Google is not being completely forthright in making the argument that it should be allowed to scan and digitize millions of books without permission from publishers. Let me amend that (this is an opinion piece): Google is being downright devious. (As you'll see below, I was able to view 44 pages of a $133 book, all in about five minutes with not much effort.)...The mechanism by which they're allowing users to search through the books they're digitizing, doesn't restrict you to little snippets, unless you're a technological idiot. (CYA disclaimer: I can only claim this to be true for the specific book I searched through, for which I'm about to describe my amazing results. Your results may vary; indeed, for all I know, Google may indeed restrict searches of every other book to "fair use" snippets.)...(Disclaimer number two: For all I know, in this specific case, the publisher, Oxford University Press, may have allowed Google to scan its book. They apparently have given permission to Amazon, which allows users to browse the crystallography text via its "Search Inside" feature. My point is not about this one particular book; it's about Google trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by making it sound like only small portions of any book it scans are accessible.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 10/23/2005 01:37:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
