Slashdot Mirror
Tim O'Reilly on the Google Library Project
dkleinsc writes "The New York Times is running an op-ed piece(free registration required) by Tim O'Reilly arguing that the Google Library Project is a good thing for authors in general, and suggests a lawsuit by the Author's Guild against Google is acting against authors' best interest."
Since their suit was announced, I have wondered why the Author's Guild would object to MORE access to their works by offering snippets to Google Print. Obviously there is much to be lost by publishers who, like the RIAA, act as gatekeepers on published works. If the Author's Guild really likes the current system, then why do so few works circulate more than 5,000 copies? Wouldn't their members be better served with wider distribution?
The Author's Guild looks like just another out-of-touch union that is trying to straddle the fence on this issue so as to not piss off their benefactors in publishing. Perhaps they are secretly hoping their suit will fail.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Of course Tim O'Reilly is going to in favor of the Google Library Project. O'Reilly's Safari Bookshelf is already putting the content of books online (for a fee though).
Bradley Holt
The author suggests that the main issue at hand is that the "whole work" must be digitized and stored (the writer's main sticking point). When a Google books search is conducted, only snippets (a couple of sentences) would be displayed. Ok, but through some recursive Googling lead to disclosure of the entire work? While I agree that it's easier to go to the library and check out the book, there is a way to circumvent the system. I am not a lawyer, but this does have some perceivable holes.
No doubt there are two problems with this: the first seems to be that authors (to the best of my knowledge) haven't been asked either piecemeal or via organizations like the Authors' Guild for permission. The second is that Google will no doubt be making money as a result of providing this service and everybody else wants a cut.
However, we have reached an unfortunate point with copyright and fair use where we'd rather halt innovation than admit that copyright holders' expectations have reached a point of making it cost- and time-prohibitive to meet their demands and are to the point of stagnating not only the public domain but technologies and services that deliver or even touch upon copyrighted content. In this sense, creating a scenario that is not unlike the movie industry's dire predictions about the VCR in the early 80s.
It would be best, of course, for Google to attempt to work out an amiable solution with authors without crippling their service to an unreasonable extent, but I feel that the intent of fair use (if not its prevailing interpretation) falls in their favor... as does the bottom-line for both Google and the membership of the Authors' Guild.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
They obviously want an 'opt-in' system, because that reduces the number of books competing to just the current commercial books, and removes possible public domain, orphan works and smaller publishers authors.
,just not index everyone elses. That's what the lawsuit is about, getting an opt-in to reduce the number of competing works. All the 'copyright infringment / worried about security / worried about snippet size' claims are just bollocks that make no sense. Since Google has offered them an opt out, if they were truely worried, they could just flag their books as opt out and that would end it.
Joe public on the other hand, *is* best served by 'opt-out' because that includes orphaned work & possible public domain books.
So they want Google to index their books
They lied, Google called them on their lie and now they will go to court and look real dumb. By giving them the opt-out Google has outmaneuvered them. So now they will lose, but if they could win it, it would have be in their interests.
They will say "we are worried about Google scanning our books", Google will say "but we are not going to scan your books, because as soon as we realised you didn't want that, we took you off the list", end of case.
Or you could just go here and read them all for free: http://www.unix.org.ua/orelly/
Not that I condone this kind of activity.
If I were an author, and worried about my IP rights, my only objection would be that although they're providing me a service by allowing searches to bring up my book and thereby advertising it, any security problem might expose my work and allow it to be downloaded freely. Depending on how Google structured their service, it might even prevent me from asserting my IP rights against people redistributing the work. I don't know whether the Author's Guild is worried about this issue or is just completely hidebound, but it's something to think about.
It will be an intersting opportunity for the evolution of copyright law. Right now the copyright concept hinges on the antiquated notion that the right to make a copy is what matters.
Google is making full text electronic searches of scanned books, and has clearly made a copy. The scale of this copying clearly falls outside of "fair use".
On the other hand, the intended use of the copies they hold would be of great benefit to authors and society at large, but antiquated laws restrict the right to make copies to the owner of the copyright.
Hopefully the money will be here to get an opinion from the courts that clarifies these antiquated notions.
The courts are the friends of the people in this case. The courts are the only ones that can bring balance to the force of copyright since Lawmakers have already been bought by the vested interests of copyright exploiters.
The best thing that could happen to bring the balance of copyright back toward benefiting the public good in the spirit it was granted in the first place, is going to court oposing someone with $84,000,000,000 valuation.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) Google takes the entire book, and with or without the author's permission, copies it (to Google's own personal harddrives).
2)My understanding is that they are "raiding" libraries, and perhaps not necessarily even buying a copy of every book they do this with.
3) They make only bits of it available, but in fact, a person could, with proper searching, get the whole book eventually.
My understanding of Fair Use means only a small part of a book can be "quoted". Given that maybe it's okay for Google to copy the books if they want, they are, however, effectively making the entire book available.
It would be something like having a thousand reviewers quote one thousandth of the same book. Reading all the reviews would give you the whole book. Only, it's not a thousand reviewers, but in this case just one - Google.
I have a problem with their "Opt-out" presumption. In general I think it should be "Opt-in".
Finally, it doesn't matter whether the authors will ultimately profit from Google doing this or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is either legal or it is not. Here is a bad analogy: A maid breaks into my house and cleans everything up and then leaves. It doesn't matter that the maid's actions ultimately benefitted me (I got a clean house), breaking into my house is illegal.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
There seems to be a bit (hah!) of confusion regarding Fair Use Rights. People seem to think that it means that you can just copy part of something and that's all hunky-dorey, which it isn't. Fair use is a doctrine (though in the past 3 decades codified) which describes an exception to the basic copyright. What Google is doing here isn't directly covered under section 108 of the copyright act (archival/library copying) is therefore definitely not solid. Those that fall outside the exemption were dealt with by a 4-4 Supreme Court tie in Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States. A big mess.
Additionally, the reproduction of works must be targetted, and fair use doesn't extend to research that is done for commercial purpose. So google would have to make sure that any research that was done with its engine was not-for-profit and for educational purpose. From section 108 of the copyright act: "[applicable if] the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage." So not only is copying for a commercial purpose a violation (ala Texaco), the section that defines copyright also includes as part of the balance "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Harper & Row in particular ruled that 300 words was enough for infringement if the words were important and there was a significant economic impact either to the benefit of the infringer or detriment of the rightsholder.
There really needs to be some education about copyright laws before fair use doctrine gets thrown around as a justification for copying world+dog. People seem to think variously that there's a constitutional right, a blanket gaurantee of it, no limitations on it, and a hard and fast rule for its application. The response to all of those beliefs is a very emphatic NO.
But the demand for reading books on a computer screen is quite low, and printing a book is probably no cheaper than buying it in most cases.
sigfault. core dumped.