Ethics and Google

[jason]

All Things Considered, November 20, 2005 · Debbie Elliott and New York Times Magazine ethicist Randy Cohen examine the dilemma that search engine Google poses with its Google Book Search tool. The powerful software can scan whole sections of books for reading online, raising questions of copyright infringement.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5020954

Comments

[bardiclug.livejournal.com]

You mean, like in a library?

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

hee hee... like a for-profit institution telling you that they have the right to use your material without your permission. Libraries can do stuff cause they're public-instutions. I hate the notion of having to 'opt-out' from corporate choices. But that's just me.

[bardiclug.livejournal.com]

But "Public" and "For Profit" are not in opposition.

There is no charge to use the Google service (that I know of).

Anyone who has access to a web browser can access it, which is as close to "public" on the internet as you are going to get.

Yes, people could print each page they find and put together a book "for free" - but I've seen people with library copies of text books in Kinkos at the self-serve copy machines. What's the difference? I just can't see how making information and knowledge from books more widely available can be a bad thing.

Google makes their profit from AdWords, mostly. So yes, you are stuck with ads in your browser when you find these pages. Would it make a difference if Google ran this service completely from donations?

But I'm a trouble maker - what do I know?

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

There you go. For me the ONLY question is that I don't have a right to say no to them. The opt-out policy is fine for indexing things we've put on the net, but whereas I think government can get away from this, corporations cannot. And google makes money off their process, we know that, even if they don't charge US. Bad juju in an otherwise good idea.

[bardiclug.livejournal.com]

You are the man, and I conceed to your superior understanding of the situation. :) I'm a hack, and I freely admit it. :)

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. But I'll take victory where I find it.

Some things to consider.

[jacquiewood.livejournal.com]

I think that this is valid question to pose or debate because as we know copyright laws are important to consider. A couple things to consider regarding this debate; firstly, if people do not want the information available online than they should not be made public or should be secured so that only certain people have access to them. Secondly, I would assume that most people would want what they have written to be available to the public, that is in most probability the reason they wrote it. As with any book or journal article that has copyright laws, it should be trusted that if people are going to be using the information it should be trusted that it would be referenced. Additionally, if anything I believe that Google would in some way be "advertising" for the books and their authors by providing information to the public regarding content that can be found in the book(s). If I am understanding correctly what the debate is, these should be things to consider.

Re: Some things to consider.

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

Ya, to me you have to ask for permission to do something. Informed consent...