Comments on: Google records show book scanning was aimed at Amazon

By: kateillustrate

kateillustrate — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:51:04 +0000

Google is a corporation. Everything they do is for profit; nothing they do is for humanitarianism. That’s fine, as long as they don’t steal from authors in the process. They may change copyright law as we know it, by sheer brute force. Why, as a consumer, pay for a book when you can print off what you need for free, especially nonfiction chapters? Why, as Google, pay authors for ad revenue generated by searches of their books? Why pay for the books you scan? Dearie me, that’s messy. And it’s NEVER humanitarian when you steal content from creative people. Just ask musicians who have never recovered from fans who “love” music and never pay for it. Some bands have managed to adapt; many more have not and cannot make up the funds by touring. They were quieter musicians who used to make it by selling songs.

By: laptopleon

laptopleon — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:51:39 +0000

The question this article raises with me is: How did the Writers Guild obtain these internal, sealed documents? Every company uses non-disclosure, especially American companies. If they were indeed illegally obtained, can they be used in court?

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:47:59 +0000

The digitising most of the worlds books will be seen as one of the major achievements of the 21st century. A library with all the worlds books available to anyone on the planet.

Its a pity that this is marred by difficulties in reaching an accord with the publishers who were forced into action. They could have done it themselves and worked out the revenue model.

By: Pieter Hulshoff

Pieter Hulshoff — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:55:10 +0000

I think K. C. Watkins’ example, other than the original plan for Google books, is a clear infringement of copyright, and as such should carry a penalty. Such infringement however is not a part of the overall setup plan.

By: Pieter Hulshoff

Pieter Hulshoff — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:48:06 +0000

Of course they weren’t, since the original plan did not involve anything that would harm the authors, and as such would be fair use.

The example K. C. Watkins mentioned below however is a clear case of copyright infringement, and as such should carry a penalty.

By: TKS

TKS — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 03:51:27 +0000

I’m not so sure all of this was done for a huge profit. While I was at the University of Michigan, Googlebooks was digitizing hundreds of non-copyrighted books (very old and many out of print) for the sheer point of making it available to the world. You are able to access these books and download them for free. It costs a lot of money to digitize books and if Google wants to make a profit from it? Fantastic.
Regarding compensation to authors that do hold books with copyrights, it is truly a shame that the parties have not been able to come to an agreement where everyone is content. The short term benefit for an author whose book is on Google, is probably not that great. However, the exposure that author receives, if his or her writing is actually engaging, can lead to extreme financial benefits in the future.
It will be very interesting to see how all of this pans out in the future.

By: Phil Simon

Phil Simon — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:49:16 +0000

Fascinating stuff. The Gang of Four (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google) keep battling. The Age of the Platform is here.

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:14:17 +0000

The “original settlement” – yeah, fine. But that was not Google’s *original* business model, and its the original business model that Google ultimately wants, which screws the copyright holder indefinitely. The fact that they were willing to go the legal route for this long (and yes, it was clear from the start they were preparing for a long legal battle), from the start of the scanning process, indicates how much money there is in it for Google — and I’m not comfortable with an organization that abandons principle in the face of gargantuan profits.

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:08:41 +0000

No I would not deny them a profit for their investment, I just want the owners of copyrights paid properly. Google from the start has wanted to skip that element from the business plan.

By: K C Watkins

K C Watkins — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:12:57 +0000

They posted several of my 41 books up as free downloads (some were missing a few pages at most a single chapter) It took several e-mails from me pointing out that they were infringing copyright before they took them down. During the time my books were free on Google my sales of e-books fell dramatically. Google’s posting of my books as free downloads certainly didn’t benefit me. I informed my agent and publishers who discovered the works of other authors had also been treated in this cavalier fashion with postings of up 90% of books on Google as free downloads. Is Google hoping that authors don’t check the free availibility of their work on the web?
Extremely disgruntled author