The GBS sought to digitise every book published before Jan 2009, through library/deposit library deals, it went over the heads of authors and estates (incl. the Steinbeck estate) of the 7 million digitised copies, 5 million were in copyright. The EU and the US Library of Congress and the US dept of Justice have questioned the utilisation of the Berne Convention and the anti-trust elements of the GBS. read the threads and my blog for overview.
The France24 report re the US DOJ's opposition to the revised Google Book Settlement is here : http://mobile.france24.com//en/20100...eal-anti-trust
Would this be the reason?Originally Posted by dot
With the tech world caught in the grip of iPad-mania, Google wants to pull a little focus to its own tablet plans.
link
Google are the main leaders/innovators in cloud computing and they have the facilities to archive libraries that otherwise would prove very expensive.
This would be a very good thing alongside libraries keeping hard copy as well.
I do not see Google becoming the Pirate Bay of literature, they are a business and they will charge for copyrighted books.
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]"The GBS sought to digitise every book published before Jan 2009"[/COLOR]
As far as I can gather they are going to digitise every book published before Jan 2009 that are out of print and leave the onus on the owners to contact them if they wish to have a book removed.
I do not see a problem with this at all.
I had not seen this post as I was composing mine, sees I was on the right track. It looks to me that it is commercial interests like Amazon trying to make sure their slice of the pie is kept to themselves.Amazon, which makes the popular Kindle electronic book reader and runs a digital bookstore of its own, said the revised agreement violates anti-trust and copyright law and urged the judge to reject it.
the problems here are not so simple, it is not free, it is a monolopy, it goes against ownership of intellectual property rights and copyright, there are privacy problems. The Google Book Settlement and the European Commission. poethead AND the books digitised to date contained a huge percentage of numbers whose copyright was breached, if you consider this behaviouralism ethical, then l wouldn't put ye at a negotiating table =read the thread and links.
Privacy aspects of GBS delineated by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) : Google Book Search Settlement and Reader Privacy | Electronic Frontier Foundation
The copyright was breached, by digitising it, thin line there. If I had a book published 15 years ago and it is now out of print, I would be more than happy to see it on google books for free. As a consumer, when I go looking to re-read books I have read years ago and find them out of print it can be very frustrating.
Has the Steinbeck estate challenged this? How many out of print authors have challenged this?
This looks to me like Google and Amazon fighting over what is a very good idea and Amazon wish they had thought of it first.
This is once again large corporations fighting about who gets the biggest slice of the pie and neither give a damm about the people who produce the works yet use their rights to satisfy their own needs.
Books like film, music and graphics will become freely available as soon as they are digitised and on the web. They will also continue to sell in hard copy as has been well proven over the last decade.
I use a lot of books, music, graphics and film in my work Dot and a lot of times I just cannot get some material, particularly books and old film. As the internet expands it is beginning to make this easier.
If I come across someone who has used something I have created without asking for permission, I thank them for looking at what I have produced and taken the time to not only understand it, but also enlarge it's audience.
As far as I can see the only people worried about copyright protection are neither the people who produce works nor the people who consume them. They are the people who piggyback on the backs of both and do very well commercially from it, a natural part of it, but I find it distasteful when they pretend to be looking after either the creators or the consumers. The people who matter, although neither have any power other than producing or consuming.
So far the table you mention has three sides, the creator, consumer and publisher, you are fighting or the publisher, they may be the most powerful, with corporations and teams of well paid lawyers, but I am on both of the other sides, the creator and the consumer, about 99.999% of the people.
You are on the side of the publisher and on the side of fighting who gets the biggest slice of the pie.
so you think it's great that a life's work is cheapened by a corporate entity who have created a settlement that is wholly arbitrary and unethical to convenience yourself, you haven't bothered to read a single link. *Throws up hands at lrish people whose convenience allows them turn a blind eye to deeply unethical behaviour=the Bertie generation of me feiners' ( steinbeck's estate and countless others are suing).
So Steinbecks estate are suing, that is the people who inherited it without doing any of the work. How anybodies work can be cheapened by being archived and consumed is a complete fallacy.
If Google get to do this, a lot of authors whose work otherwise would be lost in the mists of time will be available to a whole new generation of readers. I am quite sure that a whole lot of the authors who are out of print will be happy with this as will be the consumers. Amazon on the other hand are pi**ed that they did not think of it first.
The cat is out of the bag Dot, there are tons of books that are not in print that people still want and you can be very sure that sites will pop up all over the place offering this facility for free regardless of Amazon or Google.
As regards reading the links, I have been following this debate idly for some time as it is merely the big guys fighting over their side of the table, they will always have to return to my side of the table when they are hungry though, their appetite knows no bounds.
If you really care about this argument then at least make the effort to do a synopsis of what the dozens of links say for the people who wish to browse a debate and see if there is anything of interest other than copied and pasted URL's
This story is only of interest to the Lawyers who will make lots of money out of the debate/legal argument and fair dues to them, Amazon and Google can well afford it, and same Lawyers are also pretty god at supporting the Arts too, well it does make people who have loadsa money look cultured.
can't be arsed truthisfree, you believe the corporate bullying and arbitrary BS of the GBS is justified. l do not, nor does the library of congress, the eu, the US dept of Justice. l know you did not read either thread because you refuse to discuss either The Open Book Alliance or the privacy issue, you ignore the Berne Convention and the intellectual property rights aspects linked in my blog. STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH YOUR BS, familiarise yourself with the issues which are quite vast and write an honest reply.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote