I really hope someone (Wired?) makes this available for download like they did with “Who Owns Culture?”. It would have been so neat to see the debate as it took place, though.

I would like to ask for the availability of this debate for on-demand playing. Would that be possible?

I heard great arguments on both sides, though, personally, I am rooting for the ample availability of this new indexing capability and most certainly liked best the interventions coming from the right side of the table. But clearly very important issues are being intensely discussed here.

It would be enlightening to have a transcript of the debate, so that posterity could rely on the arguments and questions raised at this early stage of the discussion. Would that be possible?

although it may cause me to rage a bit — oh well a nice glass of wine pre-listening may help out

moose from cda

Because it’s flat out progress.
The thesis of copyright law is to maximize access to materials and create a mechanism to spawn new works. There is no deficit of new works. It’s the access that needs to be improved. Google Print gives exposure to independent writers and artists and improves access to the public of the entire nation. The pennies google gets for positioning a prospective buyer directly in front of an independent author’s work is better then any normed publisher will do. The notion that the pennies impact the authors is rediculous. You could run around town trying to get people to look at your book and buy it, perhaps pay for an ad. Then someone walks up to your door and says ‘this guy read a paragraph of your book and is considering buying it. I don’t mind bringing him because he also looked at my neighbers car and my neighbor gave me a nickel’ Are you going to start up saying how violated you are? How you had no right to read a paragraph to the guy? You could say it’s different because doing the equivlant online is requires much less effort and the nickel profit is highly repeatable. I’d answer: Exactly. Do you want to live in a cave?

“in short, google intends to derive economic benefit from the content of copyrighted books…“

Yes.

“…without the obligation to share this economic benefit with the creator of the content.“

Of course. Since there is no reason for an obligation to exist then this is as it should be.

“this stinks.“

Interesting opinion. Can you explain it?

“the promised benefit to the authors – that more books would be sold – is completely irrelevant to google.“

Of course. Should it be relevant to Google?

“the sad fact that civil liberties groups are ready to give away the rights of individuals to giant corporations in the name of freedom is a particular irony.“

This is interesting. I too, am very wary of corporate interests. However, I don’t think that, in this case, this is something to be afraid of in the immediate moment. However, I do see a future of electronic books with individual rights to read being compromised by the perverse endorsement of technological “protection” measures (i.e. trusted computing/drm). And unfortunately, because Google’s motto of “Don’t Be Evil” is utterly meaningless and romantic, Google will endorse and promote whatever is in Google’s best interest. In this case, I worry. But we have not yet reached that stage. However, this potential future problem is not reason enough to claim that what Google is doing now is harmful, unlawful, or that they have an “obligation” to share profit. As I said before, Google’s immediate business plan is not in direct competition with the existing publishers/authors.

I wish people would just be honest. The fact is, Google is doing nothing wrong. However, because Google is a multi-billion dollar corporate giant, it may well be worthwhile to gather a bunch of “lawyers” in an attempt to extort money. However, in order to win such a case, those pursuing such litigatin can’t just be upfront and honest – they will have to create specters – ghost-like “reasons” as to why they should cash in. And they have to act like they believe in these reasons – at least until the case is over.

I’d rather see the court not award cash to anyone, but severly restrict Google’s rights over the database they create. Say – “no, you don’t have to pay anyone to do this. Go ahead, create it, use it, but you must be forced to free that copy (and all future copies) to any institution that wishes to use the database for the same purpose.” That is, the database effectively becomes a part of the commons. Restrict its commerciality use so publishers can still obtain the monopoly rights to print/sell books, and everyone wins.