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.
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 Copyright laws are painfully outdated in the digital age, and yet time and time again those who sell information (in whatever format, music, movie, now books) are constantly standing in the way of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.
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.
old in Oxford means pre 1600 ie before anyone went to your country from Europe and killed the natives.
Typical Oxford whippersnapper. Here in York, `old' means before the Vikings got here. I quite like the modern architecture of the Minster, though.Evidence suggests the Welsh were over there, not murdering people, in the first millenium. Bloody young Norman upstarts.
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.
A library has a copy of a book, which they are allowed to let as many people as they want read, without restriction-- but aren't allowed to display a copy of the front page of that book to anyone over telephone lines.
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.
Got it?
Whether such an act is terrible or not is an unanswered question, but it is a breach of copyright law.
Typical ivory tower crusties.
Here in Colchester, 'old' means before Boudica kicked Roman arse :-)
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.
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.
Right or wrong, The Authors' Guild is saying that Google are acting illegally.
Just because Google (and some of it's supporters) think this is a good idea does not make it legal.
We can all have our opinions about what "should" happen, but whether Google is allowed to do this is down to the Courts, now that the copyright owners have asked that it be looked into.
I think the OP's point is that Google are not doing this because of the wonderful, freeing effect it will have on literature, rather that they are doing it to make money.
I wonder what would happen if Google started to charge for access to this library?
b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
MadDwarf
Well, out here in the Olduvai Gorge...
It's getting too difficult to track. Maybe Slashdot should add a page telling us what our opinion should be about a particular product/company that day.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Grandparent's point was that libraries don't need permission from the copyright owners to have the books on their shelves. Loaning a book to people is not a question of IP law, it's a simple question of owning the book.
It's one of those creeping IP things. If you own a DVD, you have every right to lend it to whomever you want, no permission or end user license agreement required. Same thing with CD's, printer cartridges, and steak knives.
Many companies are pushing to have IP-style EULA's and rules extended to physical objects. Others are attempting to convince consumers that the companies retain "ownership" over the objects that people purchase. Neither of these is correct. It is our job to be careful walking through this minefield, and to push back on the encroachment of this not just unjust but also legally incorrect way of looking at the world.
The ______ Agenda
There's a compelling response to the lawsuit posted on the official Google Weblog.
Kevin Fox
First of all the content of public web sites is generally freely available to all.
And the contents of the libraries Google is scanning are not?
Google only provides a free indexing service to all that content.
Google caches Web pages and provides a short blurb from each page with the link to help you determine if this is valuable material for you. Now Google has added library books and you can view a page or two of the book to determine if it is a book you want to buy or check out from a library.
Further, web sites are usually happy to be searchable through Google, because their goal is to be visible and read...
The libraries Google is scanning are providing them with access and often free office space while performing their scans. They to want their catalogue to be easily searchable. It is the library that owns the book that is using their right to copy small portions of the book for literary endeavors. It seems pretty kosher to me. Any library that does not want to participate can just say "no" or not invite Google to come over.
You have looked at the Google pages right? You know they only let you see a few pages of most books and only public domain books and books whose copyright holder has given permission are shown in their entirety right? Surely you don't begrudge any library the right to build a searchable database of the books they own, just like you don't begrudge me the right to build a searchable database of the books I own.
I'm not sure how anyone has any right to complain. But this is America, so a lawsuit was inevitable.