[LINK] Google and the future of books

[Richard Chirgwin]

Anthony Hornby wrote:
> Monopolies are always a bad thing ....still, I think the author did
> try hard to provide a balanced view.
>
> However a discussion of the merits of Google as a company were not
> what I was really after.
> I am more interested if his interpretation of the legalities and
> practicalities surrounding the judgement relating to Google having no
> competition for the foreseeable future are valid.
>
> Regards Anthony
>   
Anthony,

I think the interpretation is valid, and it wouldn't matter to me if
Google were guaranteed purest white, no single organisation should
command a market in this fashion.

Chris Castle wrote this for The Register a few weeks ago:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/31/chris_castle_google_books_and_beyond/

> It is a fundamental principle of international law that an author
> should not be compelled to submit to formalities (such as an opt-out
> registry) in order to enjoy their rights.
RC


>
>
> 2009/2/5 Michael Skeggs mike at bystander.net <mskeggs at gmail.com>:
>   
>> Vernor Vinge wrote a novel where the software company digitising libraries
>> had developed scanning software that removed the need to turn book pages.
>> Instead, the books were fed into a wood chipper, and shredded. the airborne
>> paper was then scanned as it flew by, and the software ran an image sorting
>> algorithm to reassemble the fragments into pages, then to OCR the resultant
>> image. Very efficient at scanning a whole library in a matter of days, and
>> the shredded paper could then be safely stored in a vault "for future
>> generations" with more security than the original books in a library open to
>> humans.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End
>>
>>
>> ...so while a Google hegemony on digital libraries is not ideal, it could be
>> worse.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael Skeggs
>>
>> On 05/02/2009, Anthony Hornby <anthony.w.hornby at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi All,
>>> I found this a facinating read, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281.
>>> Does anyone on the list have enough knowledge of the Google Books
>>> judgment to know whether the points the author raises about the impact
>>> of it in this article are valid?
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> In September and October 2005, a group of authors and publishers
>>> brought a class action suit against Google, alleging violation of
>>> copyright. Last October 28, after lengthy negotiations, the opposing
>>> parties announced agreement on a settlement, which is subject to
>>> approval by the US District Court for the Southern District of New
>>> York.[2]
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> After reading the settlement and letting its terms sink in—no easy
>>> task, as it runs to 134 pages and 15 appendices of legalese—one is
>>> likely to be dumbfounded: here is a proposal that could result in the
>>> world's largest library. It would, to be sure, be a digital library,
>>> but it could dwarf the Library of Congress and all the national
>>> libraries of Europe. Moreover, in pursuing the terms of the settlement
>>> with the authors and publishers, Google could also become the world's
>>> largest book business—not a chain of stores but an electronic supply
>>> service that could out-Amazon Amazon.
>>>
>>> An enterprise on such a scale is bound to elicit reactions of the two
>>> kinds that I have been discussing: on the one hand, utopian
>>> enthusiasm; on the other, jeremiads about the danger of concentrating
>>> power to control access to information.
>>>
>>> Who could not be moved by the prospect of bringing virtually all the
>>> books from America's greatest research libraries within the reach of
>>> all Americans, and perhaps eventually to everyone in the world with
>>> access to the Internet? Not only will Google's technological wizardry
>>> bring books to readers, it will also open up extraordinary
>>> opportunities for research, a whole gamut of possibilities from
>>> straightforward word searches to complex text mining. Under certain
>>> conditions, the participating libraries will be able to use the
>>> digitized copies of their books to create replacements for books that
>>> have been damaged or lost. Google will engineer the texts in ways to
>>> help readers with disabilities.
>>>
>>> ......
>>>
>>> Google is not a guild, and it did not set out to create a monopoly. On
>>> the contrary, it has pursued a laudable goal: promoting access to
>>> information. But the class action character of the settlement makes
>>> Google invulnerable to competition. Most book authors and publishers
>>> who own US copyrights are automatically covered by the settlement.
>>> They can opt out of it; but whatever they do, no new digitizing
>>> enterprise can get off the ground without winning their assent one by
>>> one, a practical impossibility, or without becoming mired down in
>>> another class action suit. If approved by the court—a process that
>>> could take as much as two years—the settlement will give Google
>>> control over the digitizing of virtually all books covered by
>>> copyright in the United States.
>>>
>>>
>>> .....
>>>
>>> As an unintended consequence, Google will enjoy what can only be
>>> called a monopoly—a monopoly of a new kind, not of railroads or steel
>>> but of access to information. Google has no serious competitors.
>>> Microsoft dropped its major program to digitize books several months
>>> ago, and other enterprises like the Open Knowledge Commons (formerly
>>> the Open Content Alliance) and the Internet Archive are minute and
>>> ineffective in comparison with Google. Google alone has the wealth to
>>> digitize on a massive scale. And having settled with the authors and
>>> publishers, it can exploit its financial power from within a
>>> protective legal barrier; for the class action suit covers the entire
>>> class of authors and publishers. No new entrepreneurs will be able to
>>> digitize books within that fenced-off territory, even if they could
>>> afford it, because they would have to fight the copyright battles all
>>> over again. If the settlement is upheld by the court, only Google will
>>> be protected from copyright liability.
>>>
>>>
>>> </snip>
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>
>>> Regards Anthony
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Link mailing list
>>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>>       
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>