NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Roundup of arguments at today's Google Books Settlement Hearing
I'd rather see this beast stalled or failed, and then some other
deep pocketed search engine proceed audaciously to do exactly the
same thing (Bing?), start scanning books exactly the way Google
started out doing.
The spectacle that would ensue then ought to provoke our useless
public representatives/legislators to take up the task of devising
an appropriate statutory regime, rather than letting the policy be
set by this sort of settlement-driven course of operation.
Seth
[ Microsoft already abandoned their book scanning project. It's
unlikely -- given their corporate sensibilities -- that they'll
return anytime soon to scanning books that don't have immediate
high profit potential. The requirement for willingness to
devote major resources to scanning, even though much of what
would be scanned will have limited if any direct benefit to the
bottom line, requires a long-term perspective that is not
characteristic of many large firms these days.
And in my opinion, waiting for legislators around the world to
appropriately tackle this issue -- given their track records
overall -- is a receipe for lots of decaying books to further
their march toward becoming inaccessible dust.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:16:29 -0800
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Roundup of arguments at today's Google Books
Settlement Hearing
>
> http://bit.ly/aXCcMl (Boston Globe)
>
> As I've said before, one of my pleasures many years ago when I
> wasn't
> down in the ARPANET basement at UCLA was to wander through the
> massive
> (and not so massive) campus libraries pulling books at random
> to peruse.
>
> I remember repeatedly having the feeling that some of those
> books
> hadn't been touched in decades. Orphan works that are
> unavailable to
> the public are like invisible ghosts, their authors' work
> rotting away
> into the ether.
>
> While I wouldn't argue that there aren't ways that the current
> Settlement could perhaps be improved, on balance I support it
> -- no
> agreement of this kind will ever be perfect. The ultimate
> irony would
> be if continuing litigation on this score results in the very
> books
> that are primarily at issue being trapped in useless obscurity
> for
> many years to come.
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator