Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Books Businesses Google

Microsoft Blasts Google Book Deal 165

eldavojohn writes "With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal, it's Microsoft's turn. They're claiming it's frankly an illegal 'joint venture' and not a settlement. According to ZDNet, Microsoft's four complaints against the deal are: 1) Future infringements are covered by the settlement, affecting the exclusive rights of absent class members for the life of their copyrights. 2) The deal gives away to Google vast rights that were not contested in the underlying litigation. The lawsuits dealt with Google's displaying brief excerpts. Instead of compromising on that infringement, the parties instead agreed to give away the rights to display entire books. 3) The publishers who negotiated this deal each have undisclosed side deals with Google, which will likely give them better terms than the class will get. 4) The publishers plan to exclude their own works from the deal. You might recall over a year ago Microsoft's own scanning effort died."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Blasts Google Book Deal

Comments Filter:
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:06AM (#29376145) Homepage
    Microsoft sees Google as a major competitor. As such, it is only logical that they would attack something like this that will give Google a substantial competitive advantage. I hope the court will see it in that light...
    • by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:11AM (#29376169) Homepage Journal

      Well, there is that, but on the other hand they are absolutely spot on, the article is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Google book deal. I dislike Microsoft, and I use Google all the time, but this deal really is a bad one.

      • by Zibri ( 1063838 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:27AM (#29376207)

        You summarize my thoughts exactly. And I would also add that this deal is flamed by another party: the FSF. (fsf.org seems to be down atm, but here comes the link: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-09-google-book-settlement-objection [fsf.org] )

        "But under the proposed settlement, works released under the GFDL and similar licenses are lumped in with works under full restrictive copyright. Google would therefore be given permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirement to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers."

        • by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

          Yep. You can dislike someone who tells you that 2+2 = 4, but you shouldn't let that make you argue that the answer's 5. How the Hell Google got this past the courts, I have no idea.
          • by ajs ( 35943 )

            How the Hell Google got this past the courts, I have no idea.

            Taken in a vacuum, there is no problem with this deal. The problem only arises should publishers refuse in future to cut the same deal with others, at which point the publishers open themselves up to FTC/DoJ involvement, lawsuits or both. Google has no part in that, and the Google settlement remains a perfectly reasonable deal.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by wordsnyc ( 956034 )

              Uh, no, there are huge problems with this deal that have nothing to do with competition. If approved, the deal would modify US and intl. copyright law, subject rightsholders (many of whom have no knowledge of the deal and thus no opportunity to object) to compulsory licensing in perpetuity with no judicial recourse ("arbitration," anyone), and exempt Google from not just past copyright violations (the ostensible subject of the lawsuit) but all future ones as well.

              It's theft, pure and simple, and Google's o

              • It's not theft; if you hold copyright you are still eligible to sell the book yourself. It's copyright infringement.

                I still think it's bullshit, but it's not theft.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *

          The FSF should know better than to take what is written in the media as accurate.

          Here's the settlement: http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Final-Notice-of-Class-Action-Settlement.pdf [googlebooksettlement.com]

          Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes. You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law.

          Anything else you have heard is bullshit.

          • by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Thursday September 10, 2009 @07:00AM (#29376815) Homepage Journal

            The GFDL and GPL aren't about money, though, so being able to get money off Google in return for them stripping the document's recipient of the rights that you want them to have is not an answer.

          • by nomadic ( 141991 )
            Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes.

            True, but keep in mind that there's an opt-out requirement, so if you want out you have to let them know.

            You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law.

            Insanely restrictive things like "uhh, please don't make money off my books without my permission."
            • by Danse ( 1026 )

              Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes. True, but keep in mind that there's an opt-out requirement, so if you want out you have to let them know. You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law. Insanely restrictive things like "uhh, please don't make money off my books without my permission."

              I believe the opt-out period already ended sometime last week. I still don't understand how those publishers were able to make such a deal without explicit permission from each author they represent. That is unless authors have to give the publishers a lot more control than I thought. As much as I'm opposed to the way copyright laws have evolved, somehow this doesn't seem like they're looking out for the rights of the authors, but just trying to cut the best deal for their company.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by nomadic ( 141991 )
                vI still don't understand how those publishers were able to make such a deal without explicit permission from each author they represent.

                The publishers presumably didn't, the class representatives for the authors did. In class action lawsuits, you basically find a few named plaintiffs to represent all the unnamed plaintiff class members, and they get to make decisions regarding settlement. It has nothing to do with copyright law.
                • by Danse ( 1026 )

                  In class action lawsuits, you basically find a few named plaintiffs to represent all the unnamed plaintiff class members, and they get to make decisions regarding settlement. It has nothing to do with copyright law.

                  If they're going to be profiting from giving rights to these works to Google, then it certainly seems that it should have something to do with copyright law. I understand why they don't want it to be opt-in rather than opt-out, but the fundamental problem is copyright law itself. This class-action suit just waves away the problems to allow some people to profit from the deal, copyright law be damned.

          • This is a class action suit, which means if you sit on your duff you lose your rights.

        • Google's plan to digitize and bring online all books is of immense value to society. All of the objections offer only to prevent this great service with no alternative. Therefore they are bad.

          As noted in the summary, Microsoft had their own effort and abandoned it. Too bad for them. They don't now get to prevent somebody else from doing it. If they want to pick the effort back up they're welcome to provide a competing service - Google's deal is not exclusive.

          Microsoft attempting to prevent Google fro

          • by Quothz ( 683368 )

            Google's plan to digitize and bring online all books is of immense value to society. All of the objections offer only to prevent this great service with no alternative. Therefore they are bad.

            The alternative, mentioned time and again, is for Congress to write an exception into copyright law for the republication of protected works that are not currently being published. This would guarantee residuals to the authors (possibly held in trust by the WGA or another organization for authors who aren't easy to locate). It would open the field up to any electronic publisher and would allow for the handling of future works. Google would have the advantage of the search technology they have in place and t

            • Unfortunately, Google has no control over congress or copyright laws (otherwise, they probably would have pushed for copyright reforms to keep the project in its original form—instead of making it Google Obscure/Out-of-Print Book Search). What they do have is the ability to come to a private settlement with the parties that are opposed to Google Book Search. So they did that.

              I don't know how you construed this as giving Google a monopoly on anything. Anyone else trying to provide a similar service has

      • by ajs ( 35943 )

        Well, there is that, but on the other hand they are absolutely spot on, the article is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Google book deal. I dislike Microsoft, and I use Google all the time, but this deal really is a bad one.

        No, they're entirely wrong. This argument has been repeated so many times (and it's really interesting to see Microsoft actually saying this now, as opposed to having others say it for them) that people are buying it. Let's make a comparison:

        I sell you an ice cream cone for 5 cents. Someone else goes running all over the neighborhood yelling about how there's no way that I will sell everyone else an ice cream cone for 5 cents, and therefore your ice cream cone must be taken away.

        Are the flaws in that logic

        • by PhilHibbs ( 4537 )

          I sell you an ice cream cone for 5 cents. Someone else goes running all over the neighborhood yelling about how there's no way that I will sell everyone else an ice cream cone for 5 cents, and therefore your ice cream cone must be taken away.

          Are the flaws in that logic obvious now?

          Here's a better comparison. Google takes my ice-cream, and lots of other peoples' ice creams, and sells them for 5 cents. We sue in a class action suit, but the result is that Google can continue selling anyone's ice creams for 5 cents and give us 3 cents, unless we opt out. Now the other ice-cream sellers are all put out of business because they aren't allowed to take anyone else's ice-creams and sell them for 5 cents because no-one sued them for trying to. Now I know that ice-creams (physical property) ar

          • by ajs ( 35943 )

            Here's a better comparison. Google takes my ice-cream, and lots of other peoples' ice creams, and sells them for 5 cents. We sue in a class action suit, but the result is that Google can continue selling anyone's ice creams for 5 cents and give us 3 cents, unless we opt out. Now the other ice-cream sellers are all put out of business because they aren't allowed to take anyone else's ice-creams and sell them for 5 cents because no-one sued them for trying to. Now I know that ice-creams (physical property) are a bad analogy, but you sometimes have to work with what you've got.

            Yep, that's pretty much exactly not how the law works.

            Google cut a deal. It's a passably good deal for Google (it's actually a bad deal for libraries who really did want to see the point made that providing their collections online was for the public good, and embodied in fair use doctrine). There's no reason that the deal should not be allowed, of course, just like any other deal that publishers make.

            What you're trying to claim, here, is that organizations that make good deals with publishers should be fau

            • To get a similar deal, a competitor would need to either be sued (so the courts could authorize a deal) or Congress would need to grant an exception to copyright. You can't create a contract with "All publishers" unless you actually get an agreement with all publishers. The class action lawsuit gets around this by allowing Google to settle with all members of the class at once (even if those class members are not aware of the litigation). What's worse is that all the publishers who have lawyers working on t

            • by PhilHibbs ( 4537 )

              They didn't cut a deal with publishers, they cut a deal with some publishers, on behalf of everyone in the world that holds copyright on a book. The only way to do that is to break the law and hope to get sued, otherwise you cannot compete with Google. That's not an acceptable way to do change how copyright works.

              There's no way that this deal can be called a settlement for past infringement. It's a licence to commit future infringement, and that's ludicrous. I re-assert that I would not object to this if th

    • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:59AM (#29376327) Journal
      Microsoft's motives should be completely irrelevant to the court.

      All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.

      No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Don't Microsoft (EULA), Apple (MacOS hardware restrictions), the RIAA (private copying) and the MPAA (Bluray/DVD Encoding) already have their own private version of copyright law?

        It's like the new "in" thing, everyone wants one.
        • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @07:51AM (#29377241)
          Yes, but at least its a private version of copyright law that applies to what they themselves own.

          Google is being given a private version of copyright law that applies to what they don't own.
          • I am actually in favor of some "overriding" agreement of this nature, since otherwise it will be impossible to make a digital archive of all books. Individually negotiating with every rights own, ever, is not realistic. And the rights weren't granted in the current technological environment anyways, so while you can argue this grants google new rights the authors never intended, you could also argue that prohibiting the digital library grants authors new rights that were never intended, either.

            So far, the

            • In that case, don't you think it should be up to Congress to specifically create an exception to current copyright law for the purposes of digital libraries?

              • Yes, I agree with Microsoft's argument on that. At least, in principle I do. Pragmatically, I worry that Congress is a crapshoot, likely to induce years of delay, and we might end up with horribly crippled online libraries, if any at all.
      • by l3v1 ( 787564 )
        No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though.

        Might have something to do with how this book scanning venture is good for the people. It makes content more accessible, and that is always good. Well, for some it's not so good, but their goal is usually only monetary gain, which is a totally different point of view.
      • by khchung ( 462899 )

        No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.

        I can't say about other people. But for me, the point is Google is the first one to take the effort to actually do this (scanning the books and make it available). Now that Google has done it, everyone comes and criticize them for this and that, but would any of them do this thing if Google has not done it?

        With this in mind, the motive of all those naysayers are very suspect. Do they simply want to kill Google's initiative at the start and leave us without digital access to old books? And thus keep thei

        • The Open Book Alliance started with Professor Raj Reddy at CMU and Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive. They started their scanning and making public system about five years before Google cracked a single book. Brewster personally asked Larry Page to join them as they had a mature scanning system that had already scanned hundreds of thousands of books in India, Page decided that Google would go on it's own. (Google really doesn't partner with anyone)

      • by ajs ( 35943 )

        [...] and give Google their own private version of copyright law.

        I've addressed the other points elsewhere, but this one needs careful examination.

        Contracts between a copyright holder and a publisher (or between a publisher and a secondary publisher, which is what the Google deal is) exist for one reason and one reason only: to grant rights to the publisher which the copyright holder otherwise retains under copyright law.

        That is, providing "their own private version of copyright law," is what copyright contracts do. In fact, it's what the GPL does as well. It's the creat

      • give Google their own private version of copyright law.

        Have you even read the settlement? There is nothing in it that is even close to what you are talking about. The agreement is a completely non-exclusive. Microsoft is free to strike the same deal with the book publishers if they CHOSE to. What it boils down to is Microsoft doesn't want to spend the money and do the work to redigitize the world's book (yes I know about their half assed effort). So instead of being a competitor they are trying to either 1)

      • All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.

        Well, I agree with the spirit. The settlement should be judged on its own merits and not what it does or doesn't do for MS. But that judgement has nothing to do with whether it's "legal". It's legal if the judge approves it; there's guidelines but no strict rules here.

        The question the judge needs to ask is if the settlement is in the interest of the class, especially those who aren't directly represented by the prosecution. The summary is very on-point as to why it may not be, though again it's a sub

  • Privacy Advocates (Score:5, Informative)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:29AM (#29376213) Homepage

    With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal[...]

    Add to that list privacy advocates [epic.org].

  • Sour grapes ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaveDerrick ( 1070132 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:32AM (#29376229)
    If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.
    • Re:Sour grapes ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:50AM (#29376295)

      NO one should be allowed to get this deal. That's sort of the whole point.

      • ...to just see all these books vanish forever?

        • No, the alternative is to take a copy and store it until the copyright expires, at which point you are free to make copies of it publicly available.
          • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

            ...which will happen WHEN exactly?

            Most of the works in question are already overdue.

      • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *

        Can you actually make an argument for why? I mean, if Google can enter into "promise you won't sue us" agreements with publishers, and retire the legal risks of making orphaned works available, that's good for all of us isn't it? Or are you trying to suggest that the law should change instead? How long should Google wait for that exactly?

      • by l3v1 ( 787564 )
        NO one should be allowed to get this deal. That's sort of the whole point.

        Well, maybe someone will be allowed to have a deal where they can rip us off more than before, and everyone will be happy - except us. All this is more about money than (C), always will be.
      • by khchung ( 462899 )

        NO one should be allowed to get this deal. That's sort of the whole point.

        So would humankind be better off without digital access to old books?

        Would you rather the old books are not scanned and stored, so if the last physical copy is lost, the content would be lost forever?

        Isn't the whole purpose of copyright the betterment of humankind? Why wouldn't the betterment of humankind trumps whatever "rights" held by copyrights holders?

        • "Isn't the whole purpose of copyright the betterment of humankind?"

          Not the primary purpose. Among other things copyright was used to protect the moral rights of the author.

          • by khchung ( 462899 )

            And how would having digital, accessible copies old books damage the "moral rights" of their authors?

    • by Chrisq ( 894406 )

      If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.

      And you would be surprised by Microsoft being hypocritical?

    • Of course they would. And then we would all (including Google) be saying that the deal should not be allowed.
    • If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.

      Despite your persuasive dollar signs, I'm not convinced that MS is capable of evil on this scale.

  • by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:46AM (#29376275) Journal

    Google must be Really Evil (TM) to incur the wrath of Microsoft and the FSF at the same time!

    • Well, FSF hates them because they are the evil ones, and Microsoft hates that *they* can't be the evil ones. ;)

  • Forest, meet trees (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:46AM (#29376277)

    It's hard to get excited about this deal one way or the other without feeling like it's getting annoyed at the bloodsucking tick you found on the sofa -- without noticing that the tick is on the back of a snarling rottweiler. The underlying problem is our broken intellectual property system -- or even the very idea of intellectual property -- and not the specifics of how one company or another takes advantage of it.

  • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <richardprice&gmail,com> on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:49AM (#29376293)
    Is anyone else a bit worried about the precident that using a class action lawsuit in this way might set for the future? I mean, Google is essentially getting a court to tacitly agree that its settlement with a second party over rights held by unrelated third parties is valid (lets face it, its looking like the court will agree), unless the unrelated third party deliberately withdraws at this stage.

    I'm not entirely sure I like the sound of that. It sounds like an abuse of the class action system for commercial gain.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 91degrees ( 207121 )
      I'm a bit worried about that lack of scepticism displayed by some people. If it was MS or a company we hadn't heard of, people would be a lot less trusting.

      Far too many people seem to ignore the detail that Google is a private company which has making money as a primary objective, and providing services is mainly a means to an end.
    • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday September 10, 2009 @06:14AM (#29376597) Homepage Journal

      I think you need to stop listening to the propaganda being spewed by the opposition and actually make up your own mind.

      Google is getting some "promise not to sue" agreements from publishers.. that's it. They can't enter into agreements with these publishers to get promises that cover works the publishers don't hold the copyright on.

      Is it too much to ask that people understand the subject before expressing their outrage? Oh wait, what am I asking.. duh.

      • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @07:01AM (#29376819) Journal
        Not from the publishers, from the copyright owners. As someone who has a copyrighted book registered in the USA, I am counted as a member of this class. Unless I explicitly choose to opt out, then I am counted as agreeing to the EULA, uh, I mean settlement.
      • ... don't you understand? This is a class action lawsuit from the copyright owners. it *does* cover works that the publishers don't hold copyright on. You have to explicitly opt out not to be covered by the settlement and there is a time limit on the opt out too.
      • I would just like to make it known that I have looked into the deal, and I am not taking my information from propaganda, and that your description of the issue at hand is far from complete.

        No, Google cannot enter into agreements with publishers as you describe, but they can propose a wide ranging settlement against a class action, where all class action members are those described as being publishers. The court then agrees that settlement for all class action members, including the absent ones.

        That i
    • I'd be surprised if that bit of potential case law survived a challenge in a higher court. Of course, IANAL, but I don't see how a contract can be binding on any entity that is not an actual party to the contract.

      That said, the reality is that going up against a company as large as Google requires incredibly deep pockets, and a proper challenge might well be out of the reach of all but a few large corporations, the CEOs of which could all fit comfortably in my living room. Having Microsoft involved might ac

  • They didn't get a piece of the pie.

    Whiners.

  • I'm dyin' here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @06:03AM (#29376549)

    These competitive and transparent efforts affirm the benefits of an open market, and the Constitutionally mandated legislative process ensures that the diverse interests of the many stakeholders are considered and balanced, accommodating copyright owners, online services, libraries and the public. The proposed settlement, on the other hand, pursues an illegitimate approach. Following closed-door negotiations that excluded millions of copyright owners and the very public that copyright law serves, Google and the plaintiffs seek to arrogate public policymaking to themselves, bypass Congress and the free market, and force a sweeping "joint venture" - built on copyrights owned by a largely absent class - via this Court's order.

    So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
    1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
    2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
    3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
    4. Copyright law serves the public.
    5. Joint ventures are bad.
    6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.

    *boggle*

    • You have to remember that Microsoft (and perhaps none more enthusiastically so than their legal team) pride themselves on innovation.
  • I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AnalPerfume ( 1356177 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @06:29AM (#29376665)
    Do Microsoft like or not like monopolies? They also seem a tad confused on the subject. On one hand they see no problem with their own monopolies being good for the customer, yet complain when it's other companies monopolies, that they're bad for the consumer. Is there an answer to this question that does not make Microsoft hypocrites?
  • There is one, and only one, reason Microsoft is protesting this: they tried to do the same thing, and failed while Google can make it work. Period. End of story.

    Microsoft has no moral qualms about anything that hurts non-Microsoft publishers, regardless of the societal damage it may or may not cause, if it would increase Microsoft's market power. The only reason Microsoft would even care about societal damage would be to calculate the spin needed to make their market rape look like feeding the poor.

    As a

  • Sounds to me like there own deal fell through, so they think google's should too, because its impossible for anyone else to actually come up with a business model for this that might satisfy not just themselves but others too...M$ are just sore losers.

  • by InklingBooks ( 687623 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @11:43AM (#29380055)
    Those who'd like to all the objections, as well as a much smaller number of filings in support, can find them at The Public Index, which is run by the New York Law School:
    http://thepublicindex.org/documents/responses [thepublicindex.org]
    Filings in opposition tend to be substantial and weighty, citing both U.S. and international copyright law. Filings in favor tend to be of the "Gee, I like free books" sort. The most substantial of them is probably that from Sony, which is 20 pages long and filed by a NYC law firm, but, with one exception, it doesn't deal with the issues of copyright. Here's the closest Sony comes to admitting that authors have rights.
    "The non-exclusivity provision of the Settlement--which makes plain that that the right given to Google do not permit copyright holders or the Registry itself from licensing e-book right to others--ensure that healthy, price-driven competition will remain after the Settlement is approved."
    Yes, you read it right. The Google settlement gives Google and Google alone the right to display online for profit the contents of any book first published anywhere in the world since 1922 without the author's knowledge or consent unless they formally opted out by last Friday, September 4, 2009. Just heard about that? Tough luck. You've been screwed by Google with Sony's warm approval.
    And to add insult to considerable injury, Google and Sony purr that Google's right is non-exclusive. What does that mean? Having brushed aside an author's copyright, they say, "Oh, well. We don't care if you sell someone else the right to publish your book. That is, if that someone else can compete with free." Under copyright law, of course, Google has no right to publish a book at all without the author's permission. They have no rights at all, much less exclusive rights. That's a good indication of ethically and legally clueless Google and Sony are.
    Until I read this document, I felt sorry for Sony. They used to be so popular, now that aren't. But it helps to remember that much of their failure came from an obsession with protecting the copyrighted music they own. Now, in their zeal to sell their ebook readers, they're helping Google stomp on the copyright of several million authors. Color them hypocrites, very big hypocrites.
    I no longer feel sorry for Sony. If they languish in obscurity, they're only getting what they deserve. Sony can't zealous defend their own copyrights by every nasty means available and run roughshod over the copyrights of others without deservedly getting sneered at.
    The basic premise of the Google settlement is that any book not "commercially available" is effectively out of copyright. How would Sony feel if music fans regarded any music not available commercially at the moment as effectively out of copyright? That's what we are talking about here.
    • by PhxBlue ( 562201 )

      I have a hard time feeling bad, frankly. If you don't want your work to be public, don't publish it. Copyright is still defined by the U.S. Constitution to be of limited duration, even if "limited" is effectively forever thanks to the knob-polishers in Congress.

  • Ebsco? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by russlar ( 1122455 ) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @12:17PM (#29380345)
    How is this any different than the large-scale book scanning that Ebsco does?
  • In other words
    "damn, why didn't we come up with this? Can we steal the idea?"
    "no, it would be TO obvious"
    "damn, what else can we do?"

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.

Working...