Slashdot Mirror
Google Responds to Authors Guild Lawsuit
Phoe6 writes "Google has responded to the Authors' Guild lawsuit of "massive copyright infringement". They point out that the Library Project is 'fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.'"
If I remember correctly, mp3.com was found to be guilty of making internal copies of all the CD's they touched. Isn't Google doing the same thing, eg. making a massive amount of copies of the books they touch? Insofar as it isn't legal for other corporations to put entire books through the photocopy machine, or use a single copy of software across all computers (without a corporate license)?
Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."
This is from copyright.gov:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.
The Author's Guild also was the organization that attacked Amazon for selling used books. (Previously reported by /..)
I know a couple of best-selling authors personally, and none of them have a high opinion of the Author's Guild.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but IAAL (I am a Librarian). While I personally agree that there *should* be the ability to digitize these collections and make them searchable, I think Google's in a whole heck of a mess here.
I don't think that this is necessarily fair use. The article linked to in post presents a case which relates to images, and traditionally copyright around images has been dealt with much differently than copyright related to texts, so I'm not sure how relevant the stated case might be. That being said, the one major flaw I see is that the libraries Google is partnering with purchased the books, and Google is 'borrowing' those books. If I borrow a book from my library, I am not allowed to photocopy the entire book. Maybe the Library has the right to do so for preservation (i.e. backup) or other purposes, but I do not. Even though Google is trying to hold to fair use practices through what it offers to its users, Google itself seems like it is likely to be breaking copyright by holding full copies of these works.
Now, should the publishers be making a big fuss? Well, maybe and maybe not. It doesn't appear that Google's effort will harm publishers, and is likely to help them. However, Google is not the only player out there who would be interested in massively copying monographs, and if the publishers let this pass, it might set a precedent which could come back to bite them. It isn't clear to me that the publishers are in the right, or that Google is entirely in the wrong, but if I were a publisher, I'd do the same thing, most likely.
I believe the other crux of the problem is that Google bulldozed its way forward with this project. Imagine if it was Microsoft instead of Google doing this; the slashdot comments would probably be entirely different. I admire Google moxie in pushing this issue, but I also am pained that they lacked the patience to work out some of the issues with the publishers before they pushed forward.
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
basically googles stance is that they can do whatever they want with the librarys books unless you specificially tell them to not do it.
Actually Google, and the law as I read it both say Google can reproduce and publish small excerpts of any book they want to, but if you ask them not to they will exclude your book to be nice. Legally, they have no such obligation.
which actually sounds a bit funny as they seem to be searchable in full and basically readable in full as well
Being searchable in full is sort of the point, and is metadata, i.e. data about what is in a book. That data is a fact and is not copyrightable. As to entire books being viewable, that should only apply to public domain works and works where the copyright holder gave Google their permission. If you can view more than a few pages of any one book, and you don't think it falls into one of those categories, you should submit it as a bug.
making indexes that contain the copyrighted material in full is copying - or else we would have a very convinient loophole to destroy all copyrights.
Sort of like copying a work in RAM, and/or across network devices is copying? The courts have taken into account the intent and the end result of this sort of copying before. If the end user only sees a few pages, then that is probably what the courts will rule is the copied portion in any given instance.
You need not own the books for it to make fair use of their contents. Direct quotation is a case to point. If I were required to own a copy of all books that I use as references in essays/assignments, then I simply could not afford to do them.
Imagine the costs of doing a PhD under those conditions!
A more interesting question is whether someone could write a bot that could run a whole bunch of queries and eventually piece together an entire work.
And if so, then I'd venture that Google needs to do something to assure the Authors Guild that they protect against that kind of abuse. Not that I think it would be all that difficult.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Libraries are the same way; if they were invented today the Author's Guild would probably be lobbying against them.
I actually read a quote by the head of a publisher's organization - she said that they would dearly love to go after libraries, but it wasn't a battle they could win, because libraries are seen as such a good thing. It would be like going after children's hospitals, or puppies, or something. I can't find the quote after a quick naive Google, but I think it was covered on Slashdot a while ago.
I wish they would go after libraries, because then people might realize what money-grubbing greedheads the various publishing businesses are.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Actually, my understanding of what Google is claiming:
d f)
A. Under Fair Use, we have the right to display exerpts of ANY book, copyright or no.
If they dont copy the whole book, but rather, store the book as an index, they are on (from my little understanding of the law) fairly solid ground here. If they store the book, in a serially readable fasion, they might have some greater issues with the scanning. But if they never actually store the book in a serially readable manner, and merely make trees out of the book, they really dont need an authors permission at all.
IANAL but Google scanning and indexing of the books has some case law behind it, as being leagle, also. If you read the linked article (http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.p
you will see an argument that the storing of the books, totally, with the use of only providing exerpts of the book is also leagle.
So what google is saying is "look, I can do this one way or the other, with out without your permission. However, if you REALLY dont want to be included, then hey, no big deal, I will respect your wishes. I dont have to, but I like being polite."
So Google basically it doesnt have to be opt in or out. But Google is being polite in letting you opt out.
It is interesting to me that on slashdot people are so "Screw the man" when it comes to the RIAA defending itself from people copying copyrighted works. But they feel that a corporation should not be able to use principles of fair use. Consider the priciples, not who is invoking them.
Many Google acolytes like to point out that Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default.
This statement is far too general. Could not the same claim be made of any sytem that categorizes books and journals so a potential user locates them - like a library card catalog?
Pointing to a resource is a much different animal than illegally copying the resource for one's own gain - financial or otherwise.
Furthermore, the prohibition of copying copyrighted works specified in Section 108 of the copyright act is for libraries and archives, and even there specifies a copy can be made if the copyright notice is maintained, it's not for financial gain, and isn't available to people outside of library/archive premises. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108.
Of course, the idea of 'premises' is laughable in the Age of the Internet, but I think the point you tried to make citing Section 108 is a real stretch and in no way bears any resemblance to what the law intends.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
OK, what is the guild complaining about ?
Try the following experiment.
Go to Google Print, search for "Image Processing Handbook", The first item is the J.C. Russ book. Click on it. This is a recent, copyrighted book.
Now search for "noise", go to page 19. You can read the book from page 17 to 21. Notice the pretty pictures.
Now look for "coarsening", a rarish word found on page 21. Select page 21, and Lo and behold you can now also read page 22 and 23. Repeat ad nauseam.
In most book a few pages are permanently blotted out, but by and large you can easily read *most* of the book.
Try the same trick with any book in Google Print, it works.
THIS goes beyond fair use. The guild has a point. They will win that case, unless Google scale back their offering dramatically, to the point where is has no value beyond what Amazon (say) offers now.
Do you understand now? Thanks.