Slashdot Mirror
Second Google Suit Over Print Library Project
linumax writes "The Association of American Publishers, an organization of book publishers including Pearson Plc's Penguin unit and McGraw-Hill sued Google over its plan to create a digital Web library of printed books. The Association of American Publishers sued Wednesday after talks broke down with Google over copyright issues raised by the Google Print Library Project. Publishers say Google will infringe copyrights unless it gets advance permission for the scanning. The suit is the second by the publishing industry against Google's library plans and underscores the worries sparked by Google's expansion beyond Web search." From the article: "Google, which is working with five of the world's great libraries (Stanford, Harvard and Michigan university libraries, the New York Public Library and the Bodleian library in Oxford) to digitise their collections, stopped scanning copyrighted books in August after protests from publishers. However, it intends to resume its work next month."
We are mere months (maybe a year) away from the ability to completely scan any book and convert it accurately to text based PDF in under an hour. It will likely be F/OSS software that does it, released ostensibly to save old books in the public domain.
When this happens, books will end up on P2P just like movies, music, porn, and images. Just as P2P helps people find interesting musicians and performers, it will help people find interesting writers and authors.
No one can stop it. The big delay was caused by lack of available hardware to handle the intensive scanning and converting. We've seen software that can use a webcam or cellcam to scan documents quickly. This is processor performance driven. PCs aren't getting slower.
5 huge libraries and a multibillion dollar corporation can not compete with hundreds of millions of end users volunteering a few hours a year to copy their favorite books. The entire published collection of books for the last hundred years could be online by 2007.
Google should be embraced by publishers, not sued. Google could track interest, topically sort similar novel(list)s, and provide a great research tool and froogle-to-buy source.
If the RIAA had iTunes before Napster, who knows where we'd be. If the MPAA embraced e-distribution at a reasonable price and quality, the same is true.
People don't become pirates for financial reasons of theft, but of supply and demand. Hundreds of millions of BT users would rather pay $1 than waste hundreds of hours on low quality, low speed, high risk piracy.
One of the bigges online collections of data will be violating copywrights by copying information provided by libraries...
Guess we need to outlaw coppiers in libraries...
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Google isn't going to stop the project, there may be many suits filed against them from now until the project is finished, but Google with get through every single one.
Add me as a friend!
Think the publishers are very short sighted..
I had a long trip recently and having moved to Belgium I wanted a book for the flights. A search for Flanders Fields and an order from Amazon got me two really interesting books I would never otherwise have found. Keep up the good work google (and stuff the big publishers.. small independant ones will love it I'm sure)
This is a monumental waste of money.
I mean, just because it's online, it's not something of a 'public library'? How so? Do libraries have to get permission from every single publisher of every single piece of media they release? I think not. Why? Because they're not using the content in their own works. THAT is where infringement would be applicable. In Google's case, you're purely and simply going to see the content of the book, including copyrights and credits. So, again, how is this different from a library? I'd say they're very much in the clear here.
"Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
Books are so 20th century. It it's not made of pixels I won't look at it.
I once almost collided with Pat Schroeder crossing the street in downtown Denver. Maybe I should have (we were both on foot, btw).
I'm surprised Pat Schroeder is involved with or leading the charge in attempts to throttle Google. She offers tepid reasoning (probably not enough prep time spent with handlers) (from the article) :
She's right! This does go far beyond creating a digital version of a card catalog! Google's super-sized revved up digital card catalog qualifies as a godsend to the publishing industry.
The ability to do Google indexed book searches will spur reading, and sales, not muffle it. How many slashdot readers have been thankful for the Amazon.com feature of letting you peek inside their books? Many times this has been the feature giving me the final nudge to buy (though there also have been times where that nudged me the other direction).
When people start "discovering" books with Google's book searches, the very worst thing that would happen would be that people would be briefly exposed to books they otherwise might not have. But for "searchers" who find an interesting book, they won't be ripping the publishers off by printing (stealing) or downloading (stealing) these books, since Google isn't offering that as an option.
And assuming for the moment some figure out how to download a copy, they're left with a book on their computer... not convenient to read (e-books, still on respirator), and way too expensive to print (and aesthetically "not a book").
So, the most likely result would be a library visit, or purchase.
Come on Pat!, think again.
... the RAIN! Yeah, Yeah. I mean, the rain don't mind and the rain dont care. And you gotta blame it on something
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
...They're hitting walls that they don't (for)see. Between this and the multitude of other legal issues that have arisen like the "name copyright" issue in the UK and the similar problem in Germany that forces them to call it Googlemail, I have begun to wonder how many more sectors/markets Google can possibly penetrate before hitting a legal or societal brick wall. They might do something that deems them as a "big business" or "monopoly" with all of the associated negative connotations. They've already infringed a little on privacy recently with their policy on using users' data. It will be interesting to see how far Google gets.
Good idea. Let google be given a mandated monopoly in exchange for 'ignoring' certain books published by companies in bed with the Congress.
I'd rather see Google fight a terrible set of laws violating our Constitutional rights, or work to repeal the horrific copyright laws which are antiquated anyway.
Until Disney buys Google.
I hope Google wins this one, and wins it big. I'm tired of living in the 19th century, and being told I should remain there by people who consider an electric typewriter to be too advanced for their use. Google believes they are within the current copyright laws, and they have more expensive lawyers than I do.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I guess we'll all have to memorize our favorite book.
William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, HG Wells, Jules Verne ...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It's interesting to note that authors don't really have any say in this affair even when they're in favour of Google Print.
Books are a bit like software, and the try before you buy model works well. I have a hard time imagining most people deciding to read the entirety of a long book on their computer, even if it's available for free. I can imagine quite a few people looking at a new book online and using that as the basis for choosing to buy the book if they're going to read it though.
Fortunately, at least a few companies display a bit of understanding. The people initiating these lawsuits should read the introduction Here, and then check Baen's profits, and note that they're still in business and doing reasonably well, thank you very much.
Of course, everybody else should go there simply to check out some books for free, and (perhaps) to support Baen Books for being decent people and doing good things.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
These associations of book publishers should be careful with what they do, or they could quickly find themselves in the position of the RIAA and MPAA amongst far more people than just geeks. I'd wager every single person I know has been to our city's library system at least once in their lifetime. (Columbus, OH) And I'd also be willing to bet that should the courts be stupid enough to allow this to spill over eventually to the library's that there would be a lot of people pissed that they might cripple our city's library system which happens to be the best one in the nation because there are about 30+ library's "linked together" across the city. In other words, I can go to my local library building (or even online: http://www.cml.lib.oh.us/) and reserve just about any DVD, CD, book, or magazine that I could ever want. It's like a physical version of Kazaa, eDonkey, or any other P2P system, except all the content IS stored on the central "server". (The library drives trucks of books around all over the city, transporting them from one location to another based on patron requests)
So, how is Google any different, except that it's potentially more massive, EVEN faster than the library system I'm used to, and available to even more people?? It's just an extension of the concept that's been around in my city in "snail-mail" form for quite a while now. Keep it up and they're liable to piss off a vast majority of the population of the US if the laws about copyrights keep getting extended further and further away from the original intent of copyright law.
No, this isn't my most well-though-out post ever, but I wanted to highlight this facet of the debate over Google's LIbrary Project.
We could post statements on the copy machines letting people know what are and what are violations of copyright law. This is already done at many, if not most, major universities. It is legal to copy articles for your own use. As a professor, however, you are limited in what you can make copies of to distribute to your class. As far as I can remember, these posted statements have been on copy machines since at least the 80's at Georgia Tech.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
How many authors that these publishers bought works from utilized libraries when they were going to school?
.. you can bet that the idea will be shot down.
Unless they can answer "none" then they shouldn't have a problem with this. Have they forgotten those days? If someone benefitted from viewing a book or journal without paying compensation to that author, how are they now able to ask for compensation when someone views a mere excerpt of their work?
There will come a day when libraries themselves are banned because they enable the spreading of ideas and information without compensating the author. If the idea for a conventional "library" was not thought of until today
What google is doing is providing the gift of a large library to those who live in rural areas or small towns with no acccess to massive libraries such as those of the major universities. Furthermore, google is not providing the whole book, so the publisher of a book that is useful will get paid because a) existenc eof his book is known b) the information seeker will buy it to get the big picture.
Does anyone honestly think the publishers are afraid of Google infringing on the works of writers? Come on, now. The only thing they are concerned with is a decrease in demand for physical printed books due to books being digitized. They want to keep their industry in business, understandable. But stop jumping on the Copyright Infringement Bandwagon to try to control the behavior of others. Enough companies do enough of that already.
...why you have no girlfriend!
(also, you have your century wrong. 13th century? Or do I have it wrong too?)
There is gutenberg project which is slowly converting Public domain text into the digital platform but doing it w/o violating the copyrights. Google, being the 800 pound gorilla of the digital space, wants to say, "I do whatever I want and you can not do anything about it" which, in my opinion is not right.
Some people before my post said, pc's are not getting any slower and scanners any weaker and this is supposed to happen sooner or later. Well, I beg to differ. One person scanning his own, paid, copyrighted book/document and putting it on P2P is not right to start with, but after all, looking at the percentile of the internet users sucking up everything in their sight are not the people to worry about. Think about the mega-downloaders of the pirated music and movies and books. How many of those have really sat down and watch/listen/read all they downloaded. Not even close to anything comparable to what may happen if google start to offer them. There is not enough hours in a day to both be on the computer and suck up all the media content.
Whereas, if google wanted to offer whatever is in libraries, quite hefty portion of which is still protected by the copyright monstrous laws (which is a subject of aniother discussion but regardless how bad they are, they stand on a legal ground). And do you think if people can look up in google what they are looking for and get their daily fix of reference/literature using the free resources, they still are going to walk to the Borders or B&N and buy the print media. I sure would not, for nothing else than eliminating clutter in my home.
Google, the darling of internet, doing it now, does not make it right. I am against any mega conglomerate like RIAA/MPAA and alikes but this is not the way to deal with those morons. Two wrongs still does not make one right in my books {pun intented}
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
It almost sounds like the publishing industry is getting it's legal advice from the RIAA.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I can't buy the book I want here yet (hardback only, paperback release date seems to vary between some time next month up to a year away)
Well then, you can buy the book. You just don't want to pay the higher asking price for a hardcover copy.
That's fine, but admit it: you're just being cheap.
Actually, many recent translations of the bible are still copyrighted (such as the New International Version).
Being an unfortunate UK rail user, I get through at least a paperback book a week - I either buy these for 30p (or whatever) from charity shops or swap books at work with similar readers.
But on ALL the book covers (no matter which book), it is always a 'best seller', 'No.1 seller', 'award winning', 'Now a latest Hollywood film', etc. etc.
So, Internet or not, somebody buys them 'new'. I never do, nor ever have done.
Google is a coorporation which is using copyrighted material
to provide a search service. This service allows Google to earn
revenue through ads.
I am all against antiquited copyright laws, as a consumer
I should be allowed to use what I bought in any means I want.
Google's PR department has twisted the facts. Google is
not producing content for consumers, but in fact stealing
from copyright holders.
I work with one of those academic library institutions.
This is more like an effort by the libraries, and Google is basically under contract to do the heavy lifting of scanning and technology, because they're good at such grand data projects. Traditional libraries simply aren't scaled and don't have the budgets to do it all by themselves. There's major cost savings in consolidation and expense-sharing. Why scan 7 times when you can scan once?
It seems like the publishers are really aiming for a for-fee privatized electronic library system, cutting out traditional non-profit libraries.
You're kidding, right? Have you never heard of the amazing work done by Project Gutenberg? They have something like 16,000 books and counting. All digital and all in the public domain. In many ways, it's the F/OSS equivalent of Google's project.
From their site:
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
Potential spoilers below.
I personally believe that Jordan got called out on the Demandred/Taim thread, and wrenched the wheel around because of the forums "getting it right". As such, he lost control and the muses now punish him.
Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is far superior epic fantasy anyway. 3 more weeks till Feast For Crows!!!! *drools*
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
We are mere months (maybe a year) away from the ability to completely scan any book and convert it accurately to text based PDF in under an hour. It will likely be F/OSS software that does it, released ostensibly to save old books in the public domain.
When this happens, books will end up on P2P just like movies, music, porn, and images. Just as P2P helps people find interesting musicians and performers, it will help people find interesting writers and authors.
As an author, I couldn't agree more.
Most people want to curl up with a good book and read in comfort, lying in bed, on their couch, in their recliner (cracking fire and comfortable cup of tea/coffee/hot chocolate optional). A few folks don't mind sitting in front of a computer to read, but the rest of us like good old fashioned, physical books in our hands, and what Google is doing is not only NOT a threat to the sale of traditional bound books, it is a boon.
What it isn't a boon for is old guard publishers having a stranglehold on exposure anymore, meaning that self-published, POD, and other less traditional forms of publishing gain more leverage in attracting interested eyes, without having to somehow get ahold of that coveted shelf space in a brick-and-mortor store.
Not that I don't covet that for my novel (I do), but the more accessible the information is to those looking for it, the more people will buy the physical version of the book.
The AAR has its head up its ass, and win-or-lose on this particular lawsuit, they and their constituents are going to lose bigtime if they don't update their mentality to fit with the technological reality of today, and begin exploiting the opportunities it offers.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They are carrying out the greatest copyright violation in the history of...well...all of history. What possible argument can they have in their favor? I can't even see where they'd start such an argument and I can hardly imagine a more clear cut case against them. Copying entire books wholesale can hardly be called "fair use" and they're using the copyrighted text to drive up hits on their ads. I think print.google.com is a great tool, I've just printed out a few useful pages from a book with it myself, but I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on. If I did the same as them as an individual I'd be considered a copyright thief.
Honest question that I fail to grasp... A library purchases a book and then that book is made publicly available for all to read. If Google were to purchase the initial copy then scan it how are they different from a library other than the factor that is it will be easier to search for and access books from anywhere? I understand the issue of individuals copying the books and keeping them and I am sure Google can put a mechanism in place to deter copying of the material. Libraries generally will disallow copying of entire books on their copiers but that doesn't stop someone from checking out the book and either scanning it or copying it elsewhere... but they have done their part to CYA themselves. As long as Google offers this service like a library would then why is it an issue?
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
The substance of what you said has an implied presumption that when something is coppied, distributed, or even sold without the creators permission, then the creator/publishor is in some way violated. While I understand that's the theory, and we have all been spoonfeed that that is an "intellectual property" right, the reality is quite different.
While protected rights, naturally lead to incentives - protected incentives do not naturally lead to rights. Perhaps somebody feels violated when you freely copy, then again perhaps plantation masters feel violated if you steal, oops I mean free, slaves from the plantation. That is what I mean. Property and incentive are not an ends in themselves, to be just they need to derive from the real world - like the fact that not everybody can use the same resources at the same time, but with information they can!
Copyrights are particualrly evil because they have the effect of stealing away our culture and giving it to hollywood. They also have an effect, that to secure them, you need to microregulate the internet and everybody that uses it. They have an effect that leads to anti-trust behavior in large software companies, and tend to make the information itself more valuable then the people who provide the services. The cost of having them in the information age is simply too high and they can not survive the information age any more than micro-controll of the labor market (slavery) could survive the industrial revolution.
Google should have worked with the publishers and copyright owners of the books rather than a public library to do this job? I mean making all books in world online is not a monstrous task just because of the efforts involved in scanning, but for managing the relationship with all the stake holders. Think of it - anyone with a lot of cash and copy monkies can scan these books, but it needs lot more skills to get all the relationships right. Google took a short-cut by bypassing the people who put years of their life creating the books, and no wonder these people are unhappy. This particular lawsuit is from major publishers of the likes of Mc Graw Hill - there is abosolutely no way Google can proceed with this project without their blessings.
If you think that's flamebait, it sure goes to show you don't know what debate is all about.
Well, I've seen this sort of thing come up time and time again, and in the hopes of contributing something that will keep the discussion informed and to the point, I'm just going to shoot a couple of things down right now, and raise a few more:
1. Google is NOT doing something new and revolutionary, they are instead extending what is already a good idea and already extant. Sample chapters have been up on the 'net for years. The ability to search for millions of books in dozens of different libraries at once by particular keywords has existed in university libraries for at least a decade, if not longer. Project Gutenberg (sp?) has been digitizing out-of-print public domain books for years as well. Google is extending this general idea, but they did not invent it. And, if they are stopped by these lawsuits, it will NOT bring the world to a halt, damage authors or the publishing industry, damage readers, create some weird heirarchy of those who have information and those who don't, or anything of the sort (in fact, we already have an overload of information in modern society).
2. The argument that what was in the first draft of the U.S. Constitution is exactly what copyright should be is extremely flawed, both historically and logically. It is flawed logically because the argument revolves around the U.S. Constitution, which has little or nothing to do with international law and the Berne Convention (and the libraries in question have books by authors from around the world). It is historically flawed because the first draft of the U.S. Constitution was an 18th century document written by 18th century people for an 18th century world, and society, including the situation of authors, has changed since then. There's a good reason why Jeffersonian democracy hasn't existed since about the 1830s. Copyright may require some tweaking to function properly in this new age of the Internet, but regressing two centuries is not the answer at all.
3. The main issue here revolves around whether Google asked for permission from the copyright holders before scanning. And, both morally and legally speaking, they should have. And, the fact is that if they had asked first, they quite possibly would have had the publishers and authors bending over backwards to help, because it IS a good idea. However, the ends do not justify the means, and quite frankly, I don't think they ever have.
Now, those issues aside, there are some good issues to raise - how do you protect copyright in this digital world? At what point is something no longer fair use when you're dealing with credited electronic excerpts? How does copyright need to change in order to balance the needs and rights of the author with the needs and rights of the reader?
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
as a student, i would probably only use this system to look up certain passages and the like. if im going to use a couple paragraphs out of a book, im not going to buy it. seriously, who is going to sit and read an entire novel on their computer?
Penguin have a good reputation in the UK. However, I found out that they actually use every legal means to protect IP as their own, even when legally that IP is legally in the Public Domain.
Case in point - Beatrix Potter - the cute bunny children's stories - Penguin owns the company that publishes Beatrix Potter books.
Nearly all of these stories are in the public domain, and even a lot of the artwork. However, you try to publish any of it... They have trademarks on all the character names and images, so although the copyright is public domain, the character names count and images count as trademarks of the company so you can't use them.
Doesn't seem right to me that a company should be able to prevent public domain works being published because they have trademarked the character names...
I know, this is just dreaming, but it would be so cool if any time some ***hole tried to misuse some legal protection to screw Google over, Google would announce to the world:
"We are temporarily discontinuing Google search, mail, adwords, and all other features while [president of ***hole company suing Google] remains alive because we don't want to infringe on his rights."
Then, if that person happens to get shot, hey, they had nothing to do with it, they were just trying not to violate his rights!
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Rankine 911 is within a degree of Fahrenheit 451. Take that, Michael Moore.
There is gutenberg project which is slowly converting Public domain text into the digital platform but doing it w/o violating the copyrights.
What happens to PG once all notable English-language works first published on or before December 1922 have been scanned and digitally republished?
While hundreds of millions of songs have been downloaded and shared, only a few hundred thousand book files have been. There simply isn't the demand for books and literature that there is for music files.
For example, I scanned and OCR'ed several of my favorite books and made the files available on Kazaa. Years later, there hasn't been one single download of the book files in ASCII that I've put on Kazaa. People simply aren't interested.
The published book format is a culture that will not transfer to the Napster-Kazaa file-sharing people. The book publishers are totally clueless and are talking nonsense when they say that millions of copies of a book title will not be sold if the book's text is available for free on-line. They are projecting a paranoia over a non-existent phenomenon (massive book file-sharing in the magnitude of music file-sharing).
The book-buying community is completely different from the music-buying masses. It has different income levels and social perspectives. Even if published books were forced to be distributed for free by mandated law, the book community would still create ways to financially compensate the authors and publishers. Not much compensation, but enough to maintain the culture and community. The only reason why copyright pirates would mass distribute copies of book-text files without paying copyright fees would be to gain social prestige, and copyright pirates are focused on making money discretely, and not any form of social climbing. And this is more so the further that one gets away from Hollywood.
Even without going into the issue that no one likes to read books on the computer screen or laptop, the idea that having book text available for download will severely affect the (limited and tiny) profitability of the book publishers simply doesn't make sense in the real world. The threat simply doesn't exist. The ability to have 10,000 titles of book text on a 40 cent DVD-ROM will complement and enhance the book market, not destroy it.
And, if they are stopped by these lawsuits, it will NOT bring the world to a halt
Really? The majority of public web searches are performed through Google. If Google is successfully sued and is ordered to pay $150,000 statutory damages per infringed work, then Google may have to liquidate all its assets and close down. How can the World Wide Web as we know it keep going without Google Search?
William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, HG Wells, Jules Verne ...
HG Wells's books are still under copyright in life+70 countries. Even ignoring this, what happens when almost all books first published in the United States on or before December 1922 have been scanned? Will the public domain ever become larger?
If they force the system to require opt in .. they won't have competition from books whose authors and publishers can't be located (international? independent? dead?) or are unaware. And maybe that's the strategy after all.
I get my books from either alt.binaries.e-books or #bookz on Undernet.
It's hard to beat the variety, or the price for that matter.
Further, I put hundreds of these on my Palm and read wherever I am.
[PG] have something like 16,000 books and counting.
How long can this "counting" continue given the effects of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the expected Chastity Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 2018? Isn't there a finite, now-unchanging set of notable books in the English language that were published as of New Year's Eve 1922? How large is that set?
I discovered this as I tried to read parts of a fairly recently (2004) published book. In addition, the pages of the books are images, and you have to click to read each page. Also, you cannot skip to a specific page in the book, like in a physical book. That would be a real pain in the ass for anybody who wants to read a whole book.
The publishers are freaking out about nothing. This is a tool that will increase book sales, not decrease them. More of a "teaser," if you will. This is not evil.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
That's not my experience. Electronic form saves desk space, and allows easy searching, linking, and copy-pasting. I only wish I had a second monitor to avoid having to switch virtual desktops.
You're forgetting that if the author isn't protected from theft, he/she will be less inclined to produce the culture that's being "stolen." Creation takes work and that work needs to be compensated otherwise it'll cease. Slavery arises when a man is required to work for nothing which from the jist of your post, is exactly what you think creators should be paid. After all, it costs them nothing to duplicate their work so why pay them?
It's not the protection from theft that's evil, it's the theft itself that's evil.
Surprised this wasn't in the article but you can read Google's response from Eric Schmidt here.
.... normally use the words "American Association" as part of their name.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm afraid some people are ignorant of the Fair Use limitations on copyright. Berowell must be, if he thinks that the resolution of Google's Fair Use defense is clear.
Schroeder, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that Google's Fair Use argument is plausible. It won't necessarily win in court, but it is no way a clear loser. Schroeder does what all big publishers do: pretend that Fair Use doesn't exist, and hope that they will get people to abandon their Fair Use rights.
And I wouldn't mind paying a $10 monthly fee to have access to the (completed) Google library. So long as that $10 goes to the authors and editors, not the now defunct publishers who are dragging their feet. Right now, I rairly buy a new book. Terry Goodkind and Rowlings are the only two authors that I actually bother to actively follow. But with paper display e-book and the 'online library' available, I'm sure I would be introduced to other great authors (imagine applying 6 degrees and trending info right in the library). And having case law, peer reviewed journals, etc, scanned and searchable at the touch of a key would be amazing.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Except that Google, isn't making the digitzed books available.
Their project is different from Gutemberg.
Gutemberg projet, is about making old books freely available online. Because the *FULL* content *IS* distributed online, they restrict to texts that are :
- either too old and the copyright has expired
- for author gave explicit autorisation to publish and make freely available to everyone
- are in public domain for some other reason (obviously, a public speech hasn't a copyright).
Google on the other hand, make digitised copies of the books, for *themeself*. They do *NOT* publish the *FULL* text, but only small excerpts, to illustrate context of the search results. This is allowed the same way as you're allowed to do citation.
*NO* ebooks are made available by Google, there's no way this google project could compete with book sales. On the contrary : as pointed elsewhere in this thread, the search results include links to where the full book could be purchased.
They aren't making any money by *providing pubicly copyrighted texts* (which is piracy).
They're publishing their own datas (search result) which they obtained by their own mean (keyword search by search engine) by analysing their *private* collection of digitalised books that they keep for them self, apart from a few citation next to search result.
And these books where obtained legally, by borrowing them from a public instituion (a library) which pays corresponding license to be able to make those books available to the public (either readers, or in this case to Google). No copyright violation, google *can* access them to do their work, because the library pays for such access.
------
Compare to music :
- You can buy legally CDs.
- You can do whatever you want with your own CDs, including coasters.
- You can rip thoses CDs and build your self a digital library of FLACs/OGGs/whatever.
(I mean *you could*. Copy-protection systems make this very difficult, but in theory, it's perfectly legal).
- *ONLY* if you made the *CONTENT* available to everyone on internet without paying a license for that, that would be illegal.
- On the other hand, if some friend asks you on IRC/GoogleTalk/MSN "Do you know how many disc Prodigy has made", you can say "Hold on for a sec", quickly search your library and give an answer. *it IS legal*, as long as you don't make those disc available to everyone to download.
Same is true for google.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Free scan, free search, free marketing. Of course the book publishers would be against it. It might mess up their carefully constructed marketing plans by creating a demand they were previously unaware of
Google is not non-profit. Google is a business.
"I don't think that Google is going about it the wrong way."
Where and how did they get the data?
Restrictions mean NOTHING, it's how they got the data to begin with that is troublesome; that's "the wrong way". The end does not justify the means.
Why not use synopis (if available) of books instead of scanning the whole thing?
Creating a digital library is different than a public library. In a public library, the library pays for the books and the authors earn money over the purchases, while in Google's digital library people are going to read the books without paying and so the authors dont earn from it. I agree that some of the books are overpriced but making digital copies is not an answer. Google is doing EVIL here and i think they should come up with a mutual solution with the publishers and the authors. Digital library is a very good idea but should not be unfair to anyone.
Maybe Google just wants to be the next Apple. Get the content partially done. Start talking to publishers behind closed doors and release the bPod. The first eBook reader that works well enough to catch the general public attention.
iLibrary will let you read all your books on your computer, and will automatically sync with your bPod to download new stories.
Then, about a year after the introduction of iLibrary they will introduce NewsPodding. The ability to get news and journals directly to your bPod.
It's coming.
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
1. What is the character of the use? In this case, it is commercial. Google is making copies so they can profit from the work. Strike one.
2. What is the nature of the work? For the most part it's original works of creative authorship and not so much compilations of facts. Strike two.
3. How much of the work is being used? From what I understand, Google is scanning the entire book, cover to cover. Strike three, and a big one.
For the first three tests, this is definitely not fair use. Add to that the active permissions market for books.
4. Does this type of use effect the value of the works or the potential of new markets for the works?
Everyone says this helps sell books. Yes, it does. However, if Google and everyone else is allowed to do this then it probably will impact the ability of publishers to effectively operate ther own search engines for their own works. Further, even if it helps, there is an active permissions market for making copies of books that Google ignored. Indexing and searching of books is not a new concept.
I don't think it looks very good for Google.
You're forgetting that if the author isn't protected from theft, he/she will be less inclined to produce the culture that's being "stolen."
Yes. But so what? The goals of society are to both encourage the creation of works and to have those works be in the public domain. While we can cause a lot of creation to occur by slightly delaying entrance into the public domain, and only granting a modicum of protection even during that initial period, there does come a point of diminishing returns. In fact, we eventually reach a point where granting more protection reduces the amount of creation.
So there will always be unprotected authors, because some works just aren't worth protecting to the extent that it would take to cause them to be created.
Furthermore, we should be responsible with copyright policy. We should provide no more incentive than the minimum amount necessary to get the maximum amount of net public benefit (i.e. the benefit of creation minus the harm caused by their not being in the public domain). To provide more of an incentive would be wasteful.
Slavery arises when a man is required to work for nothing which from the jist of your post, is exactly what you think creators should be paid.
Failure to give artists an economic incentive to create works is hardly comparable to forcing them to create. If artists aren't incentivized, they can be accountants or something. There's no one cracking a whip over them, so please stop with your useless hyperbole.
It's not the protection from theft that's evil, it's the theft itself that's evil.
It's not theft, and neither is evil. Copyright is utilitarian and essentially amoral.
Although if there were a moral component, it'd be in favor of pirates, who spread and enjoy knowledge and help ensure that works will survive, as opposed to authors, who act as gatekeepers.
-- 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.
I think copyright violation is just the club to use on google and not the real reason.
from what i can tell google indexes both copyright in print books and public domain and orphaned works.
for an in print book google is great for publishers - bigger audiences for their catalog more sales. This is the upside and they like amazon for this reason.
however the biggest fear is the public domain given 3 books about a subject 2 in print (extracts available) and a third freely available, which book will you look at first. Isnt it obvious the public domain book will get looked at first if its not good enough or suitable then the published in print book gets a look in.
project gutenburg is great but in googles site you get the whole cake one place to start your search. amazon knows nothing of public domain gutenburg knows nothing of copyrighted books bringing both area's to the search engine on the same page its great for all us readers. Google doesn't sell books so it doesnt harm them if a sale is made or not.
there are parallels here with downloadable music sites like itunes no public domain there either is there?
Publishers know there is a limit to what we can consume and if we consume the free stuff then there is a smaller market for the stuff we pay for.
personally when i study i like to use the pdf in parallel with a paper copy. A computer to search and a piece of paper to read.
Finally if it wasn't for greed the publishers could make a quiet killing by offering pdf copys immediately of any of thier back catalogue and printing when demand has made it profitable. nice to be able to presell a print run
We want books we make do with electronic copies.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
... could it spell the end of search engines?
If Google loses these lawsuits, can I then sue Google for caching [and copying] my website without my permission?
If not, what is the difference? Whether I create my copyrighted work in physical book form, or in digital web form, it's still copyrighted. What is the difference?
The logic Google is following for Google Print appears to be established reasons why a search engine can scan, cache and allow people to search websites.
Now, I believe Google is in the right, however if they told they are wrong it could open the pandora's box and thus increase lawsuits from greedy people....
-Z
Publishers are not that type of filter. They need to make money. The ecconomics of publishing means a popular auther will have a best seller with absolute garbage. An unknown author will sell essentially nothing with the best book written that year.
There are many good authors who are unknown. More than the publishers can publish in fact if they are to make money. So they publish the garbage to make money, and try to find room in the budget for a good novel that will not make money. (Publishers tend to be readers, so they are willing to make investments in authors that are unlikely to become popular. They need to get the popular stuff out first though, because they need to eat.
Google is not infringing on copyright. There are fair use rights that apply to everything. You can take a small part of any text you want and copy it in any way you want. So long as the amount you copy is tiny in comparison to the whole work you are just fine.
The media is trying to assert a right that they do not have.
Now if Google was not only making copies, but in anyway making them available as a whole, that would be infringement. They are not though, all their copies are incidental consequence of their indexing. Google is betting (and likely right) that that courts will see it this way.
Yeah, but if the engine is opt-in, then it's very nearly ineffective. Most of the world's books are both still in copyright and have copyright holders who are difficult or impossible to locate. These books are effectively lost to any kind of effective search engine if you require opt-in.
... would you? Because there's no real difference between these two cases.
Plus, you wouldn't argue that Google web search should require that web page authors opt in
They are carrying out the greatest copyright violation in the history of...well...all of history. What possible argument can they have in their favor? I can't even see where they'd start such an argument and I can hardly imagine a more clear cut case against them. Copying web pages wholesale can hardly be called "fair use" and they're using the copyrighted text to drive up hits on their ads. I think www.google.com is a great tool, I've just found a few useful web pages with it myself, but I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on. If I did the same as them as an individual I'd be considered a copyright thief.
Excellent rationalization. This is a nice murky gray area for you to have a swim in. Funny how copyright law never mentions 'the look of the bookshelf' as a valid reason for ignoring its provisions. Just admit you've done something wrong, and forget trying to make your greed into some sort of heroic stance against 'the man' for not producing the format you want yet.
I don't grudge anyone piracy - everyone is a thief at heart, especially when they can get away with it easily. Greed is just a fact. What I can't stand is the constant need to have this illicit behavior validated by others of questionable moral character.
Go ahead and mod me down - it doesn't make me wrong, just unpopular.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
The whole point of this suit and the one by the Author's Guild is whether Google's copying of the entire book in order to produce 2-3 line snippets on a search engine constitutes fair use. If it is fair use, then Google doesn't need permission, and their opt-out is merely a PR ploy to say "we're not doing evil". Note that for Google to treat a work scanned in for Google Library as a Google Print book (where 20% - 100% of the book is viewable), it requires an opt-in procedure. Since determination of fair use is contingent on 4 points, Google will win or lose based on the court's determination on which points are the important ones. They could say that "yes, Google's copying the entire book, but because it's used to dole out snippets that do not materially adversely affect book sales, it's OK", or they could say "They're copying the entire book, therefore it's not fair use". Neither Google nor the plaintiffs know how the court will rule. Industry groups are notorious for trying to limit technological induced changes to their industries, even when the end result is highly profitable for the industry. You'll no doubt remember that the movie industry was against the introduction of the consumer grade VCR, and we all know how detrimental that was for the MPAA.
The gist of it was a whole "Is Taim Demandred?" thread.
The evidence was pretty profound:
- Taim never smiles throughout Lord of Chaos, which is described repeatedly as a character trait of Demandred.
- Demandred's whereabouts are unknown, nor revealed. But at the end of LoC, he's standing at the Bore and the Dark Lord's laughter echoes, claiming "well done".
- Taim's knowledge of the Age of Legends is pretty wacky. How/why does he know this?
- Taim hadn't succumbed to the taint of saidin in any way/shape/form - and he'd been using the power a long time as a false Dragon, if he was who he said he was.
- The biggest (and most damning) piece of evidence was when Lews takes over Rand with the Seal, and begins gibbering to break it. Taim's look of horror is a pretty profound indicator that he knew what it was and that it would be Bad News to break.
If you're a fan of the series, I'd definitely do some digging for the archived stuff on this. The evidence was pretty extensive, and I reread LoC for the 4th time just to see it from this perspective.The change, to me, seemed very kludgy after getting busted on a plot twist.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I never claimed to understand copyright law! Nor would I ever attempt to completely defend it, although I can appreciate the need for artists/authors to get paid.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
But who am I really hurting, since I have the cash in my pocket and am willing to exchange it for something that just doesn't exist yet?
I know this is a little abstract, but you're degrading the publisher's ability to price discriminate their products. They release the book in different phases because this allows them to hit different price points to different market segments. 'Early Adopters' buy the hardcover because they like the format and/or because they want to have early access to the book. Maybe they want early access because they value the prestige, or maybe (in the case of some technical books and publications) because it increases their ability to compete in their jobs.
When you download early, you reduce the prestige of having the book early so this reduces the value to the 'early adopters.' This is even more pronounced in technical books and publications. Admittedly, the value lost to each person in the value chain is small, but if I steal a nickel from you, it's still stealing.
I want the Subaru dealership to sell me one of those 2005 Impreza WRX sedans for $2000. I have the money right now and I guarantee you that in a couple of years those cars will be selling for my price (okay, 8 - 10 years.)
The seller gets to choose the price of their products, not the buyer. Just because you don't agree with their outlet strategy, doesn't mean you're right to take what you want.
So yeah, I'm guilty as sin.
I actually respect your honesty here more than I do the rationalizations you gave right after this. If you're gonna steal, just say so. Hell, if you're gonna steal, I encourage you to be the best thief you can be; I admire personal excellence in any field of endeavour. But that whole "who am I hurting?" thing is just a little too mealy-mouthed for me.
Google does not have the author's explicit permission to copy a web page or to redisplay text from that page. If I say that my page should only be viewable from my own web server, and I don't want anyone copying it for indexing purposes, then who is Google to presume that they have these rights? Why should I have to opt out?
The legal and moral difference here is nil.
When books are sold to libraries, those copies are available to only one person at a time. There is a (relatively) small number of copies available through libraries. Digital copies are inherently more distributable, with an accompanying greater ability to erode demand for the hardbacks in question.
His childish demands that the publisher make copies available in his choice of format, on a schedule of his choosing, is nothing more than a mealy-mouthed rationalization for his behavior. I imagine he'll be stomping his feet and holding his breath next.
Publishing is a business, not a charity. Not a public works project. He's saying he doesn't see the reason for the hardback/paperback dichotomy. That means he doesn't see it, not that it isn't there.
goes well with electronic paper (http://www.eink.com/news/releases/pr86.html) .
Isn't this kind of the same argument for the RIAA and the MPAA? As a later poster states, we may be able to replace much of this functionality through the use of community efforts over the Internet now, but isn't this equally applicable across industries (movies/music/literature/software)?
There are http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf/ 4 criteria that determine what is fair use, and until the court rules, we won't know whether it's fair use or not.
One criterion is the extent of copying, and Google fails that one.
Another criterion is the purpose and character of the use, and it could go either way for Google here. It's a commercial use, but it could be used for educational searching, and the result available to the end-user would be an amount that would be fair use.
I'm not sure that third criterion, the nature of the (original) work matters here.
The fourth criterion on the effect of the potential market of the work, may be the most important point, because I think it's clear that the 2-3 line snippets would have few to no negative impact, but potentially have great positive impact on the potential market.
So, the court could easily rule that the initial copying of 100 perecent of the work doesn't matter, it's the size of the snippet delivered to the end customer, the basic use of searching, and the positive impact on the market are the important considerations, and that it's fair use. On the other hand, they could also rule that the initial copying and the commercial nature of the search engine are the important criteria, and rule against Google.
OK, I understand if somebody plans to blow up a building, those things should be prevented.
But how the hell is it possible to sue somebody for planning to scan some books? They don't even know which books *might* get scanned and which of them *might* get published online.
Can anybody explain?
You do seem closest to getting me out of the posters so far. But just to try and explain myself further...
:D
:(
:)
I don't really mind that the hardback costs more than the paperback. I spend so much money on books that it doesn't really factor into it at all for me. See, if they released the paperback and hardback at the same price and the same time, I'd own the book right now. But I won't buy any hardbacked book (except programming books which need to be a little sturdier, as they cost a shitload more and are important for work) because I do most of my reading on public transport in small, cramped seats. A hardbacked book takes up *space* dammit, and I'm already a big fat dude, I need all the room I can get!
The car analogy, therefore, doesn't really apply. I won't try to make it fit, it'd just get silly. But suffice to say this isn't a rationalisation, since I know I'm wrong and freely admit to it, like you noticed (and many others missed, somehow). Suffice to say I'll pay full retail price for the product I want as soon as it's there.
It's just the reasoning behind *why* I did it, and it's spawned a huge irrelevant thread. Sorry everyone
I have in fact thought of something the publisher *has* lost based on my actions though - they've lost the interest on the money that I would've paid for a paperbacked version of the book on the day it was released. You can decide for yourself whether you think I'm being honest or not, that's up to you, but assuming that I am (which I am!), wouldn't you say they've at least partly decided to make that loss of their own accord?
Anyway, think it's best to leave it there, nothing useful's gonna come from this discussion I think...
Game dev and music blog
... nothing useful's gonna come from this discussion I think...
Now THAT I disagree with. It's important for these people to think about these things. Most people have an opinion and have no idea where it came from, so I don't think you started an irrelevant thread at all.
Regarding other stuff:
I, too, am a big fat guy. I, too, spend tons on books. I, too, struggle with 'where do I keep all of these f'ing books?' You raise an interesting point about simultaneous release of hard/paper-back. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
3. How much of the work is being used? From what I understand, Google is scanning the entire book, cover to cover. Strike three, and a big one.
This is where your reasoning breaks down: while Google are scanning the entire books, they are not doing so on behalf of a single end user. Each user of their system only gets to see a few pages of each book.
Also, Google scans the entirity of web sites, and nobody has held that they have to obtain permission to do that... what's the difference?
I don't see that Google really had any choice, though. If they had tried to go book-by-book and get permission for each one, it would've taken a decade to produce a useful product, and by that time certain publishers would've foolishly forged exclusive deals with other search engines. Most would've demanded fees and payments for use of their books, and other things that would've completely removed the usefulness of the service. For just doing it, Google forced the publishers to either accept the deal that was acceptable to Google (and search engines in general), or to sue them. Some have chosen the first option and even made deals with Google to provide enhanced service for their publications, and others have chosen to duke it out in court.
This will be an interesting battle to say the least. We'll see just how far "Fair Use" actually goes.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Can you say re-duh-ndant?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Hmm. What if you could only get the paperback on first release if you bought the hardcover (that comes with the paperback)?
Yes, but they didn't borrow the books from *friends*.
They did borrow them from a library : an institution that *DOES* pay a license to make book available to people who go there, so they can borrow/read/make personnal copies.
So ? The libraries/universities are paying licenses to let them do it...
(At least here in europe. Maybe US laws are different, and the usage of copier is prohibited in libraries)
As long as they don't make the TEXT available for a commercial purpose, it's OK in most juridiction.
Are you saying that making commercial usage of whatever *derivate* of books is illegal in the US ?
Let's take an extreme exemple :
I've studied medecine using books. Even now, to practice my art, I still sometime look for additionnal informations in books.
I'm being paid to do my job.
So I'm using infromation from books (tables, procedures, protocols,
Usually no. As long as I don't make public to anyone excerpts longer than what reasonnably acceptable for a citation, I don't do anything wrong.
Other exemple :
Book critics do use book contents (reading them and writing articles about them) for their job (they get paid, it's a commercial use). No problem for them.
That's it. The only thing that is illegal is to make the content available without proper autorisation, you can do whatever else you want with a book.
Then why should google have problems, when all they to is to use the content to build a database of keyword for a search engine ?
So what ? License for google to have access to them was paid by library.
And google themeself don't make these work available.
Building a database of keywords and using those in a search engine isn't ?
They don't make the "untransformed" work available. The digitised text remain in the possession of google.
They only make avaible search result - products of their own analysis - and small excerpts - autorised like other form of citation.
Providing rot13 of a book isn't transformative because basically you're providing the same text.
Providing search results is, because you don't provide the text (at all), but coordinates (book references, page number, etc...).
Let me put it into another way :
- faxing content of Tolkien's Lord of the Ring to someone is illegal
- countint the number of occurence of the word "Troll" telling it, or telling which pages have reference to Ballrog is legal.
Can you imagine someone being arrested because he's saying that there's no actual occurence of "Beam me up, Scotty !" in the original Startrek (a copyrighted work), or telling which Calvin & Hobbes (a copyrighted work) comic stip has Calvin finishing his homework and playing calvinball with Rosalyn ? No. Because it's legal.
And google is doing almost the same (search results, along with context, first page, table of content and links to where the book could be bought).
The point of copyright laws is the avoid that someone manage to get a copy of a work, without the right holders having been paid.
(either by the provider - in case of a library - or the receiver - in case of a bookstore).
Copyright laws cannot restrain what you do with a book once you get it.
Google should obtain legal victory, except if US laws are radically different from the rest of the world.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Here is a possible sequence of events that I can forsee:
1. Google indexes all the books in the world.
2. People are able to find these books online.
3. Authors begin to give the rights to distribute their works through google, google takes a cut of each purchase. (this will probably yeild a better deal for the authours given the enourmous market and subsequently small profit margin per sale that google can get away with)
4. Publishers no longer are needed.
Granted, this process could take many years.
I think that bringing these lawsuits up against google may be the only way to keep publishers running.
It seems to me that those objecting to Google's plans simply don't get it, nor do they have any desire to get it. The most likely scenario is they see how the **AA has been reacting to this new "online menace" and decided to blindly go on the attack, not realizing exactly what they are objecting to. To them it's simply a matter of thinking that if this sort of thing is bad for the film and recording industry, it *must* be bad for the publishing industry.
Hey, if you want to make information more easily accessible, lobby for shorter, saner copyright terms, or some reform that would at least make the ownership of copyright clearer. Project Gutenberg would be all over works from the last century if they weren't stuck in perpetual copyright limbo, where they can't be republished commercially, since no one's quite sure who owns the copyright, and they can't be distributed freely, since they are indeed under copyright.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I thought you were kidding, but the man quotes the OCLC. It'd be a little more useful if I could cite the original OCLC study or estimate--do you know of any way I can get that? Man, that's a great statistic to use for copyright reform advocacy. Know any others?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
... copyright is Life+50. They celebrate Public Domain Day. For instance, on January 1, 2006, the works of James Agee, Bernard DeVoto, Albert Einstein, Wallace Stevens, Hermann Weyl and so, so many others will be in the public domain... in Canada.
'Course, you may see some legislation before Public Domain Day 2007, as A. A. Milne will move into the public domain then. If not then, certainly in 2013, as C. S. Lewis's works, including the entire Chronicles of Narnia, will be released.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
At least in Canada, they have Life+50 copyright, so that they celebrate Public Domain Day every January 1. (This year: Albert Einstein! Next year: A. A. Milne! And so forth.) There's talk of setting up a Project Gutenberg in Canada, so at least old works from that era will be preserved, if not made legally available in most places. (Australia also has Life+50, but I think that's changing, alas.)
In any case, the set of books copyrighted by January 1, 1923 (not 1922) is indeed finite, but you might be interested to know (see Free Culture, p. 147) that the average copyright term in 1973 in the US was 32.2 years, because most (more than 85% of) works were not renewed. Due to retroactive extensions and associated bullshit, after 1978, works created 1964 or later were automatically renewed. But Project Gutenberg has a Rule 6 to deal with that. Consider (I think you may have to sign in to see this) Plague Ship , by Andre Norton, published in 1956, currently being post-processed.
'Course, the fact that folks are working hard to drag works into the public domain where they would be in a sane legal system at this point doesn't invalidate your original point. But Project Gutenberg isn't about to run out of material, not when they have a big chunk of the 20th century to deal with. (They just don't have anything particularly popular from that period.)
Oh, and PG doesn't really have 16,000 books. Some works were released in little bitty pieces. Consider an example. But there are still, I think I've seen estimated, around 10,000 real, individual titles in there. (Of course, any measure that counts the encyclopedia-sized "Modern Machine-Shop Practice" and the Declaration of Independence equally can't really be that accurate, now can it?)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
In contrast, Google would only need to scan a book once to deliver it to however many people they please, however many times they please, at whatever fee they feel like setting. The publishing companies would probably wind up getting a cut, but nothing near the amount they'd get from selling hard-cover books.
Google Print doesn't sell books. If Google were charging people to read the whole book online, you'd have a point. Google has several restrictions in place (only view a snipped of a page, only view a few pages per day/week, some pages always unavailable), the point of which is (a) the book is not being "delivered" to anyone in any form that could possibly compete with the entire book, and (b) Google is not selling books.
With Google's plan, the tedious work is already done. Theoretically it could wind up being quite easy for any random web visitor to grab a book for free, pre-scanned, and then hold onto a copy themselves. If there's a charge required someone will just sign up for an account and give it out on IRC or what have you (this happens with Cedega already).
Look, if Google were distributing copyrighted works in any form without the consent of the copyright holder, I'd be first in line to tear them down. But they're not distributing them in any meaningful way. And your complaint that they could at some unspecified future point is ridiculous. We sue people based on what they do, not on what they might do some day.
If Google starts distributing entire books, or meaningful chunks thereof, then you'd have a point. But they're simply not. You're fighting strawmen here.
Really, try thinking about what you post before you post it. Your point is completely irrelevant.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Wait, wait, wait... your argument is that Google will have a large stash of page images, and that they could use these for blatant copyright violation? Shit, if that's your argument, you'd better never rip a CD onto a portable MP3 player. Sure, you're performing legit format-shifting, but you could send those over the internet to ten thousand of your closest friends.
The only trouble I'd see is the libraries having the right to make one single copy of the books they have for Google. But that's not what's being argued about here.
If Google starts disseminating entire books or useful chapters thereof, they should rightfully be sued out of their fat wads of IPO cash. But that's not what they're doing and not what they're saying they're going to be doing. And I don't think your nervousness about what they might do is or should be legally actionable.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Hmm. So how does Google get its copy from the library? Presumably a library can't make a copy of a book and send it to another library, right? I mean, without paying some sort of royalty or fee to the copyright holder/publisher? I can see how, once Google has a copy of a book, they can show bits of it to people online and make it searchable, but I'm real fuzzy on how they actually get that copy in a legitimate fashion, unless libraries are shipping vast stacks of dead-tree volumes to sit in Google's warehouses until their copyright expires (i.e. forever), which sounds dreadfully silly.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Meh, we just did it informally by lending the books out to each other. College textbooks are ridiculously overpriced so only the naive freshmen buy books from the bookstore where the book has been out for over a year. The rest of us are locating people who've been in the class and arranging to borrow the book, or to buy it off of them outright for a very cheap price. For that matter, there's a thriving industry for secondhand textbooks online. It's all legal and it still takes a big bite out of profit-mongering textbook publishers. Yes, it's a limitted audience out there (particularly as half of the engineering professors teach using their book), but the prices are still exhorbitant.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I just got an email notification that Plague Ship , copyright 1956 or thereabouts, has been released to Project Gutenberg. The above link should work within the day. Enjoy!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Later papyrus was found to make paper, but we had to wait another 1500 years till Gutenberg invented the printing technic. Then the book in current form had been gradually established, till then goat skin had been used and the roles were general, the technic of binding, printing were only developed later.
We must say the history of books is not so long as we might assume.
We used to write a letter in paper with a pen. Now we rarely do so.
Library used to refer to only building that contains lots of books, now that also means collection of contents in computer.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
If you're gonna steal, just say so.
For a second there, I thought you "got it". For one brief moment, I thought you understood what it means to both be a producer and a consumer in the intellectual realm.
Then, I noticed that line. And I read this:
I want the Subaru dealership to sell me one of those 2005 Impreza WRX sedans for $2000. I have the money right now and I guarantee you that in a couple of years those cars will be selling for my price (okay, 8 - 10 years.)
The seller gets to choose the price of their products, not the buyer. Just because you don't agree with their outlet strategy, doesn't mean you're right to take what you want.
If you can't tell the difference between tangible and intangibles and/or can't stop lieing to youself and everyone else long enough to admit there is a difference, then there's really no point in participating in the copyright debate.
You can argue that copyright is the holy grail. You can argue that copyright infringement is a despicable act. However, even granting those two things, that does not make downloading a copy of the latest book the same crime as stealing a new car off a dealer's lot. The impact on society and all parties involved is entirely different.