Google Book Search settlement gives Google a virtual monopoly over literature | Hacker News Reader

Google Book Search settlement gives Google a virtual monopoly over literature

boingboing.net

29 pointsanuraggoel17 comments

I would rather have book search results available as fair use, instead of through legal settlement. That would allow other companies to compete in this area.

With this deal, Google's dominance in search engine market is even more secure than it has been. We don't want yet another monopoly, even a purportedly benevolent one.

To compensate Google for the cost of scanning all these books, perhaps the publishers and author's guild should force Google to license the scanned version to other companies at a 'fair' price, which they also need to agree upon.

The thing that strikes me about all this craziness over Google Book Search is that Google did an extraordinary thing: they made significant progress toward scanning every book ever printed. With great effort (and risk) comes great reward. It would be a huge cost, but I don't see why another company doesn't try to do the same thing.

The monopoly doesn't exist because Google is trying to force other people out; it exists because no other company is willing to take the expense/risk to do it themselves.

Could any other company have done the same? Google is big, has a lot of resources, public goodwill and instant echo in the media. Who else?

Amazon, Yahoo, and Microsoft all come to mind. Yahoo and Microsoft for relevance to search, and Amazon as a bookseller. They're all big enough and technically competent enough to do it, in my opinion.

Indeed, But Microsoft is seen in... slightly less favorable light than Google. Amazon's position on the other hand could be a drawback, not an advantage. Such step could have made angry its providers.

And they're doing it all without major government help. Something the major telecoms and old industry titans can't say.

Google, in acceding to the Authors Guild's requests, have attained a legal near-monopoly on searching and distributing the majority of books ever published.

Incorrect grammar. Should read: "Google, in acceding to the Authors Guild's requests, has attained a legal near-monopoly on searching and distributing the majority of books ever published."

Company names should always be referred to in the singular object form, as in "it", not "they" or "them".

Mr. Doctorow, is Boing Boing hiring any editors? ;)

Not in British English. Though, he writes "Google alone has easy legal access" later. Doctorow is Canadian, so he uses both :-)

Not really a British thing.

The University of Nottingham (which is most certainly British) has this in its style guide: "similarly, use the company is rather than the company are" [1]

The Economist (a publication of a British company) has a style guide that has this gem: "A government, a party, a company (whether Tesco or Marks and Spencer) and a partnership (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) are all it and take a singular verb. So does a country, even if its name looks plural." [2]

[1] http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/uon-style-book/si...

[2] http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=...

Isn't it impressive that languages evolve?!

Dude, I agree with you, but who is dishing out the hatred? For the sake of Pete, why have I been maliciously down-voted?

First, grammar correction is hardly adding to the discussion about the article's content. Second, it is a fairly common practice to pluralize the names of companies in countries that are not the United States. It throws me every time I see it too, but I kind of like it becuase it helps me remember a company isn't some monolithic idea, but a collection of individuals.

No hatred or malice, just a desire to maintain the comment quality here. I voted down your first comment because it seemed pedantic and ignorant of common British usage. Had yours not been the top comment in the thread, I probably would have ignored it.

On the other hand, I voted up this parent question because I assume your question was genuine. I also would have voted up any insightful commentary on the actual settlement whether I agreed with it or not.

Because people find useless pendantry an annnoying waste of time? The text is on a third party site! What do you expect anyone here to do about it?

Mail the author if you feel so strongly about it. In your comments here it would be better to respond to the meat of the argument presented, not any minor grammatical errors it may or may not contain.

Not.

We on YC News respect style, in various forms. We don't respect whining. I've been on YC News longer than you and can see exactly what you're doing; it's not cool.

I have to agree here. Comments that add no value whatsoever ought to be down voted. At worst, your comment should have been left at 1 point. Personally, I thought it added some intellectual value raising the question "have or has?" And with a click...

You asked a question, and I answered it. I have no idea exactly what you imagine I am "doing" beyond that but you are welcome to share your no-doubt illuminating insights.

The age of your account is irrelevant and I am baffled as to why you might venture it as some kind of point in your favour. Do you make a habit of checking out the profile of anyone you respond to, colouring your argument according to their perceived seniority? Anyway, your attempt at rank-pulling is as misguided as your attempt at language policing - this is not my first account on this site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com