Comments on: Google’s book effort stuffs the copyright act

By: DannyGlover

DannyGlover — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:11:00 +0000

It was directed at you.

Your entire pedestrian rant is nonsensical drivel bordering on the unintelligible. Not only is it completely inaccurate with respect to Google’s scanning/proof reading (as you call it) process, but you seem to have in inordinate amount of anger towards this project. It has served me very well on several occasions. If you don’t like it, just don’t use it. I don’t see a gun put to your head. Stop blathering like a pissed off mental patient.

By: Gareth Powell

Gareth Powell — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:43:06 +0000

It is a good question and deserves an answer. The Gutenberg initiative is almost totally an amateur effort. The important part is that it proof reads its texts and makes no let or hindrance on their use. It makes no suggestion as to copyright
Apple started in that way in that it scanned in out-of-copyright texts but then found that scanning could be speedy and inexpensive. Proof-reading is not. So does Google add more value? Only in the sense that it scanned a lot more texts. Not in the sense that it proof read them to make them usable. It did not do that.
It was thought that Google would brings its strength to both the scanning AND the proof-reading. It soon found out the proof-reading is slow and tedious and costs serious money.
So it made a pact with the devil.
Where a publisher had taken an out-of-copyright book and scanned it and proof-read it Google would consider it in a new form of copyright where you paid to have access to the new scan.
So, you are right. Google has not added more value.
I do not know who is meant in the phrase: ‘It’s best not to comment on thing you have no clue about.” If it is directed at me it is a total nonsense. If it is directed at Bilmil it is misdirected. He was not making a comment. He was asking a question.

By: Jerome Garchik,Attorney

Jerome Garchik,Attorney — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:27:02 +0000

I am a SF Civil Rights attorney. Mr.Powell’s comments are unique take on the google book effort. Google gets current books to its data base directly now in e form. The google book settlement, see http://www.googlebooksettlement.com
is immensely complex.See the 70 Q&As and 6 page claim form, and Dr. Darnton(Harvard) article in 2/l2/09 NY Review of Books. The libraries are very interested in this, of course, but so far this is the only piece I’ve seen to date that exposes technical quality issues in google’s omnibus scan efforts, J.Garchik

By: DannyGlover

DannyGlover — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:33:59 +0000

It’s best not to comment on things you have no clue about.

By: billmil

billmil — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:47:48 +0000

I’ve been surprised by the dearth of articles and blog entries questioning google’s ‘mobile e-book initiative’ and praising gutenberg.

I’m a happy users of gutenberg and think it’s really helped the world by making the public-domain public.

How does google add more value than gutenberg when it comes to public domain texts?

I don’t get it.