DoJ Launches Antitrust Case Against Google

[JMcEntegart]

The Justice Department is said to be making inquiries in relation to Google’s settlement with the Authors Guild of America last October.

DoJ Launches Antitrust Case Against Google : Read more

 

[slickuser]

its the about the time...

 

[Hupiscratch]

Is this the first time that Google takes a antitrust case? If it is, Google, welcome to the winning world!

 

[nekatreven]

complaints made by concerned critics

READ: Microsoft or Yahoo

 

[DXRick]

It's about time that text books be digitized and offered as such to students. However, I also don't like seeing Google get some kind of monopoly over this.

 

[Platypus]

[citation][nom]nekatreven[/nom]READ: Microsoft or Yahoo[/citation]
Not necessarily. This could also come from any/all bookstore owners who feel their grip on hard copies would slip away if people were able to do a google search and pull up their literature of choice.

Sure, there's the Kindle which allows people to download books and read electronically, but Google's approach requires people to only have a computer and internet connection and not a specialized device like the Kindle.

As far as Google getting "an exclusive license to profit," isn't that the benefit of coming up with an idea and implementing it yourself?

 

[WINTERLORD]

well, that major infringement on copyright law, seam alot like they where being sneaky. almost as if they planned this and the settlement long before they got in trouble over it. just to not stir up debate asking 1,000 of publishers and authers. thus this allowed them to move quickly.

but about an anti-trust suit that seems kinda stupid unless im not understanding something. but ok google finds a way to profit but if other companies like msn or yahho wanted to do it they could to.

 

[A Stoner]

It is one thing to digitize a copyrighted item. It is another thing to make a profit from it. There is nothing wrong with me digitizing my own library of books. There is also nothing wrong with me sharing this copy with someone who also owns a particular book I digitized. I just save them the effort. It becomes something completely different when I take that digitized item and put it up on the web for all to see in full light of day, and even have the gall to put advertisements next to it so that I make money everytime someone visits the site to read. Yes libraries put books out where people can read them, free of charge and in unlimited, except by viture of time, numbers, and it is that limited virtue of time that makes it fair use. Because a library has limited copies and people have limited time to read those copies, it falls under fair use.

 

[nekatreven]

[citation][nom]platypus[/nom]Not necessarily. This could also come from any/all bookstore owners who feel their grip on hard copies would slip away if people were able to do a google search and pull up their literature of choice.Sure, there's the Kindle which allows people to download books and read electronically, but Google's approach requires people to only have a computer and internet connection and not a specialized device like the Kindle.As far as Google getting "an exclusive license to profit," isn't that the benefit of coming up with an idea and implementing it yourself?[/citation]

It was a joke...not to mention a google search will already do that for tons of hard copy and online content alike. Whether its pointing to a pdf from another source, google books, a torrent, or otherwise.

Also, to get the DoJ to do an investigation in which they claim they are basically "just curious" sounds to me like it would take much more than a few authors and bookstore owners writing complaint letters about lost revenue. I mean aren't these the folks that usually raid offices with armed teams? Considering the apparent lack of merit for anything other than a mild poking around from the DoJ I'd say they were appeasing either a large group or many many smaller entities that complained.

Two of the biggest groups in the literature world just signed a deal that nets them and their authors millions. I don't think they'd throw the income stream away they just went to court for. You do the math...whos left that cares enough to contact the DoJ?

I was actually joking about MS or yahoo being the ones complaining but unless it was B&N and Borders bookstores I don't know who is left that cares enough and has that kind of weight. I don't think the theory it was a bunch of indie bookstore owners covers it.

 

[Pei-chen]

Surprise surprise, the master is against serfs reading and learning. We elected our overlord and it is time to slave.

 

[squatchman]

Google Book Search is an awesome service.

 

[g-thor]

The article states: "the inquiry is a result of complaints made by concerned critics who say the settlement would give Google an exclusive license to profit from millions of books."

So none of these books will be available in printed form? No used copies out there anywhere? Is Google supervising the destruction of all other forms of these books to ensure they really have a monopoly?

Sorry, but I don't see this "exclusive license" that the critics are talking about. Can someone explain their basis for this - really explain it, not just guessing?