Comments on: Google Books, and missing the opportunities you don’t see http://everybodyslibraries.com/2009/09/15/google-books-and-missing-the-opportunities-you-dont-see/ Libraries for everyone, by everyone, shared with everyone, about everything Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:11:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Andy http://everybodyslibraries.com/2009/09/15/google-books-and-missing-the-opportunities-you-dont-see/#comment-1829 Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:11:53 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.com/?p=873#comment-1829 Seeing as how this is going to court, and it’s upto our courts to interpret the laws and our constitution. It seems to me your comment never reflects this fact and therefore bringing the law into your comment fails to incorporate our system where it is inconvenient, making it off base, even if your conclusion is generally accepted on valid ethical or economic grounds.

Additionally, if this “loathsome” decision is upheld, all it takes is a congressional act to change the law, therefore congress still retains their right to set copyright law, further invalidating your conclusion.

One shouldn’t invoke the law and the system at one’s will in one moment and chose to ignore it (literally) the very next when it becomes inconvenient. It’s loathsome. It’s wrong.

Congress has continually abused their rights to assign copyright laws and various laws that the court protects under the interstate commerce clause. The court has continually rejected claims that try to prevent the infinite copyrights that congress currently permits through continual extensions. The most temporary of set backs in this one will not be the worst thing in the world.

]]> By: Brando http://everybodyslibraries.com/2009/09/15/google-books-and-missing-the-opportunities-you-dont-see/#comment-1826 Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:33:10 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.com/?p=873#comment-1826 Problems with the settlement, and they are big ones, include that there is no definition of “out of print.” It sets no period of time that a book must be out of print before Google can start selling it for whatever price it chooses. It gives Google the right – not the publisher, not the author, not any copyright holder, just Google – to determine whether a book is in print. It makes no provision for books that are printed only on demand, titles that are never “in print” in the classic sense of the term.

The Constitution gives Congress the right to set copyright law. This agreement, if executed and upheld, would give it to one judge. It is loathsome. It is wrong.

]]>