The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Google halts scanning of copyrighted books (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
jimtron
View Profile
Inner circle
2037 Posts

Profile of jimtron
Reuters article here.
Bill Palmer
View Profile
Eternal Order
Only Jonathan Townsend has more than
24303 Posts

Profile of Bill Palmer
Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile
:applause: Smile Smile Smile Smile
:applause: Smile Smile Smile
:applause: Smile Smile
:applause: Smile
:applause:

It's nice to know that Google has decided not to break the law any more.
"The Swatter"

Founder of CODBAMMC

My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups."

www.cupsandballsmuseum.com
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
The thing is, someone will have to do it sooner or later. The longer it is left the harder it will be.
If google would charge for this service and then place a percentage into a fund for the authors then I think it would be a good idea.

Remember. Blind people cannot read normal text so if a book is digitised then they can get thier PC to read it out.
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
Bill Palmer
View Profile
Eternal Order
Only Jonathan Townsend has more than
24303 Posts

Profile of Bill Palmer
Nobody HAS to do it.

The Lighthouse for the Blind has a service that provides audio books and Braille textbooks for the Blind at no or little charge. There are also direct text readers for the blind. Raymond Kurzweil invented one of them before he invented the music synthesizer that bears his name.

Also, there are degrees of blindness. Some people are totally blind. There are also many people -- a very large number -- who are "legally blind." A person who is "legally blind" can either purchase or obtain at low cost a magnifying reader that will allow them to blow up almost any text to a huge size.

There is no "necessity" for all the books in the world to be scanned and put on Google.

In fact, people who feel that their books are indispensable have also issued them in CD-ROM format. When you purchase a book that is copyrighted, there is quite often a notice in the front that says that reproduction by any means including photocopying and electronic means is strictly prohibited. There's nothing in the copyright law or the copyright notice that exempts Google, public libraries or any other organization from this law.

A friend of mine publishes a huge list of contacts of all of the major corporations and organizations in the Houston area. It comes on a CD-ROM. The publication costs about $400.00. The Houston Public Library had the nerve to upload it to all their computers. He didn't find out about it until he started losing customers. A quick threat of a copyright suit straightened that one out.
"The Swatter"

Founder of CODBAMMC

My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups."

www.cupsandballsmuseum.com
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
Nobody HAS to do it.

Yes they do.
There will come a time when we will regret the nondigitisation of material. It may not be in then next 100 years or longer but there will come a time where the sale of digital media will exceed paper.

I would imagine that google would not make available whole books for free but would allow a search with the option of purchase from the author.
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
Cholly, by golly!
View Profile
Loyal user
251 Posts

Profile of Cholly, by golly!
Admirable... but it's just a band-aid on a corpse.

I have to agree with the "all information should be free" nuts on this...

The cat is already out of the bag.
Michael Baker
View Profile
Eternal Order
Near a river in the Midwest
11176 Posts

Profile of Michael Baker
There is a difference between information (common or uncommon knowledge) and intellectual property (in this case, creative works published for potential marketing and profit, or closed distribution). Copyright laws are designed to protect creative individuals from theiving bullies, and perhaps to temper the punishment a theiving idiot receives when he sorely needs his ass kicked. Just because something is written and available through some channels doesn't render it available through other channels. It's not debatable.

Archiving intellectual property, while admirable, should be based upon the desire of the owner. Distribution of same... even more so.
~michael baker
The Magic Company
Cholly, by golly!
View Profile
Loyal user
251 Posts

Profile of Cholly, by golly!
No one is debating the validity of copyrights, etc... at least I'm not.

Modern technology has now enabled mass "sharing" of these properties in digital form.

Millions of kids have spent the past decade downloading music, movies, books, etc. off the internet at little or no cost.

Try explaining copyrights and intellectual properties to a cash-strapped 15 year old.

It will probably fall on deaf ears.
Michael Baker
View Profile
Eternal Order
Near a river in the Midwest
11176 Posts

Profile of Michael Baker
Agreed, but status quo doesn't alter right and wrong, and apathy is not a solution. It may mean that it has either fallen on eyes that have chosen to be blind, and those unable by their position to remedy the situation. That's what the law is for. If a kid's parents can be dragged into court over truancy (at least in some locales), then this should really rattle some cages. Kids are not born responsible, nor accountable. If they are not being taught these things, then a nice alternative solution may be to find those responsible for that teaching, and call them on the carpet. Things have a tendancy to roll downhill if no one elects to bear the burden themselves.

Information would surely always be available, but the artistic works may diminish in frequecy if the creators have their incentives stripped away. Why would they bother?
~michael baker
The Magic Company
Cholly, by golly!
View Profile
Loyal user
251 Posts

Profile of Cholly, by golly!
A true artist creates because he must. He has no choice. It is his nature.

Would an artist squash his own creativity?

Yes... but at the expense of his own mental health.

Emily Dickenson comes to mind... sad.
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
I would love to see more kids that love too read. mabey easier accsess is an incentive!
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
JoeJoe
View Profile
Inner circle
Myrtle Beach
1915 Posts

Profile of JoeJoe
You can try the beta of the system at http://print.google.com

The results do not show the entire book, Google claims it is "fair use" ... I imagine that eventually the courts will decide.

JoeJoe
Amazing JoeJoe on YouTube[url=https://www.youtube.com/user/AmazingJoeJoe]
Michael Baker
View Profile
Eternal Order
Near a river in the Midwest
11176 Posts

Profile of Michael Baker
Quote:
A true artist creates because he must. He has no choice. It is his nature. Would an artist squash his own creativity?

Allow me to clarify my previous statement to specify that while I would agree that an artist must create, the incentive to publish those works for potential profit would be greatly diminished. This is the same as taking away that artist's means of feeding himself and his family. I'm sure I'm not alone in equating that to thievery.

Quote:
I would love to see more kids that love too read. mabey easier accsess is an incentive!


I too, would love to see more kids that love to read, but I will not agree to the kind of socialism that takes from the truly creative and hard working, because not everyone is. While everyone should have the opportunity to learn to read, that right should not give them access to everything written, anymore than I deserve to eat Filet Mignon every night at a cattle rancher's expense, just because I think it tastes better than hamburger. I learned to read by sounding out words on the back of a cereal box before I entered kindergarten.

There is a discipline associated with getting ahead in life. The more things are handed to a person, the less they tend to appreciate them.
~michael baker
The Magic Company
Daegs
View Profile
Inner circle
USA
4290 Posts

Profile of Daegs
Yeah, let's burn down all the libraries!!!!!!!

I've put up with the librarian thieves letting people learn information for free for long enough, let's burn them all down!!!

Who's with me?
Michael Baker
View Profile
Eternal Order
Near a river in the Midwest
11176 Posts

Profile of Michael Baker
Quote:
On 2005-08-17 23:21, Daegs wrote:
Yeah, let's burn down all the libraries!!!!!!!

I've put up with the librarian thieves letting people learn information for free for long enough, let's burn them all down!!!

Who's with me?

Thanks for the comic relief... Understood to be a joke, but confusing the issue none the less. Libraries are generally community educational efforts. Google is a publicly traded stock.
~michael baker
The Magic Company
Bill Palmer
View Profile
Eternal Order
Only Jonathan Townsend has more than
24303 Posts

Profile of Bill Palmer
Google's use of the term "fair use" in this case is stretching a point. The doctrine of "fair use" is specifically delineated in the law. It allows the quoting of brief passages for research purposes. It does not allow the copying of any complete works.

The fact that many works have been digitised does not mean that all of them must be. I'll be very blunt about this. My intellectual property is just that -- my property. Just as much as my house, my car, my dog, my cup and ball collection. And if Google decides they want to digitize my intellectual property, I'll sue them, from the top of their corporation down to the last programmer. It will be fun. You see, I'm semi-retired. I earned my living as a professional magician for 30+ years. Before that, I played music for 12 years. Now, my income is almost entirely from royalties.

If I see the things I own show up on Google, I call my publisher, and they start the lawsuit. They have an attorney on retainer who loves to take on people like Google. And when they do it on this scale, it ceases to be a civil case and becomes a criminal case.

The fines are huge, the damages large, the attorney's fees are basically monstrous. And the attorneys will wait until the material has been up for three years, because that is the statutory limit on royalty collection.

As far as what other authors and copyright holders do, that's up to them. But we in the business estimate that we lose in excess of 50% of our royalties to illegal copyists.

None of us in the business are offended at all when libraries purchase our books for circulation. It doesn't hurt us. It helps us. Why? People check out a book. If they like it, they buy it. If they don't, they don't. But the library has purchased the copy.

I'll give you an example of a book that sold hundreds of thousands of copies precisely because of that. It was a book called Earl Scrugss and the 5-string Banjo. This book was published in 1968, and it's gone through several printings. It has just recently been edited and re-released. It sold well over 100,000 copies. There aren't 100,000 bluegrass banjo players in the whole world! So why did this book sell so many copies?

Libraries. That's it. Every college library in the US bought at least one copy. So did most of the high school libraries. And most of the municipal libraries did, as well. The key to the huge sales was that it was by "the man." If this had happened when Google had decided to start scanning books, then Peer International would be at their throats right now.

People who own intellectual property are not nameless, faceless people. They are people just like you and me.

The average royalty I get is about 15 cents per book. But the company that publishes these books sells a lot of them.
"The Swatter"

Founder of CODBAMMC

My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups."

www.cupsandballsmuseum.com
JoeJoe
View Profile
Inner circle
Myrtle Beach
1915 Posts

Profile of JoeJoe
I wish I could agree with you on this one Bill, but I think the Google print search will actually be a good thing for publishers. While they are copying entire works, they are only making brief passages available ... it will be an interesting trial, does digitalizing something make it copyright infringement when only a brief passage is actually made available?

What publishers don't seem to realize is that the public can now search entire books, not just the titles and descriptions but the entire text ... so they can find exactly what they are looking for. And when they find that book, they can then purchase that book. The purpose of showing them a few pages is so they can determine if the text is relevant to their search.

If I wrote books, I'd like for mine to be in that search database so that people looking for my book would be able to find it. Google is one of the largest websites online, and there will be millions of people searching these books daily. If they can't find my book, they will be purchasing my competitors books. This isn't like Napster, Google is not allowing people to "share" books ... they are allowing people to search for books. There is a big difference here.

I'm wondering if people will begin writing books to be "google print friendly", much like webmasters write websites to be "google friendly" in hopes of higher search engine position. Obviously, the higher you are on this google print search the more books you will sell through it. So the next book you buy may have a page or two of keyword spam in the back - hehe.

You can jump up and down and scream "SUE!", but I'm sure after the first year when google announces how many millions of books they sold everyone will want to jump on the print search bandwagon. It's not about stealing people's property, it's about making it easier for people find your property so they can buy it from you.

JoeJoe
Amazing JoeJoe on YouTube[url=https://www.youtube.com/user/AmazingJoeJoe]
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
I'm with JoeJoe on this. I would allow all of my published material to be scanned.
What better free advertisment.

People who by paper would still buy my books but with the google search I would expect to see more interest (worldwide) in my material.
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
Bill Palmer
View Profile
Eternal Order
Only Jonathan Townsend has more than
24303 Posts

Profile of Bill Palmer
Quote:
On 2005-08-18 01:57, JoeJoe wrote:
I wish I could agree with you on this one Bill, but I think the Google print search will actually be a good thing for publishers. While they are copying entire works, they are only making brief passages available ... it will be an interesting trial, does digitalizing something make it copyright infringement when only a brief passage is actually made available?


Yes. The law covers copying. The distribution of the material is a separate issue under the same law

Quote:
What publishers don't seem to realize is that the public can now search entire books, not just the titles and descriptions but the entire text ... so they can find exactly what they are looking for. And when they find that book, they can then purchase that book. The purpose of showing them a few pages is so they can determine if the text is relevant to their search.


Amazon.com has that feature, but only with books that the publishers allow to be reproduced. And this is done only with permission of the authors. There is a multi-part chain involved here. The author has the first copyright on the material. He basically rents it to the publisher. The publisher prints it and distributes it. Then they pay the author when the books are sold. If the books are returned, that comes out of the author's royalties. In the case of novels and text books, the release of a few pages is not a problem. But in the case of a piece of music in a book, the whole piece may only take up one or two pages. This material can be printed out. That's a problem. Or in the case of a magic book, a couple of pages may reveal something the author did not wish to have out in the open.

Quote:

If I wrote books, I'd like for mine to be in that search database so that people looking for my book would be able to find it. Google is one of the largest websites online, and there will be millions of people searching these books daily. If they can't find my book, they will be purchasing my competitors books. This isn't like Napster, Google is not allowing people to "share" books ... they are allowing people to search for books. There is a big difference here.



Then it's a moot point. You have no basis for argument. When you say "if I wrote books" your argument falls apart. That's like saying "if I had a car, I wouldn't mind if people took a hubcap as a souvenir, so they could show everyone how nice the workmanship was." When you are doing this, it's like people who have no money voting themselves an increase in welfare. If they have never paid into the system, why should they have a voice in how the funds are distributed. They are lucky to get dime.

Quote:

I'm wondering if people will begin writing books to be "google print friendly", much like webmasters write websites to be "google friendly" in hopes of higher search engine position. Obviously, the higher you are on this google print search the more books you will sell through it. So the next book you buy may have a page or two of keyword spam in the back - hehe.



Lord, I certainly hope not.

Quote:

You can jump up and down and scream "SUE!", but I'm sure after the first year when google announces how many millions of books they sold everyone will want to jump on the print search bandwagon. It's not about stealing people's property, it's about making it easier for people find your property so they can buy it from you.



Google doesn't sell books, yet. They are an advertising service. Basically, they are taking bits and pieces and giving away free samples. I'm not for it.

And I don't need to jump up and down and scream "SUE," because I have profesional jumpers who will do the work for me.
"The Swatter"

Founder of CODBAMMC

My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups."

www.cupsandballsmuseum.com
Bill Palmer
View Profile
Eternal Order
Only Jonathan Townsend has more than
24303 Posts

Profile of Bill Palmer
Quote:
On 2005-08-18 04:28, Partizan wrote:
I'm with JoeJoe on this. I would allow all of my published material to be scanned.
What better free advertisment.

People who by paper would still buy my books but with the google search I would expect to see more interest (worldwide) in my material.


Fine. The next time some guy accosts you in an alley and says he wants a sample of your money, remeber this post.

Again, it's a moot point. If you have nothing published, then I don't think you have any say in the game.
"The Swatter"

Founder of CODBAMMC

My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups."

www.cupsandballsmuseum.com
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Google halts scanning of copyrighted books (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL