interesting debate
Shaking dog face
Waking up this morning, before the coffee set in, I was channel surfing and found a most interesting debate on Book TV (CSPAN2). The National Press Club had a forum to discuss Google's desire to scan books onto the internet.
An author, David Robbins, stated that he felt that it was infringing on both his copyright as well as his profits, as people would be more apt to pull it up on the internet, than go purchase his book.
The library director from Harvard, discussed equitable information. Currently, if you would like to find a book, for one, you must have access to a database that stores information on that book. Then, if you would like more than a description and a few lines from the book, you would need to find a library that has the book. One of our disadvantages here in Sioux Falls and South Dakota as a whole, is the Siouxland Libraries' limited selection. If, as the director said, the Harvard Library in its entirety would be scanned by Google, this would give South Dakota an equitable advantage. Otherwise, a number of these publications could only be obtained by traveling to Harvard in Cambridge, Massachussets and only if you were a visiting scholar. (By the way, I do, in fact, recommend traveling there anyway...)
Another advantage the director stated would be the digital preservation of these literary works. Harvard is committed to doing so, and would be given digital copies of them.
However, when asked, the director stated that Harvard would be paid for its use of the contents of the library for the scanning...
If these works are available only to people in the general geographical area, then why not? They are free to the public in the libraries there. I cannot express enough my frustration, traveling from library to library, only to find out that they a)don't have the item and don't have access to any library that has the publications for an interlibrary loan or photocopy of the excerpt I am requesting; b)have access to interlibrary loan the material, but won't because that is a service provided ONLY to their tuition-paying students-even though I am an alumni of that college (Great community service and information sharing AUGIE!!); and c) have access to the abstract on their database, but are not subscribed to the publication, so I would have to pay for the use of it if only to find out the information that I would like has been skewed in the abstract to appear that it is of major context in the text itself, but is not.
Finally, I think it would be of great advantage to the authors, as a potential author myself, to have one's name out there in the "WORLD WIDE WEB" to promote my works. I don't fancy myself reading an entire book on this digital screen - it would ruin my eyeballs!!! I would likely BUY the book if it looked interesting enough!!! I understand that Google intends to have a button on the page indicating libraries by distance from your zip code where you could obtain the material. I would hope as well, knowing that 99% of the books that I desire are NOT in the Siouxland Library collection, that they would also have Amazon, Barnes & Noble as well as other book sellers where I could obtain the book, listed as purchase options. Win Google, Win bookseller, Win publisher, Win author, Win consumer...
Any thoughts???
3 comments:
Ah, a subject close to my one last nerve -
This is, essentially, the same argument as the downloading of music for free.
I think most artists are in it for the recognition, but they must go through book publishers, recording studios, film productions studios, to get recognized in the first place. And of course, those middlemen need to be paid. And they know people will pay a lot for entertainment.
There is a clause in the copyright laws that allows libraries and other educational institutions "free use" of copyrighted works. I'm with you, the only difference between lending the actual book to the public(although, I doubt that just anyone can walk into the library at Harvard and borrow a book), and presenting the book online (maybe even for a small fee to libraries, universities, etc.) is numbers of people that can access it.
The opposition to free access to works of art (music, books, film) is simply the publishers/recording studios being greedy and wanting to make as much money as they can. IMHO.
You can do your part by photocopying or scanning one (or more) of David Robbins books and giving them to friends - or justleave them lying somewhere in public where people can use them to curb their dogs, etc.
Personally, as a writer, I would be THRILLED if I published a chapbook and poeple wanted to read it so badly they would photocopy it and distribute it. I heard a story about the Dave Matthews Band, in their early days touring, that the audiences would know and sing along to most of their songs, but it was before their first album had actually been released. Apparently, fans had made bootleg recordings at concerts and sold/distributed them. The Dave Matthews Band got NONE of the profits from this, of course - and they professed to be thrilled that their fans did this - because, ultimately, this was the fame and recognition they really wanted.
Ok, well I'm waiting for the FBI to knock on my door now. . . :)
From what I've heard Google does not intend to publish entire books in electronic form. They wish to make it easy to find materials to match your queries. There was a pretty good stink about this a couple of years ago when Amazon did the same with their book content.
Many bands have gotten their name out there and built their foundations on bootleg recordings. Metallica famously did this early in their career, before famously trying to put an end to Napster (back before it became reputable). I will say that Napster and its ilk were responsible for exposing me to much more music than I would have otherwise experienced. It prompted many music purchases. Yes, free music prompted me to pay for music.
Aah, the growing pains of the information age.
I'll await the FBI as well. See you in the back of the black van, Belinda!
What I've found is that only a limited number of pages are available to view on Google Books. Chapters, or blocks of pages are omitted so you cannot get the full book. That is better than giving full access to an entire book but I am still in the camp opposed to this project. I too was one who acquired a lot of music off of the internet without licenses. I've reformed. To compare the sharing of music and the scanning of books by Google seems slightly amiss to me.
I'll start with music. Sharing of music went on for decades by loaning music out, or making a cassette tape copy, or a CD copy. All of these went on without creating too much of a stir but when it became too easy (computers + napster) the record companies got upset. Everybody could, and a lot of people did, import their music to their computer and share it. I agree that sharing has been the break some bands needed and to some degree that continues today. People still loan out music, burn CDs and artists give away tracks on their website or as free singles on iTunes (and others music stores?). If the artist chooses to share it, then everyone is happy. When the artist loses control, then there's a problem.
Looking back on Napster and Kazaa, they were initially shared libraries that were created, for the most part, by the license holders (CD purchasers). The RIAA got upset when people had too much music without licenses for that music. (People got greedy.) The ability to share your music library is still a possibility with iTunes, though you cannot download a copy, but only listen. Also, sampling 30 seconds of every track on an album may not be the same, but it isn't something we could do 7 or 8 years ago with the ease we can today.
Back to the books. Sharing of books has also gone on for decades, maybe even centuries by loaning books out, or more recently photocopying. The publishers & authors benefit from some of this sharing much like musicians as mentioned above. Photocopying is a big no-no but because it is usually pretty time consuming and cost prohibitive to copy an entire book it isn't a problem. What we aren't seeing is the private license holders photocopying or scanning their books and sharing them, that would be like Napster or Kazaa. Instead, Google has taken it upon itself to scan them for us, and share them. I cannot imagine how fast a company that decided to "rip" CDs and then share them would get shut down, but Google argues that it's okay with books.
I also struggle with the fact that they're going to pay libraries for access to their collections. My concern is what happened to the author and the publisher? I am concerned about the author's complete loss of control of their work with nobody asking them if they mind or if it's okay with them. Google also advertises in the spaces around the book that you're viewing, making Google money, but none of that goes to the author or publisher.
An author of a book can reasonably expect that their book will end up in a library but what about the internet? This is particularly relevant with authors who are no longer publishing &/or published work before the possiblity of putting books on the internet existed. Additionally, these authors will not benefit from library profits from Google's project because they do not have any new books to sell the library.
If, on the other hand, Google was negotiating and dealing with the publishers &/or authors I would be all in favor of this project. To some extent, I understand that they have done this, but apparently that isn't the priority - raiding library collections is. They might find authors who are willing to share everything - not just a few pages - just like a new artist that gives away tracks to get their work out there. It seems very underhanded that Google is going to libraries and cutting out authors & publishers. Maybe the complexity and difficulty of that task is too daunting for Google. I doubt that, though. I think it could be a fantastic thing if done right but as I see it, some of the most important people in the equation are not involved, namely the authors and publishers. If Google had taken this approach instead of going to the libraries, they probably wouldn't be in court, but hey, they've got billions to burn.
Post a Comment