Google Offers Scanned Books To Rival Stores 150
eldavojohn writes "Yesterday we covered Microsoft's jabs at the Google book deal, but today Reuters is reporting that the scanned books will be available to Google's rivals. Google said in a surprising statement, 'Google will host the digital (out-of-print) books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose.' They made this statement today at the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that had been called to discuss criticism of a 2008 settlement between the Authors Guild and Google. Well, I would bet this has caught more than a few people by surprise. The Authors Guild offers a history and the fine print of the agreement."
Comebine this with (Score:2, Interesting)
the new asus ebook reader http://images.google.com/images?q=asus%20ebook%20reader [google.com] and it looks like books are on their way of the floppy.
Re:Comebine this with (Score:5, Interesting)
What about non profits? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will libraries, project gutenberg, etc also be allowed access to these out of copyright files?
Re:There goes Google... (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed.
It's my understanding that only orphan works are being included in the settlement, so the only people who are being hurt are
1) Incapable of protecting their rights anyway
2) Too lazy to do so, or
3) Copyright trolls looking to pounce on innocent infringers.
Mind you, I'd rather have the opt-out deadline be replaced by a zero-liability cease and desist option where someone who proves copyright can have google stop providing access, but can't claim damages.
But this isn't half bad even not considering the alternatives.
Re:One major concern (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about non profits? (Score:2, Interesting)
The scanning activity is labor
Well, in the US at least, mere labor is insufficient for copyright to arise. Rather, a copyrightable work (or the copyrightable portions thereof) must be original and creative. Here, Google is engaged in slavish copying; they are copying extant works, so their scans are not original, and they are copying as exactly as they can, so they are not creative.
and text as a product of OCR
Again, though, they are copying as exactly as they can manage. This means the machine readable text will also not be independently copyrightable.
However, the uncopyrightable copies -- that is, the tangible media on which the scans and text are stored -- are Google's property, and they are not obligated to give anyone access to them unconditionally, much less at all. So while Google lacks a copyright on their copies of public domain works, they can condition access to those copies on users promising not to make their own copies from the scans or text, and to not engage in distribution of such copies. If a user did it anyway, it wouldn't be copyright infringement, but breach of contract.
Of course, Google could allow unrestricted access to those works just as easily. Given their 'don't be evil' ethos, that would be the appropriate thing for them to do.
Re:Microsoft's reply (Score:3, Interesting)
More middlemen. More slices out of a pie that has already been dished up.
A significant portion of "businesses" today are simply middlemen doing exactly the same thing.
Right down to the apple on my desk, a lot of someones are getting a slice of the pie. The grower, the trucker, the distributor, the vendor, the government inspector, the company that makes the pesticides and waxes that cover it, the fertilizer supplier, the taxman, the dude that made the box it was shipped in, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Now, I realize that some of these people are essential--that apple didn't just magically appear on my desk--but when you get down to it, just how many people need a cut of my dollar to get a fucking apple on my desk?
When you start looking at businesses with this in mind, you begin to realize just how unnecessary a significant potion of these middlemen really are. They simply drive up costs--costs that are paid by all of us.
I don't really think it is evil. Illogical (from a consumer's perspective), yes, but not evil.
I also don't think that Google is being evil here. Sure, they are adding more middlemen to the equation (and yeah, I think that sucks), but more then likely, they simply realized that the arrangement converts the cost of distribution into a revenue source.
Re:Microsoft's reply (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There goes Google... (Score:3, Interesting)
Too late, my spotty little friend. Tell me, should my son be allowed to inherit the business I started, or should it be seized the day after my death and distributed to the masses? If I rent out my house, should he be allowed to collect that rent after I croak? What is so special about intellectual property?
Re:There goes Google... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually the only "whore" (using your words) here is you who are profiting off of work YOU never did (your parents books). That's exactly the kind of thing that has copyright screwed up. The Authors Guild realizes that it's impossible to stop the digital movement. They can either go with it, or go down kicking and screaming like the RIAA and MPAA. The only difference is that they don't have the vast resources to pool from in order to take that stance.
Fact is, if you make something worth paying for people will pay. They WANT to pay. The people who steal it probably weren't going to pay for it anyway if they got it. I'm not saying that makes it right, but that life.
I despise how out of print Music, Movies or Books is suddenly this big issue when someone like Google goes... we'll publish them. YOU weren't getting money anyway. You have NOT lost anything. You have EVERY right to tell them to stop if you don't want to publish it but millions of otherwise lost and forgotten to the public works are no longer lost and forgotten.
Suddenly publishers who were "Oh... lets not print this it's not cost efficient" are like "OH! WAIT... WE WANT TO PUBLISH IT NOW!". Get over yourself. Google is doing something that needs to be done to an industry that is overly controlled. I want artists to get paid for their work... but more importantly I want access to that work.