Coffeehouse Thread

22 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Google Print

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    eagle

    Google Print goes live!  Chapter 1 is a beta.....


    So is this Napster 2.0?

  • User profile image
    billh

    Curious. Why can't I find Fahrenheit 451 in there? I'm finding Ray's other books...

    http://print.google.com/print?lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=fahrenheit+451+ray+bradbury

  • User profile image
    eagle

    Copyrighted

  • User profile image
    billh

    eagle wrote:
    Copyrighted


    ?

    I would guess that most of the books on there are copyrighted, so that is irrelevant.  In some cases, they state this text under the book title:

    Google Print BETA wrote:
    Page 81 - [Sorry, this page's content is restricted]

  • User profile image
    eagle

    No it’s you who are irrelevant; everybody knows Google is being sued by the Publishing Moguls as they try to hold on to their property.


    We are all publishing now so the Publishing Moguls and the Record Tycoons will all soon be irrelevant.

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    I just don't see this as a useful tool, except for being a front to a book store. The only interesting thing I could see with something like this was being able to read entire public domain books, even exporting to PDF. Otherwise I just don't see a point to it...

  • User profile image
    Tonatiúh

    Harlequin wrote:
    I just don't see this as a useful tool, except for being a front to a book store. The only interesting thing I could see with something like this was being able to read entire public domain books, even exporting to PDF. Otherwise I just don't see a point to it...



    E-LIS, E-prints for Library and Information Science

    E-LIS is an open access archive for scientific or technical documents, published or unpublished, on Librarianship, Information Science and Technology, and related application activities. E-LIS archive's goal is to promote communication in this field by the rapid dissemination of papers. Eprints for LIS has been established as a community service by RCLIS (Research in Computing, Library and Information Science) to promote open access to papers on these fields.



    Tonatiúh

  • User profile image
    billh

    eagle wrote:
    No it’s you who are irrelevant; everybody knows Google is being sued by the Publishing Moguls as they try to hold on to their property.

    We are all publishing now so the Publishing Moguls and the Record Tycoons will all soon be irrelevant.


    Just because you can publish, doesn't mean you are publishing anything good. 

    How does this differ from Amazon offering the ability to "search inside the book!" like some publishers have agreed to?  I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the point of the service is.

  • User profile image
    michaeldori​an

    Hahaha exactlyl. The point is they have so much money they need to spend it on something. Big Smile

  • User profile image
    Tonatiúh

    michaeldorian wrote:

    Hahaha exactlyl. The point is they have so much money they need to spend it on something.



    I hope they will spend their so much money... The same way Microsoft have done with the yours for as long as 30 years... Microsoft have enabled a lot of things in this world with that money... Not only a vast, though not much ordered bunch of data about books and other kind of worth documents.

    Tonatiúh

  • User profile image
    Michael Griffiths

    Books are a tremendous amount of (mostly) high-quality material.

    The noise-to-signal ration in books is so low because the publishing industry takes pains to make it that way.

    Why do search engines want it? Hmmm, I wonder.

    I do think Google's in the wrong scanning copyrighted works without prior permission, however.

    Yahoo!, MSN, and the Open Content Alliance are in a much better position.

  • User profile image
    ayumukasuga

    A waste of money? Nah, I'm sure they have secret world takeover projects more important than this.

  • User profile image
    Karim

    Beer28 wrote:
    how do libraries get away with letting all those people read the same book?

    Each person that checks a book out of a library doesn't license it explicitly?

    Why do they let libraries do it, but they won't let google?

    When you show a movie, each person has to pay for a ticket, why do public libraries get away with showing the media to lots of people having only paid for 1 license?????

    If I were google, I would fight this, because it's not fair.


    Beer, Beer, Beer... every time you open your mouth about copyright, you only demonstrate how little you understand.  This is clear from the Sitespaces debacle, where you don't understand why News Corp. is upset with you for making an IDENTICAL COPY of one of the most popular sites on the Internet (down to the names of objects and the exact location of radio buttons).

    "Each person has to pay for a ticket" at the movie theater, because THE MOVIE THEATER SAYS SO, NOT because it has anything to do with COPYRIGHT LAW.  Has nothing to do with a "license."  There is a fine point about something called "public performance," but I'll spare you, since you don't seem to have the basics down yet and the details would only confuse you.

    Libraries "get away" with what they do BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE COPIES OF THEIR BOOKS.  That's why it's called "COPY" right: the author controls how COPIES will be made.

    It's ok to take a LEGAL copy of a book and LOAN it (or even GIVE it) to a friend.  The number of copies doesn't increase.  This is what libraries do.

    It's NOT ok to take a LEGAL copy of a book and sit down at a Xerox machine and MAKE MORE COPIES to loan or give to your friends.  This is called COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

    What Google is doing is making COPIES of books.  Electronic COPIES.

    Got that?  Library: NO COPIES.  Google: COPIES.  Library: LEGAL.  Google: ILLEGAL.

    Now, in Google's defense, they are claiming what they are doing is not really illegal, since (with books that not in the public domain) you cannot read the whole book online.  So as far as the general public is concerned, they can only see a few PAGES of a book.  Making copies of a few PAGES of a much larger book is generally considered ok, as it is considered "fair use."  (You aren't copying the whole thing -- just a tiny bit of it.)

    In reality, though, Google is copying the WHOLE BOOK.

    Their search engine limits what you can read to a few pages, thus making it look like fair use, but Google's got an electronic copy of the WHOLE BOOK on their servers.

    I am generally all for e-books and e-publishing.  But there are a couple of things in this program that seem clearly WRONG:

    1) Normally what you do if you want to make a copy of a copyrighted book is contact the publisher and/or author to get PERMISSION to copy the book.  What Google has done, though, is said, "Well, basically, we're going to copy all the books in the world, and if you've written a book, and you don't want us to copy it and put it online, YOU need to contact US."

    That's like saying, "Well, basically, we plan on robbing every bank in the world, and if you have a bank account, and you don't want us to rob it, send us an email with your bank account number so we'll leave it alone."  Hello?

    2) Google doesn't want to pay authors for making copies of their books, but they plan on MAKING MONEY by PLACING ADS NEXT TO THE TEXT OF THESE BOOKS.  So if you've written a book, and Google copies it, they don't owe YOU jack.  But Google plans to make MONEY off YOUR words by placing ads next to them.  That hardly seems fair: author of the book gets NOTHING; Google gets massive recurring ad revenue from here to eternity just for scanning the damn book with OCR and indexing the text.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    Explaining the Google Print Library Project

    article wrote:
    The one the Author's Guild is fighting over is the third part, Google's Print Library Program, and for that Google will show only a few sentences on both sides of the keyword searched for, and not necessarily complete sentences. You never see a full page, let alone an entire book. You will also find bibliographic information and where you can find related information on the web. In all cases, you will also be directed to nearby libraries and bookstores where the book is available for purchase or loan, including second-hand bookstores for out-of-print books.

    There are even authors who are opposed to what the Authors Guild is doing.
    author wrote:
    I have a very strong objective interest in Google Print succeeding -- because as a scholar, I benefit from the dissemination of my works and because reaching agreement with Google will be costly to me and Google, essentially killing the project. A substantial intraclass conflict of interest destroys "adequacy of representation," making class certification inappropriate, both under the federal rules of civil procedure and under the due process clause of the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. . . . Pro-bono representation for intervenors opposing certification, anyone?"

    It also goes on to say that is distribution that causes harm, not copying. Also copyright law should really be updated for the 'digital age' (like the patent system) as it could do more harm than good.
    article wrote:
    All computers do is copy. Copyright law has this idea of strict liability -- no matter what your intent is, if you make a copy without authorization, you're an infringer. So computers are natural-born automatic infringers. Copyright law and computers are always running into conflict -- we really need to rewrite copyright law.



    Very good for those more obscure books, or ones out of print, which could be printed on demand (see below).

    Case Study (Penn State)

  • User profile image
    sbc

    Karim wrote:

    1) Normally what you do if you want to make a copy of a copyrighted book is contact the publisher and/or author to get PERMISSION to copy the book.  What Google has done, though, is said, "Well, basically, we're going to copy all the books in the world, and if you've written a book, and you don't want us to copy it and put it online, YOU need to contact US."

    That's like saying, "Well, basically, we plan on robbing every bank in the world, and if you have a bank account, and you don't want us to rob it, send us an email with your bank account number so we'll leave it alone."  Hello?

    With current copywrite law, it does seem to be in a bit of a 'grey' area. However, if they have to ask every author for permission, then it will not be of less value to the consumer (i.e. users searching the service). If Google had to do the same with its regular search engine, they would not be where they are today. Also they don't put the entire book online. The quality of the image displayed is also not that high, so it would be not worth printing.
    Karim wrote:

    2) Google doesn't want to pay authors for making copies of their books, but they plan on MAKING MONEY by PLACING ADS NEXT TO THE TEXT OF THESE BOOKS.  So if you've written a book, and Google copies it, they don't owe YOU jack.  But Google plans to make MONEY off YOUR words by placing ads next to them.  That hardly seems fair: author of the book gets NOTHING; Google gets massive recurring ad revenue from here to eternity just for scanning the damn book with OCR and indexing the text.

    But then if the visitor buys the book then authors benefit. After all, if someone searched, they were probably looking for a book to buy. I doubt visitors search just so they can click on ads.

  • User profile image
    Karim

    sbc wrote:
    With current copywrite law, it does seem to be in a bit of a 'grey' area. However, if they have to ask every author for permission, then it will not be of less value to the consumer (i.e. users searching the service). If Google had to do the same with its regular search engine, they would not be where they are today. Also they don't put the entire book online. The quality of the image displayed is also not that high, so it would be not worth printing.


    Not sure I understood the gray area part.  I thought copyright law was pretty clear here.  You have to get permission to make copies of copyrighted works.  It doesn't say "you have to get permission UNLESS you're Google."

    If they were smart, Google would have gone to the Authors Guild and negotiated some kind of deal first.  Obviously Google was acting on the principle of "better to ask for forgiveness afterwards than permission beforehand."

    Saying that if they had to do this with their "regular search engine" they would not be where they are today -- yeah, well, I don't find find this a hugely compelling argument and I doubt any judge would either.  "But Your Honor!  If Google had to ask permission to crawl web content, they would not have a market cap of eleventy bajillion dollars and be able to afford their own Boeing 767!"  Boo hoo.  Guess what?  The "real world" is not the web, books are not web pages, and copyright law still exists.

    Google expects authors to "opt out" of its program, the way you'd put a ROBOTS.TXT file on your web site.  The real world is not the web!  Books don't have a ROBOTS.TXT file!

    sbc wrote:

    But then if the visitor buys the book then authors benefit. After all, if someone searched, they were probably looking for a book to buy. I doubt visitors search just so they can click on ads.


    "IF" the visitor buys the book.  Your assumption is that visitors to Google Print are looking for books to buy.  My assumption is that they're not, otherwise they'd use Amazon's existing "search inside the book feature."  My assumption is that MOST of the search results from Google Print will be used in citations, e.g. "As G. Gordon Liddy once said in chapter 3 of his autobiography...." 

    If you can get the pull quote or paragraph you need from Google Print, you won't NEED to buy the book.  So the author LOSES a sale.

    What gets me is that Google is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.  Let's be clear about this.  They are doing this to make money.  YOUR money.  They are doing this to increase the value of Google ads.   If they want this service to be fair, Google should PAY the authors some portion of the REVENUES they get from advertising.  After all, the AUTHORS WROTE THE WORDS.

    This is the ultimate Web 2.0 "user generated content" scam, where basically Google wants the content of every book in the world for FREE so they can MAKE MONEY from putting ADS next to it.

    I would mind a whole lot less if either

    1) some portion of the ad revenues went back to the authors who wrote the content

    OR

    2) Google would remove the ads, and TRULY make this a PUBLIC, NOT-FOR-PROFIT SERVICE.

    But right now they want to have their cake and eat it too.

  • User profile image
    billh

    Apparently Microsoft is also doing something similar:

    Microsoft Scanning in Books From British Library

    The article wrote:
    LONDON - Software giant Microsoft Corp. said Friday it has signed a deal to scan and put online 100,000 books from the British Library. 
     
    Readers will be able to search through around 25 million pages of material next year without having to visit the library in London or pay any fee.

    Microsoft is initially investing $2.5 million in the project, but both sides say there are plans to digitize more titles in the future.

    A plan by search engine Google — a rival to Microsoft's MSN search engine — to upload its own digital library has been dogged by complaints from publishers that their copyrights are being infringed.

    Mindful of that controversy, Microsoft and the British Library stressed that they will be choosing books only from the older end of the library's vast collection of 13 million titles, as these have long fallen out of copyright.


  • User profile image
    sbc

    You don't see that Google Print can be useful? They do cover books that Amazon do not, due to them being out of print, or being more obscure (see Penn State case study). Imagine being able to get a book that is no longer in print? Public domain / out of copyright books should all be part of this.

    As for getting citation, you can do the same by going to a library, finding the book and do so without paying the author. Google Print just means you don't have to go to the library and it is far quicker to find what you want. Plus you will be able to find more than if you went a library.

    I must admit though, they shouldn't have ads on, unless authors get a percentage of the profit made. Although I think there is a way for the copyright holder to benefit by signing up to the Publisher Program.

    i.e if a book was not submitted through the program, then display no ads.

    If we had some stats on authors losing money, then perhaps they are going to far. I don't think it is possible to measure that though. Increase in sales is easier to measure (and I am sure Google Print will increase sales of books).


    We will have to wait and see if either:
    The law on copyright changes to take into account virtual libraries (having the same rights as physical ones)
    If they could do it under 'fair use'
    Service has to be shut down
    Or people see the benefits, authors get paid and everyone wins out

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.