U.S. Copyright Office Opposes Google Book Deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
74
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]tenor77[/nom]Well if you're not a patent troll then you're gonna get shot down.[/citation]

The Copyright Office does not deal with patents.
 

Hanin33

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2009
210
0
18,830
0
i don't really understand why Google is getting the focus here... if the Authors Guild has the right to get into this deal with Google... how can Google be accused of trying to corner the book market? wouldn't the Authors Guild also be colluding to achieve that? if what the Authors Guild has to offer does not equate to what the opposition says it has the ability to do, why not go after them for going beyond the scope of their privileges with the rights given to them by the various authors and the such?
 
G

Guest

Guest
The books are out of copyright, this is not their concern. Corruption is rampant in America, where there's a politician opposing something, there's a lobbyist giving them money and sexual favors.
 

Hanin33

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2009
210
0
18,830
0
ok... so why did i get marked down with no response? the question remains... if the Authors Guild has the right to sell Google what they want, then why isn't the Authors Guild being questioned?
 

Major7up

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
208
0
18,840
1
I think Google needs a more open and less restrictive deal in order to appeal to the public and other parties. I suggested before that they might be allowed to offer content free to users by supporting it with ads while others could sell it outright. But Google along with everyone else needs to pay royalties and they should be equal royalty amounts for everyone so that no one has an advantage.
 

tester24

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
235
0
18,830
0
It's all about the money people that's all it's ever been about. Copywrite doesn't know how to approach this so they naturally they don't like it. These are uncharted waters that Google is venturing in. Personally I like the fact that we are able to get books that have been out of print for a while. Instead of having to pay outrageous Amazons pricing. Amazon is naturally pissed because so far they have a strangle hold on the online book selling market.

But like always people are afraid of the changes this deal will have.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
87
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Major7Up[/nom]I think Google needs a more open and less restrictive deal in order to appeal to the public and other parties. I suggested before that they might be allowed to offer content free to users by supporting it with ads while others could sell it outright. But Google along with everyone else needs to pay royalties and they should be equal royalty amounts for everyone so that no one has an advantage.[/citation]

Why, as an Australian, should I have to deal with an American guild?

The problem, as I see it, is that google is assuming that if something is 'out of print' in the US, then it is fair game for their 'library'. Well, pardon me, but the US is NOT the center of all things legal... But if google succeeds in this endeavor, as it currently stands, then it will be violating many foreign copyrights. Not to mention depriving me, an Australian author, of my means of livlihood. I would have far less issue with this scheme if it were an 'opt in' policy. It is all about google's definition of 'orphan' works, see. What may be considered an 'orphan' work in the US may very well NOT be an 'orphan' work in some parts of the rest of the world. Take Darwin's works for instance. Not 'orphan' works in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, but could very well be considered so under google's definition.

I'm just pleased that the US copyright registry has stepped up to the crease and taken a front-foot stand. I just hope that google's lawyers don't get an early wicket from this.
 

r0x0r

Distinguished
May 9, 2006
366
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Hanin33[/nom]ok... so why did i get marked down with no response?[/citation]

It's the Tom's Hardware comments section, home of the thumbs-down nazis.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
87
0
18,580
0
I personally have no clue. But does it really matter? Don't invest your ego into such unimportant things.
 

WheelsOfConfusion

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2008
341
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]LOL! Why are so many against this?!?!? I guess they just don't want people to get educated.[/citation]
Because it violates copyright laws. Not just US laws, but international too. It's a pretty egregious violation at that. Google had to know it was bad going in, but their strategy has been to go forward with it and try to negotiate a deal later. Remember, this isn't just public domain stuff, it's not even just the out-of-print material: Google is essentially trying to scan several college libraries' collections into their database and make them freely available. I love the idea, but if you're going to break the law doing it then you need to go back to the drawing board.

Personally this whole thing just highlights for me the need for governments to start digitizing and making available media in their national libraries online, at the very least once the copyright wears off. We're reached the point in tech development where the average person's closet could hold an NAS or two with plain .txt files comprising the entire book collection of the US Library of Congress, and there's certainly a demand for the material no matter how old. I don't know about efforts abroad, but in the US there has been precious little effort put into making these materials available online.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
87
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Because it violates copyright laws. Not just US laws, but international too. It's a pretty egregious violation at that. Google had to know it was bad going in, but their strategy has been to go forward with it and try to negotiate a deal later. Remember, this isn't just public domain stuff, it's not even just the out-of-print material: Google is essentially trying to scan several college libraries' collections into their database and make them freely available. I love the idea, but if you're going to break the law doing it then you need to go back to the drawing board. Personally this whole thing just highlights for me the need for governments to start digitizing and making available media in their national libraries online, at the very least once the copyright wears off. We're reached the point in tech development where the average person's closet could hold an NAS or two with plain .txt files comprising the entire book collection of the US Library of Congress, and there's certainly a demand for the material no matter how old. I don't know about efforts abroad, but in the US there has been precious little effort put into making these materials available online.[/citation]

But even then, there would have to be some very careful checking done to be certain that the work in question was actually out of copyright. Don't forget, the US library of congress 'requires' x # of copies of every work ever published in the US. And they also add on some other works as well, so it will not be all cut and dried even if the US library of congress tries to go this route. Back several years ago, when this was first mooted, all i could see was problems. Now that google is trying to implement this scheme, the problems that I originally envisioned have reared their heads.

Some 'solutions' have been put forward in the case of patents. An international patent registry, anyone? We see how well that is going.
 

WheelsOfConfusion

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2008
341
0
18,930
0
I still think the LoC would have less trouble doing this specifically for public domain works than Google is having for going after works regardless of copyright while leaving an "opt out" system in place. National libraries would be in possibly the best positions to handle this sort of thing, I feel. Being within the same government as the copyright offices rather than being a private company would probably help for a lot, if only in terms of convenience and communication.
 

-unknown-

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2009
81
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]croc[/nom]But if google succeeds in this endeavor, as it currently stands, then it will be violating many foreign copyrights. Not to mention depriving me, an Australian author, of my means of livlihood.[/citation]
You are aware that Google was only planning on scanning books over 100 years old, right? Meaning you'd be long gone with your livelyhood by the time they got to your book.
 

Andraxxus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2009
99
0
18,580
0
At first we saw this as a good thing then we realised that people may get smart and we dumped it.That's most likely the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 8
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 39
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 8
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 14
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 28
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 35
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 75
G Streaming Video & TVs 17
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 58
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 20
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 44
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 42
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 19
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 6
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 68
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 12
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 52
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 16

ASK THE COMMUNITY