http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happened-to-google-books From the article: "Unfortunately, Google made the mistake it often makes, which is to assume that people will trust it just because it’s Google. For their part, authors and publishers, even if they did eventually settle, were difficult and conspiracy-minded, particularly when it came to weighing abstract and mainly worthless rights against the public’s interest in gaining access to obscure works." (emphasis mine) This whole thing seems to be showing authors to be petty and greedy when considering what has to be thought of as a grand vision of the future of words. It's true that I don't make my living from my writing (yet) but if/when I do, I hope I'm able to appreciate the scope of what Google is trying to do and cooperate to the extent that I can. My personal view has always been that a work's copyright should die with its creator. Ursula K. LeGuin is eighty-five, and the bulk of her work is behind her. Even if she hits the jackpot and lives to be one-hundred-and-five, would it kill her to risk twenty years of possible royalties on books written in the '60s and '70s in order to be a part of something this important?
Sorry, but I can't help but need to mention this at every opportunity: When everyone thought it was going to be Apple who won the bid as Keeper of the Keys of Knowledge, they lost their ever-loving shit, but when Google silently invaded their homes/lives/internet histories, they bent over and took all six inches of it, no lube.... Whatevz. Who decides where the line is between worth something and worthless? ------------------------------------------------------ My opinion on this is that it's easy to point at authors and publishers as the greedy scapegoats. Probably even purposeful and by design. I feel larger hands at work, behind the scenes. All this knowledge and information at a mere click of a button? What the internet was actually supposed to be? Books of questionable morals and content available in an instant to young minds? Don't people have more than enough information at their disposal to make them question our political/religious agendas? How can we possibly win the "ignorant vote" if there are no more ignorant? I mean, our efforts to turn the internet into nothing but porn and trashy gossip about vapid "celebrities" is barely working as it is! For a history lesson in how lateral issues, politics, and religion can affect the manifestation of a seemingly unrelated technology, research the history of the electric car. It's an eye-opener. </cynical rant>
If 'larger hands' are at work manipulating everything, there isn't anything I can do about it anyway, so I guess I'll assume everything is as it seems until it's proven otherwise. 'Books of questionable morals and content'? You mean like Huckleberry Finn, with all those awful n-words? 'available in an instant to young minds'? Oh, right. The censorship is always to protect the tiny tots. I honestly don't know how you got from the wonderful idea of making every book ever written available for free (in Google's original conception), to everyone, to questioning 'political/religious agendas'. It's exactly because so much of the Internet is porn and gossip (and even more, politics and religion) that I assumed most here would support Google's effort. I'll research the history lesson you assigned some other time.
That entire rant was sarcasm and an indictment of a culture wherein those in power have a vested interest in keeping The People ignorant. I was speaking through the pantomimed mouth of The Larger Hands. ETA: Except for the bit about Apple vs. Google. That bit I meant in a flat, direct fashion. Apple started gaining ground and people went apeshit. Google silently took over the internet and people said "Oh, wait, let me get my legs a little higher. Yes, that's better. Have at it."
According to the article, yes. And, yes, perhaps they were trying to bank on a "Star Trekian" delusion of human thought and behavior.
I believe there is a really simple solution. Everybody who wants to give away the fruits of their labor for free should do so. Everybody who doesn't shouldn't be forced or pressured to.
