|
09-11-2009, 11:23 AM | #18 | ||
Professional Contrarian
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
|
Quote:
To put it another way: how would you react if Amazon started producing and selling ebooks of out-of-print titles without asking the author's permission first and at a non-negotiable, pre-set rate? You'd be going through the ceiling decrying Amazon's heavy-handed greedy practices. I hardly see how what Google is doing is in the "spirit" of copyright. It's in the spirit of Google securing itself as a primary, if not exclusive, repository of digital information, no matter whose rights have to get trampled in the process. Quote:
Let's face it, Google is not a charity and they are not doing this out of the Pure Shiny Goodness of their hearts. They're just as much a business as any other company. |
||
09-11-2009, 11:30 AM | #19 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
I believe zelda's point was about the spirit of the original purposes for copyright law, not what it has evolved in to. Under the original spirit of copyright law, most of the out-of-print titles that Google is interested in would have already been in the public domain anyway.
|
09-11-2009, 11:32 AM | #20 | |
What Title ?
Posts: 1,325
Karma: 1856232
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bavaria Germany
Device: Sony Experia Z Ultra
|
Quote:
Obviously, but altruism is not the issue is it? |
|
Advert | |
|
09-11-2009, 11:39 AM | #21 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,790
Karma: 507333
Join Date: May 2009
Device: none
|
Quote:
If it isn't though... one cannot help but wonder why authors aren't gleeful that their often utterly insignificant little books will get a wider audience and their tiny paycheques are likely to grow (by however small an amount). Like I said: I hope both Google and Microsoft fails. What they are trying to do is a job for the Government. But, at the same time, I am yet to see anything that suggests Google would give any worse a deal to anyone than they generally get from their publishers. - Ahi |
|
09-11-2009, 11:44 AM | #22 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Authorization to distribute should be opt-in, not opt-out. In other words, Google should not be authorized by default. It's supposed to be the other way around, unless somebody wants to change the law such that out-of-print books are automatically authorized unless the copyright holder says otherwise. But, that's not what the law currently says.
This settlement, if allowed to go forward, would give Google a different standing on distribution rights than anyone else (unless other companies reach the same settlement). Personally, I think the settlement goes too far (based on current copyright law). The actual plaintiffs were represented by 5 authors. Those 5 authors have basically settled with Google on behalf of every author who has ever had a book published in the US, and is giving away a default authorization. I think the membership of the class is way too broad and the settlement should not be allowed to give away those rights on an opt-out basis. That's just my opinion though. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of current copyright either. Last edited by Shaggy; 09-11-2009 at 11:50 AM. |
09-11-2009, 11:49 AM | #23 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Quote:
I would assume that out-of-print books are not generating any revenue for the authors anyway, so I don't really see how they are really losing much. On the other hand, they are losing control (but that was never supposed to be guaranteed by copyright in the first place). Personally, I think either Google should not have an automatic authorization for out-of-print books, or else everyone should. I'd lean more towards the latter. |
|
09-11-2009, 11:49 AM | #24 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,790
Karma: 507333
Join Date: May 2009
Device: none
|
Isn't the whole point of it not being opt-in to prevent unknown or difficult to track down rights ownership and publisher apathy from basically removing most books from their list?
They might be a private company... but what they are trying to do is most definitely of considerable service to the public. In light of that... why should the publisher that owns rights to over 20,000 books be able to continue to keep all 19,000+ of them out of print by doing nothing... instead of being required to actively opt-out for the 100+ books they actually don't want Google fooling around with because they plan to bring them back into print within the foreseeable future and/or have competing titles on the market? - Ahi |
09-11-2009, 11:50 AM | #25 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,790
Karma: 507333
Join Date: May 2009
Device: none
|
Quote:
The pittance is greater than zero, but on a per-book basis, certainly not by much! And yes, the latter is certainly the sane choice. Though I think you must be mistaken in assuming no compensation is involved. - Ahi |
|
09-11-2009, 11:55 AM | #26 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Quote:
Yes, I think the basic principle behind making out-of-print books, which are not generating any revenue for the rights holders anyway, available is a noble cause. I also believe that it wouldn't be necessary without the gross evolution of copyright law to serve the rights holders interestes at the expense of public domain. Most of those out of print titles should be freely available already. However, rather than give Google an exception to the current way things work, I think the law itself should be changed. |
|
09-11-2009, 11:58 AM | #27 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Quote:
|
|
09-11-2009, 12:12 PM | #28 |
Banned
Posts: 2,094
Karma: 2682
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: N/A
|
|
09-11-2009, 12:24 PM | #29 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,790
Karma: 507333
Join Date: May 2009
Device: none
|
Quote:
Quote:
- Ahi |
||
09-11-2009, 12:48 PM | #30 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,340
Karma: 35112572
Join Date: Jan 2008
Device: Pocketbook
|
I've gotta stick my oar in....
What you are seeing is the endgame of corporate copyright control. Google decided they couldn't out-bri - excuse me, out-lobby Hollywood, to restore some sanity to the copyright. So they are doing what so many others have done over the last 60 years, attempt to achieve in the courts what they couldn't achieve in the legislature. Will they succeed? Who knows? So far, I think it's mostly flying under Hollywood's radar right now. If it stands, it would have implications for indie movies that are orphaned today, as well.... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Litigious Vampire Sues Government | Jameswudz | Lounge | 59 | 06-04-2010 04:14 PM |
US Government stumbles over PDF document | Colin Dunstan | Lounge | 7 | 01-12-2010 02:37 AM |
The commonwealth and government of Venice | ahi | Reading Recommendations | 4 | 10-17-2009 10:38 AM |
A Collection of English-Spanish Glossaries from the U.S. Government | Nate the great | Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links) | 0 | 10-05-2009 10:15 PM |
Government-run Health Care | GlennD | Lounge | 17 | 07-04-2009 08:35 AM |