"You wrote books to be read."

GabeWhite · Dec 23, 2006

From the ad, on this site, for google print:

"You wrote books to be read."

"We built google book search to help make that happen."

Thoughts? Is the general attitude here still against Google on this? I was watching a panel discussion on one of the C-Spans a few weeks back, and from the lawyers and experts they had on, it seems Google has a good chance of going ahead with their plans--if publishers support it or not.

So why not embrace it, if only as a marketing tool? Truth is, it could help sales, especially for mid list and specialty authors, who sometimes have difficulty getting the attention of the general public.

-Gabe

Bartholomew · Dec 23, 2006

What is it? I've seen the ad, I just have no clue what the hey it is.

Richard White · Dec 23, 2006

Personally, I'm against it unless they come and specifically ask me for permission to use my work. It's not up to me to have to find it and then tell them to stop.

However, I note some of my media tie-in work is available through Google Search and that Simon and Schuster authorized it. Not much I can say there since they and CBS/Paramount own the work. *le sigh*

Jamesaritchie · Dec 24, 2006

Google

I'm not against what Google is doing. I'm against Google doing it without asking.

maestrowork · Dec 24, 2006

They have to ask because it violates copyright laws if they don't. I think what they're saying by "we'll go ahead" is that they don't need the entire industry to be behind them to move forward with the feature. They still have to ask the individual authors and publishers for permission.

icerose · Dec 24, 2006

Yep, the lawsuit ensured that, thank goodness.

GabeWhite · Dec 24, 2006

I wasn't aware that the lawsuit was settled? Aren't they still putting everything they scan from the libraries and such up, and using the opt-out method to remove a few?

-Gabe

blacbird · Dec 24, 2006

GabeWhite said:
"You wrote books to be read."

"We built google book search to help make that happen."

This is advertising-speak for:

"You wrote books to be read.

We built google book search to help make us more money."

caw

Manderley · Dec 25, 2006

Bartholomew said:
What is it? I've seen the ad, I just have no clue what the hey it is.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but language fascinates me so much I have to ask:

Is hey a euphemism for heck?

If so, it's the first time I've seen a euphemism for a euphemism, which would make it fairly intersting, me thinks.

Jamesaritchie · Dec 25, 2006

Manderley said:
Sorry to hijack the thread, but language fascinates me so much I have to ask:

Is hey a euphemism for heck?

If so, it's the first time I've seen a euphemism for a euphemism, which would make it fairly intersting, me thinks.

No, the way it's used everywhere I've been, it's just a different euphemism for the same word "heck" is a euphemism for, which is "hell." But "What the hey" is a very old phrase.

I have always wondered if the phrase has any connection with "heyday."

Linda Adams · Dec 25, 2006

From the ad, on this site, for google print:

I think this is the key phrase--it's advertisement paid by Google. It's representing them and their interests, which would be expected from advertising.

I was watching a panel discussion on one of the C-Spans a few weeks back, and from the lawyers and experts they had on, it seems Google has a good chance of going ahead with their plans--if publishers support it or not.

I'm probably cynical, but I'm very suspicious of this. My first thought was that they stacked the deck with experts in favor of Google instead of balancing both sides. Unfortunately, I've seen some examples where one side was conveniently ignored so that the favored side could be emphasized. I don't know if that's what they did here, but in truth, all the experts can do is speculate endlessly until it goes before a judge. The judge is the one who has to hear the lawyer's arguments on both sides, review the law, and see what applies.

ATP · Dec 25, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
I'm not against what Google is doing. I'm against Google doing it without asking.

As I understand it, if the book has now passed into the public domain, then Google doesn't have to ask.

I haven't been following this situation closely, but from what I can recall of the case brought against Google by some of the publishing organisations, Google had argued that it would only show very little of the actual text of those books with still-active copyright. Meaning that Google would not be in breach of copyright.

The publishers have been making a lot of noise about this issue, and
I think that it has tended to border on a 'pure' public relations campaign ie. surrounding their message in a lot of 'noise' rather than a message with clarity and substance.

As I said, I haven't followed the case closely, and this is my general impression.

Jamesaritchie · Dec 25, 2006

ATP said:
As I understand it, if the book has now passed into the public domain, then Google doesn't have to ask.

I haven't been following this situation closely, but from what I can recall of the case brought against Google by some of the publishing organisations, Google had argued that it would only show very little of the actual text of those books with still-active copyright. Meaning that Google would not be in breach of copyright.

The publishers have been making a lot of noise about this issue, and
I think that it has tended to border on a 'pure' public relations campaign ie. surrounding their message in a lot of 'noise' rather than a message with clarity and substance.

As I said, I haven't followed the case closely, and this is my general impression.

Public domain books are fair game for anyone, but just because Google only shows a percentage of the text of books still under copyright protection does not automatically mean Goggle isn't in violation of copyright.

Google is argueing "fair use" rights, and they may have a case, but they may not. Fair use is pretty specific about what it does and doesn't allow, and a court has to decide the issue, not Google.

My own opinion is that Google shows enough of the text that they definitely need to ask. We'll see how it works out.

James D. Macdonald · Dec 25, 2006

Information wants to be free. Entertainment wants to be paid for.

blacbird · Dec 25, 2006

ATP said:
As I understand it, if the book has now passed into the public domain, then Google doesn't have to ask.

If the book is in public domain, nobody has to ask. Hundreds of thousands of public domain texts are already freely available on the Net, through many many websites. At http://www.litrix.com are several hundred classics, fully searchable, as an example. Blackmask.com is a very big site of such works. Project Gutenberg has been doing plain ASCII texts for something like 35 years, and is by far the largest such archive. Google isn't interested in these; Google wants to have newer copyright-protected books available and searchable, and they tried pretty hard to assert their right to do so, copyright be damned. It didn't work.

caw

"You wrote books to be read."

GabeWhite

Bartholomew

Comic guy

Richard White

Stealthy Plot Bunny Peddler

Jamesaritchie

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

icerose

Lost in School Work

GabeWhite

blacbird

Manderley

Slowly does it.

Jamesaritchie

Linda Adams

Soldier, Storyteller

ATP

What happened to my LIFE?!

Jamesaritchie

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

blacbird