What is Digg?40 Comments
- DannyPage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess those guys forgot to read the Google Website. The part that asks if they don't want their books public, Google will remove them.
Idiots. - mycatsboots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm confused, is this guild trying to sue Google for being a search engine that searches the internet for text fields? For example, I search for a sentence out of "The Outsiders" and Google produces a site that has a copy of the book on it. Isn't the actual site hosting the book the site responsible and not Google?
Or is there some kind of Google service that hosts these books for free that I'm unaware of? - cainrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If anything the authors should be happy they are getting "free" ads for their books. where people can view them and then decide if they want to buy them. Also i have yet to find a full book on there. So whats the big deal.
Most of the books you can find in a library, which is free, and then people don't buy them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Copyright exist in the Untied States SOLELY to provide an incentive to create a rich and educated society. The profit motive was secondary and only there to reward the creators so we could have an American Culture."
Profit is not the only motive for protecting intellectual property. Copyright also protect the integrity of authors' work and who can access it.
I a crummy magazine quoted two pages of my book, I would sue them. Even if a really great magazine quoted two pages of my book, I would sue them, to protect my copyright and ensure that the crummy magazines don't start doing it.
To even--metaphorically--compare Google to a public library is outrageous. Comparisons I might make include: a multi-billion dollar company taking the work of an artist without permission and posting it on a billboard, Blockbuster stealing an independent movie and stocking it on their shelves as a free rental....Let's not forget that the public library is about helping poor people educated themselves. Google is about making a corporation more money. - TheRepublic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a waste of time ! Why don't they try to sue Amazon also for having sections of their books scanned and uploaded as a "Click to View Book" section before buying. I mean Google is doing the exact same thing except that their getting in trouble and not Amazon for it ?
Those 8,000 people are completely ignorant ! and should thank Google for actually putting their book up as an ad on the site( if no one experiences the first pages of the book, then who would people try to buy a book then ?). - phatpat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google Print is an amazing resource. Haven't you ever needed a quote from a book you own? Google makes searching it easy. They are cataloging the worlds information; making it available to everyone. For society as a whole, I think this is great.
- Mikey_Ickey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, after reading ArtVendelay's post, google DOES respect the copyright laws. You cant read an entire book from start to finish (basicly what the google link read). BUT if one does manage to find a book (the complete work) online via the google search engine, can google really control that? You would have to go to the person who put the book online. Or are they saying that they are also in violation for being a middle man of sorts? just looking for a little clarification, if any one knows.
p.s.
thanks to ArtVendelay for the link. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I notice that a lot of people who are commenting don't seem to have any idea what Google Print is all about.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with cainrok ... it's basically free advertising for these people, and they're just out to make some money off Google who is trying to create a service that's good for the general public to search and find stuff. Can't please everyone I guess 'eh?
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think a publisher quoted in a paper said it best regarding this. When asked how he would deal with Google if this archiving of books electronically was somehow deemed legal, he replied "We'll just print one copy and sell it for $500,000."
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ginfringement (beta)
- rblprd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As the statement from Google said about litigation, if the authors would have asked, they would have removed them. It is a publicity stunt by the Guild, plain and simple, they could have easily asked Google and taken care of this, but they want the media attention from it showing them as a good thing and hoping to get more authors to join, meaning more money for them, and probably hoping Google would just settle out of court for a nice healthy sum of money as well. Twits
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Authors also need to earn a living. Do you think Stephen King can write so many books if he has to make a living by working part time at Macdonold? If google wants to make a digital library, let authors submit their book voluntarily, instead of forcing them to do it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I personally don't want the wrong idiot reading my book. There's a great safety net where the buyer has to go to a specialty store and look in a specific section to find a book that everyone involved thinks is right for him. That means I don't have to write for the general public--and I don't have to hear from them either.
- ArtVandelay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Read this:
http://print.google.com/googleprint/help.html#pagelimit - EviLiu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google's service should be opt in, not opt out.
- jiub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mycatsboots:
Google is attempting to archive works that are in public domain as free downloads.
If I read the article right (not a lawyer) the books they are trying to scan are reprints/translations that where published after the origionals so the copyright on those versions haven't ran out yet. - saifrc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Nickelsax:
No one mentioned MS. You had no reason to assume that anyone would or should, except for limited past experience. MS doesn't even provide a similar service. There's no context for your remark.
Wait for someone else to cast the first stone, and read the comments that have already been left, before you go accusing us all of siding with Google. Otherwise, some people might think of you as a Google-hater, a MS-fanboy, or all sorts of other derogatory labels that may in fact be completely wrong. - stanleyfresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man... I was wonderin how the copyright issues with that Google Scholar thingy worked out. Seems it didn't work out at all. At least I ain't wonderin no more. Digg for a quenched thirst for knowledge. ^__^
- NickelSax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The Library is not free. Libraries are funded through taxes, fees and charges. The libraries also BUY the books, they do not get them for free, and they do not make their own copies of those books. If Google is REPRODUCING copyrighted material and distributing it without the copyright holder's permission then they are breaking the law. If Google wants to provided the service they need to have permission of the people's who's property they are using.
If this was MS you would all be siding with the authors, but for some reason many of you say MS does no right ad Google does no wrong. Both do right and both do wrong. This is a time where google is doing something that is wrong. - omnithrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"if the authors have it online"
I think part of the point is that the "authors" /aren't/ putting it online. Someone is putting it there, and google is telling people where it is. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01) By putting an article online, you imply permission to quote. There is no such permission in transferring printed material to a website.
2) Calling what Google Print does "quoting" or "excerpting" is a broad broad leap. What they do is make the entire book searchable. That act of scanning the book and using it to further their business aims is itself a copyright violation. Google is using content--without permission--to make money. Providing access to every page for free only makes it worse.
I've used Google Print. I know what it does. I wouldn't want my work on it.
I don't appreciate the way Google has "revolutionized" the web either--turning Usenet into a privacy sinkhole with no "opt-out" whatsoever, giving more weight to popular sites than valuable or relevent information (which in turn enforces the order of those most whiny and obnoxious social mavens), and even the basic concept itself of making searches easy; I for one would prefer to live in a world where not *every* idiot can pull obscure facts out of his ass. That's fine, though. Internet users have "voted" Google in by making it the #1 search engine. I can do without a lot of things online. Now that they're messing with books, though, I am pissed off, and I think a lot of people are going to realize that the geeks have a radical agenda. - KidVicious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0300 bucks per share! I should have bought Google stock when it first came out.
- mikataur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Almost no one gets it. If Google is infringing by what they intend to do, then every site, from Engadget to CNet, that include snippets of other site's reviews are equally guilty.
This is the policy:
http://print.google.com/googleprint/screenshots.ht ml#excerp
[a] Non-copyrighted works: displayed in full.
[b] You submit your book: few pages shown.
[c] Default: very small snippet shown.
[d] you opt out: nothing shown.
If you are an author, you are in [c] by default, which lies under fair use. NO ACTION ON YOUR PART IS NEEDED.
ONLY IF YOU WANT TO GO TO [D] DO YOU NEED TO OPT OUT.
(Or. to go from [c] to [b], you would have to opt in.)
Full text reprinting, yes, but snippets should not be seen as copyright infringement. - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For those of you who DON'T bother to read the article, and think this pertains to simply searching and finding a site that has ripped the book, you need to read the actual suit filed:
From the article:
"The lawsuit asked the court to block Google from copying the books so the authors would not suffer irreparable harm by being deprived of the right to control reproduction of their works. It sought class-action status on behalf of anyone or any entity with a copyright to a literary work at the University of Michigan library.
The Author's Guild, a New York-based non-profit organization, said its primary purpose as the nation's largest organization of book authors was to advocate for and support the copyright and contractural interests of published writers.
"By reproducing for itself a copy of those works that are not in the public domain, Google is engaging in massive copyright infringement. It has infringed, and continues to infringe, the electronic rights of the copyright holders of those works," it said." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Are you all retarded and can't read? Google made a deal with a library to scan and archieve all its books electronically for people to search freely.
Ask yourself, if google really respects what the authors want, why hasn't google remove the books yet? - PacoBell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@jesusphreak:
"Though I do see the valid connection between a library. The difference is, you can reproduce books online. You can't just reproduce a book from the library. Sure, you can make photo-copies, but its not a 100% identical to the original (an online version is)."
How is an online version of a book 100% identical? You still have to digitize an analogue source. And to rebutt your point about photocopying stuff from the library, I don't know about you, but the Xerox photocopiers in my library do a pretty darn good job of replicating text from a book legibly. Some even do color. Now, what's to prevent me from taking those copies home, scanning them at high resolution and hosting them on the Internet? Well, nothing really, except the hassle of the conversion process. Still, does that mean we should sue Xerox or HP for contributory infringement? Should we sue car manufacturers when someone kills someone with one of their vehicles? Of course not! - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Google's COULD and SHOULD purchase a copy of every book they scan, and put a virtual "lending" system in place so that only one person per copy could view any book in their library at any given time.
More popular titles could allow them to store more copies.
The bigger issue though is that once again Copyright is misinterpreted to destroy society rather than enrich is.
Copyright exist in the Untied States SOLELY to provide an incentive to create a rich and educated society. The profit motive was secondary and only there to reward the creators so we could have an American Culture.
The "Disney" laws extending copyright forever and this assault on making information available to everyone are simply an attack on any thing that can foster democracy. Knowledge is power and restriction of it is slavery.
If this "information age" is not allowed to change our society by law, we need to generate a subculture like that in Fahrenheit 451 where we pirate and disseminate this information regardless of "legal" concerns.
We also need to stop voting for a 2 party system and get some people in office who understand that the rights of the individual should ALWAYS outweigh the concerns of the corporations.
P2P IS the library of the future. - mikataur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, that important link got corrupted, it should be:
http://print.google.com/googleprint/screenshots.html#excerp
Please read before jumping to conclusions against Google, whose service could revolutionize looking up things in books as much as they have done for the web. - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How can you guys defend this? The authors DO NOT WANT their books available for free..and Google says "bah, ***** you!" and the rest of you applaud and say Google is right?
I hope Google gets their asses torn on this one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Google Print is an amazing resource. Haven't you ever needed a quote from a book you own? Google makes searching it easy."
That's what ebook sales are for. - skyhighrockets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Thats total BS, if the authors have it online without any security setup to stop from illegal use, google shouldn't be charged for a damn thing, because they haven't done anything.
Its their damn problem if they have no security setup surrounding their works. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I always thought this was an odd move. If anyone else were to do something like this, it would be deemed copyright infrigement. Why should Google be any different?
Though I do see the valid connection between a library. The difference is, you can reproduce books online. You can't just reproduce a book from the library. Sure, you can make photo-copies, but its not a 100% identical to the original (an online version is). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@infinitesnowboy: Let's not forget that Google is stealing. They can enable others to steal, yes, but the crime has already been committed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1theRepublic, you must have very low IQ. The difference is amazon only puts out 1 chapter, and they have the author's permission. While google puts out the entire book, and doesn't have author's permission.
- infinitesnowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Killing someone with a vehicle has nothing to do with stealing. Google seems as if it thinks it can do anything now. If you look at it objectively, yes, you can go to a library, borrow the book, and copy it. But you are responsible for the stealing, not the printer. If Google did this, it'd be removing the hassle, thus letting everyone steal easily.
- akamia123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@mister.joshua
You know it's that kind of pretentious crap that makes this society so ignorant. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'd change that headline. They aren't just accused of infringement--they ARE infringing. The only subjective question here is how you feel about it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Instead of asking for permission to scan and publish books first, they choose to scan and publish books without even letting the author know.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0It's indesputable fact that Google zealots' IQ is shockingly low.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is