On other forums/sites, I've heard writers (namely academic writers) praising Google Books--because it gives the public greater access to their work. In their opinion, Google Books has made their writings accessible to scores of people worldwide, thereby giving such authors more exposure. Some writers also appreciate Google's digital bookstore--from which writers/publishers receive a sizable cut of all proceeds.
To be clear, digitization can be most beneficial when titles are no longer in-print or for rare books--especially in the case of natural disasters, theft, or misplacement.
Yet, not all writers feel this way. Some vehemently oppose Google Books and consider the project a gross violation of the law. Others worry about Google's monopoly on digital books and wonder if Google's future owners/CEOs will stay true to the company's current mission.
What do you think? What role should the courts/government(s) play in all this?
Also, do you think that Google Books is revolutionary?
Here's a video on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ModchMNtg1I
Robert Darnton is a Harvard librarian who is at the forefront of the book digitization movement.
.
To be clear, digitization can be most beneficial when titles are no longer in-print or for rare books--especially in the case of natural disasters, theft, or misplacement.
Yet, not all writers feel this way. Some vehemently oppose Google Books and consider the project a gross violation of the law. Others worry about Google's monopoly on digital books and wonder if Google's future owners/CEOs will stay true to the company's current mission.
What do you think? What role should the courts/government(s) play in all this?
Also, do you think that Google Books is revolutionary?
Here's a video on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ModchMNtg1I
Robert Darnton is a Harvard librarian who is at the forefront of the book digitization movement.
.
Last edited:
