Comments on: The Rise of a Networked-Economic Giant; or Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven, But Nobody Wants to Die http://omonomono.com/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/ The Yard Sale Thu, 17 May 2012 13:48:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: omo http://omonomono.com/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-431 omo Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:24:44 +0000 http://omo.serenana.info/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-431 Well, they're putting their necks on the line to "rescue" these orphaned works, but what for? Companies don't put hundreds and millions of dollars on the line to rescue obscured, orphaned books. It's a guaranteed way to get yet another hundreds and millions of dollars sued off your backs in a shareholder derivative suit. And Google Booksearch is not worth that much. It isn't like the technology and resources is the problem. It's the legal minefield. And thus I go looking for a convincing reason. Well, they’re putting their necks on the line to “rescue” these orphaned works, but what for? Companies don’t put hundreds and millions of dollars on the line to rescue obscured, orphaned books. It’s a guaranteed way to get yet another hundreds and millions of dollars sued off your backs in a shareholder derivative suit. And Google Booksearch is not worth that much. It isn’t like the technology and resources is the problem. It’s the legal minefield.

And thus I go looking for a convincing reason.

]]> By: dm http://omonomono.com/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-430 dm Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:26:27 +0000 http://omo.serenana.info/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-430 The "no one knows who has rights to it" is where Google's "you tell us you own the copyright, and that you don't want it up, we'll take it down" comes from, I think? In a sense, Google is rescuing these orphaned works --- works that would be forgotten otherwise. It will be interesting to see how that works out in the courts (but more power to them). The “no one knows who has rights to it” is where Google’s “you tell us you own the copyright, and that you don’t want it up, we’ll take it down” comes from, I think? In a sense, Google is rescuing these orphaned works — works that would be forgotten otherwise. It will be interesting to see how that works out in the courts (but more power to them).

]]> By: omo http://omonomono.com/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-429 omo Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:53:44 +0000 http://omo.serenana.info/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-429 Right, but that doesn't nullify the first problem about google's own copying. The distinction is that YouTube is a "dirtier" venture is well taken. But even so, Google Booksearch, if found to be legally OK, will go on to the next level and attach more $ incentives. The "library" argument for Google isn't so much that they only give you excerpts to works they have no rights to, but that there will be books that they will not be able to get rights to because no one knows who really has the rights to it, or no one can get to the people that do. The second layer of liability (infringing use vs. non infringing use; or youtube vs. google booksearch) is much less serious in the landscape of copyright law since that's something between us punk kids and people like the RIAA. This is how VHS copiers were found to be legal in the first place, despite its extreme potential as a tool for copyright infringment. Imagine that? Without it we will have no fansubbing. Right, but that doesn’t nullify the first problem about google’s own copying. The distinction is that YouTube is a “dirtier” venture is well taken. But even so, Google Booksearch, if found to be legally OK, will go on to the next level and attach more $ incentives.

The “library” argument for Google isn’t so much that they only give you excerpts to works they have no rights to, but that there will be books that they will not be able to get rights to because no one knows who really has the rights to it, or no one can get to the people that do. The second layer of liability (infringing use vs. non infringing use; or youtube vs. google booksearch) is much less serious in the landscape of copyright law since that’s something between us punk kids and people like the RIAA.

This is how VHS copiers were found to be legal in the first place, despite its extreme potential as a tool for copyright infringment. Imagine that? Without it we will have no fansubbing.

]]> By: dm http://omonomono.com/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-425 dm Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:55:12 +0000 http://omo.serenana.info/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-425 But... there are two levels of Library of Googlandria, aren't there? There are the out-of-copyright works, which Google will serve up wholesale, then there are the still-in-copyright works, which Google will only provide limited access to, but which will benefit publishers and scholars by giving their works greater visibility and distribution. Google gives you a paragraph, from which you determine tha the work is relevant/interesting, so you go out and obtain it through copyright-honoring means? If I were a publisher offered this agreement, I'd be handing my stuff over to Google already scanned in and cleaned up. I'd also be thinking about how I could revive books that are suddenly in demand as a result but not in stock. I guess there's another wrinkle: Google is pushing the "find the copyrighted material and tell us about it" problem onto the publishers as well, I think? But… there are two levels of Library of Googlandria, aren’t there? There are the out-of-copyright works, which Google will serve up wholesale, then there are the still-in-copyright works, which Google will only provide limited access to, but which will benefit publishers and scholars by giving their works greater visibility and distribution. Google gives you a paragraph, from which you determine tha the work is relevant/interesting, so you go out and obtain it through copyright-honoring means?

If I were a publisher offered this agreement, I’d be handing my stuff over to Google already scanned in and cleaned up. I’d also be thinking about how I could revive books that are suddenly in demand as a result but not in stock.

I guess there’s another wrinkle: Google is pushing the “find the copyrighted material and tell us about it” problem onto the publishers as well, I think?

]]> By: omo http://omonomono.com/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-424 omo Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:42:32 +0000 http://omo.serenana.info/2006/11/07/the-rise-of-a-networked-economic-giant-or-everybody-wants-to-go-to-heaven-but-nobody-wants-to-die/#comment-424 Fair enough. One way where this all come together is in the $. The Library of Googlandria is not a public interest project. It's by all means a new way to make $$$ (now if it would make $$$ is another question). Youtube already has proven to be profitable in some ways (but also questionable at the end of the day). If I was a book publisher and want to sue the hell out of Google, I would argue that Booksearch is not poised to be a treasury for all of mankind; no more than having no copyright law is. It will rob authors and publishers the possibility to turn their content into profit in the internet world. For starters, Google flat out copied, en masse, without permission. Second, their "derivative" creation of this searchable database, while great for mankind, is terrible for the creators of those works because it's a flat out violation of their copyright protection. In that aspect, YouTube is just another flavor of the same argument that movie and tv show makers can make. One important and extremely valuable aspect of YouTube is its tag & search feature, as well as popularity ranking. Do people use youtube to find videos of works that interest them but they've never heard of? I sure did. The real difference between the two is the "library" layer. Books are not really different than videos in the scheme of copyright protection in light of digital media. But Google Booksearch had the cooperation of several university libraries. Lawyers have a tough time to dismiss them as petty consumer pirates, but punk kids that upload episodes of broadcast TV to YouTube are not different than libraries in the greater scheme of information flow. It's just that copyright law carved out a niche for libraries since they existed as an organized lobby group back in 1907 or 1978. Fair enough.

One way where this all come together is in the $. The Library of Googlandria is not a public interest project. It’s by all means a new way to make $$$ (now if it would make $$$ is another question). Youtube already has proven to be profitable in some ways (but also questionable at the end of the day).

If I was a book publisher and want to sue the hell out of Google, I would argue that Booksearch is not poised to be a treasury for all of mankind; no more than having no copyright law is. It will rob authors and publishers the possibility to turn their content into profit in the internet world. For starters, Google flat out copied, en masse, without permission. Second, their “derivative” creation of this searchable database, while great for mankind, is terrible for the creators of those works because it’s a flat out violation of their copyright protection.

In that aspect, YouTube is just another flavor of the same argument that movie and tv show makers can make. One important and extremely valuable aspect of YouTube is its tag & search feature, as well as popularity ranking. Do people use youtube to find videos of works that interest them but they’ve never heard of? I sure did.

The real difference between the two is the “library” layer. Books are not really different than videos in the scheme of copyright protection in light of digital media. But Google Booksearch had the cooperation of several university libraries. Lawyers have a tough time to dismiss them as petty consumer pirates, but punk kids that upload episodes of broadcast TV to YouTube are not different than libraries in the greater scheme of information flow. It’s just that copyright law carved out a niche for libraries since they existed as an organized lobby group back in 1907 or 1978.

]]>