Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


Google book scanning settlement violates public interest

Michael Helft writes in the NYTimes to update the status of the Google book scanning project. The longer it has been pending, the more the objections, now in the hundreds, and the greater the messiness of any settlement link here.

The two great public goals of the settlement are being largely forgotten in the squabble over who gets what from the deal. Those goals are obvious--making so many books searchable on line and available to all at a reasonable price.

The orphan-books issue is a legalism, as they have been of no interest to the owners for years, not even enough for them to come forth and assert a claim. Why owners ever have any interest in orphan works remains a mystery; they are nothing more than abandoned books and properly public property.

In this respect, the proposed settlement gives a wide group a vested interest in the money to be generated by the settlement, for which they have done nothing.

The settlement also creates an effective monopoly on sale of the books, not as a matter of law but as the practical outcome since Google has already paid the sunk costs of scanning the books and putting them on line.


What does it mean to say the settlement "violates the public interest"? What has this standard got to do with anything? This is the state's language that it uses to propagandize the public into thinking it is legitimate.

The problem is not Google's trying to work within/around the copyright system: the problem is that there is a copyright system. As for public interest--it's certainly in the "public's interest" (whatever that means) to have access to works previously orphaned due to the pernicious effects of the state's evil laws--laws which are not Google's doing, but the state's.

I always thought the concept of public interest was clear at least for purposes of discourse. Wikipedia defines it thus: "The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest."

We need to recognize that copyright is not going to get abolished. As of now, it isn't close to having the votes. We need to educate people why copyright was created and how it has been abused. Then we will have a chance to limit it. And if we are effective, we might even get it eliminated. The story is there to be told. We just have a lot of history and self-interest to overcome.

We need to recognize that copyright is not going to get abolished.

We might hope, though, that this eventually becomes a moot point as copyright becomes completely unenforceable.

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

Some history

Killing people with patents SYSSY

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rerwerwerwer

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/

Your Compulsory Assignment for Tonight rerrerrr

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre

An analysis of patent trolls by a trademark lawyer

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good

Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,