This is a topic that John has dealt with on earlier occasions — here and here. The economic chickens are coming home to roost.
Publishers are starting to report an uptick in sales from Google Inc.’s online program that lets readers peek inside books, two years after the launch of its controversial plan to digitally scan everything in print.
Google has been enlisting publishers to voluntarily submit their books so that Web searchers can more easily find titles related to their interests, but some fear the project could lead to piracy or exploitation of their copyrighted content.
“Google Book Search has helped us turn searchers into consumers,” said Colleen Scollans, the director of online sales for Oxford University Press.
She declined to provide specific figures, but said that sales growth has been “significant”. Scollans estimated that 1 million customers have viewed 12,000 Oxford titles using the Google program.
Some of the same publishers participating in the program have [previously] united to file a lawsuit against Google alleging copyright violation over a separate plan by the Web search leader to digitize the world’s libraries.”
You’d think the beancounters over at the RIAA and MPAA would learn something from this experience. Or wouldn’t?
no surprises here. reflexively, to some businesses, control is actually more important than seeking new avenues of profit. someday this will be known as “the old model,” and its poster child will be the RIAA.
I am reminded of Apple’s crackdown on the term “podcast.” Gosh, would not want to perpetuate the myth that you need an iPod to listen to podcasts. What good could that possibly do Apple? Much more important to keep the clamps on a suffix.
Actually, the question raised by the article — and the OT question raised by Doug — both devolve to the predominance of lawyers. They run Congress for corporate wealth. They run corporate policy mostly to keep themselves employed.
The article raises the devolution of copyright into a cesspool of greed. Doug’s point reflects trademark policies in place for decades. There’s a well-known case in the Southwest where a BMW dealership did a play on words from the slogan for a hamburger/fast food chain — and received a cease-and-desist order against their billboards.
Dvorak’s original points are well-made in the linked posts. This Post delivers evidence of just how correct his analysis was — and is.
Google should just post copies of the entire book available for download. Publishers need to make digital delivery work for them. They shouldn’t be charging $25 for a book, adn should just charge $1 for a download instead.
Unfortunately for dissemination, copyright law does allow copyright holders to NOT sell/spread their work.
4, only if the work is never released in the first place. Once it is in the public though, it may be commented on and used under fair use doctrine. That does not give anyone else the right to pirate or give it away free.
#3
The average person who pays $1 for downloading a song doesn’t read unless it’s an interactive game overloaded with eye popping graphics to distract them from the fact that is an awful game.
It’s not piracy to give things away for free is it?
I have an advertising and marketing background and I would MOST CERTAINLY YES YES YES ABSOLUTELY YES let my book be in the program. It’s a fantastic marketing tool.
Publishers need to use their noodles! For comparison — would sales go up or down if bookstores were forced to keep their titles in locked glass cases so the shoppers only saw the cover? Down, of course!
Google seems to have done a good job addressing the main issue of piracy.
The only exception is, perhaps, reference books since frequent peeking may be enough to not buy the book.
#7 Google is (or will be) surounding this “free” stuff with paying adverts. The advertisers pay for the adverts with the money they get from you and me. There’s no such thing as a free lunch or a free book in this case.