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
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
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.
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.
Ponce de Leon was murdering the native people over here as far back as the early 1500's.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
"If Google combined this with publishing 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."
This is what authors are afriad of -- change from the status quo. I think it's a change for the better, but when you're talking about your livelihood, it's a scary thought to imagine -- the way you make your money is about to change drastically.
Technology tips and tricks.
Yahoo? MSN? The government? I know a lot of books that will never be digitalized by those... In the MSN library you will never find a book blaming Microsoft, in the Government's library you will never find anything written by Marx. You will find what they want you to find. Same thing for Google by the way... Wanna bet?
Plus this argument about "the books degrade" is moot. Your average paper-print book can last for at least 200 years without any special care, and much more if you do take care of it. Compare that with the 10-year lifespan of a CD-Rom. Plus the fact that you need a power supply to read your "on-line" books.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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?
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.
To play the devil's advocate:
Why should I as a copyright owner have to OPT OUT of Google violating my copyright?
The Authors Guild also have this opt out possibility, but they are still suing.
Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
They obviously get a cut of this revenue because it increases book sales. I fail to see why would they deserve a part of ad revenue.
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.
The authors want to be consulted on how their copyrighted text is used. And that is absolutely their right.
No. They have to be consulted only for some uses specified by the law. If I want to distribute an author's book I need to ask permission. If I want to quote a sentence from his book, I don't need permission. If I want to burn his book, I don't need permission either. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know in what category Google Print falls, but it's certainly not obvious.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
> does that entitle me to the right to take any copyrighted text and digitize it into my library without permission?
It's called "fair use".
With most legislation out there, if you have access to books either by buying them in a book store (in witch case you have paid the copyright holder), or by checking them out of a library (in which case the library pays a licensing compagny to make their books available to its users) then you can do whatever you want for your own usage :
- you can read it.
- you can store it digitaly for your own usage.
- you can tear pages and make Origamis Boulders with it.
Of course, if want to publish these contents, then we're beyond "private and personnal use" and you need to pay some license before doing it (like the library does).
BUT there's another thing called the right to cite.
You have the right to use small reasonnable portions of copyrighted material where you want, as long as you cite the source. (You can quote some other in an essay about this author's works. Or show a table in a presentation...)
And I think google did nothing wrong :
- They scanned books, but as long as the content is not online there's nothing wrong with that : the libraries where they borrowed the books DO pay license to make books available.
- They only show a few words of context for the matching keywords, bibliographical data, and the first or the two first pages of the book. That clearly can be considered as a "reasonable portion".
Of course, I'm european and don't have knowledge of amercan laws. Maybe the laws in the US are different than the rest of the world.
Also note that google provides an additionnal service to the copyrights owner, without being asked for and without receiving anything in return from the copyright owners : they provide links to on-line bookstore, and probably help the copyright holder to sell more.
The only that could truly be afraid are the small specialist bookshops, that usually know and sell less known book that you won't find in huge stores.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The so-called authors' guild is an organization which considers publishers to be at-large members over the regular membership given to authors. Want to know which group is more important to the guild?
The point being, don't assume the authors are the ones fearing the change.
To be fair, the problem is that one company controlling an entire market is never a good thing, even if it is Google.
My personal thought is that systems like this are beneficial to society as a whole, and so long as Google don't use the technology in the way you describe, they should be allowed, whether or not that's what the law says. Copyright law needs radical reform.
While the method you just described is boring and cumbersome, it is perfectly eligible to be scripted. I guess in a day or two I could get a little robot up that would grab an entire book.
But this is not the problem. These companies don't realize their books already are on eMule and other networks. So downloading them is a trivial task even without Google's help.
Google is just trying to do the 'right thing' _TM_ but there is an obvious flaw in their process.
Let's hope this will be settled amically out of court.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
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....
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?
Only buy typewritten, photocopied and staple-bound books from your local hippie-collective bookshop.
And then copy them yourselves and don't worry about the bookshop going out of business, because information wants to be free and they'd be uber-capitalist hypocrites if they or their authors were to sue you for wanting compensation for copying their material.
Listen; as I said elsewhere, Google are a commercial company (albeit one who usually behave in a better manner than the stereotype), the Author's Guild members have both the moral right to say (within reason) what is done with their work and to receive compensation for it. Especially w.r.t. reference works, searchability *might* damage the sales of books; it might encourage sales in other cases, but let's not consider this as a black and white issue. If nothing else, the authors themselves should have the right to that decision.
Personally, had I written a book, I would not consider someone copying it without permission and making it searchabe to be acceptable by default.
It might "benefit" people in general, but if it doesn't benefit the author too, I think they have a right to be unhappy about this.
You, of course, have the right to boycott their books, but this seems like a kneejerk "information wants to be free and anyone who stops this is bad" reaction without considering the wider issues.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The onus is on Google, as a "do no evil" company, to not break the law, perhaps?
Google's stance, clearly stated, is that they are not breaking the law. The onus is on the Authors Guild, as the plaintiffs, to prove that they are. When that's all done, then we can start talking about whether Google should have done this in the first place or not.
(Note, incidentally, that "doing no evil" and "not breaking the law" are not always identical; in this case they probably are, because you can hardly compare this to any of the obvious examples of evil laws that a righteous person would have to break, but it's important to keep the distinction firmly in mind nonetheless.)
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...
That analogy isn't really relevant. Google isn't posting the entire work online. They also believe that their actions are legal, so they don't characterize what they're doing as blatant infringement. Google is transforming a work by digitizing it. The use may be fair, like Kelly v. Arribasoft's case that determined that the creation and posting of thumbnails is fair.
You also point out one of the disengenuous parts of the original article. If the use is fair as Google contends, Google doesn't need the authors approval or permission to take this action, although receiving their permission would be nice. Giving them an opt out in the manner that Google is may help their fair use argument as well.
While we're at it, let's point out that the authors are not typically the holders of their copyright in the current system. Then let's point out that the historical purpose of copyright law in the United States isn't to protect the authors or copyright holders. The Constitutional basis is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; -U.S. CONST., art. I, 8, cl. 8.
Protecting the authors is the means of encouraging the creation of new works, but it's not the point itself. The point is to ultimately benefit the public. This article relies on an appeal to the moral rights of the authors. The US has limited implementation of moral rights, but so far they've all flown in the face of the traditional rationale for copyright. Copyright law as implemented now appears to be doing more harm then good. Look at many of the DMCA's provisions.
My only problem with Google Print so far is their reported contracts with the libraries, which seem kind of unfair to the libraries.
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.
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
This would be true if they were publishing the entirety of the works. But they are not.
Just because some of the text that Google wants to use is copyrighted does not automatically make it illegal for them to use. That's the bone of contention here.
The Print Publisher project isn't illegal in the slightest, because it is opt in by the copyright holders.
The Print Library project seems, to my wholly un-law schooled mind, like it has a pretty decent case for fair use. Yes, Google is (or at least is going to try) to make money off the searches. But the self-imposed restrictions on how much of the text displayed is so limited as to be slightly more useful than a card catalogue search. Thats all. I'll grant that some very determined user or users could possibly acquire an entire replica of a copyrighted work. However, you might then want to consider suing bookstores. They'll let me sit there and read whole chapters of a book without purchasing it. And if I was a very determined person, I could violate copyrights there, too.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
How could they control this market? There are few if any barriers to prevent others from participating. If this is validated as legal then I guarantee that there will be more participants.
Shifting of medium is perfectly legal. Google is not violating copyright by scanning books. Go poke around USC Title 17, and the various court precedents out there.
The Authors' Guild is within the normal frame of RIAA/MPAA copyright, where they insist you can only do what they say you can. That isn't the way copyright actually works, and there are many court cases to prove it.
In this case, Google shifts the content from a book to a database. It then queries that database. It has not infringed copyright in this process.
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.
First let me start by thanking you to take the time & effort to produce a book and add to human culture & knowledge.
Would you have written the book if copyrights didn't exist?
The same could be said of producers in regards to consumer's rights under copyrights. e.g. DRM, cease&desist lawsuits over fair-use(think blackboxvoting and Diebold).
Copyrights in the US were designed to promoted the Arts & Sciences. They are granted by the US Gov't in exchange for the author agreeing to let the work enter the public domain after the copyright term expires. Original term was 14 years aka a *temporary* right.
This is basically a social contract between the author and the general public. The public("We the people") agree to grant the author exclusive rights to the work for the first few years of its life to re-coup production costs in exchange for open & free access to the work a few years down the road.
Today's copyrights last life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporation. Odds are good that this will be extended again, mostly likely when Mickey is about to become public domain.
Under current copyright law, since RMS is around 45, Emacs won't enter the public domain until some time after 2100.
The social contract on which copyrights are based has been perverted. The public no longer receives a benefit from granting a copyright; open & free access to the work, a continuely growing public domain.
In this context copyrights are meaningless to the public. They are not receiving their end of the social contract. Why should they uphold their end of the contract?
/rant
Why/how would it elimate copyright? Google isn't providing whole works for download. They are just providing the ability to search.
What if it was the Library of Congress that was doing this instead of Google?
What if Google was doing this under contract for the Library of Congress?
Ummm, nothing copyrighted since 1923 will enter the public domain until 2019
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Hello,
The text of some work might very well be public-domain, however a particular instance of a copy of that work, i.e. in a book, might not be. In other words publishers can argue that their printing of a novel by Jane Austen cannot be put on the web without permission (i.e if you scan it and put the images up).
Whether this makes sense or not, this is exactly what is happening in music sheet printing all the time. Even if the music is by Mozart, the printing is copyrighted and cannot be redistributed.
You sure have the gift of the word, but your argument basically boils down to the insinuation in your last paragraph. It is disingenious to claim that a substantial improvement on the general public's ability to find relevant books is not "a bold move to make information searchable".
Yes, it would have been nice if they had asked every single author for permission first. However, your and the guild's subsequent moral indignation and denial does amount to a misguided effort against the greater good of the society, regardless of whether you admit it or not. It's an unavoidable and regrettable consequence of this copyright suit, not a "conspiracy theory".