×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

124 comments

Lets just... (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478045)

Lets just reform copyright law and eliminate this problem altogether.

IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478085)

MADONNA IS THE BEST! [madonna.com]
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://marklipinskisblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/madonna_naked_023.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marklipinskisblog.wordpress.com/page/10/&usg=__EI6KjBYV9bqtQvKZaX091PG1eRU=&h=450&w=296&sz=21&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=DZTiCulVyePOKM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmadonna%2Bnaked%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

I made it through the wilderness
Somehow I made it through
Didn't know how lost I was
Until I found you

I was beat incomplete
I'd been had, I was sad and blue
But you made me feel
Yeah, you made me feel
Shiny and new
Like a virgin

Erotica, romance [repeat]
My name is Dita
I'll be your mistress tonight
I'd like to put you in a trance

If I take you from behind
Push myself into your mind
When you least expect it
Will you try and reject it
If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
Will you let yourself go wild
Let my mouth go where it wants to

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Once you put your hand in the flame
You can never be the same
There's a certain satisfaction
In a little bit of pain
I can see you understand
I can tell that you're the same
If you're afraid, well rise above
I only hurt the ones I love

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Erotica, romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

I don't think you know what pain is
I don't think you've gone that way
I could bring you so much pleasure
I'll come to you when you say
I know you want me
I'm not gonna hurt you
I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
Put your hands all over my body
All over me, all over me

Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I like to do a different kind of
Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away

cotton niggers, sand niggers, rice niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478451)

kill all niggers

Re:cotton niggers, sand niggers, rice niggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29481793)

The prison niggers resemble that remark and want to instead come to a peaceiful resitution. We would prefer to rape some slashdot nerds in the asshole while they play their wow of warcraft. Big Tyrone hasn't taken a slashdot nerd in 3 days, da last bein' Abreu in Mexico. Man was he a spicy motherfucker. We took him and his beaner wife for 60 hours straight. Dun worry we bought them tacos an' shit. Too bad tyrone had to kick in his teeth to get a better blo' job but thats how tha prison niggers work. To bad you be a anonymus coward cause i wood say call us at 212-534-4785. We'll come by yo place as an' be sure to bring yo tears.

- The Prison Niggers

Re:Lets just... (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478171)

Lets just abolish copyright and eliminate this problem altogether.

Re:Lets just... (-1, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478241)

Yup, abolishing copyright would certainly eliminate the problem. While we're at it, let's abolish children so that paedophiles don't have anyone to abuse.

Re:Lets just... (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478307)

And whilst we're making sensible linkages (when you think about it, actual existing people really equivalent to arbitrary legally constructed restrictions on free speech) like that I think that standardised egg sizes is the solution to the problem.

Just think of the pineapples.

Re:Lets just... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479213)

Let me guess, not an artist, writer, or musician, are you?

Re:Lets just... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479239)

Why should you have the right to use my programs for free?

Re:Lets just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479523)

Because I can do something good with them, and it doesn't deprive you of them.

Re:Lets just... (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479709)

Uh, if you can just take them and sell them as your own, as many would do, what reason would the guy have to make the music in the first place? Sure, there's the love of music, but some people (and I'm not saying this includes you), have to put food on the table.

Re:Lets just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479949)

...maybe they need, uhh, a job like the rest of us have to have. J.K. Rollin-in-the-dough is a goddamn billionaire; she's not merely "putting food on the table". There is a problem there and if you can't see it, maybe you're not paying close enough attention.

Re:Lets just... (1)

xilmaril (573709) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480537)

Yeah, JK is rollin in the dough. she's also the most popular author on the planet, for about 8 years straight, and basically introduced half this generation to reading as a pleasure activity. She might not deserve as much as she got (about $200 million last year), but she still deserves a big stinking load of money.

There's plenty of fat which ought to be cut, the copyright system is broken horribly, I agree with the rest of slashdot on that. But JK Rowling is the shit, don't pretend otherwise.

Re:Lets just... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481687)

I doubt, she would have written another book, if she couldn't make a living from the first.
There is a problem but the solution is not a complete abolishment of copyright.

Re:Lets just... (0, Troll)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481729)

Quite frankly I could have been without the Harry Potter series, thankyouverymuch. They're a load of hogwarts, and I don't understand the fixation on this universe by anyone between 5 and 85.

Having said that, J.K. Rowling is also the Metallica of the publishing world. Got a bunch of money from her fans, then insults them.

That's what a basic income is for... (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480203)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income [wikipedia.org]

Or just rethink "work" in general:
    http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org]

Also:
    "Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain"
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html [gnu.org]

Regarding: "what reason would the guy have to make the music in the first place? Sure, there's the love of music, but some people ... have to put food on the table."

Re:That's what a basic income is for... (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480275)

... do you live on planet Earth with humans? Humans... you know those creatures, right?

Re:That's what a basic income is for... (1)

sharkbiter (266775) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480543)

Ah sweet sweet welfare! Where the poorest and laziest of humanity can drive Cadillacs and dine on steak whereas everybody else is sweating there collective lives away, barely making ends meet, working for the "man".

Re:Lets just... (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480177)

I don't want to use your programs. I know who you work for. You can keep 'em.

Re:Lets just... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480371)

And who do you think I work for?

Re:Lets just... (1, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480985)

Let's just say that I don't run Windows for personal use even in a VM. It's just got nothing I need in it. And with very rare exceptions I don't buy software even for Linux. Sometime I do it just to encourage the vendor - RedHat, WordPerfect, X-Plane, Unreal Tournament 2003, World of Warcraft are I think the only ones (WOW under wine). In each case I tried the stuff for a few days and binned it.

I don't steal the stuff - it's just been many years since there wasn't a free and open solution for something I wanted to do with a PC. In Linux the office packages are free. The 3d modeller is free. The photo editors are free. The video editors, mail clients, mail servers, web servers, scripting languages, programming editors, version control, iSCSI SAN solution, PC Imaging solution, management infrastructure, GIS, CRM, CMS - they're all free. There's even free antivirus (what for, I don't know), and free Linux Genuine Advantage [linuxgenui...antage.org] for recent emigrees who need it for nostalgia. Any tool I need is a few clicks away, and the trouble isn't in getting stuff that's freely given, it's choosing the right tool from the diverse selection offered. In almost every case the stuff is at a level commercial software might come to in a few years (Inkscape?). In some few cases there are outstanding commercial apps that are more feature rich, but they've evolved so far beyond my needs that they're difficult to learn and use and I'm better off with something simple that just does the job I want do without getting in my way.

That Windows doesn't have anything for me should be enough, but there's more... I have rather peculiar computing needs. I try a lot of platforms and I like my desktop image to stay fairly stable. In the past I've take a system image of this dual Xeon workstation and put it on by bl460c and my Atom demo board and my Via Mini-ITX board and a couple laptops too. Next month I might want to put it on the AMD quad core I'm buying. With linux I can do that as a practical matter, and it's fair game for licensing as well. With Windows that's a both a no-go and a no-no.

Given your comments here - which seem informed, educated and well though out, but with a strong pro-windows and anti mac & linux bias, with a specialization in 3d graphics rendering perhaps - I'm unlikely to be interested in your software. You can keep your precious bits. I'm fine, thanks.

Why I want copyright abolished has nothing to do with your precious bits any more than it does Michael Jackson or Inglourious Basterds. It has to do with Jazz and Rock and Roll, 1984 and Farenheit 451. It has to do with the social contract of copyright - you get protection for a short time, in exchange for which you are encouraged to create - but the works after a time pass into the culture as all intellectual endeavors must if we are to have the progress which is copyright's purpose . Your works, creative and inventive as they might be, were not built in a vacuum. You stood on the shoulders of giants that went before you. To make copyright eternal - either for code or for artists is to deprive my children not just of the privilege of extending your work, but even to stand where you stood when you did your work so they can make their own contributions to the pool of knowledge. It is to steal from them of their very culture. It's wrong and evil.

Copyright as it is is broken. It should be abolished.

Re:Lets just... (2, Interesting)

cyberthanasis12 (926691) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481179)

Why should you have the right to use my programs for free?

Normally you would have a point. But:
Why do I have to pay TV contribution when I don't have a working TV?
Why do I have to pay compensation for local copyright holders' when I buy a photocopier? I use it explicitly for my job (replication of technical studies done by me).
My cousin has a traditional morning cafe. Why did he have to pay compensation for the local RIAA? He did not have a radio in his cafe until recently.
There is a, state owned, special newspaper which publishes all the new laws that are made by the parliament. We do I have to pay for it (much more than a few euros which is the printing cost)? Do they have the right to copyright, when they are paid by my tax to do what they do (law making)?

There is a tendency to outlaw P2P software because it can be abused. If this sounds rational to anyone, then, by the same rationale, the right to copyright should be outlawed because it is very often abused.

Re:Lets just... (3, Insightful)

BudAaron (1231468) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478601)

This whole objection thing pi$$es me off! I have about 20 old books that I wrote years ago. This deal is worth anywhere from $ 1200 to $ 2000 that I could sure use but now everyone is weighing in to prevent that. I WANT my books included!

Re:Lets just... (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482207)

Nothing is stopping you from offering to license your books to Google (or anyone else) outside of this deal, or even releasing them under a license that permits redistribution by anyone for a fixed fee. The problem with the deal is that it gives Google the right to distribute a large number of works but doesn't provide any means for other people to acquire the same rights short of committing wholesale copyright infringement, being sued, and hoping for the same settlement.

Oh, and $2000 is a bit low. If Google has already distributed your book then you might be better off opting out of the class-action suit; the statutory fines for wilful infringement start at $7500 and go all the way up to $150K per work.

Re:Lets just... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479379)

You are actually right. Let's decide that only the copyright holders are allowed to read the books, and we're done. That's pretty much what they're aiming at for music, and books are sure to follow the same path.

What will it mean for public domain books? Well... no copyright holders means that those books will be removed from the market altogether. That way, the situation is really clear cut.

Worst summary ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478069)

I'll be the first to admit I haven't kept up with any of this business, but reading the summary gave me absolutely no idea what any of the articles are about.

Re:Worst summary ever (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478093)

Summary: OMG searchable books! Think of the copyright holders!

Re:Worst summary ever (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478203)

Summary: OMG searchable books! Think of the copyright holders!

So you think it's OK for Google to co-opt my rights as an author to control my work - for profit - without either my permission or compensation? What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

Re:Worst summary ever (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478293)

Well, that depends. How long have you been dead and your work out of print?

Re:Worst summary ever (3, Interesting)

thoughtfulbloke (1091595) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478537)

In the case of authors I know, they are neither dead nor are there works out of print. But as their works were in print outside of the U.S. (though orderable online, that is how the works got into the libraries to be scanned), the Google settlement treated them as out of print, so Google was going to treat their books as orphaned works. I can understand the enthusiasm inside the U.S. for the deal (we can take everything published elsewhere in the world and take control of it), but the DOJ has to respect the copyright of other countries, as per the Berne convention. I wouldn't be surprised if a final result is based off the Google Partners program, which is the existing Google book search system where Google actually asks the authors permission. Asking people's permission solves all kinds of problems, and isn't normally considered evil. While it would still leave the genuinely orphaned works a problem, that is a problem created by stupid copyright extensions, and is ultimately solvable only by copyright reform.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478317)

So you think it's OK for Google to co-opt my rights as an author to control my work - for profit - without either my permission or compensation?

So you think it's OK for you to maintain control of your out-of-print and otherwise unavailable work ad-infinitum?

What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

Money. Because you're no longer making any off of the out-of-print books that the Google book deal covers.

Re:Worst summary ever (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478465)

So you think it's OK for you to maintain control of your out-of-print and otherwise unavailable work ad-infinitum?

Yes. It's mine, I made it. Why should I *not* have a say over work that *I* created?

Re:Worst summary ever (5, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478563)

Because it's simple:

Copyright law is an agreement between "the people" (aka the government) and you. The first part of the agreement is that you enjoy protection and exclusive rights to copy and distribute. The second part of the agreement, that copyright holders often forget about, ignore or otherwise disregard, is that in exchange for said protection, the works would be released into the public domain upon expiry of the term of protection.

Here's the problem. The agreement is now lasting longer than the media it is distributed upon. This makes the works for which the people offered you copyright protection, unavailable to the people by the time the agreement expires thereby depriving the people of their public domain works and in fact the cultural and historical value of the works.

By having it available in digital archives, there is an increased chance that the works will still be available whenever the term of the copyright protection agreement has ended.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

minio (1640735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478685)

Because you sold that book to me. It is mine now. How dare you to command me what I can do with book I bought? Wouldn't you like to tell me what i am allowed to do with my car? or camera? or refrigerator?

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

gnupun (752725) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479955)

The law dares to command you to not abuse the book. If the book costs $200,000 to $1 million to publish (adding up author royalties, and other publishing and marketing costs), the $20 pittance you paid does not give you the right to reproduce and sell it or give it away for free.

Re:Worst summary ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479063)

You should not have any say over the work you created if you are dead or unreachable or unable/unwilling to publish anymore copies

Re:Worst summary ever (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479347)

Doesn't the public hold the rights to the underlying language?

What if we just rescind your license to the words?

Oh, and the society you got your ideas and education from would like their cultural memes back as well.

You didn't create your work out of a void. Without the supporting culture, you would be little more than a quick witted animal. Certainly, with no one educating you, you would not have produced anything. Where is your payment back to the thousands of people who influenced you?

The very culture that produced you granted you a reasonable amount of time to control your cultural contribution. They did this to encourage you to contribute back to that culture. Unless you have a cure for cancer, face it, your contribution likely amounts to very little. The culture can probably do without it.

Copyright is not some sort of natural or God-given right. It;'s a right granted by "the people" for *their* immediate benefit. Not yours. "The people" want to encourage people to share. The operative work: "SHARE". This is how a culture progresses.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479745)

The contract is: you make it public, eventually it will be public domain.

The founding fathers give you a limited time to control it, and the moment you created it, you accepted the contract. If you don't want people copying it, keep it locked up. Otherwise, it will eventually be public domain and you get no say in the matter. Don't like it? Move to another country.

Also, in case you want to whine some more, it was originally ~20 years. So you're getting more than was intended already.

Besides, the real problem here is when someone moves on and doesn't care what happens to it, or just dies without cleaning up all of their business. The author would have to explicitly terminate the copyright, but an abandoned/orphan work just sits around for an entire lifetime after the author dies.

There is no one to ask, no one to lift the copyright, no one to pay, no one to buy it from. It's stuck, because the copyright system is not opt-in, it's required and once you stop caring about your work it doesn't magically get freed.

So, you write something and no one buys it, or people stop buying it. It's making you no money, you forget you even created it. It's not in your will, your heirs have no idea it's yours. You die. Now someone reads your obituary and looks into your stuff. Fascinating, where can I buy this work? You can't, it's not in print. Heirs? They know nothing about it, or aren't in the business, couldn't care less, never return phone calls, whatever. If you are against Google on this one, you're saying it shouldn't even be in search results. No one can find it in the back of a library and scan it, to make it available and searchable.

I can't type in a quote that I remember reading when I was a child, and find that book, because you were selfish enough to die and not leave instructions on its care.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480163)

The contract is: you make it public, eventually it will be public domain. The founding fathers give you a limited time to control it, and the moment you created it, you accepted the contract. If you don't want people copying it, keep it locked up. Otherwise, it will eventually be public domain and you get no say in the matter. Don't like it? Move to another country.

The Google Agreement also covers books where Google can't seem to find the copyright holder. That Google can't find them doesn't mean that the holder's rights disappear. This is all just a big land grab by Google, and you know perfectly well that if it had been Microsoft, the cries here would be deafening.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481887)

As long as Google makes a good faith effort to ascertain the owners of any copyright interest in its works, I have no problem with it opening the barn door to readers.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478345)

What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

Ego? Contribution to humanity? Bragging rights? The sales of books caused by Googles advertisement of them? It's not as if human creativity suddenly popped into existence when copyright laws started.

On the other hand, this settlement seems pretty deeply wrong. It's pretty clear that the authors understood one form of the copyright law when they wrote their books. A change should involve serious debate and democratic processes. On the other hand, nobody but a big corporation could have pushed something like this. Try just declaring that your little volunteer organisation has the right to share books online; I think you'll find yourself declared "pirates" PDQ.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478751)

You dismissed his argument then supported it. Please think before posting. (how many hands have you got ?)
If google have online publishing rights, what happened to your rights as the author ? Or the rest of us as members of the public domain ? Shouldn't these rights be the property of the state, i.e. the US, not a corporation ?

Maybe I'm misled, and it is perfectly legal for me to publish out of print books once this thing is settled, but I have a sneaking suspicion that only google have the rights now.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478375)

If money is your only motivation for writing books, don't.

If you can't write a book in the age of the internet purely for the joy that other people might read and appreciate it, or use a searchable database of books to market yours, go get a real job. I cannot help you.

Re:Worst summary ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478411)

If money is your only motivation for writing books, don't.

If you can't write a book in the age of the internet purely for the joy that other people might read and appreciate it, or use a searchable database of books to market yours, go get a real job. I cannot help you.

Wow, I hope that you dont ever intend to make a living writing software.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478471)

I already am. I'm not responsible for marketing at work, and my fun projects are Open Source.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

psycho12345 (1134609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479067)

Last time I checked, most software written is never sold, it's developed in-house as a custom solution. Thus copyright has almost no bearing on it, more likely would fall under trade secrets. See recent case of Goldman-Sachs coder getting arrested by FBI for example.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Torinir (870836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478515)

Agreed in part.

I've been doing some writing myself, and it's purely for the enjoyment of the writing itself.

I'll not claim to be a great writer by any stretch, but it's relaxing, and a good way to pass the time when gaming just doesn't cut it.

Some writers do, however, make it a full time job. They have to if they want to meet the demand for their works, or to meet a publishing obligation.

Now, all things considered, I still think the suit against Google is not good. If they're working with out of print and PD works, then I say more power to them.

For out of print works, telling them to "Suck it up, sweetcheeks" isn't going to help you sell your book, and will probably hurt sales of future works. Fighting your fans doesn't work, just ask Metallica.

As for works in the public domain, there's no copyright issues there, so why the hostility toward making them available online?

Just my random 2 cents worth here. Change available at the counter.

Re:Worst summary ever (0, Flamebait)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478821)

If google are going to assume rights over my work, without paying me for it, then I will not write. Why should I work for free ? Do you really think I have greater marketing power than google ?

And no, this is not piracy come home to roost. I don't care if individuals take and read my work without paying. I seriously object to a massive corporation taking my work and making money from it, without giving me my dues. Google are legally monetising piracy here. If you can't see the difference, well, sucks to be you.

I have a sad hope that google might actually forward royalties based on page impressions to the authors, even though they don't have to. Show some appreciation. But I'm pissing in the wind I guess.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Shamenaught (1341295) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478417)

Erm... Isn't part of the deal to set-up the Book Rights Registry, which pays authors when their books are viewed online? If you do get royalties then I don't see how express permission is necessary. Otherwise, how is what they're doing any worse than what a library does?

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478637)

Yes,

Searching books is useful.

You should not have strict control over who sees your work if you publish it.

Searching books costs you nothing (even in opportunity cost)

each copyright holder implementing their own search is useless (the sum is more than the parts).

The only authors I can see concerned are either plagiarists, embarrassed by their work, or control freaks.

Unless your argument is that your profit scheme for your books was to license them for use in a gigantic book search database I don't see how this impacts motivation at all.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480947)

What then is my motivation to produce for distribution future works?

If you're worth a damn as a writer, you don't have to ask that question.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478263)

That hasn't kept anyone from posting. The articles don't go into detail what exactly the deal is, either.

Under the deal - the product of a legal suit - Google would establish a $125m (£77m) fund to compensate those whose works it published online.

It would establish a Book Rights Registry so that authors whose work it digitised were paid when their material was viewed online.

There already exists a open source download tool [codeplex.com] with which you can fetch 95% -- as much as Google offers/digitized -- of any book, so the fear is understandable.

I guess flatrate for authors or making it a just a preview to find out if this is the right book might be options that the authors will agree on.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482223)

I have a book whose copyright is registered in the USA, and I object to this deal. Not so much because people can download my book illegally - google for the title and the first hit is a site where you can do that - but because it gives Google an unfair competitive advantage that they obtained by breaking the law. I would have no objections if the settlement provided nondiscriminatory licensing, but Google wilfully violated copyright law and now gets to benefit from a monopoly on distributing a large number of works, and that seems wrong. If there is a consensus that these works should be made available[1], then they should be made available to everyone under the same terms. They should not only be made available to the company that tried distributing them illegally.

Really, though, this shouldn't be something that the judiciary decides. The legislature should be addressing copyright reform (and I don't mean the DMCA), restoring the balance between the authors' rights and the public's rights.

[1] I happen to believe that, but I don't get to make laws in the USA.

Only a good thing if (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478115)

This is only a good thing if it leads to a better arrangement. The google book deal is not ideal, but at least it gets the books out there. If as a result of this deal being struck down we have copyright reform (not likely, since at the moment people dying of lack of health care is a significantly bigger issue), then it is good. If as a result of this deal being struck down, a better deal is negotiated with Google (which is possible), then it will still not be ideal. If as a result of this deal being struck down, nothing ends up happening, which is possible, it would be worse for the world.

IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478155)

MADONNA IS THE BEST! [madonna.com]
madonnanaked.jpg [google.com]

I made it through the wilderness Somehow I made it through Didn't know how lost I was Until I found you

I was beat incomplete I'd been had, I was sad and blue But you made me feel Yeah, you made me feel Shiny and new Like a virgin

Erotica, romance [repeat] My name is Dita I'll be your mistress tonight I'd like to put you in a trance

If I take you from behind
Push myself into your mind
When you least expect it
Will you try and reject it
If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
Will you let yourself go wild
Let my mouth go where it wants to

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Once you put your hand in the flame
You can never be the same
There's a certain satisfaction
In a little bit of pain
I can see you understand
I can tell that you're the same
If you're afraid, well rise above
I only hurt the ones I love

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Erotica, romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

I don't think you know what pain is
I don't think you've gone that way
I could bring you so much pleasure
I'll come to you when you say
I know you want me
I'm not gonna hurt you
I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
Put your hands all over my body
All over me, all over me

Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I like to do a different kind of
Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away

WE LOVE MADONNA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478229)

WE LOVE MADONNA

Re:Only a good thing if (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478183)

What would a better deal look like in your opinion?

Re:Only a good thing if (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478197)

A mechanism for individual authors to register and get paid directly, not for the money to go to a bunch of lawyers who have declared themselves to be working on behalf of those authors.

Re:Only a good thing if (2, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478243)

In my opinion? The optimal solution would be to reduce copyright to a reasonable number of years, and increase fair use protections.

However, that is probably not what you were asking. In my opinion, the worst part of the deal is that it's exclusive to Google, and that third parties cannot get into it. This makes Google kind of the digital gateway for a lot of content. And I like Google, but at one time I liked HP, too. Organizations change over time, and it can be dangerous to make one group the digital gateway.

The best way to change it, in my opinion, would be to make the same deal available for anyone; create a mechanism whereby anyone can enter into this agreement with the publishing companies, including you. I don't think everyone would be in favor of this mechanism, some authors might oppose it, for example, but I think it would be a fair arrangement and get rid of some of the worst consequences of copyright.

Re:Only a good thing if (-1, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478347)

not likely, since at the moment people dying of lack of health care is a significantly bigger issue

In all the media coverage of the health care issue, I've yet to hear of a single bonafide case of a person in the USA dying because he/she was refused medical treatment by a hospital due to inability to pay. It just doesn't work that way. All of the big fuckin' deal about health care is because people who don't have insurance would prefer not to go bankrupt in the event of a sudden catastrophic medical expense. There's nothing "dying" right now that universal health care would save, except for a few credit scores. Don't get me wrong, bankruptcy is no fun for anyone, but please stop pretending like people are dying in the streets because the federal government has not yet dominated the health care business. Really, it'd be much easier to take the proponents of government or government-funded health care seriously if they would quit being so melodramatic.

Re:Only a good thing if (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478613)

People who die because of lack of healthcare don't die because they can't get treatment at the moment of the heart attack, it's because they A) don't have the preventative care leading up to the heart attack, and B) don't have the option to go for more expensive treatments. You're not going to get on a heart transplant waiting list if you can't afford it.

Re:Only a good thing if (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480725)

I've yet to hear of a single bonafide case of a person in the USA dying because he/she was refused medical treatment...

Crystal Lee Sutton

Re:Only a good thing if (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481875)

old friend of mine has recently lost most of her sight , she can't use her PC any more because of it.
Her husband told me there is an operation which would restore her sight if she is operated on within the next three weeks, (about two weeks now it was about a week ago he told me). trouble is they don't have insurance, its not counted as a medical emergency and if medicaid will cover it , it normally takes 3 months or so to get the go ahead by which time it will be too late.

so yes she isn't dying because of a lack of medical care but blind instead.

As a European who gets the medical care I need when I need it regardless of my ability to pay, that is shocking.
About her only chance now is if there is someone reading this, willing to pay for her surgery, I'd be more than willing to help this happen but somehow i doubt it will.

wth (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478141)

Is it any of the Doj'S business?! WHY ARE THEY RECOMMEDING SHIT. FUCK YOU! HAIL GOOGLE. cacacacacacaccacaccapsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

We love Madonna! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478177)

MADONNA IS THE BEST!!!

I made it through the wilderness Somehow I made it through Didn't know how lost I was Until I found you

I was beat incomplete I'd been had, I was sad and blue But you made me feel Yeah, you made me feel Shiny and new Like a virgin

Erotica, romance [repeat] My name is Dita I'll be your mistress tonight I'd like to put you in a trance

If I take you from behind
Push myself into your mind
When you least expect it
Will you try and reject it
If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
Will you let yourself go wild
Let my mouth go where it wants to

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Once you put your hand in the flame
You can never be the same
There's a certain satisfaction
In a little bit of pain
I can see you understand
I can tell that you're the same
If you're afraid, well rise above
I only hurt the ones I love

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I'll give you love, I'll hit you like a truck
I'll give you love, I'll teach you how to ...

I'd like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Erotica, romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

I don't think you know what pain is
I don't think you've gone that way
I could bring you so much pleasure
I'll come to you when you say
I know you want me
I'm not gonna hurt you
I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
Put your hands all over my body
All over me, all over me

Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I like to do a different kind of
Erotica, (give it up, give it up) romance
I'd like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away

Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (4, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478185)

If the settlement was "any other company may also have the same rights under the same terms", it would be a VERY good deal.

But with the exclusivity, it is very bad. Without the exclusivity, someone else could take the time to do the scanning, and the sales. EG, Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, or even a new startup.

But with the exclusivity, you give Google a monopoly over out-of-print books.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478453)

If you are so woried about not making any money from your out-of-print books, maybe you should consider printing them again?

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (2, Insightful)

gilroy (155262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478617)

It's not just about making money. (I know -- the horror!) It's also about control and access. Why should any one company, even Google, get sole and exclusive rights to works in the public domain?

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (4, Informative)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478719)

It's only "exclusive" in the sense that google is the defendant. Any other company is quite free to go through the whole process again ie scan, get sued & make their own settlement. Anyway as I recall google is making these books available to other companies.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480067)

Google is optionally making their scans available to at least one other companies. Some of them are reputed to be of very poor quality, but nobody else is allowed to make them. Sometimes because of this court decision, and other times because of the exclusive contracts that Google made with the various libraries that contained copies of the out-of-print works. (And sometimes, I guess, both.)

I've not been well pleased by the way Google has been courting exclusive control.

P.S.: The company that I'm aware of is in the business of printing books on request. But you don't seem to be able to order them over the web, you seem to need to go to a location where one of their book printing machines is installed. I'm not certain that this is true, perhaps things are still being set up. But I'd have been happier if they'd made the deal with Lulu or some other company that did printing to order, and took orders on-line.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480933)

The Internet Archive, who has done a lot more copyright ignoring than Google, tried to join the case and the plaintiffs turned them down...

You seem to be under the impression that this is The authors guild vs Google; In reality this is The Authors Guild and Google vs all authors, their heirs, and the public at large. This stylized abuse of a class action, having a strawman sue you so you can settle, is an unprecedented legal coup. If the practice is allowed to stand large corporations will have a blank check to rewrite any defaults established by the law.

Even the Justice Department sees this, so I hope it's not too hard for the /. crowd to grok.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481897)

Unfortunately you are not correct in this case because it was a class action suit.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (1, Flamebait)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478645)

Well spotted, and not only do you do that, you also make google the rights holder with the govt. being tied by contract. Let's let google handle the economy shall we ? Anything else we can put in the hands of profit driven private enterprise ? speaking as a UK resident, we gave gas, electricity and water over to private enterprise and they are all, without exception, owned by foreign powers and are much more expensive. Even though the public purse had paid dearly to develop the infrastructure. Go you liberals.
I fully support forcible renationalisation, with no recompense, because they have stolen the profits from organisations I was a shareholder of, which were sold out from under me, and the service has got worse ! Where has MY investment gone ? I didn't play the stock market, I invested in powerlines, water mains, gas pipelines and oil rigs. Some stupid bitch took the quick profit and now I'M paying for it. Thanks a lot. Unless I'm mistaken, there are 60 million of us and less than 1000 oligarchs. FUCK THEM !

And do you know how they slipped that past us ? They said that we would have regulators in place to make sure these private companies acted in our best interests. And who are the regulators ? People who kiss corporate ass and get appointed chief of unelected QUANGOs. Here's 100 grand a year to be in charge. You don't have to attend, we'll take care of it.

Burn the fuckers down !

this may seem like a rant, but google are getting a long way on goodwill. Sure they promise not to be evil, but we trusted the govt. not to be evil, and they work for us ! Now we are expected to voluntarily give power to a private corporation, who can only legally have their shareholders interests at heart. say goodbye to restricted copyright terms, fair use, freedom of information. These fuckers will own it all. You will be working a good proportion of your life just to pay google for access to your own data. Mark my words.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479315)

[...] google are getting a long way on goodwill. Sure they promise not to be evil [...]

I'm currently reading Confucious' works (thank you, Project Gutenberg), and in "The Sayings of Confucious" book 2 appears the quote, "Think no evil."

I think Google is secretly a communist organization. :)

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (1)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481335)

Google doesn't get exclusive rights. Read section 2.4 [thepublicindex.org] of the settlement agreement:

Non-Exclusivity of Authorizations. The authorizations granted to Google in this Settlement Agreement are non-exclusive only, and nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as limiting any Rightsholder's right to authorize, through the Registry or otherwise, any Person, including direct competitors of Google, to use his, her or its Books or Inserts in any way, including ways identical to those provided for under this Settlement Agreement.

Competitors would have to make their own deal with the rightholders - so, they wouldn't necessarily get the same terms - but that's normal business practice. You gotta negotiate your own contract, not piggyback on a competitor's.

Re:Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482235)

It is not standard business practice for a company that breaks the law to get preferential terms. Well, maybe it is, but if so that highlights a fairly serious flaw in the system.

Re: Exclusivity is the root of all evil in this.. (2, Informative)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481381)

But with the exclusivity, you give Google a monopoly over out-of-print books.

We're talking about works that the publishers had decided to let die. The copyrights are still in force, but there are not enough sales to justify printing another copy. As a result, they are not currently available at any price.

The damage to both the consumers and authors took place when the books were taken off the market. As long as they are both out of print and still protected by copyright, without an agreement such as this, we would be forced to wait 100 years or more before the works to fall into public domain and be available again.

Google may get a monopoly on them, but the bottom line is that the authors will start getting paid again while they are still alive, something which no one else was apparently offering to do. And the copyright owners can let anyone collectively manage their individual monopolies (copyrights) in any way they see fit.

Just because the agreement with Google didn't say that "any other company may also have the same rights under the same terms" does not constitute exclusivity. It would have to say that someone like Amazon (or your other examples) could not negotiate a similar deal. Exclusivity cannot be implied from what the agreement does not say.

Since they got on it first, I wouldn't think it out of line if Google did receive exclusivity for a certain number of years before the publishers opened it up to competition. This would let some sort of standard be worked out before people like Microsoft get in and start trying to bastardize it.

Overall, this is a good deal for consumers (who get access to "lost" works) and authors (the intended beneficiaries of copyright law). The DOJ is against it because it's filled with RIAA lawyers and the concept of paying the authors is foreign to them.

Screw the DoJ (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478193)

In its present form it would, it said, give Google sole authority for books whose copyright holder could not be found

In other words, they're terrified of the prospect that Google is extending the doctrine of squatters' rights to intellectual property.

Re:Screw the DoJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480977)

It's hard to call this squatters rights when Google is the only authorized squatter.

The Modern Narrative (2, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478337)

There must always be some large, slow-moving body (like a Mammoth, but preferably evil like a corporation or government) which We The People assault to prove our virtue if not virility.

Yesterday, Microsoft and George W. Bush; today, Google and Nancy Pelosi. So it goes.

i just got off the toilet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478403)

i shit out an obama.

plop!

Put in the work so everyone else can profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478427)

Where in the agreement are other groups prevented from establishing similar agreements? If Amazon, or Microsoft want to spend the time and money to develop the technology and scan millions of books, and make similar deals with publishers, I don't see why they couldn't. They don't seriously think they should get to profit from all the work Google has put into this, do they?

Google has even offered other groups that choice, for a fee no doubt, but they _should_ be compensated if the other company doesn't have to scan a million books to offer them.

Re:Put in the work so everyone else can profit? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479325)

They can make deals with publishers, that is not a problem.

The problem is the case of "orphaned" (I'm not sure how strictly they are defining orphaned but other posts here imply it's not particularly strict) works, some body has through a class action sued Google on behalf of them. In a class action settlement the lawyers who brought the case essentially get to negotiate on behalf of the class and are trying to use this power to grant Google a settlement that lets them reproduce orphaned works.

The problem is that without a proper judgement on this lawsuit anyone else who wants to enter the market is in a bind. They could go down the same route Google has gone and hope for a friendly plaintiff but there is no guarantee that a friendly plaintiff will get there before some group who plans to see the case through to the end. If the new scanner than loses that case then it would likely set a precedent and Google really would be left with a monopoly on orphaned works.

Aren't courts independents? (1)

rastos1 (601318) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478439)

US DOJ recommending to a New York court

Isn't the judiciary branch supposed to be independent of executive?

Re:Aren't courts independents? (3, Informative)

burner (8666) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478555)

That's why it's a recommendation.

Re:Aren't courts independents? (1)

geonik (1003109) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478969)

I am baffled! In most of Europe, it would be inconceivable for the executive branch (DoJ) to step into the proceedings of a court this way. The judiciary branch is indepedent of the whims of other branches - at least in theory - and such a recommendation would be met with outcry from just about everyone.

Re:Aren't courts independents? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479181)

They're not "stepping in", they're making a position statement on the matter. It's quite common and, on the whole, useful, because the judiciary is not generally an expert on an arbitrary matter.

Re:Aren't courts independents? (1)

geonik (1003109) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479227)

Courts can request help from any expert they deem useful. Higher court instances are also available when a court is not qualified enough.

The DoJ stating it's position will probably influence court ruling one way or another, so it is really "stepping in" in my vocabulary.

DOJ?? (2, Insightful)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478463)

Is this the same DOJ that has been packed with "ex" Microsoft lawyers? The same Microsoft that's run by some Mussolini-lookalike who's supposed to have said, "I'm gonna fucking kill Google!"

Re:DOJ?? (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480115)

That doesn't mean that *all* of their suggestions are bad. I distrust monopolies wherever they appear.

Re:DOJ?? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480151)

"Is this the same DOJ that has been packed with "ex" Microsoft lawyers?"

Perhaps they just jumped ship to be on the winning team (i.e. the DOJ won, MS lost). DOJ lawyers moving to MS would be the suspicious scenario, not the other way around.

Re:DOJ?? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480309)

Is this the same DOJ that has been packed with "ex" Microsoft lawyers?

You have to understand that lawyers are mercenary. They push the views of who ever is paying for their $3000 suits. That these guys once worked for Microsoft really doesn't say much, they work for the DoJ now so there's no telling who they are looking out for, but it isn't necessarily Microsoft.

Who has been negative? (1)

Helldesk Hound (981604) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478549)

> The Google book deal has received considerable attention but
> for the most part it has been negative.

Surely most of the general public has viewed this Google project as a positive thing. Only large multinational corporations such as the large publishing houses, the RIAA [sic], Sony, and Microsoft (with their copyright and DRM interests) are the ones squeeling about Google making a fair-use amount of a book available for a reader to peruse.

Lets face it, MP3s make it easy for listeners to decide in a fair-use way if an album is worth buying (much like walking into a shop and asking to listen to the album). Fair-use viewing of a book is much the same as standing in the store and flipping through the book.

Re:Who has been negative? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29478951)

I think it's the exclusivity that bothers me. I don't particularly trust Google any more than Amazon and anyone else. Beyond that, I question the legitimacy of Google and a group that alleges to represent all authors cutting a deal. How is Google, at the end of the day, any more trustworthy a gatekeeper than Amazon, Microsoft or anyone else?

And I know a number of academics and authors have already called the deal into question as well, so its hardly just big multinationals.

Re:Who has been negative? (1)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479249)

But what's stopping other companies from making the same deal? Someone like Google, who wants to and seems to have the muscle to guard (or at least classify?) all digital information, made the deal first is not completely surprising.

Re:Who has been negative? (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480401)

What is stopping other companies is that the current deal gives Google exclusive rights. What the objectors want is a non-exclusive arrangment.

Re:Who has been negative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29481229)

There is a difference between exclusive rights and the only one to have those rights.

The former implies that noone else may have the rights.
The latter implies that noone else YET has the rights.

Re:Who has been negative? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480239)

"Surely most of the general public has viewed this Google project as a positive thing."

I disagree (and stop calling me shirley)

Literate people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479047)

Oh my, we can't have just anybody reading printed manuscript, think of the trouble it could cause. THEY have to pay for it, that will put a limit on the political uprising this could bring about, can't have them reading "Animal Farm" or other such nonsense., make them read one of GW's drivel.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...