There are many people who believe on freeware, shareware or whatever you call it, Google intended to go forward and scan millions of books and provide them for free over the internet. However, they have been accused by various organisations and writers of stealing hard work which cost so much money and time. Today Google has been fine 300,000 Euros in France.
So do you think Google should be let alone to scan the books and help knowledge and information to spread to the world for free? Do think everyone should have his/her right to do whatever he wants on what he bought? Do you think it will discourage writers to spend so much time and money and the end of the time their work be given free over the internet? What is your view on the whole issue?
somone4u: There are many people who believe on freeware, shareware or whatever you call it, Google intended to go forward and scan millions of books and provide them for free over the internet. However, they have been accused by various organisations and writers of stealing hard work which cost so much money and time. Today Google has been fine 300,000 Euros in France.
So do you think Google should be let alone to scan the books and help knowledge and information to spread to the world for free? Do think everyone should have his/her right to do whatever he wants on what he bought? Do you think it will discourage writers to spend so much time and money and the end of the time their work be given free over the internet? What is your view on the whole issue?
somone4u: so what is the different on what i said? or you just want show that you have something to say as normal?
Nope,just that Things are never eaten as Hot as they are cooked,since they are not full Books,but only Excerpts,Fair Share might come into play anyhow. Doubt if France is ever going to see that Money!
somone4u: There are many people who believe on freeware, shareware or whatever you call it, Google intended to go forward and scan millions of books and provide them for free over the internet. However, they have been accused by various organisations and writers of stealing hard work which cost so much money and time. Today Google has been fine 300,000 Euros in France.
So do you think Google should be let alone to scan the books and help knowledge and information to spread to the world for free? Do think everyone should have his/her right to do whatever he wants on what he bought? Do you think it will discourage writers to spend so much time and money and the end of the time their work be given free over the internet? What is your view on the whole issue?
For me this issue has few dimensions.
To write books is a job and writers are not obliged to work for free but are to be paid for their job as everybody else.
A book isn’t a book until it has got at least one reader.
I myself think that book prices here in Sweden are very high. If they have been lower I’d buy books more often. (As old fashioned as I am, I like to hold a book in my hands, and there are books that I just have to have on my book shelf.) Hence, the writer would get more payment. What makes the prices so high? I don’t know, but there surely are too many middle hands.
I don’t think that if you’ve bought a book you’ve also bought a right to share its contents. You own a paper copy and have a right to share it as it is – in the paper form. But it’s exactly what libraries do. So if one wants to spread knowledge in book form – he can buy few hundred (thousand) books, start a library and share the said knowledge.
But on the other side, I’m convinced that (despite what Bible says) stealing bread and books is not dead sin.
Conrad73: Nope,just that Things are never eaten as Hot as they are cooked,since they are not full Books,but only Excerpts,Fair Share might come into play anyhow. Doubt if France is ever going to see that Money!
I don’t know and I am not sure on which way you would like to drag the point on what I said here!!! But I believe this have nothing special to do with France on what I said, Google have complains from many countries and China & the USA are on the list.
Copywrite restrictions always exist. If they do not - then there will be no more writers ...... for anyone to copy. Same with artworks. Same with any individual creation.
I do believe, reading the article, that the infringement was on unauthorised extracts?....Which is similar, in a way, to "On-line publishing"......?....where the author has the only authority to offer any piece of their work for free publication.
Thanks for interesting thread Someone4u ... I look forward to reading further postings on this subject.
smoky: Copywrite restrictions always exist. If they do not - then there will be no more writers ...... for anyone to copy. Same with artworks. Same with any individual creation.
I do believe, reading the article, that the infringement was on unauthorised extracts?....Which is similar, in a way, to "On-line publishing"......?....where the author has the only authority to offer any piece of their work for free publication.
Thanks for interesting thread Someone4u ... I look forward to reading further postings on this subject.
Google will most likely claim "Fair Use",since they only used Excerpts!
This sort of says it all....? Quoted from your Wiki reference:
"when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur." In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.......
Nah, I dont see anything to get excited over .......UNLESS they gonna take over ALL authors works .... for FREE. Then they just gonna cut their own throats cause authors will not ever work for free inventing their stories! By that time the earth should be out of existence.........
smoky: This sort of says it all....? Quoted from your Wiki reference:
"when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur." In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.......
Nah, I dont see anything to get excited over .......UNLESS they gonna take over ALL authors works .... for FREE. Then they just gonna cut their own throats cause authors will not ever work for free inventing their stories! By that time the earth should be out of existence.........
Look at YouTube,running along similar Lines. Copyright Holders can demand Removal of Material,same way the are able to in Google proper.
yeah here we go, this is THE Elley. we still have to move from copywrite to"TIS" and then to the really world "THIS" i know you are smart enough to bail youself out since you are an spani-english lingual man.ciao.
I think it’s slightly different with different genders… When you read a book, it’s actually not significant in what form the book is – a paper form that you’ve bought or borrowed from a library or neighbor, or perhaps you have heard it read, say, on radio, or you’ve read it from a computer screen. Still it’s book’s contents that matters, and your perception of it, of course.
Your perception also is significant with other arts, but… there are some aspects that you certainly cannot get from internet. You have to experience it, or you won’t get it at all. As for example, a play or a painting /fresco and the like. Music when you are present at it’s creation in a concert hall, isn’t the same as a record. And looking at a picture of a building isn’t the same as being inside this building.
…Once I’ve experienced Rublev’s “Trinity”… Of course, I’ve seen reproductions of it in books and albums before, but… if you want to know why he’s acknowledged as a great icon artist, you have to visit him. There just is no other way to get acquainting with Rublev. No one would be able to explain or describe his paintings… Many centuries ago he created this world of his believes, thought, the images that delighted and tortured him – his space in this universe. And you have to enter his space – his world – in order to hear his voice… And I think it’s also true in case with many other painters, Michelangelo for example. I’ve seen the reproductions, but I’d like to visit his painting as I’m sure that the reproductions – I have no doubts that they are good – but they lack the energy, the passion, the misery and the glory that their creator put into them.
It’s different with books… but when there is a book that I want to have on my shelf, that I don’t want to part from, that I know I’m going to reread… A screen version just won’t do. I buy a copy bound as a book.
somone4u: yeah here we go, this is THE Elley. we still have to move from copywrite to "TIS" and then to the really world "THIS" i know you are smart enough to bail youself out since you are an spani-english lingual man.ciao.
Actually, I think the big enemy for little-known writers/musicians etc is being un-read/un-heard rather than being read/heard for free. (For well-known authors, the big enemy isn't internet but the tax man.)
When people's work is well-known and appreciated, it still sells. People are still buying Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Chopin, Elvis et al. This is because they know these people's work and want to own a copy.
So I think free access to creative work via the internet is a good thing because Jo Public might not risk money to read a book by someone s/he has never heard of, but may just give it a go if it is free. And if they like it, then they'll buy it for real. Good news for the small fish.
As for the big fish, being pirated on the internet leads to increased sales, advertising deals, promotions, tours, merchandising and all manner of other lucrative business.
wordsmith99: Actually, I think the big enemy for little-known writers/musicians etc is being un-read/un-heard rather than being read/heard for free. (For well-known authors, the big enemy isn't internet but the tax man.)
When people's work is well-known and appreciated, it still sells. People are still buying Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Chopin, Elvis et al. This is because they know these people's work and want to own a copy.
So I think free access to creative work via the internet is a good thing because Jo Public might not risk money to read a book by someone s/he has never heard of, but may just give it a go if it is free. And if they like it, then they'll buy it for real. Good news for the small fish.
As for the big fish, being pirated on the internet leads to increased sales, advertising deals, promotions, tours, merchandising and all manner of other lucrative business.
I'm inclined to agree with you, and will only add one thing.
There are those that want to fight the free music sites, like Metallica did, and only do themselves harm as far as I can see. I have little respect for their attempts to put an end to music sharing, even though I don't do it myself, and have never downloaded a single tune or movie in my life.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
GOOGLE RIGHT(Vote Below)
So do you think Google should be let alone to scan the books and help knowledge and information to spread to the world for free? Do think everyone should have his/her right to do whatever he wants on what he bought? Do you think it will discourage writers to spend so much time and money and the end of the time their work be given free over the internet? What is your view on the whole issue?