• Blog Search
• Book Search
• Scholar
• Catalogs
• Code Search
• Directory
• Finance
• Images
• Local/Maps
• News
• Patent Search
• Product Search
• Video

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in a “Statement of Interest” filed with the federal court considering the proposed Google Book Search settlement, acknowledged the potential benefits from the settlement—including increased availability of books “effectively off limits to the public,” full-text search, and access for those with print disabilities—but said the “significant legal concerns” it raises require major changes.

The rest of the story…

Microsoft, Yahoo and others band against Google – using familar tactics.

By Jia Lynn Yang, writer

With its friendly, helpful image and total dominance in search, Google (GOOG) makes it all look so easy. Meanwhile its enemies are just sweating harder to take it down.

There are reports today  that Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO), Amazon (AMZN) and others are banding together to block a settlement Google made last fall with authors and publishers for its Book Search service—the same settlement that’s being scrutinized by the antitrust cops over at the Justice Department.

The Open Book Alliance, as the coalition is called, is simply the latest chapter in a war against Google that’s increasingly being fought in DC rather than California.

Witness what happened last fall when Google tried to seal a search advertising deal with Yahoo. For months, Microsoft campaigned mightily to block the deal by convincing the Senate Antitrust Committee to hold hearings and by enlisting the support of advertisers. In the end, the DOJ decided to file an antitrust case, and Google hastily pulled out of the deal.

And it’s not just Microsoft going toe to toe with Google in DC. Google’s widening reach has only lengthened its list of nemeses. Telco and cable companies don’t like Google’s support for net neutrality, a principle that broadly would prevent internet service providers from favoring certain web sites, no matter how much or what kind of data was being streamed. The telcos say that while they’re building out expensive broadband networks, Google gets a free ride.

Google also ran into opposition in DC recently when it tried to convince the Federal Communications Commission to allow unlicensed “white space” spectrum to be used for wireless broadband. The National Association of Broadcasters didn’t like that effort either. Google’s stance seems to be that its competitors are just fearful of fighting fair and square.

“The Google Books settlement is injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it’s understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more competition,” says Gabriel Stricker, Google spokesperson, in a statement. And it’s not just Google’s search dominance that will be hard for Microsoft et al to topple. The company also boasts the world’s top brand, according to the market research firm Millward Brown—-meaning it’s an uphill battle for Google’s enemies to put a dent in the company’s glowing, benevolent image.

That’s not stopping them from going for the jugular though. In Washington, the knives are out.

The Justice Department appears to be stepping up its antitrust probe of the Google’s settlement last year of a class-action lawsuit filed by groups representing authors and publishers, according to reports in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

The Justice Department has sent formal requests for information, called civil investigative demands, or CIDs, to publishers involved in the settlement, according to the reports. The increased scrutiny may signal Justice Department’s opposition to the settlement, which still requires court approval.

Under the proposed $125 million settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, announced in October, Google would have the right to show content from books online that are still in copyright but that are no longer in print. In addition, those copyright holders could be paid for online sales of their books.

Authors and publishers may opt out of the proposed settlement, but if they do nothing, they’re considered part of it. That includes authors who can’t be located.

Google has book-search agreements in place with numerous publishers, but the company hopes that the settlement will permit it to bring many more books to into its service. In a victory for settlement opponents, a judge gave authors four more months to decide whether to participate.

Google is digitizing the works from many major libraries, including the New York Public Library and the libraries at Stanford and Harvard universities, and is making those texts searchable on pages with advertisements. The Authors Guild, which represents more than 8,000 authors, sued Google in September 2005, alleging that the company’s digitizing initiative amounted to “massive” copyright infringement. Five large publishers filed a separate lawsuit as representatives of the Association of American Publishers.

Currently, users of Google Book Search are able to view snippets of books online. The settlement agreement would allow Google to make whole pages of copyright works available to online searchers.

Gegen die millionenfache Digitalisierung von Büchern durch den Internetgiganten Google und dessen sträfliche Ignoranz gegenüber den Rechteinhabern wenden sich jetzt verstärkt auch deutsche Politiker. Sie tun dies reichlich verspätet, dafür aber weniger halbherzig als noch vor einem Monat, als mehr als 1000 Autoren und Verleger sie mit dem “Heidelberger Appell” in die Pflicht nehmen wollten. Damals boten Bundesjustizministerin Brigitte Zypries (SPD) und Kulturstaatsminister Bernd Neumann (CDU) nur wolkige Solidaritätsphrasen auf, um die skandalöse geistige Enteignung durch die “Google-Buchsuche” denkbar dezent zu monieren.

Jetzt, endlich, scheinen erste pragmatische Schritte zur Unterstützung entrechteter Autoren in Sichtweite: Bernd Neumann fordert die Europäische Kommission auf, zeitnah zu prüfen, ob und wie die Europäische Union Einfluss auf den in den USA geschlossenen Google-Vergleich nehmen kann, der bislang nur eine sehr geringfügige Entschädigung enteigneter Autoren vorsieht. Auch Vizekanzler Frank Walter Steinmeier (SPD) spricht sich für eine rasche Intervention der EU-Kommission aus. Zugleich stellt er in Aussicht, die Bundesregierung werde deutsche Autoren in ihrem Widerstand gegen das so genannte Google Settlement unterstützen. Dies auch deshalb, weil der unrechtmäßige Bücherraubzug des kalifornischen Suchmaschinisten deutlich zu Lasten von europäischen Digitalisierungsprojekten wie Europeana und Libreka gehe.

Die Urheberrechtssachwalter Steinmeier, Neumann und Zypries werden sich schon darum am Erfolg ihrer Einsprüche und weitergeleiteten Appelle messen lassen müssen, weil diese erst so sträflich spät erfolgt sind: Nur weil die Einwendungsfrist für den Google-Buchsuche-Vergleich über den 5. Mai hinaus um 60 Tage verlängert worden ist, haben hiesige Rechteinhaber, als deren Wortführer sich die bisher gleichfalls eher passive Verwertungsgesellschaft (VG) Wort versteht, überhaupt noch die Möglichkeit, Widerspruch gegen den faulen Google-Kompromiss einzulegen.

Die Entrechteten sollten ihre Argumente mit Bedacht wägen und dennoch zügig auf den Weg bringen. Denn in dem anhängigen Verfahren geht es nicht bloß um die Frage, ob ein ohne Einwilligung des Autors digitalisiertes Buch dem vermögenden Internet-Raffke Google nun 60 oder 70 Dollar wert zu sein hat. Es geht vielmehr um die kulturell bedeutsame Frage, ob geistige Enteignung zur medialen Signatur, mithin zu einem Menetekel des 21. Jahrhunderts wird.

Quelle: .DieWelt

Image Source: flickr/Mark Knol

Last November, we reported that Google had agreed to a $125 million settlement of a copyright class action filed against it by the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild in response to its Google Book Search endeavor. The details of the settlement agreement are many, but, most importantly, the class settlement allowed Google to continue its process of digitizing books from university libraries into an electronic database. Access to this digitized library will not, in fact, be free, like its popular search engine or maps feature; instead, under the settlement agreement, Google will have the right to charge for subscriptions to entire library collections, or, alternatively, a fee for access to a single book with revenue to be shared by Google, authors, and publishers.

Very recently, however, there has been a fair amount of rumbling from a variety of different sources about the terms of the settlement. In recent weeks, the Justice Department has announced that it has opened an inquiry into possible antitrust violations of the settlement agreement, while its state AG counterparts have likewise followed suit. The always-pugnacious associations of libraries have even perked up and called on the district judge overseeing the fairness of the settlement to monitor the agreement going forward in order to ensure privacy protections, so that, for instance, what you happen to read online will not be stored in the vast expanse of cyberspace and become accessible (or open for resale) in the future. Finally, music publishers have finally caught on that the agreement itself might encompass some of their copyrighted material in the form of lyrics, and, possibly, sheet music, and have warned their members that their rights as songwriters may be implicated. Others wonder whether screenplays and television scripts fall in the settlement definition of “books” as well and anticipate an eventual reaction from the entertainment industry.

However, it’s worth noting that this rumbling may, in fact, be much ballyhoo about nothing. Although the district court did recently extend the deadline for absent class members to opt out of the deal for another four months, an “inquiry” by the Justice Department, concerns by various industry groups, or even objections by class members may not do much to scuttle the agreement. Under the rules of civil procedure as they relate to class action lawsuits, the district judge must approve the settlement agreement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” before it can be implemented. If class members object to the agreement, the district judge will certainly hear their individual objections, but Judge Denny Chin, the Southern District of New York judge in charge of the fairness hearing, has no power to amend the agreement; he can only give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down ruling. And, although some have advocated for the district court judge in any class action fairness hearing to take on a more active, fiduciary role in looking out for the rights of absent class members, what district court judges must do to assess how fair the agreement is remains unclear. However, the fact that the two parties agreed to a pretty paltry–at least by $22-billion-in-annual-revenue Google standards–$125 million sum for the agreement does not bode well for the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Finally, if absent class members did, indeed, decide to opt-out of the agreement, individual authors filing separate (and seriously less financially lucrative) claims against Google might have a real hard time finding a plaintiff’s lawyer to take their case.

Objectors to the settlement agreement do have the ability to appeal the district court’s ruling on fairness up to the court of appeals and so this litigation might drag on for a little while longer. But unless a motivated class member who truly wants to disrupt the entire agreement can come up with a reason why the settlement agreement is fundamentally unfair, then the Google Book Search endeavor will continue to move towards fruition. And, I’m sorry, “Google is evil and bent on world domination” doesn’t work.

– Stuart Burkhalter

Image Source

Cercando notizie sui motivi della proroga al 4 settembre annunciata dal New York Times sull’accordo autori-editori-Google sul progetto Book Search (su cui potete essere ulteriormente aggiornati via Strategie Evolutive), oltre a scoprire che anche l’autorità antitrust statunitense se ne sta interessando, mi sono trovata ad inorridire di fronte ad una notizie apparentemente “tecnica”.

Un articolo di PuntoInformatico ci rivela infatti che

il colosso del search ha brevettato un sistema, ideato da Francois-Marie Lefevere e Marin Saric, che renderà più veloce l’ingresso di nuovi titoli nell’archivio di Google Book Search…

Google dunque non vivisezionerà più i volumi, in nome della fruibilità sul Web. Infatti fino a poco tempo fa, per risolvere il problema della convessità delle pagine rilegate, a Mountain View erano soliti ghigliottinare romanzi, saggi e trattati riducendoli a semplici risme da mandare alla scansione. In molti casi il sacrificio di una copia ai fini della conservazione online non era giudicato un delitto ma il discorso cambiava, e di molto, quando si mandavano al macello libri rari.

La tristezza che ho provato nel leggere questa notizia è indescrivibile. Si può fare questo in nome della digitalizzazione?

Im “Handelsblatt” habe ich einen gut geschrieben Artikel von Jeff Segal gefunden. Es geht hauptsächlich um Google und Microsoft und wie diese ihre Dienstangebote immer weiter ausweiteten, und das Kerngeschäft, bei Google die Suchmaschine, bei Microsoft das Windows-Betriebssystem, vernachlässigten. Eine schöne Abendlektüre.

Microsoft und Google haben mehr gemeinsam als nur die Beherrschung ihrer jeweiligen Märkte. Beide Firmen verhalten sich im Grunde wie Fachidioten, die ihren ungeheuren Cash Flow in eine Reihe von abseitigen Projekten gesteckt haben, um für Diversifizierung zu sorgen. Weder das eine noch das andere Unternehmen war dabei sonderlich erfolgreich.

Aber da die Aktien beider Unternehmen im Verlauf des vergangenen Jahres kräftig an Wert verloren haben und nur wenige dieser nicht zum Kernbereich gehörenden Projekte Geld abwerfen, schwindet die Toleranz der Aktionäre, dass Gewinne hergenommen werden, um damit abseitige Wagnisse zu finanzieren. Die Investoren würden wahrscheinlich applaudieren, wenn sich Microsoft und Google von weiteren dieser unwesentlichen Tändeleien verabschiedeten.

Quelle: .Handelsblatt (Print-Version)

Eine Allianz aus deutschen Autoren, Verlagen und Verbänden möchte den Verlust von Urheber- und Bücherrechten an Google verhindern. Mehrere Verbände und die Verwertungsgesellschaft VG Wort wollen verhindern, dass Google, ohne rechtliche Grundlage und entsprechende Vergütung, Werke deutscher Autoren digitalisiert und über die Google-Büchersuche zugänglich macht. Eine Einigung mit amerikanschen Verlagen fand bereits statt, ebenso bei entsprechenden Aufrufen der Schriftwerke eine anteilige Rückvergütung, beziehungsweise eine Mitbeteiligung an Werbeeinnahmen durch die Google-Werbung.

Der Deutsche Kulturrat schreibt in der entsprechenden Pressemeldung zu dem Sachverhalt folgendes: “Das Unternehmen Google hat in den vergangenen vier Jahren sieben Millionen Bücher aus US-amerikanischen Bibliotheken digitalisiert. Google hat diese Digitalisierung vorgenommen, ohne zuvor die Rechte von den Urhebern bzw. Verlagen einzuholen. Zu den Büchern zählen auch deutschsprachige Werke. Google plant, die digitalisierten Bücher nun gegen Entgelt anzubieten. Google wird in den nächsten Tagen in Anzeigen in deutschsprachigen Zeitungen über sein weiteres Vorgehen informieren. Autoren und Verlage sollten darauf achten, dass sie ihre Rechte nicht verlieren.“

Olaf Zimmermann, Geschäftsführer des Deutschen Kulturrates, sagte, dass es ein Unding sei, dass Unternehmen wie Google über Jahre hinweg unter Missachtung der Urheber und Verlage sieben Millionen Bücher digitalisiert. So soll auch für das Internet gelten, dass ohne Zustimmung und ohne Entgelt für Urheber und Rechteinhaber eine Veröffentlichung nicht möglich sein sollte. Aus diesem Grunde sei es wichtig, dass Autoren und Verlage gemeinsam agieren und in der strategischen Allianz den Verlust ihrer Rechte an Google verhindern.

In den USA hätte es bereits einen ähnlichen Streit gegeben, der nach einer Zahlung von 125 Millionen Dollar, sowie der Beteiligung der Verlage an den Umsätzen von Google dazu führte, dass der Streit beigelegt wurde. Da auch deutsche Schriftwerke betroffen waren, forderte Google dazu auf, dass deutsche Autoren ihre Werke auch in den USA anmelden sollten.

Robert Staats von der VG Wort sagte, dass sie erreichen möchten, dass kein deutscher Autor und Verlag seine Rechte verliert. “Ein effizienter Schutz der Interessen von Urhebern und Verlagen ist in dieser Situation am besten durch ein gemeinsames Vorgehen aller Beteiligten zu erreichen.” Alexander Skipis vom Börsenverein des deutschen Buchhandels fügte hinzu: “In der Geschichte des Urheberrechts sind noch nie sieben Millionen Bücher ohne Genehmigung der Rechteinhaber von einem kommerziellen Unternehmen zur eigenen Nutzung vervielfältigt worden.

Wir müssen und werden dafür sorgen, dass es dabei in den USA nicht zu einer kalten Enteignung deutscher Rechteinhaber kommen wird.”

Quelle: .gulli:news

Using Google’s book search, you can search for a book, read details, and in many cases, read several pages of the book. This is a remarkable tool for those looking for hard to find titles and for just about any book lover. Until recently this book search was limited to books that are still published. However, what about books that are no longer published? These books may still be under copyright yet are no longer in print, making it difficult for the public to get their hands on them. Until now.

“Ever since Google began scanning printed books four years ago, scholars and others with specialized interests have been able to tap a trove of information that had been locked away on the dusty shelves of libraries and in antiquarian bookstores.”

This applies to currently in-print books. A settlement that took place in October, may breathe life back into many books that are no longer in-print. The settlement would allow for a greater collection of books to be searchable and read using Google’s book search- including many that are still under copyright. As well, this settlement would allow authors and publishers (as well as google) to make profit from digital versions of books:

“Revenue will be generated through advertising sales on pages where previews of scanned books appear, through subscriptions by libraries and others to a database of all the scanned books in Google’s collection, and through sales to consumers of digital access to copyrighted books. Google will take 37 percent of this revenue, leaving 63 percent for publishers and authors.”

How does all this connect to books that are no longer in print but are still under copyright? This settlement could allow out-of-print books to be born anew in digital format and at the same time allow authors to make money from titles that have been out-of-print for years. Currently, Google has scanned roughly 7 million books into digital format. Books that have been long out of reach (but not forgotten) may soon be available simply by doing a Google book search. Losing the traditional book format, these books will be available online for readers. This method may even help increase revenue due to the fact that the publishing cost will be eliminated. 

This all sounds great. Readers will be able to get their hands (or eyes) on out-of-print books: “ Google users will have an unprecedented ability to search (for free) and access (for a fee) books that formerly lived only in university libraries.” Authors and publishers will make a profit, and Google will continue to provide a wonderful service. Even the settlement itself seemed to allow a peaceful disagreement: 

“When the agreement was announced in October, all sides hailed it as a landmark settlement that permitted Google to proceed with its scanning project while protecting the rights and financial interests of authors and publishers. Both sides agreed to disagree on whether the book scanning itself violated authors’ and publishers’ copyrights.”

Some, librarians in particular, did express fears that as this service grows, Goggle may end up increasing subscription fees. Although there are other services available, none provide the assortment of books allowed by Google. Ever since Microsoft closed it’s doors on a similar book program, Google currently monopolizes the digital book search world.

Revenues generated from Google book search, may be small but are still noticeable.

“So far, publishers that have permitted Google to offer searchable digital versions of their new in-print books have seen a small payoff. Macmillan, the company that owns publishing houses including Farrar, Straus & Giroux and St. Martin’s Press and represents authors including Jonathan Franzen and Janet Evanovich, offers 11,000 titles for search on Google. In 2007, Macmillan estimated that Google helped sell about 16,400 copies.”

It might take a while before an author with an out-of-print book notices any sort of profit. Yet there is still another service that this settlement will allow. Maybe it’s not so much the monetary aspect that will make this service so remarkable, but the cultural impact it will have. As this new service continues and expands, hopefully many titles, especially out-of-print Spanish titles will become accessible to those seeking to open a book that no longer exists.

Magazines

Google Book search allows you to keyword search within books, and where content is freely available read online. Now they have added a number of magazines to the content you can read online for free.  Included is Popular Science which you can read all the way back to the first issues from 1870.  So far they haven’t released a comprehensive list of magazine added but for more information on searching and content  can be found here.

Google anoncas, ke ĝia servo Google Book Search nun serĉas ankaŭ arkivitajn revuojn, plenkolore, ĉiupaĝe, retumil-legeble! Inter aliaj titoloj troviĝas Popular Science, New York Magazine, aŭ eĉ malhelaĵojn kiel Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Rezultoj el magazinaj serĉoj aperas kune kun libraj serĉoj, sed se oni klakas sur Advanced Book Search, tie oni povas elekti “rezultoj nur el gazetoj”. Sed ni nur fieros kiam Kontakto aperu tie.

Good news for Indian book lovers. Oxyshopping.com is offering India’s largest online search engine for online books shopping

Delhi, November 17, 2008. Oxyshopping is now offers the most comprehensive search experience on Indian books on the Web. Oxyshopping’s books search engine can help you find new titles and authors based on your personal tastes, that too on best prices. Online book lovers can compare prices from more than 30 publishers and online stores spread across the country. The site has more than 2 million books spread in different categories.
Online shopper can search for books by searching different categories, by keyword, by book title, by authors and compare prices by just using the search box. The best thing of this book search engine is that it will be updated continuously. So, next time if you want to look for new books, you know where to log in.

Oxyshopping has saved your time by searching all Indian books catalog online, and providing you a information that offers the best prices in the market. If you want a book that you have searched from oxyshopping, you can buy it directly from the original publisher or seller. We are just here to provide one-stop place for Indian book search.

Oxyshopping is not book search engine site. Oxyshopping is a search engine where people can find different products like mobile phone, gadgets, home décor, corporate gifts, laptop, DVD’s, laptop, apparel, jewellery, footwear, game, toys, movies and music. The site has listing of more than three lakh products.

Oxyshopping expects to take advantage of the rapid growth of online shopping in India and overseas internet markets. According a JuxtConsult, India has over 49 million internet users. One in three online shopper buys online and 80 per cent of all regular online Indians shop online. They either search or buy online. 23% have actually bought online in last 6 months – 8 million active online buyers. In the growing web world, we expect to become your favourite site. We invite your comments how to enhance the site for a better user experience.

For more information about “http://www.oxyshopping.com”
Please email info (@) oxyshopping dot com

Harvard University will not take part in Googles in-copyright book-scanning project—even if Google’s recent $125 million settlement offer is approved by a U.S. District Court in New York.

The approved settlement would end a class-action lawsuit filed by the Authors Guild and book authors as well as a separate suit brought by five major publishers. The suits alleged that Google scanning copyrighted library books and publishing snippets in search results without permission of copyright holders was illegal.

Full Story Here

Google has recently signed an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, and plans to become the biggest distributor of online books and other documents. According to the Google Press Center, this move would expand online access to millions of in-copyright books and other written materials in the U.S. from the collections of a number of major U.S. libraries participating in Google Book Search.

This plan still needs to be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,  but when it is, will that mean the begginning of the end of printed books?