BERKELEY, Calif.–Google’s Dan Clancy had patiently answered question after question regarding Google’s’ Book Search settlement with publishers and authors until late in the afternoon Friday, when he was finally left speechless.

Louis Trager, a reporter from Washington Internet Daily, asked Clancy what kind of message was sent when Google decided to “copy first and answer questions later.” The question–for which there’s no safe answer, if you’re in Clancy’s shoes–perhaps underscored the core of the opposition to the settlement, reached in October, after Google was sued in 2005 for scanning out-of-print works without explicit permission.

Google's Dan Clancy is charged with defending Google's position before opponents of its book search settlement.

(Credit: Tom Krazit/CNET)

If the class action settlement is approved, Google stands to gain control of a priceless asset. Jason Schultz, acting director of UC Berkeley’s Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, called it “the largest copyright-licensing deal in U.S. history:” the right to display the contents of out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright protection.

Google, however, has already scanned more than 10 million books. At the moment, it’s not allowed to display more than a few snippets of copyright-protected books for which it doesn’t have an explicit agreement with the rights holders. If the settlement is approved, Google will suddenly flip a switch and offer full-text searches of those books, as well as links to bookstores.

Nothing vexes Google’s opponents more than the fact that the company assumed that it had the right to digitize nearly 100 years of written material without serious negotiations with those rights holders until it was sued. Authors have until Friday to decide if they want to opt out of the settlement and preserve the right to sue Google on their own for digitizing their book without their permission, though they can tell Google to remove their books from the Book Search archive, even if they remain in the class.

Everyone agrees that a searchable digital library of out-of-print books would be a very valuable asset for the world. As any owner of an e-book reader such as Amazon.com’s Kindle will tell you, the way we think about books is changing.

Think about it: libraries offer tons of out-of-print books, so it’s not like the collective knowledge of those books is inaccessible. Yet that knowledge exists in millions of hard-bound individual silos.

What if we could make all that knowledge instantly accessible from anywhere in the world? And more importantly, what if researchers have the ability to analyze it?

Amazing gains could be made in fields like linguistics. In dismissing arguments that scale makes a search engine better, Google’s Hal Varian told me last month that one area that does seem to increasingly benefit from scale is translation: the more copies of bilingual books that Google has access to, the more it can perfect its translation algorithm.

“The value of the book as data is greater than value of the book itself,” said Peter Brantley, director of the Internet Archive and perhaps the most vocal critic of the settlement. And who will control access to a valuable group of books? A for-profit corporation, which, by the way, paid just $125 million for the license to that information. It paid $1.65 billion for YouTube.

Google likes to say that anyone can cut deals with the Book Rights Registry, the nonprofit organization set up after the settlement to handle payments to right holders, to get similar access to out-of-print yet in-copyright books. The thing is, the number of organizations that can afford to duplicate Google’s efforts is limited.

Clancy declined to say how much Google has spent on scanning books, but the Internet Archive spends about $30 for each book scanned. If Google’s costs are similar, that’s $300 million and counting; there are about 23 million books in the WorldCat database. Microsoft folded its book-scanning project, once it realized that Google was aggressively going after that market, said Tom Leonard, the head librarian at UC Berkeley, which had been part of a book-scanning partnership with Microsoft.

This is what frustrates Google, to a certain extent: everyone agrees that digital access to books is important, yet no one else is willing or capable of doing it. And Google insists that it will be a fair steward of the material: the European Commission has backed Google’s efforts, and several university libraries, such as that of the University of Michigan, are also fully on board.

But taking Google at its word requires trust, and trust in corporations is in short supply at this point in American history. It’s taken perhaps longer than it should have, but Google is gradually realizing that a fair portion of the public no longer sees it as a cute little Silicon Valley start-up with idealistic stars in its eyes, one that insists “you can make money without doing evil.”

Google damaged that trust when it began scanning books without permission, arguing that it was allowed to do so under fair-use laws. Publishers and author groups also harmed that trust when they turned over the key to the castle by bringing the lawsuit as a class action, suddenly making plaintiffs out of millions of authors who did not necessarily appreciate the future value of digital books in 2005, nor authorize the negotiation of the rights to their works.

By the time the reporter caught Clancy off guard, he was understandably drained from a long day spent under hot lights fielding questions, and at least one diatribe, from passionate academics and activists.

The thing is, it’s a fair question: Google has the financial resources and collective intelligence to do nearly anything it wants in the world. Where will Google turn its information vacuum next? Will it ask permission first?

Corrected August 30, 10 p.m. with the correct identification of the reporter who posed the question to Clancy.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

Continue reading →

SF weather

(Credit: Screenshot by Dave Rosenberg/CNET)

Wolfram Alpha, the “computational knowledge engine” developed by Mathematica, will soon allow its dynamic search results to be queried and mashed up in a variety of new ways.

According to the Guardian, Wolfram will be opening its curated data to be queried via an application programming interface, or API. Currently, you can view results in a browser, export them as a PDF, or “play” them using a Mathematica plug-in. The ability to use the data on other sites and for other means, such as computations in spreadsheets, is appealing, if not earth-shattering.

Wolfram’s launch fanfare was followed by much confusion about what Wolfram actually is. One thing that’s clear is that the service has an impressive amount of data. What’s not clear is if and when it will ever make money.

APIs are at least a good start in relation to monetization–holding the Alpha data captive within its site meant that it would never go beyond its own traffic, a recipe for disappointment and counter to the link economy that has been built around sites like Twitter.

In today’s socialized Internet, APIs to your data are the barrier (or door) to getting users hooked on your data. Regardless of whether through an API that controls a cloud service like Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3), or the ability to get communications in and out of Facebook, users want to consume data in the way they feel most comfortable. Any company that creates or aggregates data needs to make it available, if it expects to ever hit critical mass.

CNET News’ Tom Krazit recently wrote about a licensing deal between Microsoft’s Bing “decision engine” and Wolfram Alpha (two non-search engines join up to create a super search engine?) that “allows Bing to present some of the specialized scientific and computational content that Wolfram Alpha generates.”

If Microsoft is serious about taking on Google’s geek factor, and asserting its dominant position in spreadsheets and higher education as Bing grows, then the data from Wolfram adds a new dimension. From the consumer perspective, the more informed the data is, the better, but both Bing and Alpha have a long way to go to catch up to Google.

Follow me on Twitter @daveofdoom.

Originally posted at Software, Interrupted

Continue reading →

Sometimes it’s hard to know why people do things. But it’s easy to see why some creative minds have come up with Woofer.

This is a site whose look bears a remarkable resemblance to Twitter–right down to its pale-blue colors. But its conceit is to create an entirely new form of blogging: “macroblogging.” You see, Woofer requires every post to have a minimum of 1,400 characters. Yes, minimum. This, of course, contrasts with Twitter’s “microblogging” platform, which limits users to 140 characters per tweet.

This means that finally, the world has a site that devotes itself to the full, deep gamut of people’s literary skills.

Let us bark for a literary future.

(Credit: CC Alpharios101/Flickr)

Naturally, it is hard to quote a woof in full. However, woofs seem to vary between disquisitions on Twitter, such as this from the culturally monikered Sendafart, to this peculiar effort, consisting of the word “aaaaaaaaaaaaa” and purporting to come from the quill of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Woofer has a clear link explaining in almost 1,400 characters that it is not affiliated with Twitter. The link reads: “Is this Twitter?” Click on it, and you see, in very large type, “No,” coupled with a link to the site’s legal notice.

However, some have complained that once they create a woof, the site somehow manages to post their real Twitter profile picture.

Woofer is run by a concern called Join the Company, an organization that claims to “build entertaining Web sites that change the way people use the Internet.”

When you look at the site’s three principles of woofing, you begin to believe that Woofer truly will be the salvation of the language: “1. Be eloquent. 2. Use adverbs. 3. DEA (don’t ever abbreviate),” the site says.

I dream of a world of macrobloggers who write in full, who never use acronyms, and who create an online oasis for complete literary expression in a world of dogs eating dogs and merely offering sound bites. But let’s see how long it takes before Woofer gets caught in a flock of terse legal complaints.

Originally posted at Technically Incorrect

Continue reading →

We still get a pitch about a new Facebook app now and again, but truth is, that ship sailed long ago. Most Facebook apps just don’t have the wow factor they once did when the platform was new. With the company’s latest iPhone app update, however, the wow could be coming back on a smaller scale.

In case you missed Thursday’s news, Apple finally got around to approving the third version of Facebook’s iPhone app. It’s a big step up from previous iterations, bringing in a number of features for which users had been clamoring.

Facebook's new look sports specific Facebook app icons that can be rearranged.

(Credit: CNET)

One of the most interesting changes is how the app has been designed to feel very familiar to the iPhone user interface. For instance, no matter what you’re doing on the app, you can touch anywhere on the top of the screen to go back “home.” You can also save shortcuts to a friend’s profile or to one of the social network’s public-facing pages.

These saved items go up on 3×3 grid that can be rearranged and expanded, depending on how many pages and contacts users decide to add. This makes it much simpler to hop back and forth between certain parts of the site–that is, as long as you’ve planned ahead.

To go with those items are standard Facebook features, including a handful of its own first-party applications, such as events, photos, mail, and the all-important live text chat.

So is there room for third-party apps in this new ecosystem? Definitely, and much more so than would have been possible in previous versions.

Imagine, if you will, a way to sync up with applications you have installed in Facebook, then use them right inside this new iPhone app. This seems like a logical next step, though Facebook’s current system for third-party developers has them build one version of their application–one that works on Facebook’s site.

But Facebook could make available new application-programming interfaces, or APIs, that would let developers pipe some of that data to a mobile version too. Third-party applications could then be programmed to work within the confines of the Facebook application itself, meaning that each one could access other official features as they do on the standard site.

Message attachments in Facebook's mail service let you expand upon the base features using third-party services.

(Credit: CNET)

One of the best examples of how this works is the inter-network message system found on Facebook proper. Here you can take advantage of some of the applications you’ve added to expand what you can send in a message as a virtual attachment.

How great would this be on the iPhone, considering that you’re unable to access many of the device’s own files or view unsupported attachments? The same goes for accessing other applications within the confines of the Facebook app; ones that let you update your Twitter status, see where your friends have traveled, or play a quick round of Scrabble.

To a certain degree, Facebook already put its foot in the door with a version of its Facebook Connect service for iPhone applications. Applications that have implemented it can have their users log in with their Facebook credentials. It also can give the app access to their profile and friends list to pipe information back out. Simply making this information more readily available within the app would make inroads toward standalone apps within it.

What I’m talking about is quite different, though. These are applications within the Facebook app that would have access to other in-app Facebook apps. Would Apple be OK with this kind of functionality? Almost assuredly no. In fact, Apple has basically done the same thing with its own device and APIs–simply letting developers build specialized tools that work within its confines.

But Facebook does have a few things going for it–it’s big, popular, and helps Apple sell more iPhones and iPods by being a must-have application. It has also maintained its own directory of applications for the last two years. And like Apple, what applications are able to do within the confines of the service is limited; for mobile versions of apps, those limitations could be even tighter.

What can be safely assumed is that Facebook would stand to run into the most trouble with Apple’s approval process. Having apps that are installed inside an in-app marketplace means emulating what the iPhone does with its own native application store, which is a big no-no. But again, this is something Facebook could get around by limiting what applications are able to do, be it running in a Web canvas page or simply piping their data through Facebook as an intermediary.

Facebook certainly stands to gain something by keeping people inside of its application, despite the fact that there are currently no ads or paid-for features. Considering that it can never get the latter as part of Apple’s rules, in-application apps that could present more ad space certainly seem like the next best thing when it comes time for Facebook to flip on that advertising switch.

Originally posted at Web Crawler

Continue reading →

We’ve seen a bunch of studies like this in the past, but people keep submitting this, so figured we’d do a quick post on it. Yet another study has shown that people who are more active in unauthorized file sharing, also tend to spend more on authorized entertainment purchases. Now, to be fair, the study was paid for by a file sharing provider — so, take it with a rather large grain of salt. But similar studies have been done in the past as well, and it seems to once again call into question the rallying cry in Hollywood that people just want stuff for free.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

When this article in the ABA Journal started off by noting (accurately!) that the following story sounds like typical late-night fodder that makes lawyers look bad for filing frivolous lawsuits — but then said “but the suit is anything but silly” — I expected an article that would explain convincingly why a trademark lawsuit between two tourist tour operators that have passengers use kazoos to quack like a duck was not silly. But, I’m left scratching my head. I found the article via Eric Goldman, who notes that “I can’t imagine this lawsuit has a good ROI.”

Here’s the basic story. Apparently, there are some tour operations out there that involve amphibious truck/boats, that take tourists around different places both on land and in water. One company, Ride the Ducks, does this in various areas around the country, and has trademarked the sound of kazoos being used to quack like a duck — which it asks passengers to play as the truck goes from land to water. Now it turns out, right nearby where I am, in San Francisco, there’s a tour called Bay Quackers, that does something similar, also involving quacking kazoos. Ride the Ducks isn’t happy and has sued Bay Quackers, saying that the specific quack of the kazoo is trademarked.

My first question is why Bay Quackers just doesn’t get different kazoos. Well, actually, my first question is a slightly unprintable question about why tourists might ride amphibious boat/trucks while using kazoos to sound like ducks… but I figure that’s a tangent. Either way, it’s difficult to see what benefit there really is to this lawsuit, other than Ride the Ducks being pissed off that someone else is using their idea. But ideas aren’t protectable, and competition is a good thing. So, we’re left with a silly lawsuit about quacking kazoos that does, still, seem pretty frivolous.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Avatar28 points us to a potentially interesting lawsuit over whether or not A&E’s decision to use 12-seconds of the song Rocky Top in part of a TV show is fair use. The article is actually pretty comprehensive in laying out all the details in the case. A&E was doing an episode of the show City Confidential about some contract killings in Knoxville, Tennessee. In setting the scene, the show presents quick clips of scenes around Knoxville, including a photo of a UT football player, with the 12-seconds of the song playing in the background. The song Rocky Top is apparently one of (a few) official state songs in Tennessee and is the “unofficial” fight song of the University of Tennessee (which holds a special license to use the song).

A&E claims that it’s fair use, since the music was being used in part as a news report would use it. The article compares it to both the recent case where John Lennon’s Imagine was allowed in the movie Expelled without a license… but also to the infamous Bridgeport ruling that basically said fair use doesn’t apply to music at all. Some will say that A&E’s case is also weaker because it had approached the children of the songwriters (who now control the copyright) about a license, and then never got one, but that, alone, doesn’t change the fair use calculation.

This is one of those cases that really could go either way. As a strong believer in fair use, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that I think this is clearly fair use, and that the four factors of fair use support it (as should common sense). But, others will surely make the case in the other direction. The thing that I wonder is how allowing such a use could possibly be a bad thing for the copyright holders. It seems like one of those cases where copyright holders are suing just because they have the copyright and think that, because of that, they absolutely have to sue. Either way, kudos to A&E for standing up for fair use.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

We’ve already discussed how Washington DC darling Connected Nation appears more and more like a telco sponsored boondoggle to control gov’t mapping mandates and collect gov’t money, without having to give up real data on broadband access. But, for some reason, politicians just seem to love Connected Nation (CN). Last time I was in DC, it was all anyone was talking about concerning broadband policy. However, there are more and more questions being raised now. Apparently, Connected Nation got a big win in Florida recently, despite the fact that its bid for mapping was more than double the next runner up, ISC. Connect Florida — a brand new “affiliate” of Connected Nation, bid $7.1 million. ISC, which is actually based in Florida and has worked with Florida gov’t agencies in the past, bid $2.8 million. ISC used references for its actual work on the ground in Florida, including “the Florida Department of Health, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and two local businesses, including an Economic Development Council. The ISC application also listed 11 contracts the company has with Florida state agencies.” Connect Florida, on the other hand, named out-of-state references who were involved in other Connected Nation projects, raising questions about Connect Florida’s understanding of the Florida market. So how did Connect Florida win?

According to sources, one of the five judges gave ISC the win, with an eight-point differential over CN. Two other judges gave CN a two-point win. One other judge gave CN a 15-point win over ISC. Yet in another curiosity, one judge gave CN a 51-point win. That judge was Bill Price, currently the broadband stimulus program manager for the state of Florida, a position he has held for the past three months. According to his profile on the Linked-In social networking site, Price was vice president for business development for BellSouth Business.

Remember how Connected Nation is really closely connected to the telcos? And a former telco exec who only recently got the state gov’t job suddenly happens to rate it up massively over the second place competitor? Doesn’t that at least raise some ethics questions? Perhaps there’s more to it, and perhaps there are good reasons why Connect Florida is better than ISC. But it sure does seem like Florida owes the public an explanation of what those good reasons might be.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

As we all know by now, the new administration hired a bunch of the entertainment industry’s favorite lawyers, and during the confirmation hearings for the most senior among them, a desire to have the Justice Department focus more on intellectual property was a key point. So, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the Justice Department has announced new grants to focus on intellectual property enforcement. It’s not a huge amount ($1.9 million) and, as per the DOJ’s purview, the focus is on criminal intellectual property infringement, but you really wonder if there aren’t more important things for the DOJ to be focused on these days. Still… thanks to the Justice Department PR folks who sent me a press release for the first time ever. Apparently, someone there is reading us.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →