Will Others Now Line Up To Get Paid From Google?
from the bad-precedents dept
I know that many folks disagree with my view that Google's decision to settle with book authors and publishers was a huge long term strategic mistake, but it appears others are beginning to recognize the issues. Already, we've seen Harvard bail out on the deal, since it seems to work at cross purposes to Harvard's mission, but more importantly, others are realizing the implicit statement behind Google's caving: information is not free, and those who have information should line up to Google and demand to get paid. In fact, as found on Romenesko, some are wondering when newspaper and magazine execs will realize what the book scanning deal means, and start demanding the same sort of deal from Google. I would suggest it goes even further than that. If Google is setting up a pool to pay authors, and if that leads to them doing a similar thing for newspapers and magazines, why not other websites as well? Google has now set a precedent of being willing to pay in order to display works in its index, and that's going to backfire badly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: book scanning, free, information, paid, settlement
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dane-Geld
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stifle competition
If the premise that indexed or cached content is to be paid for what new search start up will be able to afford it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
I consede that you've (You = google in this case) built an infrastructure for reselling it so I don't probably deserve all of it, but if you're making money on my works, don't I deserve compensation?
And if I've got a really popular resource I'd think I'd be able to negotiate a bigger share since you're making more money - just my opinion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
Just because someone makes money off of something you did does *not* entitle you to payment. If its something thats innovative, doesn't hurt you or your sales (in fact, is almost guaranteed to HELP), and its a service you don't offer... why should you get paid? Does google pay websites to index them? Why is that any different? Its virtually the exact same service except it makes it easier for people to purchase from you.
You don't need to double dip here. You're already getting paid with free advertising and traffic... why do you need to get paid for someone to help you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
Should I pay you for that?
Do you charge marketing companies for using your work to promote you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
websites are different
Newspapers and books don't see the value from Google. Newspapers don't want to be online as it will lower their advertising value. Publishers want to sell books, and they've yet to realize how being in google can do that.
Websites will never demand payment from google as they greatly fear being removed from the index.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: websites are different
You should alert the Christian Science Monitor quick! If papers don't want to be online CSM is in the midst of a vast mistake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paying up is how it's done
YouTube, 2007, bears some passing similarity to Napster, 2001. Founded by a couple guys in a garage, rocketed to popular success, heavily capitalized by a deep-pocketed giant. Its business model? Turn popularity into dollars and offer a share to the rightsholders whose works they're using. This is an historically sound plan: cable operators got rich by retransmitting broadcasts without permission, and once they were commercial successes, they sat down to negotiate to pay for those copyrights (just as the record companies negotiated with composers after they'd gotten rich selling records bearing those compositions).
http://craphound.com/content/Cory_Doctorow_-_Content.html
even the most hardened pirates like myself realize that some sort of deal has to be reached so that we get unrestricted access to the media that we want while the industries involved get something to pay the rights holders.
i think the fundamental disagreement is at where the bidding starts. the consumers want the bidding to start at free (libre and gratis), and the industries want the bidding to start at the current price structure with a bunch of restrictions.
at some point this will result in some sort of compromise, the question is how much damage will these industries do to themselves and their consumers before an agreement is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm... I don't get it
No they haven't. They haven't done anything like that. Google only links to web sites and news sites; they don't publish copies and give them away. (Unless you count the cache, but Google has allowed sites to opt out of that for years.) What Google is doing with books (republishing them online without the copyright-holder's knowledge or permission) is fundamentally different and completely unrelated to what they do with websites (linking to them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm... I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm... I don't get it
Now if Google is agreeing that its book scanning project is wrong in principle, then by that same principle it's web scanning service is also wrong. Also, Google's web cache is currently opt-out, not opt-in. If the book scanning should be opt-in, then shouldn't the web scanning also opt-in? Copyright applies to the web as well as printed books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]