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
61
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.
While______, Google makes money by selling advertising.
选项
答案
providing information for free
解析
根据题干中的Google和selling advertising将本题出处定位到第15段第2句的引言处。该句提到,Google的商业模式一直是免费提供信息,同时利用在此基础上产生的流量来销售广告。也就是说,Google在免费提供信息的同时靠卖广告赚钱。题干中的Google…advertising与该句的and之后的内容对应,While与and对应,故填空处与and之前的内容对应。因为Google与provide information for free之间是主动关系,故此处应用现在分词形式,即providing information for free。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ZBE7777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
HowSledDogsWorkThey’rephysicalwonders-abletoendureextremeconditionsforextensiveperiodsoftimewhilerunningf
PresidentCoolidge’sstatement,"ThebusinessofAmericaisbusiness",stillpointstoanimportanttruthtodaythatbusinessin
TheScienceofLastingHappinessThedayImeetSonjaLyubomirsky,shekeepsgettingcallsfromherToyota,Priusdealer.W
A、Theywanttostayhomeanddothehousework.B、Theydon’thaveenoughmoney.C、Theyhavetoomuchworkandnotmuchfreetime.
ThegovernmentofUKislaunchingaprogramaimingathelpingmorefamiliesbalancetheirworkandhomelives.Therighttoask
ThroughoutGeorgeBush’spresidency,thefederalgovernmenthasrefusedtosupportanyregulationofthegreenhousegasesthatc
A、Thedriver.B、Ten-year-oldJake.C、Thepolice.D、Thekidsonthebus.B司机下车后并没有关闭引擎,因此校车开始慢慢地滑动,车上的孩子们都尖叫起来,但是十岁的Jake抓住方向盘,用力地
A、Thepassengercatchesataxiforashorttrip.B、Thedrivernoticesthepassengergazingupwardatthetallbuildings.C、Thep
A、Goshopping.B、Cookmeals.C、Eatout.D、Buyarefrigerator.A对话中男士说wehavenothingintherefrigerator(冰箱里什么都没有了),并且说他们需要一些鸡蛋、
Whiletheworld’sflufightershaveconcentratedoncounteringtheH1N1swineflu,birdfluH5N1hasquietlycontinuedtotakei
随机试题
具有防御、抗邪、康复作用的气是
试述婚姻自由原则。
甲、乙、丙共同故意伤害丁,丁死亡。经查明,甲、乙都使用铁棒,丙未使用任何凶器;尸体上除一处致命伤外,再无其他伤害;可以肯定致命伤不是丙造成的,但不能确定是甲造成还是乙造成的。关于本案,下列哪一选项是正确的?
下列关于夫妻人身关系权利义务的说法错误的是( )。
关于企业价值评估,下列表述中不正确的有()。
甲、乙签订了买卖合同,甲以乙为收款人开出一张票面金额为5万元的银行承兑汇票,作为预付款交付于乙,乙接受汇票后将其背书转让给丙。后当事人因不可抗力解除该合同。下列关于甲的权利主张的表述中,符合《票据法》规定的是()。
幼儿舞蹈应该拟成人化。()
优劣:困难
有如下类定义:classTV{public:TV(ints=41,stringbr="TCL"):size(s),brand(br){}~TV(){}
对考生文件夹下Word.docx文档中的文字进行编辑、排版和保存,具体要求如下。【文档开始】世界银行公布2004年全球GDP排名根据总部设在美国华盛顿的世界银行公布的最新
最新回复
(
0
)