Google Books On The iPhone and G1 Is Almost Kindle-Like (And Real Mobile Kindle May Be Coming Soon) rightly raves about about the mobile version of Google Books. It works great on an iPhone (and it turns out the rumors about Kindle coming to the iPhone were right; see also my LRC post Kindle v. Netbook v. ePub, Bookworm and Stanza).

However, it turns out that you can only see "free" google books in mobile site. For example, on my iPhone I cannot see the 1907 Edith Nesbit book The Enchanted Castle in the mobile-optimized version of Google Books. (Try it even from a regular browser, from that mobile site, you'll see what I mean.) However, if you go to the regular Google Books site, you can find and read the whole thing--even on an iPhone. You just can't use the mobile-optimized version of Google Books to view it--even on a computer. So you can read the book on an iPhone, but not in a mobile-optimized format.

I suspect that Google did this because of copyright concerns, as part of their deal with publishers--perhaps it made them carve out something for mobile phones or platforms. It's amazing how much copyright law distorts our entire economy.

[Cross-posted at Mises Blog.]

"For example, on my iPhone I cannot see the 1907 Edith Nesbit book The Enchanted Castle in the mobile-optimized version of Google Books...I suspect that Google did this because of copyright concerns, as part of their deal with publishers."

This does not make sense. There can be no "copyright concerns" with a 1907 book, because any 1907 book will be in the public domain. Pretty much everything before sometime in the 1920s is public domain in the US.

There can be "copyright concerns" even with a book that is in the public domain: First: out of fear of copyright, and inability to hire people to inspect every work, rules are crafted that end up applying even to works now public domain. Second: because of copyright, someone who packages an old, public domain work in a new package might claim copyright in various aspects of the new way the work is presented. this whole field is a mess.

Careful Stephen, he is also a stalker. He has been following me to other web sites and making similar comments regarding my comments there. He is uninterested in any reasonable, intelligent discussion, he merely wants to divert discussion with paranoid, delusional comments. What is more interesting is that he only posts on Saturday nights, when most people post daily. I wonder whether he is in some kind of institution where they permit computer access only once per week. Regardless, he is a very, scary indidividual.

I see that both Stephan Kinsella and Lonnie have viciously insulted me without cause, and I think perhaps an earlier post of mine has incorrectly been deleted despite not being spam.

Withholding a 1907 book from a mobile-optimized site while having it on the regular site does not make sense from a copyright perspective anyway -- either you have the right to distribute or you do not. There is no separate category of "mobile rights" for books.

Furthermore, the text of the 1907 book is in the public domain. If a publisher published it with copyrighted new fancy artwork on the bindings, or whatever, or even in some sort of IP-encumbered special fancy typeface, it doesn't matter to a web site edition that consists simply of the text of the original and appears in your web browser's default Times Roman.

As for what Lonnie wrote, it's pretty much just a pack of lies. I have not "followed" him anywhere. I've argued with him a few times in comment threads here and that's about it. Furthermore my arguments are always cogent and logical. Obviously, he's either confused me for someone else or he's just plain making shit up and publicly smearing me. Which, by the way, might be actionable, so he better watch it.

Of course, his speculations about my whereabouts and medical condition are particuarly laughable -- unsurprisingly, given that he developed them in a complete vacuum of actual evidence. In fact I have my own home, have two computers, use them daily, and just dedicate part of my Saturdays to catching up on blogs.

Lonnie, a normal person's first guess as to why someone did something time-consuming and non-business-related on a Saturday would be "because he's at work most of the rest of the week and spends Sundays with family". Your first guess being not only different from this but so, so far wide of the mark means either you're an idiot or, more likely, you're purposely grasping for a maximally uncharitable interpretation of things out of pure viciousness.

Certainly, your post was 100% off-topic and contributed nothing worthwhile to discussions here. Unlike mine.

I'm saving a local copy of this post, by the way, in case anything happens to it so I can repost it easily if it does.

Nobody:

I apologize. I was actually responding to Beeswax, who has yet to respond to any intelligent post with anything other than hyperbole, paranoia, and ad hominem statements. Unfortunately, his paranoid post was deleted. I will endeavor to be more careful next time.

Our resident troll wrote:

"I apologize. I was actually responding to Beeswax, who [numerous vicious insults deleted]."

All lies. None of the nasty things that Lonnie has said or implied about me are at all true.

I have responded to arguments and claims about the patent system with logical counterarguments and claims. I have not bothered to dignify ad hominem attacks and similar nonsense with argued and reasoned responses, nor however am I obliged to do so. A simple blanket denial that there is any truth to them should suffice there. Particularly if it also calls attention to the fact that my opponent resorted to an ad hominem attack rather than a reasoned argument.

Lonnie: your insult-laden posts do not meet the standard qualifications to be considered "intelligent" and I will not respond to them with reasoned arguments. If you want responses consisting of reasoned arguments, then you will have to leave out the personal attacks and merely post reasoned posts yourself.

"Unfortunately, his paranoid post was deleted."

This is also a blatant lie. I have made no "paranoid post" at all, and furthermore, only spam is normally (or ever should be) deleted here, and I have certainly never posted spam.

"I will endeavor to be more careful next time."

Please do so by not making any more gratuitous personal-attack posts at all. Limit the content of your posts to statements about the site's subject matters, rather than statements about other people here, and you won't have this sort of problem anymore.