RSSGoogle to Subpoena Microsoft, Yahoo
By Nate Mook | Published October 6, 2006, 11:59 AM
Google said Friday that it plans to subpoena its search rivals Microsoft and Yahoo in order to obtain information that will help the company defend its book scanning project from a legal attack. Google was sued by both the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild, which accuse the company of copyright infringement.
Microsoft and Yahoo, meanwhile, joined up to build their own book search with an organization called the Open Content Alliance. Google is seeking details about that effort, which has raised far less ire from publishers by adopting an opt-in approach to selecting what books it scans, and thus is not being challenged in court.
Egads! This page is rife with error. Today's letter is the letter "e"! Use it TrulEy, FreelEy, and Effect change in the world!
-You have "affect" something, or you can have an "effect". No more, no less.
-I would like to "entice" you to type things in a word processor before you post.
-I am trying to cut text from "snippets" here, not 'sniplets' (Is that a combo of 'snippet' and chicklet'? Peppermint flavored text from books?)
-"Irregardless" of other errors, there are a few we should "guard" ourselves from.
-Why is it easy to spell "bourgeois", and yet to do so "freely"...? It's "truly" not that hard!
-When you're trying to sound intelling, spelling errors wind up "impeding" your progress.
-Whoo! Alright! As a Crusader of Correctness, I impart the following Holy Tool to use:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
Score: 0
|I'm a programmer and often have to "Google" for obscure topics. I've used Google search and when I find that a "book" has the information that I cannot find on a webpage, it intices me to go to Borders book store or Amazon.com and find a book on the subject. So, I would think that Google Book Search has positive affect on book sales. Besides, you don't get to see the whole book - just a sniplet of it. In addition, Amazon.com has a "Look inside" feature for most of its books that lets you read a few pages of a book. That too has inticed me into buying books I would not have bought had all I had to consider was just the Title and Author. I think one reason for pressure on book sales is that the Internet, irreguardless of Googles book search feature, is an alternative to book purchases.
So, I would think that Google Book Search would be something that Publishers and Authors would like.
Maybe they are blaming declining book sales on a "deep pocket" Google when the real reason is the changing technological world.
Score: 0
|YouTube is a joke among other online companies... Never made a dime, has no real source of revenue and the content is half infringement of copyrights.
It would be dumb to buy that stink hole of a company.
Score: 0
|Almost as dumb as posting on the wrong article.
Score: 0
|Previous poster comments aside, isn't what Google is doing here illegal? Don't get me wrong -- that doesn't mean that I think it is immoral -- the two may be in conflict here. In fact, I think it will have great benefit for society. But technically, isn't it copyright violation?
Sincerely,
James
http://www.FreePatentsOnline.com
Score: 0
|Google doesn't sell books.
Score: 0
|So giving them away freeley without the original authors earning royalties is legal? If I wrote a book, and sold copies of it at Barnes and Nobles, then google "gave" portions of it away--this damages my sales, does it not?
It depends on how you look at it I suppose. Having a 30 second clip from a sound track, for example, and allowing users to download it for free, does not hurt sales, but help them. The question is: does it work that way with books too?
"Microsoft and Yahoo...[are] adopting an opt-in approach to selecting what books [they] scan, and thus [are] not being challenged in court."
What exactly does this mean? To me, they are both illegal. If you subpoena MS and Yahoo, how does it help google except that it will hurt them? If it is illegal, it shouldn't matter if 300 companies are doing it--they should all be fined. I believe we have lost the plot of things here in America. To challenge a law, you must do so PRIOR to breaking it. Why the hell is it Congress/States/etc. can pass a law and put it into effect Monday, negate the law on Thursday, and anyone convicted of the crime in between somehow become exempt? Once law is law, it must remain that way, right or wrong, until it is changed through the courts. Otherwise, I could murder someone, then go through a case making a new law that allows me to do so under those circumstances, then I would get away with it. If it was TRULEY something that should not be in the law, I would do something about the law prior to breaking it, not after.
Sorry for the rabbit trail, my mind is racing today for some reason...
Score: 0
|If a Google search brings up an excerpt from a book and makes you want to read it, that can't hurt sales at all. But now if you run out to the public library and check it out, that's a lost sale.
Reading for free, not illegal
lost sale, not illegal
indexed and cataloged, not illegal
reviewed, not illegal
fair use excerpt, not illegal
reading out loud, not illegal
xeroxing and selling on the corner, now that's illegal, for a limited time.
Score: 0
|IP extremists will never succeed in suppressing the free exchange of ideas.
Score: 0
|Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild: STOP IMPEEDING PROGRESS YOU IGNORANT TOOLS!
Score: 0
|Though I totaly agree with you, at the end of the day it's all about $$$
Score: 0
|yea you complain now but wouldn't you **** with things good for society if m$ paid you 50 grand to? lol hypocrite
Score: 0
|