Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google The Internet Businesses

The Implications of Google's Digital Library 310

Posted by Zonk from the shaking-things-up dept.
Connectmc wrote to mention a CNN article discussing Google's Digital Library project. From the article: "Tony Sanfilippo is of two minds when it comes to Google's ambitious program to scan millions of books and make their text fully searchable on the Internet. On the one hand, Sanfilippo credits the program for boosting sales of obscure titles at Penn State University Press, where he works. On the other, he's worried that Google's plans to create digital copies of books obtained directly from libraries could hurt his industry's long-term revenues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Implications of Google's Digital Library More

The Implications of Google's Digital Library

Comments Filter:

  • Same article 100 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dougman ( 908 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:29PM (#13606580)
    would sound like this: "Buggy-whip makers concerned that new automobile may hurt industry revenues".

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
    • Digital books are great for quick searches, but I still prefer the physical book (hard cover if possible) and will still purchase the physical book.

      Why not incorporate both technologies and offer hard cover reprints of books that people request? Can anyone tell me how difficult it would be to do a single printing of a book? How expensive? Or what the minimum order would have to be to get the price down to $50 or less?

      I have a lot of worn paperbacks that just are not available in hard cover.

      • Re:Not for me. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 )
        That sort of printing on demand is really difficult. Hard cover books have a different sort of binding process than they use on paperbacks...On a paperback, they just slap some glue on it, and throw a cover on it...Not much reason this couldn't be done at least somewhat on demand.

        The costs of print runs go up because of negatives and plates, etc, or just plates if you're in the "Modern" age. I heard some stuff about Xerox working on a machine to do one offs, but I don't know anythign about it. With current

        • Re:Not for me. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by eht ( 8912 )
          My brother used to work in a company that printed law books, except they weren't bound books, he'd drop in a couple dozen reams of paper with 3 hole punch into a big Xerox made machine and out would come books, or the essence of them anywho, they would get dumped into 3 ring binders and sold off to lawyers. He would do a print run of a hundred or so copies, it wasn't quite print on demand but it was close

          I seem to remember the company's name was Bender, and got bought by Penguin.
          • Should have researched it more before posting, the name of the company was Matthew Bender [lexisnexis.com] and it looks like they got bought by LexisNexis. I had thought Penguin had bought them as there is now a Penguin Publishing sign and logo on the outside of the building where he worked.

          • Binder books (Score:3, Interesting)

            by SeanDuggan ( 732224 )
            Our university did that with a few textbooks which had gone out of print. The company charged them a small fee for printing out the text of the book and selling it in a binder. It was a good sight cheaper than the rest of my college textbooks ($5 for a 200-page textbook? Unbelievable...), although unfortunately, the printing quality was along the lines of a 2nd-generation xerox.
    • Buggy-whip makers concerned that new automobile may hurt industry revenues

      Perhaps not a very helpful analogy. How about, "Buggy whip stores concerned that rampant theft of buggy whips from the factory will reduce retail demand." OK, not the best analogy either, but the point is that someone who goes to a lot of trouble (and time, and money) to produce something that people will want for their education and entertainment are not going to be buggy-whipped out of demand. We're talking about whether or not t
      • How about, Middle men petition government to reduce new technology and demand that they be used to transport and or store goods and public domain items.

      • Re:Same article 100 years ago... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lifebouy ( 115193 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:47PM (#13607563) Journal
        I might agree with you on books that are still in print. However, for books that are no longer being printed, a socially responsible publisher would release the publication into public domain when it has run it's commercial course. I particularly loved the publisher who said it was not the pubisher's responibility to police their copyrights. "We don't know if we published it or not, but we sure don't want you to be able to use it!" Wow. If you don't know whether it's yours, then you are not generating revenue on it any longer. Put it, then, where it truly belongs: in the hands of the public. There are so many useful things that could be done with it! But since you aren't generating money with it, and don't ever intend to, GIVE IT TO THE PUBLIC! Unfortunately, Congress has mangled and bungled copyright law to the point that this doesn't happen automatically anymore, and never will. So the onus is on the publisher and/or author to earn a little karma and give back to the public. Do it!

      • Re:Same article 100 years ago... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by vsprintf ( 579676 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @06:34PM (#13609693)

        Perhaps not a very helpful analogy. How about, "Buggy whip stores concerned that rampant theft of buggy whips from the factory will reduce retail demand." OK, not the best analogy either, but the point is that someone who goes to a lot of trouble (and time, and money) to produce something that people will want for their education and entertainment are not going to be buggy-whipped out of demand.

        Even that doesn't apply to the situation. The most relevant passage in the article was the guy claiming the burden of producing the titles they don't want copied shouldn't be on them because they don't really know about all of their old titles.

        That just proves what a crock these near-eternal copyrights are. These companies aren't selling or reprinting the old books - they don't even know their titles. They just don't want anyone else to get any use from them. This continual lockout is the exact opposite of the result intended by the original copyright law. I say good for Google. This is information that not only wants to be free but should be free according to the law when it was written.

    • Re:Same article 100 years ago... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:49PM (#13606792) Homepage Journal
      False reasoning: The automobile doesn't use the buggy whip to be of value. There is no legal basis for such a complaint in terms of protection afforded by the law. Unlike the situation with Google.

      Google is using other people's intellectual property to create new publisher's value. That's not the same as creating something entirely new that obsoletes something that previously exists — and what Google is doing is forbidden by law.

      If we don't like copyright law, then it needs to be changed. In the interim, Google is clearly in the wrong if they publish anything without the explicit permission of any rights-holders in the domain of said publishing. I fully expect them to get burned by this.

      Copyrights exist for a reason. Current copyright law is in my opinion excessively biased in favor of the rights-holders, but we need to change that, not break the law. If we don't want copyright at all, again, the law needs to be changed. Nothing about the current situation makes what Google is doing right.

      Disclosure: I own a literary agency.

      • Re:Same article 100 years ago... (Score:5, Informative)

        by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:10PM (#13607063) Homepage Journal
        The /. synopsis leaves a bit out as usual. Google is going to some pretty good lengths to make sure the system is not exploited in any non-fair use ways.

        For instance, you can only read a few pages of the book related to your search. And even if you search multiple times, you can only read a few more pages. You can not use google to download the entire book for free.

        Also, google is cutting publishers in on the advertising for the pages their book is displayed on.

        -Rick
        • What if you typed in a unique string from each page (or every other page) of the book and fed it to a list of proxies to fetch the full text, and assemble a PDF? Typing in hundreds of unique sentences is tedious, but certainly quicker than scanning the entire book in or retyping everything.
      • Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't know WTF you're talking about. "What Google is doing is forbidden by law" isn't the case. Making a handful of lines of text available as a search result is clearly within fair-use, which doctrine has extensive support within case law and by statute. Look it up.
      • Now, a better analogy for most of the books they want, which are out of print, is: Hand-me-downs.
        Say my oldest child has grown out of his clothing. What happens to the clothes? They sit unused. Then the next child grows to fit them. Does the oldest get to say no? Hell no. Those clothes are of no use to him any longer. It is in the public interest to recycle them. If that means the next oldest gets them, and gets use out of them, so be it. If that means we use them as rags to wash the family car, so be it.

    • Or encyclopedia salesmen... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oGMo ( 379 )

      Remember what the CDROM did to Britannica?

    • Surely the point of electronic publishing is, ultimately, to reduce the need for physical printing and (eventually) eliminate it.

      The only objections to electronic publishing now are practical (it's harder to read an electronic book in bed, or whatever, or the screen is hard to look at for extended periods) or basically insane (books smell better than computers).

      Eventually, cheap and highly usable electronic books will be available so that, for example, I don't need to lose my place in my O'Reilly reference

      • ... or keep multiple spots open with random cards ...

        When an ebook makes this as easy as a real book, please let me know. I find it *vastly* easier to flip through real pages to get to "that one spot" I remember, or by sticking bookmarks all over and flipping back and forth with reference material. I have put a little thought into what a usuable ebook interface would be like, and webrowsers for example don't even come close. I'm very curious to see what people come up with; I think it's a difficult p

  • Industry Revenues... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lordsony ( 916205 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:31PM (#13606600)
    Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the lost profits, but more about the knowledge we made avaible to the world...

  • Brick and Mortar?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Artie_Effim ( 700781 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:33PM (#13606620)
    If someone could explain to me the difference between this and a real LIBRARY I would love to hear it. Other than of course, the full text search available at my fingertips, the quick to get, no return fee aspect. I mean, the information is already 'free' it just becomes available in another media format.
    • OK.

      1)Real LIBRARIES either pay for the books or receive them free from publishers. Either way the publisher gets what they expect out of the deal.

      2) There are limited numbers of copies available in a library, meaning if people really want to read a particular book today they may have to buy it. Online, there is no such restriction.

    • Re:Brick and Mortar?? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward


      Well, the primary difference would be that millions of people can access the file simultaneously, whereas in a library, only one person can check out a copy at a time. So... let's say that a library has one copy of a book, and each person checks it out for one week. In one year, that library would only serve 52 people that book. But Google's library could serve thousands of people simultaneously, with no check out/check in to limit it's use. If a library wanted to serve more than one person at a time, it w
    • The difference is that the library (or someone donating to the library) paid for the printed matierials. In other words, some money was given to the author (supposedly).

      Also, the number of people that are reading a book at a library is equal to the number of copies of the book the library owns. Any number of people could be reading the same text on the internet.
      • The difference is that the library (or someone donating to the library) paid for the printed matierials. In other words, some money was given to the author (supposedly).
        You know, outside of those works where no one knows who owns it (which the publishers seemed to be complaining about in the article... "We can't prove we own that book, but we want the profits from it!"), I suspect Google could afford to buy a copy of every single book in its library with what amounts to their budget for snackfoods for the
    • I own a copy of, for example, the 1990 Honda CRX service manual, published by Honda. I use this book anywhere from one to ten times a year.

      If this were available online, I would not need to own it, since when I need to change my timing belt, I could just lookup the procedure online, and print out the relevant pages.

      If this book were available at my local library, I'd still own it. I refer to it often enough that there's no point in repeatedly borrowing it from the library.

      I can think of several similar ex
    • Maybe if libraries that have copies of the book would lend Google the right to lend a virtual copy of that book whenever the real copy isn't checked out? Combined with some sort of access control to reading the full copy from Google I'd think this would be legally acceptable. I doubt you'd even need to use DRM. Just force users to read the book from Google (rather than downloading) and only one person can check it out at a time (with an auto-release between reading sessions).

      It's always been my understandin

  • Longterm revenues... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:34PM (#13606632)
    Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that companies trying to secure "longterm revenues" are constantly preventing society from progressing as a whole? If a new idea or technology emerges that is going to put you out of business, it's time to do something else. Perpetuating the same crap year after year after year serves no purpose other than hindering progress.
    • With the idea that a company could have "long-term revenues" planned for out-of-copyright material and abandonware. How do you plan for the long-term, when the material has no intrinsic value and all residual value exists only because someone is looking for that material at that time? What happens next week?

      It is because of companies trying to squeeze every last drop out of the residual value that copyright has been extended in time and coverage. In consequence, I have a hard time being sympathetic. If you

      • (The reason I'm not worried about progress is that I don't believe there's been any risk of society progressing for a long time. There have been few cultural improvements since the 1700s and the main advances in technology since then have been used more to cripple subsequent advances in culture.)

        Gee, I suppose an extra thirty-five to forty years of life expectancy at birth [infoplease.com] (since 1850!) isn't really an improvement in society. I dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society where I won't expect to die be
    • Let's put it this way: Ever seen that little note inside mass market paperbacks -- the small ones --about how if you bought the title without a cover, you're in league with the devil? Those coverless books, "strips," are thrown away. The covers get sent back to the publisher for partial credit on returns. Pitching the guts of the book saves on weight in shipping.

      Which is to say, the traditional revenues we're talking about are derived from a system that is NUTS, and that couldn't need to be replaced more.

    • Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that companies trying to secure "longterm revenues" are constantly preventing society from progressing as a whole? If a new idea or technology emerges that is going to put you out of business, it's time to do something else. Perpetuating the same crap year after year after year serves no purpose other than hindering progress.

      Notice that Sanfilippo didn't say profits? He works for a university press. He's just hoping that small academic presses can survive despite Google mak

  • Imagine that! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:34PM (#13606633)
    . . . he's worried that Google's plans to create digital copies of books obtained directly from libraries could hurt his industry's long-term revenues.

    Innovation usually reduces demand for the obsolete version. The fact is, books are a pain in the tail to search through any way you look at it. It's about time a serious effort is made to make printed material electronically searchable.
    • I partially agree: a dvd of an encyclopedia takes up a lot less room and has a faster index then its wood pulp brother. Of course I've never had to adjust the refresh rate on book. Also my book never looses power, its fairly portable, and has a never been attached by an email virus. Maybe some worms, but never a virus.

      Most printed sources can last for centuries in proper condition (see Dead Sea Scrolls). Compatible optical scanners are manufactured on a daily basis and the software to access these resour

  • Can Google run a Library? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bgfay ( 5362 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:36PM (#13606641) Homepage
    Seems to me that very few would object to Google creating and running a library on the model of public libraries. I go to our library two or three times each week to get books, music, and movies. I return the things I've borrowed and someone else borrows them.

    Here's the problem: the digital stuff, especially the music, is very easy to copy. I copy some of it. The books however, are too difficult to copy and I don't need to own a copy anyway. (I've moved enough times in my life to realize how much books weigh and noticed that the library is significanly cheaper and Barnes & Noble or Amazon.)

    But if Google runs a library, everything will be digital. That's fine if what they were lending was in the public domain, but, thanks to Disney et. al., public domain is a thing of the past.

    Seems to me that a Google library will be a marketplace for copying. Then again, most of the people who run Google are about a foot and a half smarter than I am. So maybe they have this all figured out.

    I'm curious to see what they come up with.
    • As per the article, there are restrictions on how many lines of text you can see in a single search, as well as how much (20%) of the book you can achieve by multiple searches. Presumably, the latter is being checked by the Google cookie [imilly.com]. I too am curious as to how it will bear out. I'm sure that some dedicated person (possibly under **AA pay) will figure out a way to game the system and it will be declared illegal.
    • Libraries used to be about providing price discrimination for books. Maybe it's time we found a better model?

      It will be interesting to see if this has a similar advertising effect as that experienced by the Baen free book library. Cory Doctorow has had very good results from giving his books away over the Internet, and there is evidence that P2P is actually driving some growth in the music industry.
    • seems to me that the way to copy google's library is through a distributed project.

      write a small application, having thousands upon thousands of people download and install it.

      have each copy request a few pages of every work offered by google.

      have a server at the back end reassemble each work.

      then make those works available through a bittorrent like network back to the volunteers or everyone.

      voila, profit.

  • Since when.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:36PM (#13606653)
    With Google's book-scanning program set to resume in earnest in the northern autumn, copyright laws that long preceded the Internet look to be headed for a digital-age test.

    Does a season have a direction?
    • With Google's book-scanning program set to resume in earnest in the northern autumn, copyright laws that long preceded the Internet look to be headed for a digital-age test. Does a season have a direction? I believe that they mean to indicate that it will begin during Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere (September-December).

  • Libraries (Score:5, Insightful)

    by COMON$ ( 806135 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:37PM (#13606654) Journal
    Isnt this the whole purpose of libraries anyway? To make knowledge available to the public that would normally only be available to the rich or well connected?

    A man should be no more afraid of google's attempt to digitize information than a library's ability to purchase and distribute books for free.

    On a side note, I am more likely to buy the paper version of a book than sitting and reading it off of a LCD display. Which I assume the average person would do the same.

    • The analogy doesn't quite work because a library does not make a copy of the book. Only one person at a time can use a library copy, they can use it for a limited time, and they aren't allowed to copy the whole thing. This makes libraries not a substitute for buying (and gaining permanent, perpetual access to that copy of) a book and that's why libraries and bookstores can co-exist. That's not what Google is doing, though.

  • Googutenberg (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeToy ( 643583 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:37PM (#13606657)
    Just like Gutenberg disrupted the Copyist Monk industry few century ago, Google library has the potential to completely change the way people find books, is it bad ? is it good ? I think it's just different and easier for the book's end user: us.
    • The industries problem is that it is easier and CHEAPER for us, the end user. We arne't paying for books anymore because a few clicks and we already have it.
      • I have copies of all the Harry Potter books as plain-text and I got all but the most recent before the book was released. I still own at least three copies of each book with two copies being hardback not to mention the various HP collectables I've bought and the movies. Most people will pay for the physical item if it's what they want, is affordable, and the delay of getting the physical item isn't to great.

  • What's He Complaining About? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Caraig ( 186934 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:37PM (#13606658)
    A bookseller who's worried that making books that are in the public domain available on the net will hurt his revenues.

    The initial reaction I have is, 'Cry me a river.' These are books in the public domain and are meant to be freely available to everyone. Google's just making it easier.

    My second reaction is that he might have a point, and he's deserving of some sympathy. But then I realize that he's a university bookseller. The books people pay for college and university classes are overpriced as it is, ($80 for my USED calculus text, and that was ten years ago; I can only imagine how much it is now.) Somehow I don't think that a university bookstore is going to be hurting all THAT much. So this is just another case of someone whose industry needs to 'evolve or die.' Though he really only has to worry if the textbook publishers 'evolve' before he does.

    Besides, the printed word isn't going out of style anytime soon. There are plenty of books I prefer to have in dead tree form, to hold and read and carry with me on trips when I don't have or don't WANT to have my laptop with me. And what a lot of us on slashdot seem to forget is that not everyone in the world has a laptop or a PDA with e-book software on it.

    • Re:What's He Complaining About? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <(rustyp) (at) (freeshell.org)> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:52PM (#13606847) Homepage Journal
      From the article, "Under the Print Library Project, Google is scanning millions of copyright books from libraries at Harvard, Michigan and Stanford along with out-of-copyright materials there and at two other libraries."

      So they're not just making it easier to do what is already legal; that's what project Gutenburg does. This is something else entirely.

      I don't know...text against black and illuminated text is much easier on the eyes than books are. Not having to turn pages makes it faster, and being able to read in the dark is kind of nice. I don't know why you'd want to read on a laptop when there are plenty of good tiny PDAs that fit the bill and are smaller than books.

      Here are the reasons I've been given for reading from dead wood:
      "I like the feel and smell of pages."
      "I like to turn the pages."
      "I like the feel of a book in my hands."
      "Reading from my PDA makes my eyes hurt"
      "I don't have a place to get e-books."

      All of those are reasons based upon the fact that they've gotten used to doing it that way except the last two. The last two generations (within four years) of PDAs alleviate the second to last concern, and the last one is only a matter of time.

      When there is a generation that starts by reading electronically, they won't want to go back, since in the nonsubjective ways reading electronically is pretty much universally better, so book publishers are very much in trouble.

      • the article, "Under the Print Library Project, Google is scanning millions of copyright books from libraries at Harvard, Michigan and Stanford along with out-of-copyright materials there and at two other libraries."

        Hmm, I missed that part. That changes things slightly. I wonder how Google managed to wrangle that?

        I don't know why you'd want to read on a laptop when there are plenty of good tiny PDAs that fit the bill and are smaller than books.

        Well, for me (and most of the world,) it's that I can't afford

      • Staring at a screen is almost the equivalent to staring into a low powered flashlight for hours at a time.

        Unless there is a fundamental change in screen technology, hurting eyes will remain.
      • since in the nonsubjective ways reading electronically is pretty much universally better

        And I thought reading for pleasure was pretty much entirely a subjective experience.

        When I want information, I go to the electronic version. When I want to relax, the dead tree version is the only way to read. The subjective reasons you dismiss so quickly all center around engaging additional senses. If you don't understand that touch and smell can enhance pleasure, all I can suggest is to find a girlfriend or boyfriend
      • There are a couple more reasons I can think of-
        • White-on-black text and reading in the dark only work when used together. If one prefers to read with the lights on, a diffuse-reflective rather than emissive surface is better. E-paper may provide that, of course. I'm pretty sure there's ergonomics research that backs this up, but I don't have any links handy.
        • A book doesn't stop working if it gets bent, dropped, stepped on, dripped on, left on the shelf for a month, etc. A book with a few pages gone is sti
    • Penn State University Press is not the university book store, it is the university book publisher. Looking at their titles, it does not appear that they publish textbooks; they seem to mostly publish books about, well, Pennsylvania. From their Mission Statement: "...As the publishing arm of a land-grant and state-supported institution, the Press recognizes its special responsibility to develop books about Pennsylvania, both scholarly and popular, that enhance interest in the region and spread awareness o
    • "But then I realize that he's a university bookseller. The books people pay for college and university classes are overpriced as it is, ($80 for my USED calculus text, and that was ten years ago; I can only imagine how much it is now.) "

      You think the bookstore is raking in much profit on texts? How much do you think they paid for that text when it was new? Look to the publishing companies, not the retailers, for what is driving textbook price gouging. Used texts and university-branded merchandise are w
    • $80 for my USED calculus text, and that was ten years ago; I can only imagine how much it is now

      Actually, your calc book is about the same price used. I just picked it up last week. Damn these bookstores are making a killing...

    • My second reaction is that he might have a point, and he's deserving of some sympathy. But then I realize that he's a university bookseller. The books people pay for college and university classes are overpriced as it is, ($80 for my USED calculus text, and that was ten years ago; I can only imagine how much it is now.)

      He's not a university bookseller (bookstore), but a university *publisher* [psupress.org]. He publishes all manner of books that major publishing houses won't touch because the market is limited. This i

  • Books.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RalphSleigh ( 899929 )
    A few books you just want to own, cherish, use every day and fill with page markers. For everything else, google would be wonderful..

  • Death of copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:41PM (#13606692) Homepage Journal
    When books can be converted easily and cheaply into an open digital format, and when someone creates an ebook reader that works effortlessly, the nail in the coffin of copyright laws will finally stick.

    Music is already in search of a new structure, and the RIAA and recording industry is heading for chaos. The movie world is, too. More laws and regulations will stop nothing, the levee is breeched, freed information is now a tsunami wave, not an easily controlled trickle from a faucet.

    I was thinking just yesterday that books are the last straw. The copyright lawyers know this. The politicians must be consciously avoiding talking about it. The book publishers must be meeting in back rooms wondering how to hold on to their previously rigid control.

    Supporting Amazon made the publishers richer in the short run but enabled their future downfall. Print-on-demand is cheap enough to let everyone compete on fairly equal footing EXCEPT for promotion. Book stores, radio interviews of authors, best seller lists and other promotional tools have been controlled by the publishing industry.

    When the free market has its way, we'll likely see more independent authors touring to sell their books by offering speaks engagements and a 'pick my brain' opportunity, similar to Indie bands and Indie moviemakers. Those guys can make a reasonable living doing reasonable work.

    I go to the book store often, but like radio and TV, I don't see much individuality or uniqueness in books. I buy way more self published books (or by small publishers) especially when the authors appeal to me by touring to promote it with speaking engagements.

    Just like the bands I love, book promotion will eventually be the right way to sell, when book contents are P2P'd easily. Just like mass music and mass movies.

    Open 'piracy' of books en masse will give someone a reason to create a good ebook reader. Until now, its been a chicken-and-egg situation.

    Oh, I know google won't pirate anything, but the door opening for free information will likely open wider.

    Authors will always find an audience if they work hard enough.
    • When books can be converted easily and cheaply into an open digital format, and when someone creates an ebook reader that works effortlessly, the nail in the coffin of copyright laws will finally stick.

      There won't be a good ebook reader until ebook publishers stop trying to foist DRM down our throats, and that won't happen any time soon, as publishers remaing convinced that letting people read books will result in a reduction in sales (which I highly suspect is not the case).

      Just like the bands I love, book
      • Book signings are worthless as income. I'm talking about a free market future of 'pick my brain' promotion.

        My favorite band wasbon a tiny label for 5 years. They toured, allowed fairly open copying of their music, and virtually ignored copyright.

        Authors can do the same. I'm paying $200 in November to see my favorite author among 10 others do a live speaking. I can already get his writings for free online. I buy his books to keep him writing, I go to his public speakings to pick his brain.

        Lately, all my

  • Out-of-print titles? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brunellus ( 875635 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:43PM (#13606717) Homepage

    I've always wanted a service like this--not for books that are in print and thus (relatively) easy to get, but for books that are out of print, and have been out of print for years.

    I'm thinking particularly about relatively obscure academic books, which have short print runs...It's somewhat frustrating when you're researching to learn that yes, someone has already explored a particular line of questioning, but that his work is no longer in print and thus not easily available

    Fortunately, at least some publishers are becoming responsive to this need. The Cambridge University Press have begun a print-on-demand service. Here's hoping it catches on.

  • Afraid of what exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JordanL ( 886154 ) <jordan,ledoux&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:44PM (#13606731) Homepage
    I've learned that whenever an industry tries to resist progress/technology they always get the short end of the stick.

    People want things faster and easier, and what people want ultimately will force, especially in a capitalist society (or something close to it), even non-profit industries to adapt.

    RIAA resisted technology, and look what happened. Apple did not, and as such iTunes has been one of the greatest success stories in a while.

    Books have been books for a very long time. I enjoy having a book in my hand, and that's how I would prefer to read it, but you wouldn't believe how many times I have been reading or re-reading a book and wished that I had a search function to look up this specific phrase that I remembered.

    Google may get flak from Universities and publishers for its project, but ultimately, they are filling a void in a way that has been much needed for a very long time. It's an improvement, and that in itself will perpetuate the progress of Google's project, whether or not its Google who continues it.
    • RIAA resisted technology, and look what happened. Apple did not, and as such iTunes has been one of the greatest success stories in a while.
      They are going after uploaders, getting most of what Apple takes via iTunes and are tightening the DRM screws every chance they get. What should I see? All I see is artist associations around the world using the 'flawless copy' stick on goverments to put their tax on digital media.

  • Oh well. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by snark23 ( 122331 )
    "...he's worried that Google's plans to create digital copies of books obtained directly from libraries could hurt his industry's long-term revenues."

    Yeah, and Gutenberg's press had a devastating effect on long-term revenues of the copy-manuscripts-by-hand industry.

    Feh. [google.com]
  • Seriously, are we going to have some grand organization like the Book Publishing Association of America (BPAA) or the like now? Like the outdated methods the music industry uses, the trouble is even larger in the book industry. Thousands of books and authors are never read by millions of people because they are rare and obscure. There are research papers and knowledge to be grabbed that people cannot find because they are collecting dust in those dark libraries that are getting fewer and fewer visitors.

  • NEVER! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    IMHO books will never be obsolete, gazing at an LCD will never replace the printed page.

    But then again I'm a graphic designer and I still love the Letterpress and all of it's shortcomings, they are sooo beautiful!

  • So missing the point... (Score:3, Informative)

    by tyroneking ( 258793 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:54PM (#13606866)
    ... 'cause no one in their right mind would sit down to read several hundered pages of a book on the internet; they'd get a paper copy (just like I do) - it's less troublesome to eyes and can be used in bed/on the train/at a bus stop, with no chance of being mugged for a choice electronic gadget (though I was once menaced by a chap who didn't like that I was reading On The Road).

    Maybe Tony should really be worried about the Bookmobile (http://www.archive.org/texts/bookmobile.php [archive.org]) which makes the information free and just charges for the printing - a true purification of the business model.

    Anyway, how is this different from the million books project over at http://www.archive.org/details/millionbooks [archive.org] ?

    • I'm 22 years old and I can't remember the last book I read on paper. Pages are so much hassle, and paper has far too low contrast ratio. I'm more comfortable with reading off a screen, and I imagine this is even more true for younger people. Physical book fans are dying out. Also, ebooks don't take up any space, are searchable, and are usually free (legally or otherwise).
      • Funny, I'm 25 and I'd much rather read a book on paper then on a computer screen. Guess a lot happened on those 3 years.

        Really though imagine this:

        "aww crap, my book's battery died"
        or
        "dammit, there's no way to change the battery on my iNovel and it's life is now only about 5 minutes, I'll have to pay $60 to fix it or tear into and maybe break it."

        Besides, I think a bookshelf filled with books (preferably ones the owner as read!) is a nice sight.

        Don't get me wrong, I fully support books in digital format.
      • So young and so little time ;) Wait a couple of years and you'll start to appreciate paper books again. The better the book, the more you'll want it on paper; the significance of Catcher In the Rye, the knowledge in Dive into Python, the absurd joy of Spike Milligan - each mean more when they're in a book. Oh, and paper books are just way more functional than computerised tomes - here are just some of the features: multiple bookmarking (pencial marks, folded page corners, fingers); fast forward/reverse (tur
  • But for me, I need the paper, I've tried time and again to read a book online, I can get Art of War in about a million translations online, but I want a paper copy, because that one I bring on trips, I can feel the page, and I somehow feel more complete with the paper book.

    I've read Mad on the computer, I own the 7 disc collection, but it's not the same, I can't do the fold in myself, try to figure out the joke, and laugh, it's all done for me, and it bores me. Most of the fun of flipping the page is missi

  • I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Xarius ( 691264 )
    when the PIAA will be formed?

    *tongue in cheek*
  • and when I end up buying a book I tend not to ever finish reading it. This would be great for me. I'd be able to google a book that I had interest in for the minute, read enough of it to satisfy my mind, and then move on to the next! Google.com is the best!
  • Imagine not allowing cars to be made because the people who made horse whips bitched!

  • Slashdot crowd wrong on this one (Score:3, Insightful)

    by loggia ( 309962 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:04PM (#13606972)
    The crowd is slamming resistance to Google when in fact Google has vastly overstepped its bounds.

    They've told publishers and authors that they plan to scan every book - and if you don't like it, opt-out. Well, if you were an author or publisher, you'd be rightly pissed. The burden of having publishers list and input millions of titles in order to opt-out is absurd.

    And Google will lose this fight in court when it gets there. They've gone from innovative ideas to almost a totalitarian approach to their projects. With this and their banning of CNET reporters because they offended the emperor, I mean, CEO of Google, we can see that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • I have used Project Gutenberg multiple times in the past to save on costs or trips to a book store for a short reference to an older book. Oddly, I have not seen any reference to this great resource in the discussion on the Google library.

    Are there any plans on importing these works?

    Is Google going to waste time re-scanning and proofreading the etexts that are already available and free-as-in-beer-and-speech?

    I realize that PG is generally only for copyright expired, or works that are explicitly released to
  • On such a wonderfully pointless book by Sean Hughes that helpfully includes instructions on How to Steal this Book, and, if you're caught, a helpfully underlined defence ("I was only following what it said in the book...")

    Anyway, here's the quote:
    "There's more to life than books you know, but not much more." - Morrissey

  • Library of Alexandria^2 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by emarkp ( 67813 ) <slashdot@ro[ ].com ['adq' in gap]> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:12PM (#13607095) Journal
    Think about this plus the Google wifi effort.

    Imagine being able to access to full text of any book anywhere. The possibilities are tremendous. We'll have to figure out a way to deal with copyright (or whatever we come up with), so that great work is still produced, but it will be tremendous.

    Though I'm a bit concerned about the tainting of Google's business by political bias [blognewschannel.com], and by silencing outlets [cnn.com] who don't kowtow to their demands.

  • First you must understand the meaning of copyright (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @02:14PM (#13607132)
    Copyright law [wikipedia.org] exists for two reasons. First, it provides the author and/or publisher with certain rights which allows them a profit. But it then, and maybe more importantly in this case, provides the consumer with certain rights regarding the use of copyrighted material. If copyright locked down material to the extent that many people believe it would be difficult to gain any benefit from access to information. These consumer rights are usually referred to as "fair use." Two major examples of fair use are libraries and book reviews.

    IANAL, but in TFA, a lawyer opined that Google also had a strong case for protection under fair use. No it's not the same as a brick and mortar library, but Google traded off having a limited number of copies of a book for limiting a clients access within a book. Book reviews have long been held to be protected by fair-use and they often quote long passages of a book. Google provides the opportunity to look inside a book without mediation by a reviewer, but serves much the same function in helping the consumer decide whether the book is an important resource for them.
  • Publishers shouldn't have to bear the burden of record-keeping, agreed Sanfilippo, the Penn State press's marketing and sales director. "We're not aware of everything we've published," Sanfilippo said.

    Oh I get it, publishers don't care enough about their own rights holdings to keep records of them, so they want everybody else to do the legwork for them. This is like land owners saying they can't be bothered putting up fences and posting signs, but they want penalties enforced against trespassers anyway. The
  • Isn't this the earlier Google Print project, just now restarted again? Didn't they just let the users search the text, but only preview about the 3-4 first pages or so? If that's the case, I can't see how this would possibly do anything beyond increasing sales as customers get more aware of the books.
  • Suppose you substituted the word 'Microsoft' for the word 'Google' in this topic. Would this change your opinion of how immensely cool this is? I always dreamed of all the worlds books online... but I never considered them being controlled by a private corporation -- I was thinking more of public ownership, like a library. Won't the _scans_ of public domain text and images be copyrighted? This is how it works now I believe -- they don't claim ownership of the source material, but their scans, indexes and di

  • Preventing autogenerated scraper sites (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shird ( 566377 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:37PM (#13609267) Homepage Journal
    I think one of the major reasons for Google to be doing this is to detect sites that have simply scanned in dozens of books and presetn the content as their own along side ads, to make quite a fair bit of money. There are many sites out there that do this. Google already detects duplicate content across web sites (ie sites that scrape others), but its a bit difficult when the content has been 'scraped' from a book.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close