TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What Ever Happened to Google Books?

303 点作者 jeo1234超过 9 年前

19 条评论

chippy超过 9 年前
The reminds me of people&#x27;s attitudes towards reCAPTCHA - started by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. &quot;Stop spam, read books.&quot;<p>Everyone was supportive of it when it was used towards the non profit digitization of out of copyright books. So, started externally, Google ran with it and continued and expanded the range of books. It remained good. Apparently loads of books were digitized.<p>Then, possibly along with the change in this article - or along with the perceptible change within Google where everything had to be business accountable a few years back, reCAPTCHA started being used to digitize address numbers from StreetView to improve Googles online mapping, geocoding offering. Nothing to do with books, nothing to do with improving the world.<p>Now reCAPTCHA is being used for image recognition and training (identify the images with salads). Nothing to do with books, information or improving the world - everything to do with Googles own offerings.<p>What&#x27;s even sadder is that <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;captcha.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;captcha.net&#x2F;</a> still states that it is being used to &quot;help digitize books&quot; but all the links go to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;recaptcha&#x2F;intro&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;recaptcha&#x2F;intro&#x2F;index.html</a> which have all but removed any public benefit wording. &quot; &quot;Stop spam, read books.&quot; was removed from Googles site in 2014.
评论 #10207752 未加载
评论 #10207653 未加载
评论 #10208734 未加载
评论 #10207744 未加载
评论 #10207829 未加载
评论 #10209866 未加载
评论 #10208028 未加载
jrochkind1超过 9 年前
This article leaves out some important things.<p>Google making the project non-profit would not have saved them from the lawsuit. The Author&#x27;s Guild, separately, sued a non-profit partner in the Google Books scanning project -- HathiTrust. [1]<p>That lawsuit was not resolved until 2012 -- when, without a settlement, HathiTrust won on fair use.<p>The court decided that scanning books for searching was fair use. While the court did not say the same for displaying full text -- what the OP wants -- it is notable that the court&#x27;s opinion was not primarily based on non-profit status of the organization (as is common in U.S. fair use case law; the non-profit factor has generally dwindled in court decision-making), but on transformativeness.<p>The OP mentions &quot;Others argued that the settlement could create a monopoly in online, out-of-print books,&quot; but gives that opinion rather short shrift. This was a very real concern -- what if Google&#x27;s use really would be fair use? If the court decided that, the opinion would apply as precedent to everyone. But a settlement really does apply only to Google -- no one else even had access to the terms of the settlement. Anyone else trying to do the same would risk being subject to a decade-long lawsuit of their own.<p>The OP should ask, why didn&#x27;t Google go to trial?<p>&quot;If Google was, in truth, motivated by the highest ideals of service to the public....&quot; they should have gone to trial to establish the right for all. As HathiTrust did.<p>The Google Books project still exists, they did not take it down because of legal worries, even in the absence of the settlement. But it has indeed been allowed to languish. While I&#x27;m sure the multi-year lawsuit contributed to this -- Google starting ambitious projects and then allowing them to languish, without improvement, without fulfilling their original promise, slowly degrading and withering away -- is a pretty common Google practice even without multi-year lawsuits.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._HathiTrust" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._HathiTr...</a>
评论 #10209714 未加载
espes超过 9 年前
Shout out to the Internet Archive, a non-profit close to what the author describes. Unfortunately it turns out book scanning is expensive and rights-holders still don&#x27;t like it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;texts&amp;tab=about" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;texts&amp;tab=about</a>
评论 #10209109 未加载
评论 #10207785 未加载
wyclif超过 9 年前
I was an early and enthusiastic fan of Google Books. I often do research that relies heavily on 17th-19th century English academic works, which is right in the Google Books public domain sweet spot.<p>But something went awry—I&#x27;m not sure what—and the project was allowed to languish by Google. The interface has been in maintenance mode for ages, with no development going on. This leads to a lot of frustration: for instance, you cannot share all of your saved and tagged books with another user, and sharing a shelf or series of shelves is awkward and clunky. In terms of UX, it appears to be abandonware.<p>On top of that, there&#x27;s no way to know what&#x27;s going on or who to talk to, because users can&#x27;t actually contact anyone at Google Books.
评论 #10207713 未加载
评论 #10208056 未加载
评论 #10215669 未加载
walterbell超过 9 年前
In June 2015, the US Copyright Office issued their report with draft legislation, &quot;<i>Orphan Works and Mass Digitization</i>&quot;, after consultation with creators, libraries and tech companies. This guidance can be used by the US Congress to create laws permitting Google Books and other efforts to digitize orphaned works.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;copyright.gov&#x2F;orphan&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;copyright.gov&#x2F;orphan&#x2F;</a>
评论 #10209373 未加载
oneJob超过 9 年前
Attempting to force Google to change course on this would at best result in an empty gesture on Google&#x27;s part with likely no follow up regarding the bigger project. They may open up what is already scanned, but they&#x27;re not likely to resume the project under benevolent terms.<p>Employment used to last as lifetime. One could retire from Sears with decent benefits if they were loyal. Today, many of us are contract employees or Uber style &quot;partners&quot;. This is the same phenomenon we see happening here, just on the product side. We&#x27;ve been going down this road for a while now. You often don&#x27;t buy products that last a lifetime anymore. It&#x27;s often necessary to buy a whole new one rather than fix the one you already have because the replacement parts aren&#x27;t made available. So, it&#x27;s happened to our workforce and our products, now it is also happening to our companies. Always in the name of profit. Fair weather friends.<p>Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it is bad. Almost always it is a false choice.<p>The logic of capitalism insists on competition and specialization which are often at odds with cooperation and leisure. Why should Google need to choose between the bottom line and benefiting its community by sharing the work they&#x27;ve already accomplished. In a word, competition.<p>To me, this is the greatest strength of open-source. It allows for cooperation and facilitates transparency, the very foundations of community. Open-source has done nothing to stymie specialization, one of the main thrusts of &quot;The Wealth of Nations&quot;. The other, self interest serving the whole, I think, has been shown by history and OSS to be one possible, but not the sole, idea regarding what motivations might facilitate a productive community.<p>So, back to Google Books. What happened to Google Books is exactly what one should expect to have happened in a political-economy such as ours. A different outcome would not necessarily have resulted from different decisions by Google, but by different incentives and structures of a different economic framework. Let&#x27;s not be distracted by the red herring of this anecdote, framing it as a one off, but instead look to this anecdote as a case study in a much larger domain.
quink超过 9 年前
Somewhat related: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2012&#x2F;03&#x2F;the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish&#x2F;255282&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2012&#x2F;03&#x2F;the-mi...</a><p>&gt; Because of the strange distortions of copyright protection, there are twice as many newly published books available on Amazon from 1850 as there are from 1950.<p>Additionally, The Walt Disney Company is sure to get legislation passed before 2024 to extend copyright once more.
yannis超过 9 年前
&gt;The thrilling thing about Google Books, it seemed to me, was not just the opportunity to read a line here or there; it was the possibility of exploring the full text of millions of out-of-print books and periodicals that had no real commercial value but nonetheless represented a treasure trove for the public.<p>I had the same excitement as the author when Google Books came out. The service has stagnated over the years. Reading snippets is such a frustrating experience (you cannot even cut and paste the text). Even the books where one can buy an ebook is not available for some countries. Many times it is quicker to search on archive.org to find related books digitized by Microsoft.<p>We still have a long way to go where knowledge can be distributed at low cost and in abundance ...
评论 #10207913 未加载
njharman超过 9 年前
&gt; split fifty-fifty between authors an publishers<p>Why? If anything it should be split between copyright holders. Whoever they are. Legally, author &#x2F; publisher, are meaningless.<p>But really if we can&#x27;t get it together as a culture to eliminate perpetual copyright we should at least make a rule that if a work is not available (print or online) for 5 years then it is deemed abandoned and no longer under copyright. Available doesn&#x27;t mean free.<p>Our cultural heritage is a shared resource. It is not right for it to be locked away.
joesmo超过 9 年前
So these books that the fight has been about are out of print and essentially do not exist anymore. They do not make money for anyone. They do not contribute to anyone or anything. For all intents and purposes, they might as well not have existed at all. Google tries to make a library of these nonexistent works so that they can once again benefit humanity and the copyright holders (which is pretty much never the authors when it comes to books) are upset because they&#x27;re losing out on their $0 of profit. Yeah, copyright law really works well in this country.
giancarlostoro超过 9 年前
If they somehow could turn those books accessible by a &quot;Google All Book Access&quot; type of service, that would in turn enhance your searching to include all their scanned books it would be amazing. They would however have to somehow figure out how to even make such a service affordable while still keeping publishers &#x27;happy&#x27;.
评论 #10207598 未加载
ching_wow_ka超过 9 年前
I can say pretty certainly that all the text they&#x27;ve gathered through the Google Books project is in use in their language models and other AI models for their search engine, speech recognition, etc.<p>They got what they wanted. I can&#x27;t see what incentive they have as a business to grant access to the books that justifies paying employees for it.
评论 #10207886 未加载
评论 #10207862 未加载
marincounty超过 9 年前
&quot;If Google was, in truth, motivated by the highest ideals of service to the public, then it should have declared the project a non-profit from the beginning, thereby extinguishing any fears that the company wanted to somehow make a profit from other people’s work.&quot;<p>I think Google might win over some critics if they resumed the project; set it up as a non-profit, but not some slick non-profit that really doesn&#x27;t help anyone other than Google? The bylaws would be lawyer proof, and BOD proof. The out of print(out of copyright) books would be available to anyone for free.<p>I was very excited about this project, and it did seem to just die?<p>I used to like and defend Google. As of the last few years, with the tracking, plethora of Ads, and the way they ruined YouTube, at least for me.(Yea, I didn&#x27;t like the way they took it over. I don&#x27;t like all the advertisements. Plus, I still have embarrassing videos up there that I literally can&#x27;t get off. Some kind of password screwup that is beyond the helpful customers at the &quot;Help Boards&quot;. See Google employees can&#x27;t be bothered with trivial stuff like my videos. (I asked, and was told to figure it out.)<p>So Google, if you are listening, go back to your roots. Some people, including myself, hold no loyality to your company anymore. My sister uses Bing. I used to tell her, you might like Google better. Those days are long gone. I&#x27;d tell her about Duckduckgo, but it&#x27;s just not quite their yet.
评论 #10207659 未加载
评论 #10208695 未加载
hanlec超过 9 年前
&gt; I have a simpler suggestion, nicknamed the Big Bang license. Congress should allow anyone with a scanned library to pay some price—say, a hundred and twenty-five million dollars—to gain a license, subject to any opt-outs, allowing them to make those scanned prints available to institutional or individual subscribers.<p>Wouldn&#x27;t this be great? Many of these materials are not indexed and chances to discover them are decreasing every day. Second, getting access to these materials is for many almost impossible (out of print, not available in the libraries, etc.)
tuxt超过 9 年前
&gt;But, of course, leaving things to Congress has become a synonym for doing nothing, and, predictably, a full seven years after the court decision was first announced, we’re still waiting.<p>Ha, never thought about that 7 years ago. :)
pervycreeper超过 9 年前
My biggest pet peeve with Google Books is that too many books which are presumably in the public domain have access to them restricted. Not sure if this is oversight, or on purpose.
jay_kyburz超过 9 年前
The authors Big Bang licence is a bit crazy. Why not just monetise Books in exactly the same way they monetise Video in YouTube?<p>Surely the copyright law is quite similar.
评论 #10215743 未加载
wedesoft超过 9 年前
Reducing the copyright term to something more reasonable would help a lot, too.
analognoise超过 9 年前
Somebody could always start a non-profit and continue the work - we don&#x27;t have to leave it to Google and stay disappointed.
评论 #10208150 未加载