Comments Are No Longer Being Accepted

Okay, I meant to write this post about the article in the New York Times Today on the Google Author Settlement . . . BUT, when I accessed that article tonight to read the comments, and post one of my own, I was rudely faced with this "COMMENTS ARE NO LONGER BEING ACCEPTED"

What???!!! The article was just posted today, and the 11 comments are mostly of the ilk "anything that makes access for the public for free, is okay by me".

Yeah, you say that now . . . but just wait until YOUR intellectual property has been stolen! You will change your tune REAL quick. It is always okay when you are stealing some one else's stuff, but never okay when you own is being lifted !!!

Jeez, just when I thought the New York Times was a good thing again, they pull this crap.

readers' comments
Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book LawsuitBack to Article »
By MIGUEL HELFT and MOTOKO RICH
A deal to let Google profit from digital books raises questions about fairness and privacy.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

11 Readers' CommentsAll Comments
Editors' Selections
Readers' Recommendations
Replies
Oldest Newest
1.JNagarya
Massachusetts
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amMost of the out-of-print books scanned by Google have entered the public domain. Does that mean that Google can, in addition to charging for access to them -- while putting a "generosity" face on it -- sue others who might take a copy and compete by selling it elsewhere?

If so, wouldn't that be tantamount to Google removing public domain materials -- materials owned by the public -- from the public domain by claiming a quasi-ownership/copyright, in order then to charge the public for access to its own property?

And isn't that the same scam with which we are faced with the Internet? The Internet was developed by taxpayer-funded research. That means it is the property of the public. But the taxpayer/public is charged a fee by one or another private corporations in order to access his/its own property. I think as example of online access to public libraries, which are funded largely or fully by the taxpayer: one must pay a private corporation for access to that public property.

Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 2.EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?) Narty
Boston
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amI often search high and low for out-of-print books. If Google makes it convenient for an ordinary user like me, I say 'go for it'. I am willing to pay for that service.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 3.C Arbuthnot
Shanghai
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amWhatever happened to "Don't be evil"?
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 4.drabauer
California
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmFor the life of me, I don't see the downside to this agreement. Google books have been an immeasurable boon to research, and will return orphan works to the public. I too am more than willing to pay. As to JNagara, why would Google charging access for public domain works be any different than Dover books? It's simply a different delivery system, not exclusive rights.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 5.EW
Boston
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmPublishers are just resisting Google because they are once again annoyed that they didn't think of this scheme first. Publishers (and the authors who are naive about the publishing process)need to stop fighting Google and get on board instead. If an agreement can be/has been made where publishers continue to receive money for some of what is on the web, then, ENOUGH already! And for the out of print books, yes most of them are probably in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that they are available on-line automatically. If Google doesn't put them on the web, someone else eventually will. In my opinion, why not let Google go forward--they know what they are doing--obviously.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 6.Tom
Pittsburgh
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmMr. Buckley's position makes no sense. I understand wanting to be fairly compensated for one's works, and all authors should. But objecting to a settlement just to be ornery is pedantic. One would assume he wrote his books so people could read them. The train is leaving the station bro... books are going digital. Some people still ride horses to work, but not too many.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 7.HJH
Boston
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmWhat happened to doing what is best for the people? Given broader access to out-of-print books will help students, researchers, scholars, and just us plain folk who like to be better informed. As long as Google does not have a monopoly and others can make similar agreements with publisher associations, making all older books available can only be beneficial.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 8.KF
New York, NY
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmLawrence Lessig on the settlement: http://www.benjaminjtaylor.com...

This presentation explains the terms of the settlement really well and poses the right questions. Even if (admittedly) he doesn't have all the right answers, his is the clearest and most thoughtful approach I have encountered on the topic.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 9.patientpatient
Colorado Springs
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmGoogle's proposal damages the effective systems in place to find, acquire and use out of print books. Book sellers, usually independent small businesspeople make a living from it. Online catalogs, such as WorldCat, provide a guide to library availability. The diversity of the system protects the books' availability. I don't want to have one for-pay source. It's too easy to shut down ideas.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 10.Kanga
Orlando
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmMaking out of print works accessible is a noble idea and will no doubt be useful for consumers and worth paying for; however, Cristopher Buckley's quote says it all. Check your wallet -- wise words to anyone who has written, or aspires to write.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 11.aalakos
a965912
August 19th, 2009
4:32 pmThis reaction reminds me of the mindlessness of the health care debate. All kind of interests fighting to keep the status quo in place. But at least in this case, technology will eventually prevail. Being ornery or uninformed won't work here.
I don't see how making all information (books, etc) available easily in digital format will be a bad think.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers