tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post9040407648939747256..comments2023-09-07T04:13:08.133-04:00Comments on johndegen.com: sinking to conclusions - logical quicksand in the latest Google book scanning decisionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-3303214071906405852013-11-21T10:15:00.712-05:002013-11-21T10:15:00.712-05:00Thanks for the comment, Sylvia. Unfortunately, not...Thanks for the comment, Sylvia. Unfortunately, nothing is clear in this argument these days. The bafflegab inherent in expansionist fair use and fair dealing positions has confused most of the discussion. If you ask frontline students and profs (as I have done many times) how much copying would be considered fair, they don't even approach 10% of a text, let alone a full text (as Google is claiming).<br /><br />Percentages actually disguise the use behind a mathematical abstraction. 10% of a 400 page book is 40 pages(!). When I suggest to students and profs that schools might be claiming 40 full pages of text as "fair" they laugh, as they should.<br /><br />I think we will see alternate definitions of fair dealing come from the creative sector in coming months.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-38609605377901341252013-11-20T15:05:54.990-05:002013-11-20T15:05:54.990-05:00Clearly Google's dealings are not fair. They a...Clearly Google's dealings are not fair. They are not compensating the people who provide them with the content from which they earn profit. But what about fair dealing in education? Writers and creators must speak up to clearly define fair dealing percentages and/or units. It's not enough to just say 10% is too high.Sylvia McNicollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12274272188838997088noreply@blogger.com