Friday, April 13, 2007
Funny...
I just realized that my copyright notice needed to be up'd a year.
Gee, time goes by fast; doesn't it???
Sil
I just realized that my copyright notice needed to be up'd a year.
Gee, time goes by fast; doesn't it???
Sil
Hi,
It has been quite a while since I have posted...
This is perhaps one of the most importance questions with regard to intellectual property and the internet to date (and maybe well into the future):
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003292.shtml
The question on whether google books should be allowed.
I came across Professor Lessig while performing research on how to do an effective webinar. The "lessig" style is one of those ways. I watched the entire presentation (found above), listened to Professor Lessig's argument, and came to see his side. Google should not settle.
I believe that Google is forcing the very existence of Google through the question of whether they can copy and transform books into their index.
Professor notes that 1/2 of works will not be available should Google settle, but to add to that, Googles cache (and other search engines themselves) are at jeopardy should the question be answered that way. I think the Professor eluded to that, but if not, it does seem to be clear.
Also, how much of the internet could effectively be cut off from the rest of the world if we had to change to an opt-in system for search as compared to an opt-out??
One of the reasons for law is to balance the needs of society without forgetting the individual (I do not recall any particular citation for this belief, but I do believe it to be true.. Perhaps it is a combination of what I have read about the law, general systems theory's the individual as the ultimate precept, and my own thoughts), but nevertheless...
Hold it true for a moment, and let's say it another way I am sure we can all agree with: "The law seeks justice (fairness)". Okay... What justice would there be in cutting off potential access to works just because we do not have access for their permission? (aside from a 1984 style argument... The only knowledge we have access to is picked...)
I do wonder about the other side of the coin though. What about the other side of the coin? Let's say that Google does win...
That would pave the way for others to follow the same way wouldn't it? Now, anybody can compile and index information and make it available to anyone else (but wait, wasn't that already decided in the telephone case... You can not copyright facts)? Well... that is different: facts and works are two different things (aren't they?)
I do not have a solid argument to make either way... I am just writing down thoughts as they occur. Perhaps someday I will take some time to really examine this from both sides of the fence.
But in the meanwhile, I did want to get down what I think may be one of the most significant cases with respect to intellectual property and technology: the question of google books. I am most curious how this will develop.
Best,
Sil
It has been quite a while since I have posted...
This is perhaps one of the most importance questions with regard to intellectual property and the internet to date (and maybe well into the future):
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003292.shtml
The question on whether google books should be allowed.
I came across Professor Lessig while performing research on how to do an effective webinar. The "lessig" style is one of those ways. I watched the entire presentation (found above), listened to Professor Lessig's argument, and came to see his side. Google should not settle.
I believe that Google is forcing the very existence of Google through the question of whether they can copy and transform books into their index.
Professor notes that 1/2 of works will not be available should Google settle, but to add to that, Googles cache (and other search engines themselves) are at jeopardy should the question be answered that way. I think the Professor eluded to that, but if not, it does seem to be clear.
Also, how much of the internet could effectively be cut off from the rest of the world if we had to change to an opt-in system for search as compared to an opt-out??
One of the reasons for law is to balance the needs of society without forgetting the individual (I do not recall any particular citation for this belief, but I do believe it to be true.. Perhaps it is a combination of what I have read about the law, general systems theory's the individual as the ultimate precept, and my own thoughts), but nevertheless...
Hold it true for a moment, and let's say it another way I am sure we can all agree with: "The law seeks justice (fairness)". Okay... What justice would there be in cutting off potential access to works just because we do not have access for their permission? (aside from a 1984 style argument... The only knowledge we have access to is picked...)
I do wonder about the other side of the coin though. What about the other side of the coin? Let's say that Google does win...
That would pave the way for others to follow the same way wouldn't it? Now, anybody can compile and index information and make it available to anyone else (but wait, wasn't that already decided in the telephone case... You can not copyright facts)? Well... that is different: facts and works are two different things (aren't they?)
I do not have a solid argument to make either way... I am just writing down thoughts as they occur. Perhaps someday I will take some time to really examine this from both sides of the fence.
But in the meanwhile, I did want to get down what I think may be one of the most significant cases with respect to intellectual property and technology: the question of google books. I am most curious how this will develop.
Best,
Sil
