The European feudal/fascist position is that they should not-only the privileged few people who are lucky enough to have the right ancestor should have that right (even if they don't know about it, and wouldn't care about it if they did.) The European liberal/libertarian position, also enshrined in the U.S.
Miskatonic books complaint download#
>Orphan books should be free for download and reproduce by whomever no? >so why are libraries afraid of "raised prices for the collection"? But Google cannot, at this point, "distribute" the entire text (well, image) of the book to you. >And the "orphan" books problem is baffling me: currently, orphan books are free to download on Google Books.
buys books at wholesale from HC., and anyone else can buy the same books from the same place at more-or-less the same cost, since HC. I'm not sure I BELIEVE that argument.but there is claimed to be a difference between Amazon's deal with HarperCollins (A. The argument is being made that there will be some kind of barrier to other people making the same kind of arrangement. This "third party" (the AG or AAP) is setting the terms. Google is asking for something slightly different: a so-far-unique ability to publish (and sell) books, in the absence of the copyright holder. (I have had no trouble at all buying books, CDs, DVDs from, ,, cbd.com, or the websites of specific books-and-mortar stores or even single authors.) I don't know, and it doesn't matter, how large a share Amazon has: there is no barrier to anyone opening a website to sell books, or anyone frequenting that website to buy them. They aren't even a monopoly on mail-order-sales-via-the-web. Amazon simply isn't a monopoly on e-commerce. >Why was there no outcry on Amazon, which is a monopoly in e-commerce of books? Perhaps the era of cowboy capitalism, and its abuses, is coming to a close? (Although "Atlas Shrugged" is being revived from the dead I hear:() I, for one, take it as a very positive sign that G's rampant abuse of copyrighted works is receiving more attention of late, and that the issue is being monitored by the government now. It is only together that they have any chance of protecting their collective interests, which of course is why the Publishers Guild was formed in the first place. The fact is, no individual author or publisher has the resources to take on a giant like Google. The first use of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was an attempt to break unions, the argument being that workers had no right to band together to protect their collective interests against the mega-corporations of the day.
Your arguments against the Publishers Guild are a real time warp. I am not clear if there are residuals involved for those, but the settlement does call for G to get 37% of all future revenue. Per AP, rights holders of books already scanned would receive a $60 payment. So, at least one group is arguing that if things are loosened up for orphan works, then it should be opened for all and not just the big G.įurther, the terms of the deal don't look particularly favorable for the authors. Unlike uld face potentially significant statutory damages for their use of orphan works" ( ZDNet )
effectively limits the liability for the identified uses of orphan works of one party alone, Google Inc., and provides for a Books Rights Registry, the interests of which are represented solely by identified rightsholders, to negotiate their exploitation. In its request to intervene, the Archive’s lawyers said: "he proposed Settlement Agreement.
0 kommentar(er)
