【Hacker News搬运】谷歌图书的悲剧（2017）

hackernews

Title: The Tragedy of Google Books (2017)

谷歌图书的悲剧（2017）

Text:

Url: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320/

由于我是一个AI，我无法直接访问或抓取网页内容。但是，我可以提供一个基于假设的分析和总结，如果你提供了该网页的内容。

以下是对假设的《大西洋》杂志文章《谷歌图书的悲剧》的总结：

---

标题：《谷歌图书的悲剧》

摘要：
这篇文章探讨了谷歌图书项目自2004年启动以来的影响和争议。谷歌图书项目旨在通过扫描全球图书馆的藏书来创建一个庞大的数字图书馆，使得用户可以在线搜索和阅读书籍。然而，该项目在实施过程中引发了一系列法律、伦理和版权问题。

正文：
1. **版权争议**：文章指出，谷歌在未经版权持有者同意的情况下扫描书籍，这引发了法律诉讼。一些出版商和作者认为，谷歌侵犯了他们的版权，而谷歌则辩称其行为属于“合理使用”。

2. **法律诉讼**：文章回顾了美国法院对此类案件的不同判决，包括2013年的一项裁决，该裁决允许谷歌继续其图书搜索功能，但要求其支付版税给版权所有者。

3. **数字图书馆的愿景**：作者赞扬了谷歌图书项目的宏伟愿景，即建立一个任何人都可以访问的全球知识库。然而，他们也提到了这一愿景所面临的现实挑战。

4. **对学术界的影响**：文章讨论了谷歌图书对学术界的影响，包括对研究、教育和学术出版的影响。

5. **伦理和隐私问题**：作者还提到了谷歌图书项目中的伦理和隐私问题，例如如何处理敏感信息以及如何确保用户隐私。

结论：
尽管谷歌图书项目在促进知识传播方面具有潜在的好处，但其实施过程中的法律、伦理和版权问题仍然存在。文章呼吁在继续推进这一项目的同时，要解决这些问题，以确保项目的可持续性和正当性。

---

请注意，以上总结是基于假设的内容，并非实际文章的内容。如果你能提供文章的实际内容，我可以为你提供更准确的总结和分析。

Post by: lispybanana

Comments:

philipkglass: These Google scans are also available in the HathiTrust [1], an organization built from the big academic libraries that participated in early book digitization efforts. The HathiTrust is better about letting the public read books that have actually fallen into the public domain. I have found many books that are "snippet view" only on Google Books but freely visible on HathiTrust.If you are a student or researcher at one of the participating HathiTrust institutions, you can also get access to scans of books that are still in copyright.The one advantage Google Books still has is that its search tools are much faster and sometimes better, so it can be useful to search for phrases or topics on Google Books and then jump over to HathiTrust to read specific books surfaced by the search.[1] <a href="https://www.hathitrust.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.hathitrust.org/</a>

philipkglass: 这些谷歌扫描结果也可以在HathiTrust中找到[1]，这是一个由参与早期图书数字化工作的大型学术图书馆建立的组织。HathiTrust更适合让公众阅读实际上已经进入公共领域的书籍。我发现许多书是&quot；片段视图”；仅在谷歌图书上，但在HathiTrust上可以免费查看 如果您是HathiTrust参与机构之一的学生或研究人员，您还可以访问仍受版权保护的书籍的扫描件 谷歌图书仍然具有的一个优势是，它的搜索工具更快，有时甚至更好，因此在谷歌图书上搜索短语或主题，然后跳到HathiTrust阅读搜索中出现的特定书籍是有用的 [1]<a href=“https:”www.hathitrust.org:”rel=“nofollow”>https:”&#x2F；www.hathitrust.org</一

yonran: > Dan Clancy, the Google engineering lead on the project who helped design the settlement, thinks that it was a particular brand of objector—not Google’s competitors but “sympathetic entities” you’d think would be in favor of it, like library enthusiasts, academic authors, and so on—that ultimately flipped the DOJ.I was at Google in 2009 on a team adjacent to Dan Clancy when he was most excited about the Authors’ Guild negotiations to publish orphan works and create a portal to pay copyright holders who signed up, and I recall that one opponent that he was frustrated at was Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive, who filed a jealous amicus brief (<a href="https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/291" rel="nofollow">https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yo...</a>) complaining that the Authors’ Guild settlement would not grant him access to publishing orphan works too. In my opinion Kahle was wrong; the existence of one orphan works clearinghouse would have encouraged Congress to grant more libraries access instead of doing nothing which is what actually happened in the 15 year since then. Instead of one company selling out-of-print but in-copyright books, or multiple organizations, no one is allowed to sell them today.Since then, of course, Brewster Kahle launched an e-library of copyrighted books without legal authorization anyway which will probably be the death of the current organization that runs the Internet Archive. Tragic all around.

yonran: &gt；Dan Clancy是该项目的谷歌工程负责人，他帮助设计了和解方案，他认为这是一种特殊的反对者——不是谷歌的竞争对手，而是你认为会支持它的“同情实体”，比如图书馆爱好者、学术作者等——最终颠覆了司法部 2009年，我在谷歌与丹·克兰西（Dan Clancy）相邻的一个团队工作，当时他对作家协会（Authors’Guild）关于出版孤儿作品和创建一个门户网站以支付注册版权持有人的谈判最为兴奋，我记得他感到沮丧的一个对手是互联网档案馆（Internet Archive）的布鲁斯特·卡利（Brewster Kahle），他提交了一份嫉妒的法庭之友简报（<a href=“https://docs.justia.com”cases“联邦”地区法院“纽约”1:2005cv08136“273913”）。291“rel=”nofollow“>https:#x2F；docs.justia.com.#x2F案件#x2F联邦#x2F地区法院#x2F新哟…</a>）抱怨作家协会的和解协议也不会授予他出版孤儿作品的权利。在我看来，卡利错了；一个孤儿作品交换所的存在将鼓励国会授予更多的图书馆访问权限，而不是什么都不做，这是自那以后的15年里实际发生的事情。如今，不再有一家公司销售绝版但有版权的书籍，也不允许有多个组织销售这些书籍 当然，从那时起，Brewster Kahle在没有法律授权的情况下推出了一个有版权书籍的电子图书馆，这可能是目前运营互联网档案馆的组织的死亡。到处都是悲剧。

caseysoftware: I worked at the Library of Congress on their Digital Preservation Project, circa 2001-2003. The stated goal was to "digitize all of the Library's collections" and while most people think of books, I was in the Motion Picture Broadcast and Recorded Sound Division.In our collection were Thomas Edison's first motion pictures, wire spool recordings from reporters at D-Day, and LPs of some of the greatest musicians of all time. And that was just our Division. Others - like American Heritage - had photos from the US Civil War and more.Anyway, while the Rights information is one big, ugly tangled web, the other side is the hardware to read the formats. Much of the media is fragile and/or dangerous to use so you have to be exceptionally careful. Then you have to document all the settings you used because imagine that three months from now, you learn some filter you used was wrong or the hardware was misconfigured.. you need to go back and understand what was affected how.Cool space. I wish I'd worked there longer.

caseysoftware: 大约在2001年至2003年，我在美国国会图书馆参与了他们的数字保存项目。所述目标是&quot；将整个图书馆数字化；收藏&quot；当大多数人想到书籍时，我在电影广播和录音部门工作 在我们的收藏中有托马斯·爱迪生；他的第一部电影、D日记者的线轴录音，以及一些有史以来最伟大的音乐家的LP。那只是我们的部门。其他人，比如美国遗产，有美国内战的照片等等 无论如何，虽然版权信息是一个庞大而丑陋的纠结网络，但另一方面是读取格式的硬件。大部分媒体都很脆弱；或者使用起来很危险，所以你必须格外小心。然后，你必须记录你使用的所有设置，因为想象一下，三个月后，你会发现你使用的一些过滤器是错误的，或者硬件配置错误。。你需要回去了解什么受到了影响 凉爽的空间。我希望我；d在那里工作了更长时间。

ErikAugust: “Page had always wanted to digitize books. Way back in 1996, the student project that eventually became Google—a “crawler” that would ingest documents and rank them for relevance against a user’s query—was actually conceived as part of an effort “to develop the enabling technologies for a single, integrated and universal digital library.” The idea was that in the future, once all books were digitized, you’d be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons. But books still lived mostly on paper. Page and his research partner, Sergey Brin, developed their popularity-contest-by-citation idea using pages from the World Wide Web.“Larry Page had some cool ideas… can’t imagine Books will ever be resurrected, unfortunately.

ErikAugust: 佩奇一直想将书籍数字化。早在1996年，最终成为谷歌的学生项目——一个“爬虫”，可以抓取文档并根据用户的查询对其进行相关性排名——实际上被认为是“为单一、集成和通用的数字图书馆开发使能技术”的一部分。这个想法是，在未来，一旦所有书籍都数字化，你就可以绘制它们之间的引文图，看看哪些书籍被引用最多，并利用这些数据为图书馆读者提供更好的搜索结果。但书籍仍然主要存在于纸上。佩奇和他的研究伙伴谢尔盖·布林（Sergey Brin）利用万维网的页面，通过引用创意开发了他们的人气竞赛。“拉里·佩奇有一些很酷的想法……不幸的是，无法想象书籍会复活。

Zigurd: O'Reilly, for whom I've been a lead author and co-author, did this: <a href="https://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/1042" rel="nofollow">https://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/1042</a>They call it Founder's Copyright. The also use Creative Commons. The goal is to make out of print books available at no cost.

Zigurd: O■；赖利，我为谁；我是主要作者和合著者，做了以下事情：<a href=“https:”www.oreilly.com/”pub“pr”1042“rel=”nofollow“>https:”&#x2F；www.oreilly.com；pub；pr；1042</a>他们称之为创始人；s版权所有。他们也使用知识共享。目标是免费提供绝版书籍。