http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html
The article attached talks about the terms of the settlement for the Google book Search made available on the internet. The settlement agreement "stems from a class action filed in 2005 by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google. The suit claimed that Google’s practice of scanning copyrighted books from libraries for use in its Book Search service was a violation of copyrights."
Today in class we spoke about this issue and our thoughts about whether or not it should be okay for Google to essentially come in and copy books in digital format to further place them in "partial form" on the Google database. Google says they are really doing a service to the authors of these books because now their books can be available to a wide array of viewers. In this settlement everyone, essentially, would be getting paid a percentage and benefits would be made overall.
I understand why authors don't want others, such as Google search engines, to make a profit off their works, but at the end of the day this feature will add to everyone's knowledge. Only a short clip from each book would be shown. If the viewer has interest in the book then they can choose to purchase it themselves and go from there. I find this to be very efficient. Everyday we move closer and closer to everything being digital. If books are all accessible online it is more convenient for the audience and everyone still gets paid. It seems like a win-win situation to me.
1 comments:
I really enjoyed discussing this in class. I think it was a good topic for you to look into.
I think there are more benefits than detriments in this scenario. Google making books that are out of print available, I feel, is a definite plus for an author who's book is no longer generating revenues.
However, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that Google would be in charge of regulating that ASCAP version for books org (the name escapes me now). I see that presenting many problems in terms of biases and perhaps even a lack of transparency.
Post a Comment