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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, it raises the ethical and moral issue that they are making money off the back of work they're not paying for.
So does the New York Review of Books, and you don't see these "Authors' Guild" dinosaurs suing them. These fossilized assclowns know which side their bread is buttered on.
IANAL, but do the libraries have the right to transfer the copyright to another entity ?
The Libraries don't have the copyright themselves, so they couldn't transfer it to someone else. The libraries have licence from the actual copyright owners to have the book on their shelves, but other rights are reserved.
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
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.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
I agree with the sentiment, but just want to point out that "copyright" doesn't mean the "right to make copies". Not logically and not etymologically.
Google is thinking like a search engine company. Every day, it copies the material of millions of copyrighted web pages into its servers and uses that material to respond to search queries. generally, the web is grateful for this service, though the jealous type can used robots.txt to reassert his or her exclusive rights. Similarly, the distributers of dead trees can opt out of the program...
Google zealots pretend that what Google is doing is allowed under Fair Use. A big factor which is used to dermine whether something is Fair Use is whether it's being done for commercial purposes.
No, the libraries have printed copies of the books, which they own. There's no "license" held by the library...
Please re-read my post. I didn't say the libraries had a licence, I said they had licence.. it means they have permission.
That's what I just said. Thanks for your time.
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
umm Yes There is
Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
FACT : A scanned copy of a book is a derivative work of that book.
No it's not. It's just a copy, not a derivative.
There is a definition in the law for what constitutes a derivative work: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
This doesn't change the fact that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies, so the end result is the same.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Read before speaking. I can (if I want) go to a library and read a book from cover to cover. Oh noes!!1!1eleventy1! Libraries should be burned down and librarians should all be shot!!!!! God damned thieves!!!!!
An excerpt from the tool:
Why can't I read the entire book? We respect copyright law and the tremendous creative effort authors put into their work. So you'll only be able to see a limited portion - in some cases only a few sentences - of books that we treat as under copyright. If the book is not under copyright, then you can browse the entire book. In general, Google Print aims to help you discover books, not read them from start to finish. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing - only with a Google twist.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
There's a compelling response to the lawsuit posted on the official Google Weblog.
Kevin Fox
If I buy a book, I have the Right to make a copy of it. I do not have the right to distribute the copy I made. So "copyright" is not strictly the right to copy or denial of that right. It would be more of a "distributeright" as the laws are currently written, despite the best efforts of the MPAA and RIAA and others to ban any unauthorized copies.
Learn to love Alaska
the ones with current copyrights are only searchable so what's their problem? and don't say that someone could make a script to get the whole book because someone could more easily just shoplift a book from a bookstore.
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
No, they're not. Libraries pay per loan, which is paid by taxes, and that money goes to the author. This was one reason the public library movement was able to get authors on side in its early days. Google does not pay this fee.
I'm not sure how anyone has any right to complain.
You are clearly not trying to make a living from writing, then.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"