Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Microsoft, Yahoo Oppose Google Books | Google trying to monopolise the library system

  1. #1

    Default Microsoft, Yahoo Oppose Google Books | Google trying to monopolise the library system

    Microsoft, Yahoo Oppose Google Books


    Steven J. DuBord | The New American
    24 August 2009


    Microsoft and Yahoo are joining a coalition to oppose Google’s creation of what could become the largest virtual library the world has ever seen. Amazon may also join, but has so far declined to comment, BBC News said on August 21.

    Microsoft and Yahoo will sign on with the Open Book Alliance being spearheaded by the Internet Archive. They oppose the legal settlement Google made with publishers and authors because they believe it could establish Google as the main, if not the only, source for many online works.

    “Google is trying to monopolise the library system,” the Internet Archive's founder Brewster Kahle told BBC News. “If this deal goes ahead, they’re making a real shot at being ‘the’ library and the only library.”

    In 2008, Google came to an agreement with publishers and authors to settle two lawsuits that charged the search giant with violating copyrights by scanning books without permission. Google agreed to pay $125 million to set up a Book Rights Registry through which publishers and authors could be paid for their works. The money from sales made through Google’s digital book repository would be divided as 70 percent for publishers and authors, 30 percent for Google.

    A controversial part of the deal is that Google would have the right to digitize books whose rights-holders cannot be found. These so-called orphan works comprise 50-70 percent of books published since 1923. Becoming the only authorized distributor for these books would put Google in a dominant position.

    A judge in the Southern district of New York will decide whether or not to approve the settlement in early October. The U.S. Department of Justice is also making an anti-trust investigation of the agreement that could still derail Google’s plans from another angle.

    The non-profit Internet Archive has long opposed Google’s agreement. It also scans books — over half a million so far — and puts them online for free. Kahle looks at Google’s efforts as a huge step backward for free access to information: “The techniques we have built up since the Enlightenment of having open access, public support for libraries, lots of different organizational structures, lots of distributed ownership of books that can be exchanged, resold and repackaged in different ways — all of that is being thrown out in this particular approach.”

    According to Peter Brantley, director of access for the Internet Archive, “All of us in the coalition are oriented to foster a vision for a more competitive marketplace for books.” He added, “We feel that if approved, Google would earn a court-sanctioned monopoly and the exploitation of a comprehensive collection of books from the 20th Century.”

    Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon are not the only ones expressing concern. Privacy advocates are raising a red flag on the potential surveillance aspect of online distribution. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Northern California, and the Consumer Watchdog advocacy group all contacted Google asking the search provider to “assure Americans that Google will maintain the security and freedom that library patrons have long had: to read and learn about anything … without worrying that someone is looking over their shoulder or could retrace their steps.”

    Consumer Watchdog advocate John Simpson said: “There are serious questions about privacy and Google seems to be taking the view ‘let us put this in place and we will do the right thing down the road.’ That is simply not good enough.”

    Joining the chorus is the American Libraries Association. “We do think the product in essence is good but the proposed settlement asks us to trust Google and the other parties a little too much,” commented Corey Williams, the ALA’s associate director. “When it comes to privacy, the agreement is silent on the issue and with regard to what Google intends to do with the data it collects. It’s a great idea but it requires more trust than I think we feel comfortable being able to extend at this point.”

    Google has defended itself by pointing out that millions of out-of-print books would be made available online, offering publishers and authors a means to make money on their works long after printing presses have ceased production. The company released a statement saying: “The Google Books settlement is injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it’s understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more competition.”

    As things look now, Google is correct that the digitization of books has many benefits, but its opponents also have valid points about competition and privacy. Scanning books and putting the results online costs money, so it is reasonable for anyone doing this to try to recoup their expenses by charging for access. Google will likely go a step further and try to sell information it would collect on users’ browsing and buying habits, justifying privacy concerns.

    In the end, the best thing would be for multiple online libraries and booksellers to thrive in the free market, with the company offering the best product at the lowest price with the fewest privacy concerns setting the pace for its competitors.


    SOURCE:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....computers/1713
    Last edited by FrankRep; 08-24-2009 at 07:42 AM.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Side note:


    Google, Inc is a Corporate Member of the Council on Foreign Relations!

    A list of CFR affiliated companies to Boycott
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206912
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  4. #3

    Default

    I've been reading about this, and I too oppose Google on this.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  5. #4

    Default

    I'm really tired so someone explain this to me. Why would Google have a monopoly in online book publishing? What's stopping the other companies from making their own reimbursement system? There isn't just one company that provides royalty collection for music copyright holders.

    Does anyone know how long it takes for a book to go into the public domain by the way? I know it's something insane for movies ($#@!ing Disney) but I'm not sure who would have the lobbying power to give book authors a similar deal.
    Last edited by TastyWheat; 08-24-2009 at 12:41 PM.
    "My pride in my country is inversely proportional to Michelle Obama's pride in her country."
    - Me

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TastyWheat View Post
    I'm really tired so someone explain this to me. Why would Google have a monopoly in online book publishing? What's stopping the other companies from making their own reimbursement system? There isn't just one company that provides royalty collection for music copyright holders.

    Does anyone know how long it takes for a book to go into the public domain by the way? I know it's something insane for movies ($#@!ing Disney) but I'm not sure who would have the lobbying power to give book authors a similar deal.
    Here's the part that people are upset about:


    A controversial part of the deal is that Google would have the right to digitize books whose rights-holders cannot be found. These so-called orphan works comprise 50-70 percent of books published since 1923. Becoming the only authorized distributor for these books would put Google in a dominant position.

    A judge in the Southern district of New York will decide whether or not to approve the settlement in early October. The U.S. Department of Justice is also making an anti-trust investigation of the agreement that could still derail Google’s plans from another angle.

    The non-profit Internet Archive has long opposed Google’s agreement. It also scans books — over half a million so far — and puts them online for free. Kahle looks at Google’s efforts as a huge step backward for free access to information: “The techniques we have built up since the Enlightenment of having open access, public support for libraries, lots of different organizational structures, lots of distributed ownership of books that can be exchanged, resold and repackaged in different ways — all of that is being thrown out in this particular approach.”

    According to Peter Brantley, director of access for the Internet Archive, “All of us in the coalition are oriented to foster a vision for a more competitive marketplace for books.” He added, “We feel that if approved, Google would earn a court-sanctioned monopoly and the exploitation of a comprehensive collection of books from the 20th Century.”
    Last edited by FrankRep; 08-24-2009 at 01:01 PM.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  7. #6

    Default

    Many Filings on Google Books Settlement


    Steven J. DuBord | The New American
    09 September 2009


    The time has expired for interested parties to file either for or against Google’s proposed settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. As the September 8 deadline passed, the flurry of last-minute filings indicated that Google’s bid to create an unprecedented digital library had stirred up quite a storm.

    It all started with Google Books. Google’s intent to make the Google Books website the largest repository of in-print and out-of-print works in electronic format was initially opposed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. They were concerned that Google’s choice to scan books without permission was a copyright violation that would result in authors and publishers losing money.

    Eventually a $125-million settlement was reached whereby Google agreed to pay this sum to establish a book registry that would use its funds to compensate authors and publishers, especially those who would eventually claim ownership of the so-called orphan works whose rights holders cannot currently be located.

    This seemed to close the book on opposition to Google’s plans, but a whole new chapter opened up when heavyweights such as Amazon and Microsoft challenged the settlement on the grounds that it would give Google a virtual monopoly on these orphan works. Others questioned the privacy aspects of allowing a digital library to monitor user behavior and to potentially sell that information or exploit it to track readers.

    Thus it was that, as of September 8, Google’s proposed settlement had “prompted dozens of opposing filings from individuals, rival companies like Amazon and Microsoft, advocacy organizations, groups representing authors and publishers and even some foreign governments,” the New York Times reported on September 8. On the other hand, the Times noted that the settlement “has also received the support of companies like Sony, civil rights groups and some antitrust and economics experts in academia.”

    Wading through the conflicting claims of these many filings is the job of Judge Denny Chin of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to legal scholars, Judge Chin will have to decide on the fairness of the settlement, weigh its possible anti-competitive aspects, and evaluate how the public could benefit from having easy online access to millions of works.

    “The number and quality of opposition filings is very unusual,” said Jay Tidmarsh, a Notre Dame Law School professor. “The court is going to have to look at the public interest in the settlement.”

    Andrew Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, stated, “If the judge has some significant concerns, it is much more likely that he would invite the parties to address those concerns rather than reject the agreement.”

    Professor Gavil believes that Judge Chin will rely heavily on the views of the Justice Department, which will render its opinion by September 18. A hearing on the case is set for October 7.


    SOURCE:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....oks-settlement
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    A controversial part of the deal is that Google would have the right to digitize books whose rights-holders cannot be found.
    I recall Tom Woods stating he's had to withold quotes and references in his books due to not knowing who owned the rights to the particular works he wanted to cite. I would love for Google to upload these books but only if they aren't given the monopoly power. This is quite an example that can be used to display that gov't empowers/creates monopoly power.
    .
    Reality is independent of Popularity.

  9. #8

    Default

    I for one find google books to be a tremendous resource. As a person that works in a technical field I could not do without it. The exerpts portion of this service have caused me to go out and check out books from my local library and to buy books.

    I also respect the efforts of google in developing this huge database, digitizing all the books with this level of quality control, and having a superb OCR system that integrates nicely into the interface.

    In fact, I would go as far to say that Google Books is one of the most noble projects mankind has ever undertaken: to create the metaphorical library of Alexandria in such a way that it will never die.






Similar Threads

  1. Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Yahoo release US surveillance requests
    By LibertyEagle in forum Privacy & Data Security
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 10:48 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2013, 02:30 PM
  3. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook to require warrants
    By VoluntaryAmerican in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 10:42 PM
  4. Microsoft , Yahoo and Google
    By anewvoice in forum 51st Anniversary Mass Donation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 07:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •