Fury at Google Books

[Crusader]

Obviously you wouldn't want to drop any of them in the bath. However there are waterproof covers available for eReaders if you want to take them to the bath. And with only one button press they should be easier to handle as well!

 

[cerebus]

The people at Google are behaving like bullies in this. They're dictating the terms of compensation, the legal implications of copyright, local laws and so on because individual publishers do not have any way of taking them to court. In principle I'm happy to see books digitized - I already do a ton of my reading on my touchscreen phone and I absolutely think it can replace hardcopy books in the long term (wait for the Apple tablet - my bet is it changes publishing models). But I do not agree with Google's methods of acquiring the content they want. Here's a tip: Google is not your friend. They do not act out of altruistic benevolence. Control of information is control of the flow of money - only of a far subtler nature than Microsoft's overt monopolism. I feel that there needs to be some more restrictive legislation placed upon Google's activities currently.

 

[Crusader]

How is Google's control and selling of ebooks any different than the control Amazon has using the Kindle and restrictions they deem necessary. Amazon discounts books without consulting the author and pays a smaller percentage per sale than Google will supposedly do.

 

[cerebus]

Oh really? Do you have a link?

 

[Peder]

The people at Google are behaving like bullies in this. They're dictating the terms of compensation, the legal implications of copyright, local laws and so on because individual publishers do not have any way of taking them to court. In principle I'm happy to see books digitized - I already do a ton of my reading on my touchscreen phone and I absolutely think it can replace hardcopy books in the long term (wait for the Apple tablet - my bet is it changes publishing models). But I do not agree with Google's methods of acquiring the content they want. Here's a tip: Google is not your friend. They do not act out of altruistic benevolence. Control of information is control of the flow of money - only of a far subtler nature than Microsoft's overt monopolism. I feel that there needs to be some more restrictive legislation placed upon Google's activities currently.

i just want to ask what phone do you use and what application? i tried mobireader but it is full of bugs and can't convert chapters of a pdf to its format

 

[cerebus]

Oh mobireader sucks. I use Isilo with a 5800 - I prefer Isilo to any other book reader. It is an HTML converter - so you can easily rip your own books from websites with IsiloX. I converted Daniel Deronda from the Gutenberg project site the other day for instance. Isilo is available for most mobile OS's.

I find PDF's don't work well at all on smaller touchscreen devices because it needs to scroll side to side and pan in and out. It's best to use a plain text book.

 

[Crusader]

Cerebus I'm on my phone so no links. Will see if I can track down the link tonight. Just read about it yesterday.

 

[Guest 20221009]

.....But I do not agree with Google's methods of acquiring the content they want. Here's a tip: Google is not your friend. They do not act out of altruistic benevolence. Control of information is control of the flow of money - only of a far subtler nature than Microsoft's overt monopolism. I feel that there needs to be some more restrictive legislation placed upon Google's activities currently.

Google will do anything to secure new platforms to push Ads. Its plain and simple, they keeping everybody hooked by the "free apps" they offer. Google is behaving badly IMO.

 

[w1z4rd]

People will always still buy printed books.

Reading a pdf on a screen just never will feel as good as reading a real book in bed or in the bath.

The print industry is really going to suffer when they perfect a voice readback system which is able to relay book contents like a master story-teller.

Now theres a good idea. A high contract, ultra slim but water proof pdf reader. For bath and research purposes (under the sea, wanna check out what type of fish is looking back at you?, on a river in a canoe and want to identify a bird you see on the cliff on the side?, in Alaska where it snows all the time and want to read?).

Hmmm.. I patent TM the idea! Shotgun!

 

[w1z4rd]

People will always still buy printed books.

Reading a pdf on a screen just never will feel as good as reading a real book in bed or in the bath.

The print industry is really going to suffer when they perfect a voice readback system which is able to relay book contents like a master story-teller.

Now theres a good idea. A high contract, ultra slim but water proof pdf reader. For bath and research purposes (under the sea, wanna check out what type of fish is looking back at you?, on a river in a canoe and want to identify a bird you see on the cliff on the side?, in Alaska where it snows all the time and want to read?).

Hmmm.. I patent TM the idea! Shotgun!

Here's a tip: Google is not your friend. They do not act out of altruistic benevolence. Control of information is control of the flow of money - only of a far subtler nature than Microsoft's overt monopolism. I feel that there needs to be some more restrictive legislation placed upon Google's activities currently.

They want to offer books from authors that are already dead.. for free mostly.. how is that bad? Already their efforts to digitize old books is doing the world a favor.

I dont care about the ads, theyre non intrusive to me.

The world would be a better place without long copyrights. IE, if the author is dead.. copyright is over. Freedom of information is all important to our social and educational evolution.

Personally I trust Google over any other big corp out there.

 

[Crusader]

Can't find the link I've got in mind. Here's one stating that Amazon pays authors 35% of list price.

www.dailyfinance.com/2009/02/23/amazon-begins-shipping-the-talking-kindle/

Also something to note is that Amazon sells public domain works for $0.99 which is also 'profiting' from someone else's work.

 

[Joy-Energiser]

In response to this article

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tent-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars/2

I'm so tired of reading about greedy corporate fat cats trying to prevent their profit margins from declining and fighting emerging technologies while masquerading as the protectors of innovation and originality.

It's just so pathetic

Google already said they would compensate the publishers.WHats there to lose ?

Get over it,get to grips with the 21st century,these things are happening.They are happening right now!Stop trying to fight it and start thinking of ways to compliment these developments and profit from them, because clearly that is all that everyone is worried about, their own fu**ing profit., not actually the protection of original literature, because If I were an artist/writer I would welcome the extreme exposure that google will provide.

 

[cerebus]

The issue is Google's compensation and interpretation of copyright laws is pretty much dictated by them. It's like 'Oh we'll take that, and here's how long your copyright should be, and here's how much we should pay you for it.' You can't simply abrogate copyright laws in the pursuit of 'freedom of information' or some such. That's all i'm worried about. I said I'm all for the digitisation of the world's intellectual resources. Everyone SHOULD be worried about their own profits, because profit is the motive for publishing.

 

[Crusader]

I still can't see how Google will be any worse than Amazon or any big publishers. All of them set their own terms and payouts to authors.

 

[Xarog]

They want to offer books from authors that are already dead.. for free mostly.. how is that bad? Already their efforts to digitize old books is doing the world a favor.

I dont care about the ads, theyre non intrusive to me.

It's not free. They're making money from it. And I see no real explanation from google just how they're going to negotiate with all the copyright holders beforehand.

Seriously, if I've missed something here, I'd love for you to point it out to me.

The world would be a better place without long copyrights. IE, if the author is dead.. copyright is over. Freedom of information is all important to our social and educational evolution.

No argument here, but we don't need private companies thumbing their nose at copyrights because it makes them a few extra bucks.

Personally I trust Google over any other big corp out there.

Then you're insanely naive.

Whenever Google has had an honest choice between profit and true benevolence, they've chosen profit. They have access to all sorts of personal information about their users. If you log into google, every last google search you've ever entered, is stored along with all the emails you've ever sent or received, which are routinely data-mined (otherwise how could they provide "relevant" ads?), not to mention that the generated ads thanks to double-click etc. means they have a damn good idea of most if not all the websites you've ever visited.

And you seriously think there's nothing to be worried about? Seriously?

 

[Crusader]

It's not free. They're making money from it. And I see no real explanation from google just how they're going to negotiate with all the copyright holders beforehand.

Seriously, if I've missed something here, I'd love for you to point it out to me.

This is the main point of contention with the Google deal. It's an opt-out take on things. Instead of Google requesting permission from each copyright holder the copyright holder has to opt-out of the service and Google will stop providing their works.

Google wants a copyright registry to be established. Any revenue generated from a work will be kept in trust until that copyright holder has registered their information. Revenues will then be paid out to the copyright holder.

 

[w1z4rd]

Im not even ganna bother debating much in this thread... Google are doing a good thing thanks and I support them. I know the details and I dont care about copyrights of mostly dead people. As pointed out, there is an opt-out for those people who have issues with their data being hosted by Google.

They will give me access to the data I need at the cost of ads I dont care about. Just like they hold my email, just like they are offering FOSS android, just like they offer YouTube, just like they help me where to go with maps, just like the digitize public domain books and just like they serve me my search results.

Theyve seldom done anything to piss me off (though one or two small things). I believe in their philosophy, I believe in the direction they are taking... and as far as I am concerned are the most trustworthy of the big corporate names.

What are my alternatives? Yahoo!? Microsoft? Apple? Naaah thanks, Im not that stupid and I dont trust any of them one iota.

If you dont accept their philosophy, or you simply dont like them, or you dont know whats potting or you are stuck in the dark ages.. then yeah.. you will have issues with them. I dont care.

Im riding this wave, its taking me the direction I want to go.

Then you're insanely naive.

Please lay off the personal insults, I hear the mods are cracking down on this. Okay Xarog, you called me a name because of my statement which was:

"Personally I trust Google over any other big corp out there."

So now the balls in your court to show me a big corp out there thats more trustworthy than Google.

 

[Crusader]

Well said!

 

[icyrus]

No argument here, but we don't need private companies thumbing their nose at copyrights because it makes them a few extra bucks.

Maybe that's exactly what we need given the how much lobbying power corporates have with governments around the world.

 

[Xarog]

This is the main point of contention with the Google deal. It's an opt-out take on things. Instead of Google requesting permission from each copyright holder the copyright holder has to opt-out of the service and Google will stop providing their works.

Google wants a copyright registry to be established. Any revenue generated from a work will be kept in trust until that copyright holder has registered their information. Revenues will then be paid out to the copyright holder.

Not good enough. If it was opt-in, I would have no complaints.

Im not even ganna bother debating much in this thread... Google are doing a good thing thanks and I support them. I know the details and I dont care about copyrights of mostly dead people. As pointed out, there is an opt-out for those people who have issues with their data being hosted by Google.

How about I start deciding which laws I will or won't follow? Like, say, I'll start robbing houses. I'll put an opt-out option up, though. If you lemme know before hand that you don't want to be robbed, I'll not target your house. That's all I need to make my behaviour acceptable, right?

Please lay off the personal insults, I hear the mods are cracking down on this. Okay Xarog, you called me a name because of my statement which was:

I don't consider it an insult. I considered it an observation. If it offends you, I apologise.

"Personally I trust Google over any other big corp out there."

So now the balls in your court to show me a big corp out there thats more trustworthy than Google.

No.

I explained to you why Google should not be trusted at all. Just like every other corp out there. The onus on you is to prove why they are somehow different to all the other corps out there.

Maybe that's exactly what we need given the how much lobbying power corporates have with governments around the world.

Let them lobby. Don't let them break the law or strong-arm court cases.