View Single Post
Old 07-05-2013, 02:57 PM   #26
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,725
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer View Post
So if orphan works weren't part of what Google was trying to do, would you be fine with their scanning and indexing efforts?
An orphan work is just one for which the copyright owner can't be found. Google aren't planning on making any effort to find copyright owners, that makes all the works 'orphan'.

I would be fine if they had the permission of the copyright owners to do what they are doing.

I would be fine if the Library of Congress allowed themselves an exception were to do what Google is doing (minus the selling part), but companies can't just ignore the law because we might like the results.

The French approach is the correct one, if the law is causing a problem, change it. The Google approach is to simply ignore it.

Last edited by murraypaul; 07-05-2013 at 02:59 PM.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote