But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. Inits defence, Google points out that it displays only small segments of books that are in copyright– arguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy.
"The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering toask."
In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched aclass action suit (集團(tuán)訴訟) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, endedwith an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-courtsettlement. The full details are complicated - the text alone runs to 385 pages– and trying tosummarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," saysBlofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics.
Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to compensate authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates fromtheir works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future.
This settlement hands Google the power - but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect.
Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, thesettlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling.
Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is noknown copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5-10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% oforphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.
"The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering toask."
In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched aclass action suit (集團(tuán)訴訟) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, endedwith an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-courtsettlement. The full details are complicated - the text alone runs to 385 pages– and trying tosummarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," saysBlofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics.
Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to compensate authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates fromtheir works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future.
This settlement hands Google the power - but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect.
Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, thesettlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling.
Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is noknown copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5-10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% oforphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.
相關(guān)推薦
- 07-12·2019年6月英語六級真題及答案匯總
- 07-06·2019年6月英語六級真題與答案解析（第一套完整版）
- 07-06·2019年6月英語六級真題與答案解析（第三套完整版）
- 07-06·2019年6月英語六級真題與答案解析（第二套完整版）
- 12-21·英語六級考試歷年真題匯總（2010年-2018年）
熱點(diǎn)推薦»
- 12019-07-122019年6月英語六級真題及答案匯總
- 22019-07-062019年6月英語六級真題與答案解析（第一套完整版）
- 32019-07-062019年6月英語六級真題與答案解析（第三套完整版）
編輯推薦
- 模擬試題
- 歷年真題