Slashdot Mirror
Authors Guild Sues Google Over Print Program
heavy snowfall writes to tell us that The Authors Guild has filed a class action lawsuit against Google. The lawsuit claims that Google's scanning and digitizing of library books as a part of the Google Print Project constitutes "massive copyright infringement". In addition to the lawsuit The Authors Guild has also issued a press release to explain its actions.
This is exactly why the united stated is getting buried in law suits... if cats and dogs culd sue each other they would have already done so...
... i just want to remind you that Google is a for-profit company
Fuck... Google is actively scanning and indexing our books and offering around 7 pages of 'spoiler' content before forcing us to buy it through Amazon or five other online stores. This can't be good for us, what can we do? OMFGCOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT
If they are still under a copyright, I don't see how Google could provide such a service. AFAIK, I am not allowed to borrow a book from a library and make a complete photocopy of it even for private use.
The owls are not what they seem
Google Print Program allows me to search the text of books in print, I can see each hit as a book and also the search in context (i.e. browse a sample chapter that contains the search), and Google provides links so that I can purchase the book online.
Don't these authors want to sell their books? It is not like I can download the whole text (unless I actually knew a set of unique searches that would mean I could access each chapter as a sample), so where is the copyright infringement?
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
This kind of crap just irritates me. Copyright laws are painfully outdated in the digital age, and yet time and time again those who sell information (in whatever format, music, movie, now books) are constantly standing in the way of progress. What we need is the free and unrestricted flow of information. I've looked over Google Print, and i see nothing for these authors to object over. If anything, its a massive windfall for them, its the perfect resource for finding a relevant book on a given topic. Need a book on differential forms and tensor calculus? Thousands and thousands of results. Its essentially free and unlimited advertising. If Google combined this with pblishing on demand, they could put every publisher in existence not only out of business, but do it while offering far better deals for the authors.
but here in Oxford I thought google was only scanning really old stuff that is too fragile to be read. The Bod (our library) has some very old stuff.
And before anyone from the US replies, old in Oxford means pre 1600 ie before anyone went to your country from Europe and killed the natives.
I tend to agree that it may be a "massive copyright infringement". As opposed to burning of the said books, for example.
While they might legally have a point about Google having to ask for permission (IANAL), Google Print is just one huge f***** advertisement for their books.
Google is providing a useful service that allows you to find the books you want, so that you can purchase them legally from bookshops.
They are showing a little bit of content in order to let people make up their minds, analogous to be able to browse a book at a bookstore to find out if you want it or not.
This is simply taking common fair use in a bookstore (browsing) and moving it onto the digital domain.
While I agree Google should probably have asked the publishers for permission, a lawsuit is just far beyond common decency.
It is time copyright gets a huge makeover to make it more edible for consumers and work better in the new "digital reality", and I am not talking about stronger measurements and DRM.
What happens when these books degrade and nothing is left but a memory of what they were?
Welcome to the digital generation people of the authors guild. This is a big battle between old value people and the new digital wave that google is riding.
I am not saying that it is google's responsibility to be the sole holder of books and other information, that is why MSN, Yahoo and other organisations should start a similar program. Or even the government to archive part of our society for future generations.
I found it very revealing that in their press release they say that google is uploading "Public Domain Works" -- and then goes on to say that this is wrong and is against copyright law? Maybe it is just badly written (>sniggle) but they should be careful with their words; a public domain piece of text is, by definition something anyone can use.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out because it will have a lot to say about how copyright and intellectual property are being interpreted in the courts.
On the one had the authors do have a point: regardless of how little of the copyrighted works Google exposes to people searching, the fact is that Google itself is copying and making use of the whole work. Google is a for profit enterprise, and making books available for searching is part of that endeavour, so having a copy of the text is worth something to Google, yet they haven't sought any agreement with the authors to do so.
On the other hand, this is just stupid! What the fuck are they thinking? Google is effectively providing free advertising for them. Moreover such a service is obviously invaluable to the wider public, making it much easier for them to find (and then buy) the information they want.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Let us hope that they lose this one big time. It seems Google already has plenty of safeguards in place.
Sure, with the convuleted interest ridden mess the copyright system is the Writer Guild might actually win this.
Because, why would Google be allowed to copy all these books to their hard disks, and then make a mint from advertising by showing peeks of it to searchers.
They sure aren't paying anyone for the priviledge.
In university they have pretty big posters against wholesale copying of library books above the photocopiers, with all the usual heavy handed copyright warnings.
It seems technology, is as per usual, ahead of the law. Google would have to establish some kind of copyright free zone (bit like a tax free export zone) where they can safely process search actions on this huge Alexandria library.
Better beat around some congress critters to support this as the potential benefit to mankind ( access to all written knowlegde current and past, no matter how insightful or inane) would probably be worthy of "World Wonder" status, and give the society that has it a serious scientific advantage.
Google did talk to the associated press, however.
A sues B. B sues C. C sues everybody.
I think China (that comunist country) is going to be the next Big Fish, because enterprises are more interested in get easy money suing everybody than in make new products or offer new services. And they make consumer electronic that sux because you are a potentia Pirate so the devices decides what you can do and what you can't do.
I for one welcom or new chinese overlords.
My city: Barcelona.
The grammar rules have been modified in such a way that everything that precedes Google must be replaced by again.
All works by those authors will be purged from the planet. Once the works cease to exist, the case will be dismissed.
yep, print it on the backside of the title page of each book. /book/pages[1..231] noscan noindex nofollow
I can go to my local library and get any CD or book, for a limited time. If google wants to be the online library of the future, I could see them implementing some kind of thing where you are tagged by state, and they have like 10 books that you can check out per state (10 google branches). I mean, if the argument is that 'you could copy the text and have a local copy'.. well christ, any real library book I check out I could photocopy or OCR, it sounds to me like they have a fundamental issue with the entire library system to begin with.
I've owned several web pages which Google has copied onto their servers via indexing and Google cache.
They never asked me for permission, and I'm pretty sure they all contained the footer (c) Me, All Rights Reserved.
In fact, the entire web is copyrighted by numerous authors and corporations, and I'm pretty sure Google has never asked anyone for permission.
Google can't even hide behind the mantra of not being able to micromanage automatic indexing, because the ENTIRE WEB is copyrighted in some form or another.
I'm going to completely disregard that my web pages increased in value by Google announcing their presence to the world, and rather sue them for copyright infringement. I'm also suing Microsoft, Yahoo and Altavista.
Anyone for a class action lawsuit?
It is with some shock that I read about your latest decision to take legal action against Google, which could, and should, be interpreted as a direct attack against a more progressive and free society.
Whether or not you approve of Google, the company's "libarary" program has made a bold move towards an age where information is searchable to everyone. The ability to see inside a book, albeit only an excerpt at a time, which is stored deep within a vault on the otherside of the globe has to be a great thing. This assists everyone from casual browsers of the internet to academic reseachers, such as myself. Upon utilising the search engine and associated search algorithms we can look and search within every title and work for relevant information, and disregard the irrelevancies, with no more hassle than a couple of clicks on a browser. This is a far greater model than the overburdening and cumbersome system currently in operation, where books have to be physically sought after, a greatly innefficient, resource consuming and wasteful affair.
Surely Google's system represents an electronic library bookshelf of infinite size, where the user can browse at will until the relevant material is found. To sue Google is equivalent to taking legal action against the British library for allowing users to flick through books. Libraries also allows users to read the entire text of a book, not merely small excerpts, so surely there is a greater case for taking legal action against the library services of every nation, university and school in the entire world. No such action has been taken, and indeed I pray it would never be.
Indeed I agree that it is a gray area that Google is a profit making company and will be generating revenue indirectly through advertising, and possibly the sale of hard and electronic copies of the full text. Yet, had the traditional organisations of the book publishing and writing world such as yourselves, the Authors Guild, taken steps to create an electronic source back when the internet was growing the need for Google, a corporation, to do this would have been neglible. Your legal action is not a reaction against copyright infingement but an indicator of failure on your, and your peers, behalf. To prevent access to a searchable library to the entire populous of the world is to hide information and create a teired society, those who have access to the information and those that do not. This is backward and unjust.
You have failed to provide or encourage authors, your clients, to present their work in a relevant medium, electronic, to the masses, their customers, and as such have stifled your industry, the fallout and backlash is obvious to see when observing the blogging phenomena that has grown in the last few years. The Authors guild has failed to keep up with current technology and culture trends and as such has resorted to hiding behind the somewhat dated copyright laws of your country.
Whatever your views on the Google corporation it is unjust to take legal action against such a noble scheme and I urge you to revoke your action and change your policies.
I don't buy movies or music from *AA companies any more, to protest their tactics. But I have bought literally 10,000s of books in my life and will probably buy a lot more.
How can I make sure never to buy a book from an Authors Guild writer or company?
Have these people really thought this through? Apparently, the writers thinking on this has gotten as far as "Google are going to make a fortune off our backs" and "we can sue them for millions", but stopped short of "this might really help potential readers to find my book". A bit shortsighted?
The limit is easy to circumvent.
Find a page from the book. Google displays the previous and the next page(s) too.
Look at previous page, and search on a term at the start of the previous page, and you will get the page before that, etc.
The result is that you have access to the whole book.
I do think Google is breaking copyright law with this, but since the authors will most likely not sell any book less (the method I just described is boring and cumbersome), I think they should find a way to cooperate. They could even make monye from it by turning this google method into the iTunes of books.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
America has still an Authors' Guild? Cool!
Now, I just wonder why they asked the Lawyers Guild to sort things out with the Clacks Guild, "Vetinari's method" being that of letting Guild to enforce law by themselves by using, at option, a pointy stick or a big club.
But perhaps it's just a --ing polite way to say they don't --ing want the books to be read by everybody. Just from those willing to pay some good dollars the right people.
Anyway, I'll just believe that Google will bring the Authors' Guild kicking and screaming out of the Century of the Fruitbat.
(Sorry for the useless Discworld parallel, but I couldn't resist anyway.)
-- "The Truth shall make ye fret'"
Mr. Goodmountain doing one of the first movable typo.
42.
You can use the NOARCHIVE meta tag if you don't like Google caching your pages. You can also ask for your pages to be removed.
Landed in 1492 (12 october). That is pre 1600, so the killing of natives was well underway by 1600.
The authors can not object to Google scanning the very old books. Some publishers (at least one) also made a contract with Google to get their content in Google, so no possible way to object to that either.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
The California Plumbing Code book is sold for about $110 bucks. This book is a collection of codes that have been formulated to keep drinking water safe, and make sure that the public is not at risk of getting disease.
Tax dollars, (MINE), are spent figuring out the issues, and those same tax dollars are spent enforcing the cpc, but the only people allowed to access this information are the people who pay for the code book.
My question is this........is publishing this public information a violation of copyright law?
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
Many of you are claiming it's free advertisement, but consider the following variation where I made a complete photocopy of a book without the author's or publisher's permission, but in return advertised it to people.
By showing only a portion or sample of the work may sound fine and dandy, but if anyone can do this without permission, I can easily see this being abused. Google's setting a very risky precedent.
If I make a service called "Krunk4Ever Print", does that entitle me to the right to take any copyrighted text and digitize it into my library without permission? Though I may not be as big as Google, what gives Google the right to do it and not any small company or individual?
HD Trailers
It's worth bearing in mind that copyright is a protective measure given by a government in return for obliging the publisher to make the work publicly available.
The ultimate aim is to increase the education of the public through availability of information - not to bestow some inalienable commercial right.
Must resist ... beating the dead horse...
1. Google received billions from their IPO.
2. Sue Google for infringement.
3. Profit!!!
It felt good to that out of my system.
There's not much difference, really. Both intend for you to view the contents of the book, and claim to provide a free advert. It took me 30 seconds to find a flaw in Amazon that lets me download the entirety of the book for free. So the sale is lost, and it's not advertising. Google'll be the same.
The difference is whether the publisher agrees to it. (The author has no say in this.) If you read the license agreement (yes - there is one!) when you buy the book it says "not stored in electronic retrieval format". Browsing in a bookshop doesn't break this... storing in Google Print does. This trumps all other laws of "freedom" unless a precedence is set in court.
Disclaimer: I am a writer with my books on Amazon.
That has to be one of the most level headed, clear and concise letters of protest i have ever seen.
Irrespective of the author's wishes, excerpts of copyrighted works can be quoted for fair use, such as reviews. Newspapers certainly sell advertising in their book review sections, and I doubt they send a cut of it to the authors of the books. It remains to be seen if Google's project would be viewed this way by the courts.
Didn't Google see this coming?
Nandz.
Perhaps the suit is to make Google ask first, instead of allowing Google to proceed unless authors specifically opt out.
Yes, it may be good advertising, but an author should have a right to opt in, not a right to opt out. Google should be asking first.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to format-shift, and scanning certainly qualifies for this. The very limited browsing capability sure looks like fair use to me. Where this gets sticky is the matter of posession. If Google is hosting this on behalf of the libraries, the literal fact that the bits are on disks in Google's data centers just makes them nice people. If Google is doing something with the work as a whole that's not covered under fair use, and they're not doing it on behalf of the owners of the original published copies from which the images were scanned, then they've infringed copyright, unless they actually have legal copies on their own shelves somewhere. I could see the argument going either way on this, and ultimately it may hinge on the role the libraries have in this.
That said, at worst, Google is making (and offering to remove on request) at most single copy that would be unauthorized under a strict reading of copyright law, assuming the context they're showing is indeed held to be fair use. So, the authors want to sue over a single easy opt-out copy of each work that will drive far greater sales. Why are they doing this?
It's about control. It's always about control. Read the press release. "...the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights..." But the authors (almost always) aren't actually the legal holders of those copyrights! Authors have been getting screwed by publishers for centuries, but at least things have settled down into a predictable pattern of getting screwed. They don't know what changes are coming next, but they can hardly be blamed for suspecting that as individuals they're less equipped to adapt to whatever changes are coming than the centralized publishing houses, and that they'll end up even worse off.
Ultimately, the decoupling of data and media and obsolescence of traditional publishing will benefit authors, but it may take a very long time to happen.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Personally, I agree with the filers of the suit.
While I see no problem with making available public domain works, I do see where Publishers and authors have a very legitimate case and wish them the best in this effort.
Per the link to the Claimants PR:
"Google has agreements with four academic libraries -- those of Stanford, Harvard, Oxford and the University of Michigan -- and with the New York Public Library to create digital copies of substantial parts of their collections and to make those collections available for searching online. Google has not sought the approval of the authors of these works for this program."
That's pretty much like going over to your friend Freds house and asking him if you can copy his CD collection to post online.You and I know better, and you can be damn sure that Google knows better.
This brings into question Googles "Don't be evil" mantra.
Since I have to assume that Google knows that their actions are legally questionable at best, how can they justify blatant infringement without using appropriate channels as "good".
This smacks of the fabled MS style tactic of just doing whatever the damn hell you want and expecting money to shut people up after the fact.
Is this a sign of things to come from Google?
Aye, they should ask for permission, but I doubt it would be so successful if it asks for permission. For starters, it wouldn't know who to ask. If it cached bulletin board posts, would it have to ask for the permission of all the people who posted in it? Do you propose something along the lines of <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,YesGoogleYouCANArchiveT<nobr>h<wbr></wbr></nobr> is">?
Print is dead. Get over it.
It's a warning that if you do it, you will face criminal / civil prosecution.
There are no conditions of licence, it's simply stating a fact.
I am not allowed to borrow a book from a library and make a complete photocopy of it even for private use.
That's because you make a photocopy for reading the book, not for indexing it. So, while the copyright holder loses a sale on you when you photocopy, they don't lose a sale on Google.
Google will argue that copying the book as part of indexing it is fair use and should be permitted.
Two words: Screw copyrights.
Copyrights are the product of
1- The ability to hide, delay or deter the flow of information.
2- The ability to lobby politicians to your side.
Copryrihgts are going away (kicking and screaming) because
3- The digital world makes it harder to achieve (1).
4- Most people are not sympathetic with the likes of Metallica.
Don't bother lecturing me about the poor starving artists who need to make money somehow.
The chose to be arists, and there are other ways to make money than selling records.
DR.
In escence, Google's is no different than a public library. Except they don't have fines, which the authors never see a cut of.
What's the root of this conflict? Money!
...) get bigger exposure of their books. This might lead to the financial advantage that book sales will increase. Probably, for a lot of them this potential benefit is not enough and hard to predict on long term.
Google will probably get a lot of financial revenue from the selling ads on their pages offering book content. The copyright holders of the books (authors, publishers,
Maybe Google should treat books in the same way as websites in the adsense program. This would mean that Google shares its financial income from Google Print with the copyright holders as it does with web masters who use Google adsense on their sites. It this would seem as profitable for copyright holders as it is now for certain web masters, there could be a chance that copyright holders of book will even be eager to participate in the Google Print program.
So, Google, share your profits of Google Print with the copyright holders!
In africa, Old means when we were still in trees going Oook and scratching ourselves. (And no, I don't mean last tuesday outside the Manchester Met student union)
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
2a. ?????
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
This whole issue, and 10 thousand other similar ones, stems from the irrelevance of copyright in the digital age.
If something online is generally accessible, it's inherently copiable, and denying the legal right to copy it becomes effectively unenforceable unless you are one of those who tries to sweep back the tide and sue individuals by the million.
Copyright needs to be replaced by Republication Right. Copying itself then becomes legal in all circumstances, for all content that is accessible. (Notice that DRM'd content is not accessible by copying, so the copying itself can be perfectly legal since it does not release the content.)
And then the lawyers can go chase only those who republish content without the Republication Right to do so, which makes much more sense.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Google is not a company lacking in intelligence or money. I wonder if their using the library product to actually draw out a suit. The rationale being that copyright law and digital media has created a vast space of uncertainty around what can and can't be done with copies of a work. Google's interest in clearing out that uncertainty is that if they can legally gain the ability to selectively duplicate copyrighted content they can extend their search capabilities far beyond public content published to the web or other fora and also pull in a hefty payback from booksellers and other advertisers. They've started w/ books, but imagine if they legally could index songs, movies, and less television/radio/other media? They wouldn't allow you to have a copy of the work, but could index it, show you a clip, and point you to the correct source to purchase the rights to the media. Massive speculation on my part.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/google-prin t-and-authors-guild.html
... any copyright holder can exclude their books from the program.
Let's be clear: Google doesn't show even a single page to users who find copyrighted books through this program (unless the copyright holder gives us permission to show more).
Not wanting Google to scan your book is like not wanting Google to crawl your website. Pretty silly but authors can completely opt out.
Upon utilising the search engine and associated search algorithms we can look and search within every title and work for relevant information, and disregard the irrelevancies, with no more hassle than a couple of clicks on a browser.
And you don't have to pay the author for that snippet of information!
Libraries also allows users to read the entire text of a book
Libraries allow users to read the entire text of a book; not the entire text of a copy of a book. That *is* the difference. They still have the original book.
To prevent access to a searchable library to the entire populous of the world is to hide information and create a teired society, those who have access to the information and those that do not. This is backward and unjust.
I agree with you to some extent, but it's not the Author's Guild's responsibility to provide free information to everyone in the world, even if that were desirable. They've also got to look after their members interests. I'll bet a large proportion of their members aren't *that* greedy and self-interested; nevertheless, they are doing a job, they require compensation, and to some extent that's always going to restrict the flow of information.
Whatever your views on the Google corporation it is unjust to take legal action against such a noble scheme
Google's aim is to make money; now, I'm not about to bash that (particularly not if they do it in an enlightened manner), but let's bear this in mind before we start using words like "noble". It's not a zero-sum game, and if everyone wins; fine. But please take off the rose-tinted spectacles when discussing Google, even before you've considered the holes in your argument above.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I'd like to know exactly what's wrong with:
Calling the library, asking the librarian who just happens to have a photographic memory of all books in the library what books had a particular quote, and then having the librarian recite all or any portion of the list that contain it.
Isn't this the same thing?
Isn't the guild's issue (same as the riaa's) that the content is so much more readily available?
I would think that this is all completely legal and google and the authors/publishers will both make an asston of money off of it.
Think of books on amazon.
Teh planzor:
1.Index books.
2.Draw eyeballs to reproductions of said books.
3.???
4.Profit!!!
--
If I had a sig you'd be finished reading it by now...
it seems every fuckwit out there thinks they can sue and go for the settlment jackpot. does the authors guild own these copyrights? "massive infringment"? sounds a lot like the vage claims SCO made. besides, i'm no expert but i do believe partal reproduction IS legal. or am i infringing on something just by using "a" i mean surely it's part of some copyrighted work! while we are at it, if amazon DARE to show a picture of a book they are selling, LETS SUE THEM ITS INFRINGMENT!!!
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Aren't the libraries in breach of copyright by making copyrighted material available, without permission of the rightful copyright owner, to someone who intends to further distribute it?
It just suck, but of course we'll say its great cause the USA want us too but I think its about time we realize the very nasty nature of capitalism: consenting slow self-destruction. Our society, freedoms and aspirations are just all going down the drain but it good for the economy so...
I do understand the legal issues that the copyright holders have, but I think that in their quest to control what they own, they are also minimizing the value of those items.
What is the use of something if not too many people know that it's there and can't purchase it/don't have access to it? Since Google Print started, I have been able to find books that are actually relevant. This is especially important in an multidisciplinary academic environment where you may be researching a topic and not know the exact domain.
In fact, without this service I would never have bought the 4 books I did. Granted, these purchases couldn't automatically be traced to Google Print, but maybe if online sellers created a checkbox (Google Print recommended) they would be able to find out just how many sales were attributable to it and would give them a general idea of whether it does more good than harm or vice versa.
that would be GutenbErg.org.
Then I saw this: http://www.authorsguild.org/
Authors Guild Sues Google, Citing "Massive Copyright Infringement"
Class Action Settlement Amended to Cover Amazon.com and Highbeam
Supreme Court Backs Copyright Holders in Grokster Decision
New Judgment Filed Against Agent; Guild Seeks Information from Clients
Fox News Drops Suit Against Franken
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
The fact that Google Print finds text that has been plagiarized from my own copyright published material is a good thing, I believe.
Similarly, the free publicity provided by Google Print (and all the other Google activities) is wonderful. It brings me new readership who would, I'm sure, have never found my musings in a normal library.
Is the authors guild perhaps afraid that some of their members might be found out for publication of non-original work?
I thought the whole point of writing a book is so that someone can read it.
I think it is great that they scan books, and I think that libraries should do the same and have books avaible for online reading on their website.
I never visit libraries anyways...
Historically, nations that don't care about copyright tend grow, culturally and technologically, faster than those that do. The United States came to be a world power by shamelessly stealing every good idea that came out of its more developed European parents right up through WW2, when the US and the Soviets "borrowed" every Nazi scientist and engineer they could lay hands to at the end of the war.
The Chinese are in catch-up mode now that the communist revolutionares that have kept the country retarded for a generation are finally dying from old age. And they've got big plans.
But, as a previously reply indicated, China is not Candyland. A warts-and-all honest look at China might make you slightly less welcoming to your new Chinese overlords.
Bastards (even if they didn't kill Kenny)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The fact that google may make money is irrelevant to this discussion.
And if google adds at the bottom of every page:
"...this book sucks..."
Does that qualify as criticism?
I wonder why the AG hasn't done what Google is doing, to being able to search in books is one of the most sought after features among report writers I work with, it's the holy grail. there seems to have been no steps at all to acheive this during the 10 years of "internet revolution".
/Erik
Google press (or something simmilar), is one of the biggest steps we have made for a long while. I really hate that you can be so narrow mind to protest against it, are they afraid of having their scripts up for the whole world to search in?
Sure they can protest against copyright infringment, it's their right. But the question is what's the best solution, just to protest or offer a real solution to a real problem?
Best whishes
Good post.
I am amazed that I just read through this pathetic, shamefully partisan "Open Letter to the Authors Guild" that was modded +5 Interesting only to come down to your post and see it "Troll".
I too am opposed to Google with respect to GooglePrint. Just as I don't buy the Global Warming bullshit. Scientific consensus was once such that Caucasion humans were superior to all other men. Critics of this narcisisstic "Aryan Elite" would be shouted down and ostracised. Like the Eugenicists, today's Environmental Alarmists will be proved wrong. But I digress...
See this slashdot? Difference of opinion. And you're all so pretentiously "information wants to be free; if only the Republicans, Christians would get out of the way". Modding down a contrary point of view only reinforces the obvious: you don't respect anyone else's right to think for themselves.
Thought police.
You can put as much tripe in your book as you want, but it aint a legally binding contract.
Communist manifesto
.M3 1961
.M3 1961
LC Control Number: 67002459
Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
Main Title: Communist manifesto,
Uniform Title: [Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. English]
Published/Created: London, Allen and Unwin [1961]
Related Names: Engels, Friedrich, 1820-1895, joint author.
Moore, Samuel, tr.
Laski, Harold Joseph, 1893-1950.
Description: 159 p. 19 cm.
Subjects: Socialism.
LC Classification: HX276
CALL NUMBER: HX276
Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms
-- Status: Not Charged
DATABASE NAME: Library of Congress Online Catalog
Looks like it's already there to me. The point that you missed in this whole exercise is that no one is unbiased, so the more different copies that are available, the better chance for all of us to be able to find the stuff the others don't want us to read.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Suppose someone started a service where, if you sent them a phrase, they would look through the books they own, and report back to you the sentences containing that phrase. The provider owns the books, and is only quoting little bits of them, so this is clearly fair use. (This may seem absurd, but such exchanges do occur in a limited way; for instance in genealogy, someone might offer to do lookups of a particular person's name.)
Google Print is providing the same service, except it is automated, so I don't think the service violates copyright. What might violate copyright is that they've converted printed material into electronically accessible material. If they actually own the books, then this is the same format-conversion question we've been running into with audio: can someone who buys a DVD transfer it onto videotape for their own use? Same question.
Now if Google doesn't own the books then that is a problem, because they are taking a copy from a library and then both of them own the copy. Either Google should buy a copy of the books it sells (or just pay for it; they certainly don't want a warehouse of physical books somewhere which they don't use), or they should set up the databases with the libraries themselves, so that it's the libraries who own the scans.
Someone mentioned whether it was legitimate for Google to use these books to make money without giving the authors a cut of the profits. As an academic, I use a lot of books in my business and I don't pay the authors anything but the cost of the book.
That all being said, Google might consider not providing the books of the publishers who object; if this is really a boon for the publishers, then they will eventually see the error of their ways.
This is brilliant! Now let's sue all the libraries! How dare those people keep reading and reading wihtout buying the damn books! I don't care about spreading knowledge, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
This is a little off-topic, but I just read in a Houston paper that one the priest-abuse lawyers is trying to get a court to let him sue the pope. I guess that follows that old bank-robber saying "thtat where the money is".
Didn't we see that one coming from the beginning?
well did you all hear libraries have been doing this for thousands of years only with google you dont have to have library loanwhich takes forever they might as well sue the libraries while there at it besides that i might own a book but want to look for a certain part or word did the authors guild think of that
No, it's not. There are a myriad of things a person can do with a book without the permission of the copyright holder. Reading it being first and foremost among said things. The *only* thing copyright gives them *any* control over is, well, copying. But it certainly doesn't give them complete control. Fair use can be stretched pretty far in some cases.
What Google is doing is rather unique. They are essentially indexing books the same way search engines index the web. One could argue that they are making complete copies for commercial purposes, which can't be considered fair use, but the same could be argued for the entirety of the web. Making something available, whether it be text on paper, digital media, or analog video and audio does not imply the right to copy. So the argument that putting something on the web implicitly gives search engines the right to index is false. But search engine indexing, which creates and permanently stores complete copies by its very nature, has survived the courts so far.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
because one of the determining factors of whether an act is Fair Use, or a violation of copyright law, is whether the copying is done for commercial purposes. It is EXTREMELY relevant, probably the most relevant factor to whether Google's plans are permissible as Fair Use or a violation of Copyright Law.
"Now if you have a book published, it is usually NOT freely available."
You must be from the future where people are not free to read books at no cost.
You see, here we have something we call a library.
This isn't about file sharing where the creator gets nothing for his work. Google is providing a service that matches people up with the books they seek. They aren't providing the entire contents of the book to the user. When the user buys the book, both google AND the author gets money. It's a win win situation.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
I was looking for someone to post this, I was about to!
Libraries (around here anyway) have donated copies of books. Which means that somebody bought the book at one point. How would you like it if you donated something and someone else made a profit off your donation?
Libraries aren't the copyright holders, they didn't even buy the books they have. If google were to buy copies of all the books they are scanning they might have some legal standing, but they don't! They are copying the books, just because you don't see it doesn't mean they don't have it.
Another thing people seem to be confusing is the comparison between the web, a PUBLIC medium (you don't put things on a website unless you WANT others to read it), and books (you have to buy the book before you can read it).
-nosebreaker.com
On page ii of any give book, right after the copyright page, Include a Robots.txt file. :-)
Disallow: /Index
Disallow: /chapter 1
Disallow: /chapter 2
Disallow: /chapter 3
Disallow: /chapter 14
Disallow: /chapter 15
Disallow: /chapter 16/steamy love scene/
Disallow: /book cover
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
On page ii of any give book, right after the copyright page, Include a Robots.txt file. :-)
/Index /chapter 1 /chapter 2 /chapter 3 /chapter 14 /chapter 15 /chapter 16/steamy love scene/ /book cover
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
[use preview, flogger]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
This doesn't seem likely to go anywhere. It seems reasonable that:
a) Google and the libraries had considered copyright issues very carefully before doing this; and
b) that the offended authors had already tried negotiating with Google.
So, there are probably a battery of high paid Google lawyers who have already determined that Google's actions are legal. Following which Google evidently felt it did not have to negotiate and likely expected a lawsuit to follow. To think otherwise is to assume that Google is run by a bunch of idiots which is very clearly not the case.
The Guild and authors are blowing smoke in that time-honoured American tradition of suing as the last possible recourse when all other avenues for a blatant money grab have failed.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
*Snippets* of information are considered fair use in free societies!
Libraries allow users to read the entire text of a book; not the entire text of a copy of a book. That *is* the difference. They still have the original book.
Libraries have the original manuscript?!!!
Ok, I guess that's not fair. I know what you meant. They *own* their own copy of the book. But that's really not the issue here. The issue is whether or not a search engine company has the right to index written texts the same way they index the web.
It *is* the same thing, by the way. Just because one wasn't originally digital information makes no difference. Search engines still do indeed have to make full copies of the web pages they index. And they don't, obviously, have to purchase a copy of websites before indexing them :P
I agree with you to some extent, but it's not the Author's Guild's responsibility to provide free information to everyone in the world, even if that were desirable. They've also got to look after their members interests. I'll bet a large proportion of their members aren't *that* greedy and self-interested; nevertheless, they are doing a job, they require compensation, and to some extent that's always going to restrict the flow of information.
Well, certainly, but this service provided by Google can only help the authors. They're not giving away entire books, only snippets. They allow people to find the books they need, and they also provide links for people to purchase the books once found.
Google is certainly not giving away more information than is generally legally allowed, AFAIK. The only question, IMO, is whether or not Google should be allowed to have complete digital copies of the books in their database.
If Google cannot be allowed to do this under current law, and indeed, any other company wishing to do similar, then it's just a matter of crufty copyright law stupidity.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
...If the Libraries in question have a license to produce copies, does that mean that the same license is extendable to what Google is doing?
If so, then this case is waste of everyone's time as it's not brazen infringement- it's an issue of someone taking umbrage over something that they're (Google and the Libraries...) already entitled to do; it's just something that the authors in the class action suit didn't realize might happen as a result of the licensing. (Of course, that doesn't entitle them to filing a suit just because they didn't like those results...)
If not, then Google either needs to get the right licenses themselves- or not publish those works that aren't in the Public Domain and they don't have an appropriate license for- and it IS infringement.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Copyright is a fairly new idea (several hundred years), but so is publishing duplicate copies.
Access to information is changing our lives faster than any time in the past. People who used to be happy waiting for the trade of information, such as 4 days for a letter to arrive by post, are already accepting instant information. My 65 year old dad is revitalized by this change. My 12 year old sister has almost never stamped a letter.
These changes are yet another unintended consequence of all free market provisions. Once something changes for the better, it is too late to stop it.
I remember 8 years ago when local book stores feared Amazon, but book publishers welcomed them because they saw the short term profits. Why did Amazon succeed? They offered the free market's three qualities that help foster change: increased selection of goods, decreased price, increased speed of transaction.
Usually you'll see just one of those three qualities come into play when the free market shows a revolution. Rarely do we see all three happen.
The unintended consequence should have been foreseen: prices dropped, but the free market wants them to approach zero. Speed increased, but the free market wants them to approach instantly. Quantity of selection improved but the free market wants it to approach 'everything available.'
That Google had the foresight to develop a new provision for published information shows they're attacking a problem that is only a few years away: mass piracy of books. How long will it be until you can videotape the flipping through of a novel and have a PDF of it moments later?
The Author's Guild is no different from the RIAA or MPAA in many aspects. They want to manipulate those who can use force legally (government) to enact regulations that will attempt to halt the changes the free market desires.
Guess what? It can't be done. Now that the wall has toppled, you can't rebuild it. When the common consumer tastes freedom, they'll refuse to eat the poison of tyranny.
I'm known to be Anti-State, and once you think out the consequences of regulating copyright more, you'll realize there isn't any hope. Only by shutting down the host used to spread the information (The Internet, not just Google) can you possibly slow down the change. You can't stop it!
If Google is stopped, you'll see massive freed information on P2P in mere years. If Google is allowed, you're likely to still see massive freed information, but will it come sooner or later?
What can publishers do? They can only adapt. Books alone aren't going to be profit centers, just commodities. Publishers will need value added resources to enhance their bottom line. There will be another 20+ years before paper form is gone. Only a tiny minority will really prefer free PDF's over a $5 paperback.
I'd say POD has to occur. Publishers overprint most books to outstrip demand, in hopes that the book sells like crazy. How about matching supply to demand? How about offering incentives for t ose who buy a legitimate copy? POD can custom print a username/password that lets a reader into a discussion that the author is involved in. Maybe allow legit readers early access to the next book -- even a 2 day lead time seems huge at the water cooler.
There is no stopping this change. It is hard to imagine embracing it. Yet that is the solution.
From the FAQ about Google Print:
"..Then you can direct buyers to your site, add your brand to the Google Print page, and begin earning revenue from contextual advertising -- even for out-of-print books. Learn more here. "
Google shares Ad Revenue with the publishers. Thus elminating any, "Google is just doing this to make a huge profit" claims. Granted Google may be making a profit, but if they are sharing it with the publishers, why should the Author's Guild care then? Also if you search Google print, there are just links on the actual page with the book as to where you can buy it. And, if I'm reading correctly, the publisher can control what links are on the page to where you can buy the book. It looks like a win-win situation for everyone involved to me and I think the Author's Guild needs to just get over it.
"If nothing else, the authors themselves should have the right to that decision"
I agree with Hatta above, the onus is on the authors to justify using the threat of sanction by government as coercion to limit behaviour. By what right do [un?]limited-term content monopolists have to do this?
Copyright is artifical, it does not exist but for an act of government. It is also a utilitarian agreement that helps (used to help?) society by rewarding content creators to create new ideas. Utilitarian arguements are not moral arguements, I'd need to see a moral arguement that justifies using force which limits the free flow of information.
<
I not only read the articl, but also the press release, and recent activities. It come down to this. The Writers Guild for better or worse is concerned that the entire book is beig coppied-fare enough. The Google Foundation and henc Google Search apparently do want some aluistic value out of the google print. This is a case of feer. Nothing more. Google is justifiably affrade that most (if not all) of the books will simple cease to exist, no longer be published or what have you. Where is this going-Well the Writers guild is deflty afraid that the samething will happen to them as is happening to virtually everyone else in the private sector: Greed takes over, some middle manager pushes his agenda to offshore, the writers are effectivle out of a job.
it's time for google to sit in one corner and writers in anothers-get overthemselves go on with life
Utilitarian arguements are not moral arguements, I'd need to see a moral arguement that justifies using force which limits the free flow of information.
The *moral* argument is that if someone puts effort into creating something original which would (in all probability) not otherwise have been created, then they should be able to reap the rewards (if there are any; there is no onus to subsidise) in the same way that people who "created" physical items should.
By the way, all "moral" arguments are "utilitarian" if you take them down low enough; morals exist because (in theory) they ultimately benefit everyone. So, you could argue that the above is 'utilitarian' not moral; but then, you could argue that about anything if you took it far enough.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It's commonly accepted that if you work for someone, you should be paid for it. In fact, unless someone agrees to work for free, or agrees to work in order to pay off a debt, you can't force someone to work for free.
Now, consider people who write for a living. It's not just some pet project, it's what they do to earn a living. If people don't get compensated for their efforts, they wouldn't write for a living in the first place. As a result, copyrights are there to protect the authors, and by extension the publishing companies.
So, Google comes along and decides that if you can check a book out of a library without needing to pay, then you should be able to view a book online for free. The problem with is that any book that is in print or legally duplicated(note that even a library can't legally make a copy of a book and distribute it).
If a publisher sells or gives out copies to a library, that's acceptable because of the copyright. It's still a limited number of books "given" out, so it won't really affect sales all that much, and it doesn't hurt the author.
Google wants to give away the work of other people without permission and without paying. The fact that Google is a big name these days also isn't the reason for the lawsuit since even a small company trying to do this would be in trouble if caught. Google just makes it obvious when they are doing something wrong.
There's a compelling response to the lawsuit posted on the official Google Weblog.
Kevin Fox
Not sure if I should release this exploit before the service has even started, but
/or ISBN, you can weed out the false positives.
To get the entire text of a book, search for something that might be in the book. Take the excerpt and search for the last few words of that excerpt.
If all search results include the author, title, and
After enough searching, viola, the entire scanned text of the book. If google restricts your searching, reconnect to your ISP so that your IP address changes, and start over. Do be sure to remove/edit any cookies google tries to put on your machine.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Lets imagine that we are trying to create a huge database of every book published. We know that we can legally publish old books on the web that are no longer protected by copyright law.
But, what about books that are still protected by copyright? We could send out hundreds of thousands of letters to authors across the entire world asking them to opt in to our program...but that would take years and lots of manpower to sort out.
Or, we could just scan in all of the copyright protected books and let individual authors sue us to take them out. We'll never have to go to court, since we'll settle out of court with any author, by removing the book from the database. Since all of the other authors are on notice that copyright infringment has occurred, they only have 3 years to sue us, since the statute of limitations will run out! And lots of these authors will not bother to sue. Now we can Profit!
This reminds me of when MP3.com copied various CDs and converted them to a streamable format. You were able to access the songs if you could prove that you owned the CD and thus had copyright permission. The idea was to save you from having to upload a CD's worth of music to their servers, they merely checked that you HAD the CD and then gave you access to their streams.
They were found guilty and forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars IIRC, thus putting them out of business. The courts concluded that they didn't have permission to make the copies in the first place, so the fact that they checked for the users CD didn't matter at all.
I don't really see the difference in Google's case, they don't have permission to scan these books, even if their intentions are good, and they have safeguards in place.
We will see what happens I guess.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Librarys do it differently; the books cost a hell of a lot more, as you'll know if you've ever lost one.
I used to work in a University library at the circulation desk; we paid the same price as everyone else did for books (we actually ordered a lot from Amazon). The expensive fine we charged for losing a book included:
cost of the book
cost of processing - cataloguing, adding anti-theft measures, adding call #, etc.
big "discourage you from being careless w/ our books" fine
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Have machine readable print form of "robots.txt" on the first few pages of the book. Works exactly like the web one, if you find it, you move along to the next book (site) without indexing the current one. Easy. Just have simple booleans "allowIndexing", "allowCopy" and so on.
How is Google any different, other than being obscenely more efficient and more accessible, especially for people with disabilities?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Sports jokes on Slashdot? Are you crazy man?
Does anyone know what realm this "authors guild" is on, and if they are planning on running molten core any time soon?
i'm thinking it's going to be pretty hard to lvl your members up to 60 if you are suing instead of playing, but that's just me...
dum spiro, spero
Now that we have Google Earth... I just leave my books outside. Scan times do seem to be a bit slow though. Have to move the books inside when it rains.
Google Print should just ban the listing of books by authors from the Author's Guild. Presumably the guild has some sort of process where the authors got all irritated by what they thought Google Print was doing, and got the guild to organize a lawsuit.
If Google comes out and says it's going to *ban* the listing of all of these authors' books, maybe they'll stop and wonder if it might not actually be a bad thing after all. Plus, the less vocal members of the guild that actually realize this is a good thing for them will now have a reason to get all upset and vocal: they're about to be banned from having their books indexed by the world's biggest search engine!
Now, in all seriousness, the effect of what Google is doing certainly amounts to fair use (the potential buyer of the book just sees enough of a snippet to allow them to realize this is or is not a book they're looking for). But their methods could easily be construed as infringement of copyright; they have to make a complete digital copy of a book they do not own. Their intentions don't matter here, except to influence how large the damages (actual or statutory) should be.
Does anyone else have the feeling that this will be the most important legal case in copyright in recent history? If Google argues the way I think they're going to argue (current copyright laws are hurting more than helping), this could be huge...
Lets keep in mind a few things.
Google is being sued for a service that is not available to the public (or anyone).
Google has not yet even provided details about what the service actually is.
If they were not actually making copies of the text but, instead were building search trees, then they would be doing nothing illegal. Just this would have a great potential.
Hell, they could be building a modern library of Alexandria for safe keeping, or maybe they are brute force training language interpretation software, maybe the GoogleCluster has become self aware and its studying us humans.
I'm just sick of everyone jumping into a lawsuit before they even know what they are suing someone for. These guys are probably just using legal trickery to set up a precedent for compensation of digially distributed works instead of 'negotiating' contracts like in the old days.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Sshhh! No one tell them about filetype:lit
Check out what Google has to say about this lawsuit.
I don't think you can equate the two coporations as they perform a different function. Google sells a service that ten gross of other corporations also sell. For far less return on investment, free mail, blog, search etc. based on an advert model are a dime a dozen on the web and Googles offerings are less than stellar. /. hypesters and spread the gospel of Google across the web in every forum, via IRC, Usenet, E-mail etc. Everyone here knows the stock is overhyped and overpriced. Your grandmother and mom don't realize that though. Failure to put the skids to it for personal gain is fraud. It's to late already anyway as the shit is to deep now and real people stand to loose their life savings.
The company value is based on hype of beta services (Mainly by tech types) that I've never failed to find from others before or after their startup.
Go forth yea young
Google will probably never cease to exist, however if it did the hole left would appear like that of someone pulling their finger out of a glass of water. For instance, wireless internet test they are about to undertake, (beta again) it's not like a dozen ISP's are not already offering that same service for a reasonable fee. Hell, the little town I live in has two Wireless, Cable, DSL, and endless Dial-up providers. I imagine San Francisco has 32 dozen more providers than that, yet just the mention of Google getting into the mix drives the stock upwards. I've never seen nor probably ever will again a companies stock rise to these levels over nothing but hype.
Consider that the copyright issue is resolved one way or another. Now consider the idea of a Library in which one can "check out" a library book; The book in question is electronic in nature. Given the rule of one copy purchased can be loaned to one reader at a time, and returned; The business model applied here is fairly linear. Advertising of a book could be in the form of scanning the text for a quote, or that it exists for "checkout". The benefits are kind of nice. One does not have to kill a tree to publish an electronic book. The author is rewarded for literary work well done, or in many cases, in major demand anyway. Books can be translated to other languages either written, or orally. Trees don't have to hide their young. And; Knowledge is allowed to continue to grow in an exponetial manner.
Yeah, you'd think someone would have invented copyright by now. :-)
Most redistributable content does have value today, in the eyes of the law. If everyone respected that law, it would be straightforward to implement an electronic distribution scheme that benefitted both authors and their audience, with traditional publishers still able to provide valuable services in editing, providing the distribution and advertising, and perhaps the layout and finishing work. In other words, everybody would win.
Unfortunately, significant parts of the population choose to break that law for their own selfish purposes. This is the reason cases like this are brought, and more beneficial alternative distribution channels have thus far been still-born.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Here in Texas, "old" means you can recollect when the news took days, weeks or months ta get here, dependin' on where it was comin' from. It means ya remember the time ya saw Jesse James and stayed outa his way, or how it felt when ya heard about the Alamo. It means gettin all excited when the railroads brought the tracks in. It means moseyin' takes longer than it usedta.
So all you young whippersnappers out there who think old has somethin' ta do with them dang books or buildins, think again.
Now gather round while I search for ma teeth, and I'll larn ya bout how I made friends with the Commanche, and the time we stole General Custer's clothes while he was asleepin!
I haven't been following this as close as I could have, so maybe I missed this: Has Google said what they are going to do with the scans? I know they are going to build a search engine for this stuff, but then what? If they haven't announced who can get to it, it's not much yet. They could do tons with it: make a Google appliance for libraries and companies to buy, make a paid for service to the public or private, sell the thing to the government, etc. etc.
Point is, are they suing before there's anything to sue about? Or, can I get sued for scanning library books at home for my own personal search tool?
Again, if they already announced the intent/product I apologize, but I've missed it.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
If google links to an Amazon purchase site... wouldn't Amazon (or another retailer) still benefit from said data and/or also make the profit from the sale?
You can bet your bottom dollar that if Google manage to get away with this, their new offering will have terms of service prohibiting anyone else systematically downloading from their database via automated means. Then they'll put the same army of lawyers behind it, in order to stop others from copying the material Google did. Getting hold of equivalent original sources will be difficult for any organisation that isn't already the size of Google, too. At that stage, the content will have been held freely available for Google to copy, but not for anyone else to copy from Google, and this paradox will stand until someone else with mightier lawyers collapses it. The only people to profit from this will be those connected with... Google!
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
Hell no! They don't NEED your permission to copy your content. Anybody can copy your content for any damn reason they please.
They only need your permission to redistribute it in ways that don't fall under fair use.
Copyright is predicated on the idea that nobody actually owns artistic creations like paintings or books or what have you. You can own the painting, but not the image displayed by that painting. You can own a book, but not the sequence of words in that book.
In order to encourage creation of new works of art, we, the people, grant a limited monopoly to the creator of such things. Admittedly, the time frame for that monopoly has been extended many times by corrupt politicans, but it has still only been EXTENDED, not made into actual property.
"Intellectual property" is a misnomer, because it's not "property" in any real sense of the word. Nobody can own a story. Nobody can own words. Somebody can have some limited amount of control over some of them for some period of time though. That's the way it works here.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
First of all, Google only has stuff like the indexs of books on there, as in 3-4 pages per book... This does not mean we can read the book on there! And its not depriving the authers of anything! IN FACT! Google Print just makes it easier to find books you want!! And in curages people to buy the book, by providing buy links! If these authors were smart, they'd know that this will help them make money!
That's simply not true. I have read content from inside several books via Amazon, without any sort of log-in.
However, there is still the obvious difference that the excerpts on Amazon are provided with the co-operation of the publishers, with their active consent. Also, the excerpts available are limited, with no scope for bypassing them to obtain a copy of the complete work.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"The *moral* argument is that if someone puts effort into creating something original which would (in all probability) not otherwise have been created, then they should be able to reap the rewards"
;). A second closer counter example is that the 'sweat of the
brow'
'effort' arguement was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States in
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. in that
creating a list, of phone numbers, is not copyrightable even if effort is put
into compiling it.
Efforts = right to rewards? First that is wrong via two counter examples. Second that isn't an arguement, it is a statement of opinion.
If efforts = right to rewards then I guess then a man/woman courting (putting effort) into trying to date another man/woman automatically should have a right to be laid then
In any event I'd need more than a one liner to convince me that effort equals the *RIGHT* to getting laid or paid.
"If someone puts effort into creating something original" then "they should be able to reap the rewards".
Should being able to reap the rewards include sending government storm troopers into my house because I copied some precious information (that you may happen to have been granted a copyright monopoly on by said storm troopers' political masters)?
> of books in print, I can see each hit as a book
> and also the search in context (i.e. browse a
> sample chapter that contains the search)
Wrong. According to the Google Blog:
Generally search indexing does not create complete copies of pages (granted google cache does but, that is a different matter).
n +law%22+%22Oliver+Wendell+Holmes%22&btnG=Search
Usually, search indexes are created which represent trees of data where parts are generally shared from all of the things being indexed. Also, most search indexers throw out small common words like, and, the, a, etc...
On another topic, search for public domain works on print.google.com returns pages marked as "Copyrighted Material". Now, whats up with that?
I chose "The Common Law" for my example just for the irony.
http://print.google.com/print?ie=UTF-8&q=%22commo
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Dear Guild, Thanks for going to court against a 87B mark.cap. company. The only possible outcome is that Google will turn to the lawmakers to change the (C) law to read something that fits more the 21th century than the Berne convention from the 19th. RIAA and MPAA will not say thanks when the law that supports them suddenly disappears, you know.
In one post, you've restated just about everything I disagree with in this discussion.
Everyone supporting Google here seems to be claiming they're doing the authors a favour by giving them free advertising. For a start, there are the small issues that:
Even then, this is a lot more than just a friendly hand helping with advertising the book: it is inevitable that people will find a way around the content controls, and download copies of complete works. Google can advertise legitimate channels all they like, but it doesn't mean they're not blatantly facilitating wholesale copyright infringement for a whole new industry by the unscrupulous (and still profiting from it themselves, of course; this isn't an exercise in charity, it's an exercise in raising ad revenue by a profit-making corporation).
I thought this was your best bit:
D'ya think?
Google is fairly clearly treading a fine line here and upsetting a lot of people as a result, just as many of its past offerings have. It amazes me that they haven't suffered a crippling law suit already, and I will have little sympathy if, having decided to basically take on a whole industry on dubious grounds, said industry then annihilates them in the courts. Unlike some around here, I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid that makes me think this particular profit-making corporation is somehow the saviour of mankind, exempt from our laws and any ethical responsibilities, and incapable of doing wrong.
Bringing a lawsuit where you have a case to make is any individual's (or, in this case, group's) right, and the only people who should be worried about it are those who can't defend themselves. There are genuine problems with this approach in the US (witness RIAA intimidation and settling out of court where defendants can't afford legal fees) but I hardly think that applies to Google.
Copyright exists for a reason. If people like you didn't constantly ignore it as you see fit and/or campaign for changes, we'd have had genuine, mutually beneficial electronic distribution channels years ago. Instead, we get half-assed crap like this, and the inevitable resulting conflicts that serve no-one but lawyers.
People like you are well meaning, I'm sure, but ultimately you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As a matter of fact, Google stopped their efforts for several monthes in the summer, giving publishers a time to compile a list of books they do not want placed in the archive. The publishers have actually complained that this is unfair because it places the burden on them. Of course, from Google's perspective, who should they contact if the holder of a copyright is out of business or dead?
Weren't these the guys who wanted to sue Amazon for selling used books?
didn't read it but whatever.
You can't handle the truth.
Really? Had I found where you kept your book, I would not consider someone forbidding me to pick it up and walk off with it because I don't believe in the concept of "property" to be acceptable by default.
Fortunately for everyone, in civilised society we agree and follow laws to prevent such selfish attitudes screwing things up for everyone. Copyright is no more an artificial concept than physical property, and both exist only because society at large considers their effects to be a net plus.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Google books is a great deal. Now all we budding authors have to do is invent a few pet raises and google bomb ourselves up to be NYT best sellers. If anything wouldn't get rid of overused cliches in literature, this would.
Just do a search for "It was the best of times", from Dickens tale of two cities, and you will be shocked at how many bad books are returned!
This is my sig.
What about the moral argument that if you benefit from someone else's efforts, they should be given some fair reward in exchange?
That seems to me to be one of the most fundamental moral principles there is.
Please note that this does not conflict with your position that making an effort does not equate to a right to be rewarded. The fact that someone else is benefitting from the effort, and thus the effort has demonstrable value, is what implies the right to be rewarded.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I am not a member of the Author's Guild, but I do support their actions in this case, and I think that some of your points should be answered. You have raised an interesting argument, but I'm afraid that you are misinformed in quite a few places.
First, Google's "Library" program is not a bold move to make information searchable. When I started my first degree in 1995, from my own university library I could search for books by keyword from any university library on the continent, and borrow them through inter-library loan. Google's program would be a bit more comprehensive, but it is still more of the same. As for making older books available, the Gutenberg Project was the pioneer, not Google. Google is basically doing something similar, but with more money, and less tactfully.
Second, the library system doesn't quite work as you seem to believe it works. Libraries loan books out, but they do not publish them or distribute them. The closest they come is to sell off some of their older copies. And, when you take out a book from a library, a small royalty is paid to the author. There is a large line between loaning a book out and making hundreds of photocopies of that book without permission, and libraries do not cross it, although you are suggesting in this letter that they do.
Third, you are using technology issues to obscure the actual issue. The fact that Google is a profit making company is irrelevant to the complaint. The size of the database is irrelevant to the complaint. The complaint revolves around the fact that before copying material still in copyright, Google did not ask for permission. Besides being a matter of common courtesy, it would have been a simple matter to send a form letter explaining the project, and so long as the terms are not unreasonable, most of the authors I know, including myself, would actually support such a thing. However, as a matter of principle, you have to ask first.
Fourth, you are suggesting that authors and publishers are in some conspiracy to hide books from the general public. Besides being completely illogical (it would require that publishers deliberately shoot themselves in the foot sales-wise), it is also quite silly. Why would anybody want to create a society like this, particularly when all it would do is limit markets and create injustice? Most books are not state secrets. Sometimes a suit for copyright infringement is just a suit for copyright infringement.
Finally, and related to this odd conspiracy theory, you have conveniently forgotten that artists, musicians, and writers are often the most socially active people around. Harlan Ellison marched in the Civil Rights march around Alabama in the late '60s. A number of well known writers drove ambulances in World War II. The first thing any tyranny does once it takes control, from Stalin to Hitler, is put controls on the artistic professions. Quite frankly, your letter is a slap in all of our collective faces. We've fought against injustice around the world, and some of us have even been imprisoned, forced to flee our homes, or murdered for it. Our writing helps drive social progress. Many of us use our pens to stand up for YOUR rights, but what happens when we stand up for ours? We get accused of holding the world back, and in your letter, being part of some conspiracy to create what amounts to a tyranny. Perhaps you should actually read the Berne Convention, and try to understand just what rights we claim. You'll find that they are quite reasonable.
But regardless of this slap in the face, we will continue to fight against injustice with our pens. We will continue to drive society forward. We will continue to fight for YOUR rights in the best ways we know how. All we ask is that when we shed our metaphorical blood, sweat, and tears on your behalf, that you respect us for it, and respect our wishes regarding what we create. And if you can't give us that, I only have two words to say to you.
The second is "you". The first begins with "F". I think you can figure it out on your own.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Can somebody please send me the contents of http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/16 20225&tid=153&tid=95&tid=219
I'm in China and don't know how to access it, since they've fscking censored it!
Infinite thanks for your effort!
Mike
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither do I - get Mac OS
I decided that the Author's Guild was an enemy of the freedoms I enjoy as a Citizen of the United States of America after in 2002, after they tried to get Amazon to stop selling used books (reference article).
Basically, they seem to think that they can take away my rights (First Sale Doctrine) if they apply enough pressure . . . so they can earn more money.
I understand that authors get paid way too little, but if they sign the publishing contracts, it is their own dumb fault.
It irritates me to see yet another group (MPAA and RIAA) decide that it is better to fight the new technology rather than embracing it and making it work for them. Sad, really. I'm sure that some people in the Natural ice industry hated that new-fangled refrigeration device, too.
Sigh.
Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley
Not all books are lengthy works which need to be read in their entirety to make sense.
Search Google Print for a couple ingredients, and I can find recipes from hundreds of cookbooks. Don't need more than a page or two from the work to make use of it, and I certainly don't need to buy the book.
Sales lost from "only a brief snippet"
Hadn't thought about it... but it makes sense. What's the difference between scanning a book that's in a library and scanning a DVD that's in the library?
I run a source code search engine with a business model not unlike Google print. I was nervous about how authors would take to having their source code searchable, but the only response has been positive, mostly consisting of authors asking how they can add other books of theirs to the index.
Breakfast served all day!
As a conspirasist the law suit appears to be a ploy by some of the intellectual minds at google, and there are a few visionaries there, and a group of quite possibly the most legitiment group of intellectual property owners - the authors guild. If this suit sees the inside of a court room as I predict it will, the result will be instantly trendsetting, and provide a means to catalyze the deconstruction and reconstruction of copywrite and intellectual property laws.
Ahh, the old "they must be right because they are smart and they went and did it anyway" argument.
Cute.
Google doesn't have a leg to stand on, and they will 100% lose this case. This is clearly a violation of copyright law.
I don't understand why it's even being debated - you can't copy someone else's work and reproduce it for profit. This is exactly what copyright law is intended to prevent - do you actually think anyone is going to say "well.. it's google, let's let them slide on this one"?
IANAL, but I don't believe the Authors Guild has a standing for such a suit unless they themselves have the copyright on some of the works. You can't sue someone for someone else. If you are a single author who's rights were allegedly violated you could sue and seek class action for the rest of the authors whos rights were allegedly violated. However, since I'm not an author I couldn't sue Google on their behalf, and neither should the Author's Guild be able to. I do believe there was a similar case that was discussed in the recent Roberts confirmation hearings. While everyone may agree that the alleged activity was against the law and should be punished, only the people agrieved have the standing to push the case. (Specifically in the Roberts case, some wacko environmentalist tried to sue for mercury levels in streams, while they were not the agrieved parties. The actions of the companies that released the mercury may have been illegal, but you have to have standing to file suit [or at least to win such a suit without being dismissed]. That's not to say the environmentalist could not or should not have funded such a lawsuit by those actually agrieved).
Now, TFA says that the individual plantiffs are Herbert Mitgang, Betty Miles, and Daniel Hoffman. So, to be accurate, the Author's Guild isn't really suing anyone, they are publicizing the fact that three of their supposed members are suing Google. They may even be providing for the legal fees in the action, although TFA doesn't say anything about that I could find. But is the Actor's Guild itself suing Google? It can't because it doesn't have standing. However, remember that IANAFL.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Linking/Kelly_v_Arriba_Soft/ 20030707_9th_revised_ruling.pdf
I believe this court decision should establish a precedent that the judge will be more likely to adhere to than not. However, I really hope Google wins and the precedent is upholded. If not, the floodgates would be open to all sorts of lawsuits by content owners against search engines, and web applications.
Rather than complaining to the Slashdot population that copyright laws are painfully outdated, how about actually changing the law? That's what your representative exists for.
I live in california. Our legislators are all cronies of the Mexican government. They don't give a rat's ass about us.
Actually, I consider such a system "backwards" rather than "civilised" ...
Frankly, I wish that we had never imported that nonsensical and unworkable imaginary property scheme.
Speaking of which, for my civilised UK readers, please pony up. You owe me for having read them.
And I'm adding a EULA to this post: that I'm not bound by any reciprocal licenses, adhesive or otherwise, you might later try to foist upon me like this (unless I agree to such in writing, as signed by me personally or an agent I so designate).
So I'm really not sure what all the commotion is about... but if Google -is- successfully sued and the copyright laws are changed, what will happen to the rest of us who (legally, under current laws) reproduce sections of books for academic reasons?
Google is pushing for stronger and faster change in information flow. Period. How many times have you wondered "what book/author said x?" With this service you can solve that once and for all. What the Author's Guild is really afraid is a technology being birthed that doesn't exist at this time that would allow a person to easily get the entire book contents and put it in a more readable form. IOW what happend to music. The legal problem with this from the Author's Guild perspective is you can't base a lawsuit on fear of what "might" happen because of something. To do that would be just as stupid as the pony express sueing to stop the invention of the telegraph because it "might" mean the end of their business. (it was actually) So what the Author's Guild did is a pre-emptive strike by using a trumped charge of copyright infringement. This fight has been brewing anyway because it involves everything from fair use and the stupid Mickey Mouse laws which keep anything from going into public domain anymore. Sadly, the objective of what google is doing is harmless and the Author's Guild knows this. This is really about what MIGHT happen in the future with the technology.
and hey, the 'submit' and 'preview' buttons have swapped sides, so i almost did it again !