Microsoft, its new pet dog Yahoo, and Amazon have decided to join together in the soon to be formed Open Book Alliance. You might expect this to be a revolutionary new collaborative effort at delivering the written word in a way that makes
Google Books pale into insignificance, but you would, of course, be wrong. Far from trying to compete with Google, The OBA is set to act as the collective mouthpiece for all those opposed to Google's recent $125 million settlement deal with book publishers and authors. With the
US Department of Justice already investigating antitrust concerns relating to the case, the other big dogs just couldn't restrain themselves from coming together for a united whinge. Should the settlement be cleared, it will permit Google non-exclusive rights to orphan works (those without an established writer) and will give it a 30 per cent cut of books sold via Google Books, both things that authors have agreed to. So
what's there to moan about, fellas -- we all trust Google to do the right thing, right?
posted August 21st 2009 8:23AM
I'm really not getting this. Is Google standing up for the Author or the the OBA doing so? Confused... as has much of the day been...
Neither Google nor the OBA nor the publishers give a rat's ass about the authors. The ONLY reason this agreement with Google exists at all is that Google was sued after they tried to cut everyone except Google out of the loop regarding electronic scanning and publishing of books. If Google had what they originally wanted, ALL books would have been available for free. And, while I'm sure some dimwits would like to see that happen, that would effectively remove all incentive for writers to write. I don't doubt for a second that Google would still like to go back to their original plans.
Google -- you're becoming evil.
That's debatable.
Although if they were free it would motivate more people to read :D I would read a lot more if I didn't have to pay for the books... And no I can't use the library because our town stopped funding it and it had to close down... and the next closest one is 30 miles away :(
"I would read a lot more if I didn't have to pay..."
To be more precise, you would read a lot more old books if you didn't have to pay, as no one would write new books because they'd be too busy trying to make a living doing something that does pay.
sorry but mp3's are free and online, films are free to get online, and so are games and so are tv shows... be it illegal. but still it hasn't affected these marketplaces.
it simply means that people who wouldnt buy them could read them, or read the start and decent if to continue.
Firstly.... its less likely to affect books. how many ppl will want to read a book of 500pages from a monitor? ppl read in bed (kindles aint that big yet) most people will still want a hard copy. like people want cd's and films
Sounds like they are just being scared as hell to me....
agreed
i think microsoft really despises google. and nintendo. and apple.
....maybe.
Dont forget, Sony.
HooZonMicro?
mamahoo?
Micromazoo sounds better in my opinion.
MaMaHooHoo?
马马虎虎
Horse Horse Tiger Tiger, (in Chinese, means, Soso, Average, Meh)
Dare I say it, a huge compliment to MS and their cronies.
So Microsoft are afraid of Google pulling a Microsoft?
When have Microsoft ever "pulled a Microsoft"?
Ask any web developer
Well surely if anyone is capable of pulling a Microsoft it has got to be Microsoft.
What does pulling a microsoft even mean?
Doing anything necessary to lock people in to your products, often by anticompetitive business practices or breaking standards. Microsoft did it to OEMs by threatening to withdraw their licenses if they sold competing operating systems or software, they did it to internet users by breaking internet standards so sites were created for IE's borked view of the internet and wouldn't work in other browsers, and they do it with their many proprietary file formats and protocols.
It's basically gaining a monopoly by dirty business and anticompetitive business rather than by making really good products. I'm not saying Microsoft's in the wrong right now; I'm simply pointing out the humour in Microsoft complaining about anticompetitive business practices. The pot is calling the kettle black.
From what I've seen companies like Apple are much more in the practice of doing this sort of thing.
@fanman Name just ONE example where apple has locked you in to OS X, just one. And ipods 10 years ago dont count.
OSX is locked to apple hardware is it not?
'pulling a Microsoft' is smarter than just restricting people's choices; it's stopping people leaving by building a Berlin Wall out of broken standards and proprietary formats and protocols. Apple are fairly restrictive, but it's often easy to leave the Apple ecosystem if you so choose. The only time I've ever felt otherwise is when iTunes songs came wrapped with FairPlay, but that was standard practice at the time, and FairPlay was probably the most liberal DRM scheme.
Apple are sort of doing a Microsoft by locking the Pre out of iTunes, though. They're far more rotten than they used to be. Google don't really stop you leaving their services (they've reached their position by offering great services 'for free'), they just have a scary amount of data and controversial privacy policies.
To put it another way: living in Apple's world is like living in a police state. Living in Microsoft's world is like living in a prison.
So let me get this straight. You guys don't have a problem with Opera, Mozilla and Google trying to force the EU to dictate what MS can and cannot do with their OS but you do have a problem with companies standing up to Google's relentless drive to control everyone else's information?
The difference, as far as I can see, is that competitors are not disadvantaged by Google Books, as it isn't included on a computer when you buy it. Internet Explorer is.
Of course, Google Books is cool, whilst internet explorer isn't, so that also explains the Google Book love.
Google was given NON-exclusive rights to sell these books. They are simply looking for a revenue source that is not going to hurt anyone, but will benefit the public. I fail to see the problem here.
better colours then all three together ...but seriously...I would pay for lot of things coming from Google...
OPEN currently is a overused word to say anything.
In a fight between Google and Yahoo, I will root for Google every time. Everything you download from Yahoo comes as a crapware trojan. When my corporate AVG wanted to set Yahoo as my default search engine, surgeons had to reattach my blown out forehead. Google gives me stuff I can use for free with palatable ad support. (gmail, reader, google voice) WTF has Yahoo (or Microsof!?) done for me lately?
and obviously it's only google that has the little crapware toolbar that programs like to downlaod for you if you fail to READ and UNDERSTAND what you are doing when installing something.
Google Toolbar is never offered this way at all.......
Tool.
But where else are you going to get informative font page material like the piano playing cat or man who proposes via crop field?
Man that piano cat was such a letdown. I would have been more impressed by someone who could play the piano with their wang. In fact it would have been even better if it were Sean Connery playing the piano with his tool... and besting Elton John's talents in the process...
Hmmm... I smell an SNL skit from this line of thinking...
Sounds like the other big 3 are afraid of what Google might accomplish with it's books service. Might we see an Apple tablet in the near future supporting Google books?
The iPad??? I think not. Apple will sell books for the iPad through iTunes only, and it will not be able to get books from any other source. This is Apple we're talking about.
The ONLY thing apple does this with is iPhone apps which is good for the developers, just imagine how little anyone would be buying any apps if they had to hunt the internet for them *cough*WINMO*Cough*, but you dont care about facts only BS.
these alliances are really getting crazy, looks like no one knows for sure who is their rival..may be some venn diagrams would help..
Oh right, Microsoft as champion for open-anything.
Sounds like another ODF ~ OOXML struggle.
Warrrrrrrrrrrriorrss, come out and PLAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
I always knew the little penguin was down with the Wu...
Is there anything that prevents Amazon, Microsoft or Yahoo from making the smae deal and making their own service?
Unite the Clans!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sa_OQgWiPA
HATURRZZZZZZZZZZZ
It's much more complicated than that. Google isn't necessarily the good guy this time around.
The Internet Archive is being supported by Amazon, MS, Yahoo in their bid to keep book content open and free. They have scanned over 1.5 million books and all are available as free. They are concerned Google will get a monopoly over the delivery of all such book content (free or otherwise). The EFF and American Libraries Association are also concerned about Google's impending deal.
Google claims it's distribution rights will guarantee authors some profits from access fees. All the major publishers apparently have inked this deal with Google - we'll have to see what the legal ramifications are, as it's unclear.
Yeah, the settlement means that authors get 70% of the profit, which is much higher than the 5-15% average in the traditional bookseller's route.
And the settlement is NON-EXCLUSIVE, so it allows ANYONE to negotiate with authors or groups to get their books scanned.
In fact, the Authors Guild specifically stated that authors' rights would not be affected one way or another.
This whole hissy fit from Yahoo and Microsoft is a play to get at Google's already digitized library without having to spend their own time and money.
OBA's complaints don't make sense to me, though. If the agreement Google has obtained *is* non-exclusive, what's to stop others from setting up their own operation?
Perhaps the settlement should have expressly allowed others who set up book-scanning operations to participate in the same revenue-sharing structure, but that doesn't stop other book-digitizers from cutting their own deals. And surely the Google Books settlement would provide a valuable precedent for their deal-making?
As for authors, the question of "orphaned" books is a delicate one, but unless you're fine with no distribution of books whose owners can't be located, the settlement seems as good as any.
I've also heard that the deal is too US-centric, but the complaints run both ways. There are those who complain that the deal doesn't allow readers outside the US access to Google Books, because Google only gets to work with the US copyright. There are those who complain that Google is allowed to digitize books which are under non-US copyright.
So on one hand, Google should get more rights to sell internationally, while on the other hand they should restrict their activities?
OBA in general seems like a hodgepodge of often-contradictory complaints. The only way to unite them is to paint Google as the monopolistic villain, which everyone agrees is not beneficial... except Google isn't trying to establish a monopoly here, and it doesn't seem that a "natural monopoly" will spring up either.
Amazon and Microsoft are not trying to sabotage Google for philanthropic reasons.
The digital age will destroy certain publishers because lets face it, nobody needs a grant to write a mass market romance novel. Shit can be written for free, and consumed for nearly free. The only publishers this will truly effect are specialty ones or ones that produce traditionally expensive works. I think a great example is Mathematics textbooks. Why is a math book $100? The publishers claim it takes years to write and is expensive to publish, and often doesn't sell in great quantities... well, why not make a great math textbook, offer it for free and let any school use it via something like google books? Well for one, publishers try and destroy that at the school district level, by purposefully making schools buy packages so that not getting certain books that could be had for free has little financial benefit. This whole situation would go away if an author could just write something, and publish it via an itunes like app store, where there was a short approval process, just to make sure the book wasn't a copy of another work. Allow items to be reviewed and flagged but require real full names on every review so competitors and other authors can't try and bad review a better product out of competition like on amazon. It's silly, I really hope Google crushes all this bullshit, because that's what it is.
When will we stop associating free with good?
Is something wrong with you?
I think you're forgetting the fact that labor is hardly ever free. People work for hours spending time creating, editing, illustrating, outlining, and everything else associated with the contents of a book. I think they deserve compensation for their craft.
Also, Google isn't exactly as nice as they always appear. Google is more closer to Big Brother than the other companies in knowing and analyzing your data, which is used for Google's benefit more than the user.