Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by KmH, May 12, 2010.
Corporations are inherently immoral:
ASMP, Other Trade Groups Sue Google
On the one hand I like that google is making free and easy access to image and data from printed material in archives (like libraries) to the masses. Especailly as libraries are becoming smaller and ness numerous overall (barring the big ones) and also also often understocked.
However I also repect that those who write books and creat visual arts also want compensation for their time - especailly as many of these groups don't actually turn enough profit from the writing/art in order to live their life. Some have to spend years before their works are getting into general circulation and whilst we'd all love totallyfree media we have to accept that artists and writers have to eat and pay the bills as well
So where do you stand overread?
I am of the opinion if something is available for public consumption in a library it should also be available from a search engine.
Not quite sure - remember a library has a limited area effect (generally speaking though rarer books can be ordered through the national chain from one library to another). However the initial books kept by the library are purchased by the library.
Also there is a limit as to how many people can take that book out at any one time - if the book is highly popular the library might make additional purchases to stock its shelves. Furthermore the books rental is conditional and failure to return amounts to costs to the individual borrower - so they are encouraged to either return and purchase the book (if they found it of great use) or to simply return the book - the single purchase of the library then being little different from people buying a book of the shelf and then putting it into the second hand market.
Google on the other hand is offering almost global distribution, with no limits for free and with no initial purchase. This is a massive difference because now the author has lost the minor sale of the product from the library system and also because the product is not longer physical in nature I suspect there will be less insentive for people to purchase it - thus possible lost sales here. This is even more true today with the Ebooks starting to become more and more popular with many people - thus the mobility of a book has also somewhat lost its appeal.
I do belive in free and open access to media and information, but I also have to respect the fact that media and information resources do not make themselves and that whilst many who author such do so for enjoyment/personal goals at the end of the day they still have to pay the bills and still have to work. Cutting down on their potential income is very damaging as it could well prevent them from creating more media.
Someone purchased or donated the book that the library has for loan, and through that purchase/donation the author is compensated. The library makes no profit.
The library loans it out to one person at a time.
Google acquires a copy of the book without compensating the author, makes it available to the entire world, and makes a profit on advertising attached to the book files they infringed.
Google needs to compensate the author for the initital copy of the book and the author also should receive a portion of the advertising income Google realizes from any attached advertising.
Oh agreed. I didn't want to weigh in on the payment debate, and that's what it ultimately is all about. But purely from a public point of view I figure if something is given away for free from every library it should be available for viewing online too.
living in MN, I can order any book I want from darn near any library I want unless it is considered a reference material.
Inter-library loans are not hard to do or complete. There are companies out there that is the sole purpose of their existence.
So google is in essence creating an "on-line" library for instant access of any information.
Interesting point and I'd forgotten about the advertising revenue that google will make at some stage. I agree a compensation clause needs to be agreed that not only compensates publishers but also gets back and provide a decent compensation for the authors as well (because at the end of the day they are the important ones)
I agree with this and its the main reason why we had libraries in the first place - to allow the population as a whole access to written material. Massive cuts in book costs mixed with massive increase in production has lead to reduced need for libraries in many smaller settlements. Simply put books became affordable - upgrading to the net is the next natural step and I fully expected it to arrive.
However we must still reward the writers/artists least we end up driving them to a point where they can no longer perform their arts/writings because they are unable to get the time because they need to work. Yes there will always be those who can work (with quality) for free just as there are people able to shoot weddings for free - but we must not (though sadly we are moving toward) a situation where we are dependant upon the free offerings and deny people the ability to make it their livleyhood.
Aye this is true, but remember if a book becomes a major source or highly popular the number of loans and requests to the library will increase either locally or nationally as well - thus the library has to make more purchases of the book in order to fullfill the demand.
The library purchased the book or magazine (or someone else did and donated it) so the artists were compensated for that one copy.
If you digitize that copy and make it available for free to millions of netizens, how is that fair to the artists?
That's like a public library in Coffeeville Kansas digitizing the latest Metallica album and posting it for free download on the internet. I think we all agree such a practice is not acceptable. How is it any different with printed materials such as books and magazines?
:lmao: My judgement of corporations is much harsher but that is another story.
First, I think we need to remember that libraries and the library system are not free. We pay for the books through our taxes. But they are there to serve the public and are non-profit in a way.
Google is getting into that business for the profits and those have to be shared with the writers/artists. Absolutely no reason why not.
To understand the problem, it is easier if we compare what Google is trying/wanting to do to what video rental stores do rather than to the library system. I sure can't talk about every country out there but in the ones I know video rental stores pay a premium to get the movies. Their movies cost them a lot more than when you or I go buy a copy from a retailer. Which is normal since only a few of the people renting the movie will ever buy it later.
The Google "library" should be seen the exact same way. IMHO.
I am not against what they want to do. Quite the opposite. I lived in Washington DC for many years and had the privilege to be able to walk into the National Library whenever I wanted to see a book. But I have lived in small towns/cities since then where the libraries just don't have much to offer.
So, yes, digitizing books could be a great thing. But if it is done for profit, the profits need to be shared.
Separate names with a comma.