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.
What remained controversial after the class action suit ended?
选项
A、The change in Google’s business model.
B、The compensation for copyright holders.
C、The commercial provisions of the settlement.
D、Google’s further exploitation of its database.
答案
C
解析
该句套用It is…that句型强调,就是这些商业条款(commercial provisions)在协议中最有争议。[C]为原文信息再现,故为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/pBE7777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
A、Gooutfordinner.B、Watchthedocumentarywiththeman.C、Godancing.D、Watchagameshow.B综合推断题。男士说自己在看有关加勒比海海豚的纪录片,女士觉得那很有
A、Newshoppingcentersareverycommon.B、Theshoppingcenterisveryold.C、Thecityneedsmoreshoppingcenters.D、Theoldhou
Tobesuccessfulinajob【B1】______,youshould【B2】______certainpersonalandprofessionalqualities.Youneedtocreateagoo
Tobesuccessfulinajob【B1】______,youshould【B2】______certainpersonalandprofessionalqualities.Youneedtocreateagoo
A、Apopulartelevisionprogram.B、Abreakthroughintechnology.C、Arecentpurchase.D、Anewelectronicsstore.C两人的对话一直围绕男士所买的n
A、EveryoneenjoyedhimselfatJohn’sparty.B、Thewomandidn’tenjoyJohn’spartiesatall.C、Itwillbethefirsttimeforthe
BalancingCollegeLifeandAcademics1.ControlYourSchedule;Don’tLetYourScheduleControlYouOrganizationandtime
Accordingtoamuch-reportedsurveycarriedoutin2002,Britainthenhad4.3millionclosed-circuittelevisioncameras(CCTV)--
Adailydoseofaspirincanpreventcancerinpeoplewithageneticdisorderthatincreasestheirriskofdevelopingthedisease
随机试题
10个月婴儿,发热,咳嗽6天,呼吸40次/min,双肺可闻及少量易变的中、粗湿啰音,肺部叩诊正常。初步考虑为
患者,男,63岁。心绞痛病史2年,1天前骑车上桥时又出现胸骨后压榨样疼痛,即原地休息,含服硝酸甘油3片无效,出冷汗,路人将患者送到急诊室。经心电图检查,诊断为急性前壁心肌梗死,转入CCU进行链激酶治疗。患者问护士链激酶治疗的作用是什么,护士的回答正确的
配置青霉素皮试液时,其皮内注射剂量为皮试后5分钟病人出现胸闷、气急伴濒危感,皮肤瘙痒,面色苍白,出冷汗,脉细速,血压下降,烦躁不安,考虑病人出现何种情况
当保险合同被认定为无效合同后,其通常的处理方式不包括( )。
关于税务行政行为的要件,下列说法正确的是()。
下列关于季节性融资的说法,正确的有()。
当地时间2012年4月19日8时7分(北京时间10时37分),()试射了自主研制的射程超过5000公里。并可携带多枚核弹头的烈火----5型中程弹道导弹。
曙光研究所为了加强与合作单位的科研合作,需要派出若干名科技人员前往合作单位开展工作。根据工作要求,研究所领导决定:①在甲和乙两人中至少要派出一人;②在乙与丙两人中至多能派出一人;③如果派出丁,则丙和戊两人都要派出;④在甲、乙、丙、丁、戊等5人中至
ITU标准OC-12的传输速率为()。
软件设计包括软件的结构、数据接口和过程设计,其中软件的过程设计是指______。
最新回复
(
0
)