[LINK] Re: Everything .. not just abstracts
stephen at melbpc.org.au
Fri Dec 17 19:28:43 EST 2004
At 09:26 AM 17/12/2004, Ivan Trundle wrote:
> ... what about the bastions of the Harvard Library et al?
> Are they not also 'a default gateway to knowledge' within
> their domain?
Good point, Ivan. My eperience / understanding is that their
kind offer is for any academic work published by themselves.
> My view is that the Google deal is A Good Thing .. if only
> because it is *not* an exclusive licence. Warmly iT
Yes whilst no-one would disagree with Richard when he says,
"No company should act as the default gateway to knowledge,"
my own read is also that google's agreements are non-exclusive.
Hence, as Jan and Richard note, the legalities will be problematic
especially for students & start-ups like http://www.ebooksworld.de/
For eg: "University Theses and Dissertations"
"eBooks World provides a full publishing and marketing service for
students´ theses and dissertations. This means not only the printing
of the actual work, complying fully with the requirements of the particular
university or college, but also the marketing and selling of the work on
the open market. Students dissertations contain valuable information
for commercial businesses and the demand for such information is
increasing. We offer e-book format, CD-ROM and print versions."
But the foreseeable benefits of Google's additions to the internet
are indeed enormous and a Good Thing and maybe in all capitals.
>>>> "rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au" <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au>
>>>> 17/12/04 6:55 AM
>>> Stephen Loosley wrote:
>> Yes, google, already a stunning world resource,
>> and soon to make mankind's kernal open source.
> But angling the question differently: "If a Microsoft hegemony is a bad
> thing, why is a Google hegemony a good thing?" In particular, should
> we assume that because Google is best at "task 1", it can therefore
> deliver the best "task 2"? <with apologies for snip>
> No company should act as the default gateway to knowledge.
> Show me a Google purged of all its mistakes and misbehaviours, and
> I will say the same thing. Show me a technology which beats all comers,
> and I will say the same thing. One company at the heart of knowledge?
> One editorial point of view which, once corrupted, can misdirect the
> discovery (or concealment) of information?
> Five years from now is too late to examine whether a company should
> have exclusive or excessive control over a resource.
>> At 06:53 AM 16/12/2004, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>> And meanwhile the story has already been sent to various
>>> copyright owners' legal teams, and lobbyists prepare to visit
>>> parliaments. And we thought the Kazaa case was big...
>>> r.polanskis at uws.edu.au wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Stephen Loosley wrote:
>>>>> <Following> QUOTATION OF THE DAY "Within two decades,
>>>>> most of the world's knowledge will be digitized and available,
>>>>> one hopes for free reading on the Internet, just as there is
>>>>> free reading in libraries today." MICHAEL KELLER, Stanford
>>>>> U head librarian.
>>> That is, apart from instructions on making bombs, precursors for
>>> drug labs, how to torture/murder people or certain abstracts and
>>> treatises regarding sedition and revolution, one would presume....
>>> ...and if you do get to access such material, it will be logged.
Happy trails ..
More information about the Link