"Greedy" should be equal to "poor"
The last couple of weeks was always highlighted by the theme of book copyright and, if I may say so, by the confrontation of two ideologies of content distribution. The last straw that broke the patience was the performance of media magnate Rupert Murdoch in China . Even making an amendment to the target audience, under which they sharpened his speech - and the Chinese, as you know, Baaalshie lovers observe copyright - so even with this amendment, Murdoch's statements sound outrageous. Such a shameless frenzied sprinkling of saliva has not been met for a long time, and it is even more strange to hear supporters of free content award epithets such as flat-earthers (clinging to the long-refuted theories) mossy dinosaur of the traditional media business. Who is this, it is asked, flat-earther ?!
Under the cut a couple of brief excerpts (although it is all so beautiful that it is difficult to choose) and a continuation of Google Books:
It should be noted that there has been no loss of time. It’s not a problem.
The Philistine phase is almost over. The co-opting of the co-opting of our content. If you are not going to take a look at the kleptomaniacs will triumph.
Oh yes, everyone who wants to have access to information is an insolent philistine and kleptomaniac, and all readers are eager to give their money to media corporations (undoubtedly, this is why most of the newspapers have ceased to be fed by the subscription, and live only by advertising), and of course , corporations are the best friends of authors, yes, yes, yes.
')
But the hell with him, with Murdoch - most of the trash that News Corp. produces does not agree to read / watch, even if they pay me extra.
But the lawsuits on Google Books really strain. And on this field, too, a lot of status wanting to trample.
For example, a court hearing was scheduled for December in a lawsuit filed by a French publisher against Google .
By November 9, an agreement between Google and US publishers should be submitted.
And in front of the Frankfurt Book Fair, Angela Merkel calls for a closer look at Google Books - in the sense of copyright infringement, of course.
The question arises -who are all these people are they, got hempered? They really do not see what is happening, or just as long as they try to keep a good face on a bad game? 90% of Internet users do not need exclusive news, and they will receive non-exclusive ones free of charge from millions of aggregators - and crush all these millions of millions that have already been received, even from News Corp. navel unleashed. This genie has long been released from the bottle and whistled to heaven, while the soldiers on the ground shouted about the philistinism. Likewise, publishers are terribly far from the people - the number of people reading books is rapidly decreasing, and soon all their copyright riches, on which they sit and shake from greed, will become a gift to nobody. Actually, they themselves contribute to this, trying to crush the free trial access.
In general, judging by myself - the books that I need, for some reason, usually cost from $ 50, and after the appearance of Google Books, personal expenses for books have grown, as opposed to the reduction that publishers are so afraid of. And the reason is very simple - you do not want to buy a large number of cats in a bag for such money, and if you can view the content at least partially, it becomes clear whether the book is really needed. And it is already reasonably bought.
Some books are no longer available and will never be, because there is no mass demand for reprinting, and without mass demand the publisher doesn’t pick it up too. Therefore, if publishers had agreed to sell scans with Google, they would have had another sales channel.
But no! Why look for new business models. Let it be better to rot, and the unreadable cattle will multiply - but the sacred copyright will be respected. I don’t even care if Google Books isn’t, then there willn’t be customers like me (and there are not so many of them, and every penny counts fall in sales).
What has been said in the heat of the moment does not negate, however, the simple fact that the authors also need to eat. And that without intermediaries like publishers, not everyone will cope with the distribution of their content. But it has long been obvious that there should be a hybrid business distribution of content. What they will be - the question for me is still open.
Under the cut a couple of brief excerpts (although it is all so beautiful that it is difficult to choose) and a continuation of Google Books:
It should be noted that there has been no loss of time. It’s not a problem.
The Philistine phase is almost over. The co-opting of the co-opting of our content. If you are not going to take a look at the kleptomaniacs will triumph.
Oh yes, everyone who wants to have access to information is an insolent philistine and kleptomaniac, and all readers are eager to give their money to media corporations (undoubtedly, this is why most of the newspapers have ceased to be fed by the subscription, and live only by advertising), and of course , corporations are the best friends of authors, yes, yes, yes.
')
But the hell with him, with Murdoch - most of the trash that News Corp. produces does not agree to read / watch, even if they pay me extra.
But the lawsuits on Google Books really strain. And on this field, too, a lot of status wanting to trample.
For example, a court hearing was scheduled for December in a lawsuit filed by a French publisher against Google .
By November 9, an agreement between Google and US publishers should be submitted.
And in front of the Frankfurt Book Fair, Angela Merkel calls for a closer look at Google Books - in the sense of copyright infringement, of course.
The question arises -
In general, judging by myself - the books that I need, for some reason, usually cost from $ 50, and after the appearance of Google Books, personal expenses for books have grown, as opposed to the reduction that publishers are so afraid of. And the reason is very simple - you do not want to buy a large number of cats in a bag for such money, and if you can view the content at least partially, it becomes clear whether the book is really needed. And it is already reasonably bought.
Some books are no longer available and will never be, because there is no mass demand for reprinting, and without mass demand the publisher doesn’t pick it up too. Therefore, if publishers had agreed to sell scans with Google, they would have had another sales channel.
But no! Why look for new business models. Let it be better to rot, and the unreadable cattle will multiply - but the sacred copyright will be respected. I don’t even care if Google Books isn’t, then there willn’t be customers like me (and there are not so many of them, and every penny counts fall in sales).
What has been said in the heat of the moment does not negate, however, the simple fact that the authors also need to eat. And that without intermediaries like publishers, not everyone will cope with the distribution of their content. But it has long been obvious that there should be a hybrid business distribution of content. What they will be - the question for me is still open.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/72244/
All Articles