Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well, the whole point of the Google Books lawsuit is that they didn't ask first:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrigh...

  The Association of American Publishers and Google’s 
  agreement last week to settle the publishers’ long-running 
  litigation over Google’s library scanning program put an 
  end to the lengthy and expensive suit, but without 
  resolving any of the underlying copyright and fair use 
  issues. The main component of the deal: copyright owners 
  with books scanned by Google under its library program can 
  choose to “opt out” of the program and have their books 
  removed. Of course, that settlement condition is something 
  Google has offered copyright owners with books in the 
  program all along.
In other words, Google scanned and posted to the web first, and authors could opt-out if they so chose. So they didn't get consent first. Their rationale was good - there was no machine readable contact information and many of the authors were dead or had moved - but in this respect the situations are reasonably analogous.

Had Aaron scraped say 10-100k rather than 4M articles and done some innovative NLP/data mining on the text (like Google N-grams), then showed that to JSTOR, despite the lack of up-front consent he might well have been able to get more or convince them to open up, especially if this 10-100k experiment showed monetization potential and could allow JSTOR to move to an open access model. Sadly, we'll never know.



They asked the libraries. The analogy would be complete if Google had gone into the libraries uninvited and started scanning.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: