首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Google’s Plan for World’s Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy? In recent years, teams of workers dispatche
Google’s Plan for World’s Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy? In recent years, teams of workers dispatche
admin
2012-02-18
36
问题
Google’s Plan for World’s Biggest Online Library: Philanthropy Or Act of Piracy?
In recent years, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been working hard to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe — including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process.
Why is Google undertaking such a venture? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-print library books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? The company claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world’s information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books.
The company likes to present itself as having lofty aspirations. "This really isn’t about making money. We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge."
Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, does seem genuine in his conviction that this is primarily a philanthropic (慈善的) exercise. "Google’s core business is search and find, so obviously what helps improve Google’s search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we have never built a spreadsheet (电子数据表) outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have never had to justify the amount I am spending to the company’s founders."
It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary passion. But Google’s book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google.
First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world’s books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University’s library, argued that because such books are a common resource — the possession of us all — only public, not-for-profit bodies should be given the power to control them.
The second related criticism is that Google’s scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in (PS A) a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Charles Dickens’ Bleak House look straightforward.
At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author’s life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author’s heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright — and the last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print.
Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian’s first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone can read for free on Google Books Search).
But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. In its 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 to ask."
In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers, launched a class action suit (集团诉讼) against Google that, after more than two years of negotiation, ended with an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-court settlement. The full details are complicated — the text alone runs to 385 pages — and trying to summarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," says Blofeld, 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 from their 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, the settlement 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 no known 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% of orphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.
It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted (执行) — it is the subject of a fairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this — and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world.
No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained by scanning the world’s library books, and the truth, as Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, points out, is that the company probably doesn’t even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or other, Google’s entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in the years to come.
Opponents of Google Books believe that digitally archiving the world’s books should be controlled by______.
选项
A、non-profit organisations
B、the world’s tech giants
C、multinational companies
D、the world’s leading libraries
答案
A
解析
第5段末句指出反对者对Google提出了两点批评。第6段首句提出了第一点批评,他们(即opponents of Google Books)质疑,制作全世界图书电子存档的任务是否应该交给二个商业公司。该段末句给出明确答案:只有公共的、非盈利的团体才可以被给予掌控它们的权力。[A]与末句的not-for-profit bodies对应,故为答案.
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/7BE7777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
A、Careful,helpfulandbeautiful.B、Strict,sensitiveandsupportive.C、Modest,helpful,andhard-working.D、Loving,supportive
Tobesuccessfulinajob【B1】______,youshould【B2】______certainpersonalandprofessionalqualities.Youneedtocreateagoo
Itisplaincommonsense--themorehappinessyoufeel,thelessunhappinessyouexperience.【C1】______,recentresearchrevealst
A、Becausetheywanttoearnhighsalary.B、Becauseschoolsdonotteachstudentshowtochoosejobs.C、Becausetherehasbeense
ThegovernmentofUKislaunchingaprogramaimingathelpingmorefamiliesbalancetheirworkandhomelives.Therighttoask
A、PresidentClintonsuggestedanendtousingtrademarksofcigaretteonbaseballcaps.B、PresidentClinton’snewrestrictiono
MoreattentionwaspaidtothequalityofproductioninFranceatthetimeofReneCoty.CharlesDeschanelwasthenthefinancia
MoreattentionwaspaidtothequalityofproductioninFranceatthetimeofReneCoty.CharlesDeschanelwasthenthefinancia
A、Hewasamodestman.B、Hewasconcentratedonthemusic.C、Hewascynicalaboutcelebrity.D、Hissolosorlittlelickscouldb
随机试题
A、Theelectronicinstrumentismuchmoreexpensive.B、Theelectronicinstrumentisslightlymoreexpensive.C、Thepianoissligh
A、微生物检定法B、HPLC法C、碘量法D、电位配位滴定法E、四氮唑比色法盐酸四环素采用的含量测定方法为
以下有关重大事故应急管理中的“恢复”工作,说法正确的是()。
特别重大或重大突发公共事件发生后,省级人民政府、国务院有关部门要在()个小时内向国务院报告,同时通报有关地区和部门。
清水机械厂财务部7月15日开出两张票据:一张为面额10000元的支票,用于向兴隆宾馆支付会议费,另张为面额200000元的银行承兑汇票,到期日为8月5日,用于向甲公司支付材料款,该汇票已经银行承兑。7月20日,兴隆宾馆向银行提示付款。银行发现该支票为空头支
根据企业所得税法的规定,下列说法正确的有()。
下列纠纷中,属于劳动争议的是()。
近代以来,中华民族面对的两大历史任务是()(济宁曲阜)
下面5个句子排序正确的一项是()。①直到此时,人们才会相信,动物更有种为人类所不理解的无声的哀怨②但是直到真的看到了动物的泪,我才相信动物也和人一样,它们也有悲伤,更有痛苦③只是因为它们没有语言,或者是人类还不能破译它
发表权是指著作权人决定作品是否公之于众以及如何公之于众的权利,其中使不特定人可接触自己的作品即为公之于众。根据上述定义,下列各项中不属于行使发表权的行为的是:
最新回复
(
0
)