Shared publicly  - 
 
I do like Google's argument that scanning books created aggregate knowledge. 

"In its filing, Google cites a number of pop culture examples to argue that a searchable digital library is a benefit to the public. For instance, Google cites an Atlantic article (“The Foreign Language of Mad Men”) that relied on a Google Book search to show that characters in the hit show Mad Men were using dialogue from a later era. The company also describes how book searches unearthed references to an unheralded baseball player, Steve Hovley, that would otherwise have remained buried. And Google cites the more serious example of Minoru Yasui, a civil rights lawyer who is all but invisible in the Library of Congress catalog but surfaces repeatedly in Google Books."

Who should control knowledge? That's the real fight we're fighting. We just don't see it that way. 
127
34
Heidi Echternacht's profile photoJeremy Tregler's profile photoAlex Maurin's profile photoLennart Benoot's profile photo
15 comments
 
publishers are just very afraid to loose their grip on the book publishing industry, so far they are successful this bogus lawsuit has been going on for 5-6 years now.
 
I was searching for an address and phone number number for a small hotel in Senegal, and the only correct return from any search query was a hit from a book scanned into Google's databases. Thanks Google! You saved me about twelve hours of waiting for my colleague in Bamako to write me back (due to the time difference).

The hotel was the Lookea Royal Saly, and the only source with a valid local address and phone was "The Report: Senegal 2009" from Oxford Business Group. 
 
publishers are afraid of becoming irrelevant. all major publishers, of movies, music, books, or games, are going to become completely irrelevant, if they don't keep up.

Self publishing is easier these days than ever before.

If those idiot publishers dont make it clear that they still have something to offer, they will become just another has-been in the dustbins of history.

You can get freelance editors, proofreaders, and illustrators, and self-publish very high-quality books, and make a killing without any intervention from any clearing house. you dont need random house or any other major publisher to get published.

you can do it yourself, or, and this is my preferred method, you can choose to publish through a small independant publisher which allows you to print hardcopies for those customers who want that, in any size they want, pulp paperback, trade paper, or even leatherbound hardcover! The sky is the limit!

This is the BEST age for authoring, and even taking piracy into consideration, piracy just means greater publicity and free marketing!

you will win fans if you do it right, and your fans will support you.

It is possible to live as an author in this day and age, without the help of a major publisher. I love the Internet <3
 
Really bad that time is still lost in these kinds of stupid lawsuits. Kudos got Google that they keep investing time and energy in this. I'm sure they probably have better roi with other stuff.
 
"The Authors Guild, on the other hand, fears that expanded fair use notions will dilute the integrity and value of books."

I'm sure they mean the monetary value...
 
Couldnt agree more +Jeff Jarvis . This is classic old Vs new media / distribution playing out in a different venue
 
So (pardon me if this a dumb q) 1. how can US Government run Public libraries distribute books freely? and 2. is google (a for profit company) claiming digital ownership of digitized information? Does the US Public government role aka Library of Congress now belong to a private company "for our own benefit"? 
 
I feel indifferent about publishers. Their methods of promoting books isn't much better then the emerging model. Which is just whoring yourself out by social networking and manipulating social media.
I like to imagine a world where the cream will naturally rise to the top. I'm not so idealistic though. Cream will never be seen, if ever be bothered to be written, and people who have money to waste to make more money will spend their time self promoting their crappy books with other people whom have too much money.
I guess the emerging method isn't so hardcore about copyright though. That is a positive.
 
+Heidi Echternacht The publishers don't mind the Libraries because they have to buy the books in the first place, and replace them regularly as copies become damaged or lost.

As far as Google and the Publishers go, Google shares any profits made from the books with the publishers and authors if the book is still being printed.  The rub comes in the fact that Google will only share profits with the authors if the book is no longer being published, and if the author or their benefactors are no longer able to be found then they will not share the profits at all.

That is where the publishers are pissed off.  They want the authors share of any profits that can not go to the author.

I don't know about the Library of Congress passing to private hands, but honestly something like that may have happened at some point and I not know about it.
 
Agreed wholeheartedly.

To get us through the 21st century as a species, we’ll need writers, dreamers, thinkers, scientists, and all the knowledge we’ve already accumulated: publicly available, everywhere, always.

Publishers, however, are optional.
 
+Andy Wise True, but how is a library different than making copies of a CD and sharing it with your friends? It's one book being used over and over vs each person buying that book.

Secondly, my point is that Google is taking on the self proclaimed role of the Library of Congress RIGHT NOW. And I am curious as to why there is little to no discussion about the role of a private company essentially deciding to own the worlds books. 
 
+J. Martin We need to use our accumulated knowledge as a species to tackle the challenges of today.

We can barely operate as a species because knowledge is not easily accessible to our youth, those who will be leaders of men in the very near future! Knowledge is power, power we need!

+Heidi Echternacht Libraries are an institution of society that predate the publishers who seek to destroy them.

Libraries are an essential resource that provide valuable knowledge to children and students.

The point of libraries is to provide EASY OPEN ACCESS to people who cannot otherwise afford to search for, much less purchase publications (so authors and intellectual copyright holders do NOT lose any money they would otherwise earn!)

Even IF someone brought me proof that there was a little bit of money shaved off earnings from a few publishers after a major library was built or something, I would still argue that it is an acceptable loss, and that a more intelligent and cultured society would provide greater earnings for publishers in the long run.
 
+Heidi Echternacht The difference is in regulation.  If you make copies of that CD and give it to friends, they get to keep that copy for ever and ever, if a Library lends a book and it is never returned then they need to purchase a new one from the Publisher.

Don't get me wrong, Publishers try and hold books from Libraries as long as they can (I don't remember the exact amount of time but publishers wait for a certain time before releasing new publications to libraries), but they do better through Libraries then no one having access to those books.

Also, Google doesn't own the books that they are scanning, the Authors/Publishers own them still, Google is just becoming another distribution entity, it's just that instead of making money through direct sales they are making money through Advertising.
 
Totally true on the difference w the owning cd and returning! TY +Andy Wise 

Am going to keep on the Google though in terms of- are they owning the right to advertise? Isn't that ownership of the material? Does the public have a right to not have corporate advertising in their library? 
 
The Advertising was the only way Google could get the Publishers to agree to them distributing the books.  Libraries need funds to build, public libraries get tax funds, Google went the private route and gets the funds through advertising.

I guess it depends, if you want Google to remove the advertising then write your congressman and get them public funding.  Until then you have the choice to use Google's service or drive down to the brick and mortar public library.
Add a comment...