Skip to main content

googlibrary

as an aspiring (soon to be published!) writer myself, i am really flummoxed by the flap over google's plan to scan books and make them available for free.

yesterday, the american association of publishers officially filed a lawsuit against google to stop it from making books available for free. making books available for free is an admirable goal, because everyone should read, but not everyone can afford to buy a lot of books. it also helps authors rather than hurts them, because it allows books to be seen by a wider audience.

this is one of these cases where people seem to get in an incredible uproar over something because there's technology involved and for no other reason.

for all those of you who might be tempted to say that the publishers taking google to court are motivated by trying to protect the rights of the authors whose works they distribute, let me ask you this: how would you feel if they started trying to shut down libraries? aren't they doing the same thing?

here's a wonderful letter from author meghann marco, who wants her book published through google, but can't get her publisher to cooperate.

Comments

The main problem as I see it is copyrights. After all, why buy the book when you can just go online and read it? I mean, I would certainly like to be paid if I'm publishing, but letting Google just come in and giving it away to everybody is not a happy thought for me... and they didnt want to ask permission, so thats a bit of a problem, as far as copyrights are concerned...
flora_mundi said…
good point, but once again, i return to the example of libraries. the existence of libraries does not prevent me from buying books, even though i could easily read them for free. i don't necessarily buy into the argument that people will refuse to buy a finished product if they can get the content for nothing.

i download music as well, but that still doesn't stop me from buying it. if i download and don't buy it, it generally means that a) i can't find it or b) i didn't like it enough to buy it to begin with. either way, the decision to download music doesn't have any bearing on where i put my money.

that said, there are a lot of people who would like to "scam" people who put work into things like books. the question is how big a proportion of the population are they and how do we deal with them?

as long as you're here, why not read more?

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: hot stuff, comin' through

i don't even know what to say about the weather. the end of september saw temperatures at a scalding 36c/ 97f outside. this is especially annoying because we've had a moderate summer. most days it rained a little in the morning, the temperatures didn't creep into the 30s too often and there wasn't the normal stretch of a few weeks when it felt like we were living on the sun. now, we've receded into more normal fall weather, although it's still on the warm side for mid-october. that climate change thing is a bitch.

trying to think of something positive in the situation, it does put me in a perfect frame of mind to write about urban decay's naked heat palette. it's the latest in what appears to be an endless series of warm neutral and red eyeshadow palettes that have followed in the footsteps of anastasia's modern renaissance. [which i ultimately decided i didn't need after doing a thorough search of my considerable stash.] i do think that it'…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…