Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo support the Internet Archive against Google.
64 replies, posted
[highlight][u]HEY DUMBSHITS, THE INTERNET ARCHIVE IS FREE. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONEY AND ALL TO DO WITH GOOGLE'S GROWING MONOPOLY ON THE INTERNET. JESUS CHRIST CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT FUCKING READ[/u][/highlight]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8200624.stm[/url]
[quote]
Three technology heavyweights are joining a coalition to fight Google's attempt to create what could be the world's largest virtual library.
Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo will sign up to the Open Book Alliance being spearheaded by the Internet Archive.
They oppose a legal settlement that could make Google the main source for many online works.
"Google is trying to monopolise the library system," the Internet Archive's founder Brewster Kahle told BBC News.
"If this deal goes ahead, they're making a real shot at being 'the' library and the only library."
Back in 2008, the search giant reached an agreement with publishers and authors to settle two lawsuits that charged the company with copyright infringement for the unauthorised scanning of books.
In that settlement, Google agreed to pay $125m (£76m) to create a Book Rights Registry, where authors and publishers could register works and receive compensation. Authors and publishers would get 70% from the sale of these books with Google keeping the remaining 30%.
Google would also be given the right to digitise orphan works. These are works whose rights-holders are unknown, and are believed to make up an estimated 50-70% of books published after 1923.
Comments on the deal have to be lodged by 4 September. In early October, a judge in the Southern district of New York will consider whether or not to approve the class-action suit.
In a separate development, the US Department of Justice is conducting an anti-trust investigation into the impact of the agreement.
Critics have claimed the settlement will transform the future of the book industry and of public access to the cultural heritage of mankind embodied in books.
The Internet Archive scans around 1000 books a day at 10 cents a page
"The techniques we have built up since the enlightenment of having open access, public support for libraries, lots of different organisational structures, lots of distributed ownership of books that can be exchanged, resold and repackaged in different ways - all of that is being thrown out in this particular approach," warned Mr Kahle.
The non-profit Internet Archive has long been a vocal opponent of this agreement. It is also in the business of scanning books and has digitised over half a million of them to date. All are available free.
As the 4 September deadline approaches, the number of groups and organisations voicing their opposition is growing. But with three of the world's best-known technology companies joining the chorus, the Open Book Alliance can expect to make headlines the world over.
Microsoft and Yahoo have confirmed their participation. However, Amazon has so far declined to comment because the alliance has not yet been formally launched.
"All of us in the coalition are oriented to foster a vision for a more competitive marketplace for books," said Peter Brantley, the Internet Archive's director of access.
"We feel that if approved, Google would earn a court-sanctioned monopoly and the exploitation of a comprehensive collection of books from the 20th Century."
Much of the focus of the proposed settlement has been on anti-trust and anti-competitive concerns, but just as many are worried about privacy.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Northern California and the Consumer Watchdog advocacy group wrote to Google to ask the company to "assure Americans that Google will maintain the security and freedom that library patrons have long had: to read and learn about anything... without worrying that someone is looking over their shoulder or could retrace their steps".
"We simply don't like the settlement in its current form," said Consumer Watchdog advocate John Simpson.
"There are serious questions about privacy and Google seems to be taking the view 'let us put this in place and we will do the right thing down the road'. That is simply not good enough."
The American Libraries Association (ALA) agrees.
"We do think the product in essence is good but the proposed settlement asks us to trust Google and the other parties a little too much," the ALA's associate director Corey Williams told BBC News.
"When it comes to privacy, the agreement is silent on the issue and with regard to what Google intends to do with the data it collects. It's a great idea but it requires more trust than I think we feel comfortable being able to extend at this point," said Ms Williams.
In its defence, Google has argued that the deal brings great benefits to authors and will make millions of out-of-print books widely available online and in libraries.
In a statement, the company said: "The Google Books settlement is injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it's understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more competition."
The author said she is not surprised by the reaction to the settlment
Despite the increasing tide of criticism over the settlement, there are some who believe there is not that much to fear.
Michelle Richmond is the author of New York Times best seller The Year of Fog, which is also being turned into a movie starring Rachel Weiss.
"The thing I keep hearing from authors is 'I don't know what this settlement really means'. But this is the brave new world and we don't really know where it is going," Ms Richmond told BBC News
"Most authors work for so little and start from the point of we are doing this for the love it. But when there is this company that has nothing to do with the creation of the book or its publication, I think a lot of authors are concerned about this being a portal to greater access to their work without compensation for writers."
[/quote]
I guess Googlezon will never happen now.
The companies are NOT doing this for profit, the Internet Archive is FREE.
PS I hate Google.
That sucks, a cartel banding together to shut out legitimate business.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;16853664][url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8200624.stm[/url]
I guess Googlezon will never happen now.
PS I hate Google.[/QUOTE]
i think google will let us look in the archive for free while those other companies just want you to pay.
Well, Google's taking over the world.
I dunno if that's a good thing or not
Kill BigCorporation Inc. yada yada.
That said, I *do* think Google is attempting to do quite a bit, let's hope they don't fuck it up for all.
[QUOTE=arimi;16853692]i think google will let us look in the archive for free while those other companies just want you to pay.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.archive.org/index.php[/url]
No they don't.
[editline]10:37AM[/editline]
Also how do you change the title of your post.
Go Gooogle!
im supporting google
I dont use google I use Heapr Web search that was made by a facepuncher :350:
[QUOTE=Jojje;16853702]Well, Google's taking over the world.
I dunno if that's a good thing or not[/QUOTE]
Somehow a bad thing, because in the future you would go anywhere and you will see 'google' logo everywhere, even on damn bus stops or on 'branded animals', a company that monopolize certain aspects takes control over it and writes new rules which we must obey, who wants to listen to some company?
One example; Intel tried to monopolize the aspect of being the only one company to sell processor chips, until they got fined by the EU with huge bill for being not fair with their rival AMD.
Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo:
[quote]Bad Google! Things like that can't be free, we have to make large sums of money off of them for it to make any sense![/quote]
I'm still surprised Google is so fucking rich even though they don't sell anything
Google makes alot of it's money from the "Sponsored Ads" you see at the very top and at the side during searches.
Good, I don't trust Google. They're by far the world's largest buyer and stockpiler of personal and consumer information, they've bought entire companies just to get the data on their customers. At this point Google knows more about any given person's daily life than the government does, and private companies don't have to obey the fourth amendment.
If anyone is to monopolise anything, I want it to be Google. Google can know more private information about me than the government anyday :love:
I don't care if Google has seen me masturbating. I love them.
Didn't I make a thread about how Google knows loads of shit about me a while ago? I don't care really but it's like :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=Dr.C;16859506]I'm still surprised Google is so fucking rich even though they don't sell anything[/QUOTE]
Ads. And lots of it.
God damn it Google stop trying to be a business.
Google doesn't have a monopoly on the internet they have a monopoly on search engines.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;16853664][highlight][u]HEY DUMBSHITS, THE INTERNET ARCHIVE IS FREE. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONEY AND ALL TO DO WITH GOOGLE'S GROWING MONOPOLY ON THE INTERNET. JESUS CHRIST CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT FUCKING READ[/u][/highlight]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8200624.stm[/url]
I guess Googlezon will never happen now.
The companies are NOT doing this for profit, the Internet Archive is FREE.
PS I hate Google.[/QUOTE]
You watched that stupid video about "The History of Google", didn't you?
That video was the stupidest shit I've seen since loose change.
Microsoft? Attempting to stop a monopoly?
It's ironic that Google's motto is "Don't be evil".
Except for the part where it isn't.
[QUOTE=Doctor_Communism;16874964]It's ironic that Google's motto is "Don't be evil".[/QUOTE]
It isn't any more. It's been replaced by an evil scale, allowing for them to do some evil things for 'the greater good'.
Yes, you read that right.
[QUOTE=lum1naire;16859987]I don't care if Google has seen me masturbating. I love them.[/QUOTE]
besides, how else are we gonna find porn sites?
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;16875615]besides, how else are we gonna find porn sites?[/QUOTE]
Ask Jeeves?