Google to launch platform for selling books online

[nathreee]

Full article is here.

"Although the scanning program has faced complaints from authors and publishers over copyright, Google Editions will cover only books submitted and approved by the copyright holders."

Although I posted a rather optimistic view on Fub's journal the other day, this news makes me a little anxious. The complaints from authors

Comments

[sneeuw_chan]

Personally, I think the whole notion of copyright was a big mistake from the get-go, has grown into a monstrosity from there on, and is now seriously interfering with the creativity of millions of people. And now most people have this silly idea in their heads that something incorporeal, even a mere idea, can belong to someone.

[nathreee]

Interesting... Are you trying to say that my story is not mine? That when people read my stories and they think "wow, this is nice, where did it come from?" my name should not be there?

People like to get some credit for the beautiful things they make. And they should have the right to decide what happens to the things they created, and to get some of the money, if not most of the money, that people pay to see/read/experience that creation. That's what copyright should have been, my right to decide who gets to copy what I make and how much compensation I get for that.

I agree that the copyright laws are unwieldly monstrosities and I understand that no one knows what to do with them anymore. But you see that just abolishing them would lead to all kinds of problems too.

[sneeuw_chan]

If people were not richly compensated for their artistic work, then only those who have a true passion for writing would have continued to work on their art.

In other words: most of that commercial crap that is now littering the bookstores, television and radio would be gone, and a handful of truly artistic people would be writing great stuff. And besides that, most people would be singing and storytelling themselves.

To put it short: people would be writing out of passion, and not out of greed.

So yes, I still think that copyright is a mistake. (And I also think that you should consider the possibility that somebody who does not agree with you has actually thought through their position, instead of trying to patronize them.)

I pay for the work a bike repairman does because he actually does work for me. He repairs my bike. Had I done it myself it would have taken me time and effort (probably more because he knows his job).

Perhaps you should read up on the history of copyright law.

[nathreee]

How would I make the time to write a true masterpiece if I didn't get any money for my work? Someone's gotta pay the bills my dear. Time is money in this society, and changing this society is not easy or quick.

[sneeuw_chan]

Well, had there never been copyright, I guess that good writers would be sponsored by some rich person. Same way it worked in the middle ages and old times.

But I do agree that the notion of copyright has been so deeply embedded in our culture that it cannot be removed. At least not without a lot of trouble. But then, society as it is today is hardly ideal, is it ?

As someone famously said: Democracy is a very bad way to run a country. Unfortunately, it's the best thing we have. (I can't remember offhand who said that though.)

[miellynn]

That would work really badly, because then rich people get a say in what is good and what isn't good enough to get sponsored. People who cannot afford to sponsor art get no say in what is available to read...
Not good.

[sneeuw_chan]

People who cannot afford to sponsor art don't get a say in the current business model either. It's the big companies who decide who gets to be heard.

A lot worse.

[nathreee]

Actually, it's the public. The big companies have a say, they can invest money in marketing and all that, but it's the public that decides what is ok, and what is a bestseller. Democracy.

[sneeuw_chan]

I disagree.

First of all, the public can only base their choices on what they see from the marketing. They don't get to see everything that a company could publish, they only get to decide if that what *is* published is good or not.

Second, marketing actually has quite a big influence on what the public thinks. Same as propaganda. Humans are a race evolved with cattle instinct, and so most feel good when they follow the masses.

Third, for a big company to invest their money in some writer, they need to be reasonably sure beforehand that it will be a success. It is not in their interest to take chances, except if the potential reward were very big.

PS: I already mentioned what I think of democracy.

[nathreee]

A lot of publishers thought Harry Potter would not sell. J.K. Rowling was turned down lots of times before she found a publusher that was willing to take on Harry Potter. The Publisher didn't make Harry Potter so popular. The public did.

[sneeuw_chan]

Everybody is entitled to publish. And with the current rise of e-books, everybody is *able* to publish. It should not be expensive to publish a book any more (or a movie, or a piece of music

[nathreee]

A publisher does a lot more than just printing words into paper, my dear. My publisher does marketing, he organises events to promote my book and network with other people in the business, I couldn't possibly do those things alone.

You are allowed to tell a story you heard from someone else, as long as you don't take the credit for or sell it. The new system is growing and that growth cannot be stopped, I think the new system will win. The big companies are waving their wads in desperation, but they know it won't work for long.

[sneeuw_chan]

Well, some of those things that your publisher does are things that only exist because books are currently published by those very publishers. It's partly a self-sustaining system.

Something that just came to me about how writers used to pay for themselves in the old days: They had to write stories or songs for people that paid them. Indeed, and if you think about it, that's basically what just about everybody else does for their money, too.

I get paid to write the software my employer wants. In my spare time, I sometimes write software under a free license, that anybody can use. This free software was one of the reasons I got hired.