Comments on: Google’s pain if it loses the book-scanning case? (hint: less than you think) http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/09/googles-pain-if-it-loses-the-book-scanning-case-hint-less-than-you-think/ The economics of digital content Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:03:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: bob http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/09/googles-pain-if-it-loses-the-book-scanning-case-hint-less-than-you-think/#comment-122301 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:19:23 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=216126#comment-122301 Well, that just sucks for many authors. They’re hiding behind loopholes. What are these authors supposed to do? File a separate law suit?

]]> By: D Traver Adolphus http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/09/googles-pain-if-it-loses-the-book-scanning-case-hint-less-than-you-think/#comment-121759 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:44:54 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=216126#comment-121759 I have to say, as a writer I am fully in favor of Google’s scanning project. From my end this is not about money, but about access to written works. Good on yer, Google, fight on.

]]> By: Michael Cairns http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/09/googles-pain-if-it-loses-the-book-scanning-case-hint-less-than-you-think/#comment-121336 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:17:51 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=216126#comment-121336 My Post in 2009 on the number of Orphan titles: 580,388 Orphan Works – Give or Take

http://personanondata.blogspot.com/2009/09/580388-orphan-works-give-or-take.html

“Clearly one of the most (if not the most) contentious issue regarding the Google Book Settlement (GBS) centers on the nebulous community of “orphans and orphan titles”. And yet, through the entirety of the discussion since the Google Book Settlement agreement was announced, no one has attempted to define how many orphans there really are. Allow me: 580,388. How do I know? ” Read on.

]]> By: David Thomas http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/09/googles-pain-if-it-loses-the-book-scanning-case-hint-less-than-you-think/#comment-121278 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:04:06 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=216126#comment-121278 If your reductive math is correct, the question then becomes — why is Google spending so much money and time trying to hide behind fair use if the payments to copyright holders is comparatively small? My guess is that their model — to compete with Amazon — had it to “hold” titles for free, in the manner in which Amazon essentially “lists” titles and doesn’t have any real inventory of digital titles. Or their model could accommodate an open pay system with a million copyright holders. Both suppositions are pretty weak, though. The business plan from the start appeared to be “we’ll do all the scanning and build the library first on our own most favorable terms and work out the details legally while we’ve got it in place.”

]]>