Re: google books

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Thomas Lord <lord () emf net>
Date: May 22, 2009 5:12:45 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   google boks

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 16:24 -0400, David Farber wrote:

> From: Mike Anderson <k8iw () hotmail com>

> I submit the vast majority of the books we are talking about would,
> without Google's digitization project, never, ever see the light of  
> day.
> This is because they are very obscure, have very limited audiences,  
> etc.
> This vast pool of knowledge has been otherwise locked away and the key
> thrown away. Google deserves our respect and thanks for offering an  
> indexing
> window into these otherwise largely forgotten books.



The issue as I see it is that the law already
had provisions for the kind of scanning Google
wanted to do.   Libraries are explicitly permitted
by federal statute to build such scanned collections
and explicitly forbidden to partner with a 3rd
party for that 3rd party's commercial advantage.  Google
and the libraries that participated simply ignored
the law.   The scanning could have been legally performed
by Google by leaving the libraries, not Google, with the
final database.  Google could have offered technological
assistance to the libraries to put an API on the collection
that would afford Google a chance to build something
like their book search feature.   They could have stayed
in bounds and instead they behaved as if the law didn't
apply to them on account of their good names.

-t






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com