Comments on: Google Book Settlement Revised – some say yes, some say no http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/google-book-settlement-revised-some-say-yes-some-say-no/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:05:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Michael Pastore http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/google-book-settlement-revised-some-say-yes-some-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1149188 Michael Pastore Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:41:55 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/?p=32159#comment-1149188 Google has thrived for two main reasons: first, they have seen the future and innovated; and second, they have given the world many useful products. Thus, Google is perceived as good, or at least "not evil" -- a rare -- perhaps impossible -- feat, for a large corporation in these times. Whether this revised settlement is fair or not fair, it has harmed the world's perception of Google. It's not too late to bring other groups into the process, such as the Open Book Alliance, and then re-revise the Google Book Settlement into a final form that restores our faith in Google's generosity and public service. Michael Pastore 50 Benefits of Ebooks Google has thrived for two main reasons: first, they have seen the future and innovated; and second, they have given the world many useful products. Thus, Google is perceived as good, or at least “not evil” — a rare — perhaps impossible — feat, for a large corporation in these times.

Whether this revised settlement is fair or not fair, it has harmed the world’s perception of Google. It’s not too late to bring other groups into the process, such as the Open Book Alliance, and then re-revise the Google Book Settlement into a final form that restores our faith in Google’s generosity and public service.

Michael Pastore
50 Benefits of Ebooks

]]> By: Mike Perry http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/google-book-settlement-revised-some-say-yes-some-say-no/comment-page-1/#comment-1149173 Mike Perry Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:32:43 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/?p=32159#comment-1149173 I agree. Unless the court system buys Google's clever scheme to set opponents up to lack standing ("Don't like it, just opt out."), this dispute will be on appeal for several years. This is a good illustration of 'Haste makes waste." I feel like a broken record saying this again, but the only sensible answer is a revision of Berne to take into account all the developments since it was last revised in 1979. The negotiating process would better serve the interest of all parties than these secret negotiations between private parties. And the result, coming with the long-established prestige of Berne, is much more likely to be accepted worldwide that something coming out of an obscure Manhattan courtroom. Besides, I've read Berne and can make sense of almost all of it. I'm not sure even the lawyers involve fully understand the full meaning and implications of these two settlement drafts. I agree. Unless the court system buys Google’s clever scheme to set opponents up to lack standing (“Don’t like it, just opt out.”), this dispute will be on appeal for several years. This is a good illustration of ‘Haste makes waste.”

I feel like a broken record saying this again, but the only sensible answer is a revision of Berne to take into account all the developments since it was last revised in 1979. The negotiating process would better serve the interest of all parties than these secret negotiations between private parties. And the result, coming with the long-established prestige of Berne, is much more likely to be accepted worldwide that something coming out of an obscure Manhattan courtroom.

Besides, I’ve read Berne and can make sense of almost all of it. I’m not sure even the lawyers involve fully understand the full meaning and implications of these two settlement drafts.

]]>