Slashdot Mirror
The Point of Google Print
vinohradska writes "Eric Schmidt has written a good article called the The point of Google Print. It clearly lays out the argument against the current lawsuit: 'Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.'"
This case will never make it to trial.
I assume that you know that attourneys & the courts serve only the wealthy & connected few. They exist to keep the rest of us down. If I were writing the search engine, it would have been taken down by DMCA notices day one. Only a rich company like Google can compete against a rich company like Perfect 10.
Trial by pocketbook, togeather with the trampling of the Bill of Rights, makes our "government" illegal. Some of us have known this for quite some time, and have been preparing for the revolution for years. The rest of you have either caught on, or are too stupid to deserve to live.
The revolution is coming in the next year. It will be a pleasure to hunt down the attourneys, hiding in basements, and exterminate them.
Andy Out!
Trust me, knowing that a book exists is already very helpful, even if you can't obtain it immediately. If a book is in print, then you can buy it. If it's in the public domain you can access it immediately. If it is out of print, but not in the public domain, then you may still be able to buy it used. Even if you can't, your local public library can obtain just about any book that's been published for you. If it is something extremely rare, but you really need it, then it is still useful, because you can fly over, or contact the library by phone and explain your circumstances, or find someone with access to the library who can obtain the necessary information.
If you don't know whether the books exists, you can do neither of those.
Yes they did, when the library bought the book, as did the author.
True, but that's one copy for every county in every state of the United States that wants to grant its residents access to the book. Google Print, on the other hand, obtains only one copy and uses it worldwide.
I use my university's online catalogs all the time. Most of the relevant material isn't available online without subscription, of course, and we have a limited budget. However, I can order photocopies of most journal articles (although lately many of them show up as PDFs). These come through other libraires in this state, first. Then, if not available in this state, through other public universites in the USA. Then, if that fails, it falls back on all public libraries in the USA. It does matter that you can get a reference to material, even if that material isn't located locally.
http://www.copyright.gov/records/
What?
Then I thought, "Huh? they didn't receive any money under the old way either -- when I visited the library to find my quotes."
Sure they did. The library bought the book with cold hard cash.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
What on earth are you talking about? Any general search engine worth using is opt-out via robots.txt. Do you really think every page indexed by Google was actively submitted to them?
The real reason that publishers have to pursue this...is that copyright can be reneged if you are not seen to be defending your rights.
With the amount of IP-related discussion on Slashdot, it's amazing how often this misinformation is still expressed. It's only trademarks that may be forfeited for lack of defense. Not copyrights, not patents -- trademarks.
So your whole post boils down to "it's debatable." A trenchant analysis indeed.
I'm not saying Google Library is fair use, the only way we'll know for sure is when the courts rule on it. There is a precedent for fair use where a search engine copied the full work in order to substantially less than the full work to be delivered to the user of the search engine. But if it is fair use, then Google doesn't need to ask permission, and if they're using an opt-out system, it's only for PR reasons. Eric Schmidt's article is not a legal defense, but it's a PR piece to try to explain how the Google Library project works, and why it's good for the public at large.
IANAL, but I don't think copyright works the way you claim. For example, I think you're confusing the right to choose who publishes your work with the right to choose who sells copies of the published work. The owner of a copy of a book does not need permission to resell it. Since taping a TV program for personal use and rewatching it at home has been classified as fair use, you don't need permission from the copyright owner to do it.
There are 4 points that the court uses to determine fair use. One is the extent of the copying, another is the nature of the use, and another is the effect of the use on the marketability of the work. So, even though Google is copying the entire work, the other points, like the fact that returning 2-3 line snippets for copyrighted works will not adversely affect the markets for the works, may be the more important points for the court.
The Google Library lawsuits are really about 3 things. On the face of it, it is to determine if it is about whether this is a form of fair use. But it's also about the copyright holders (Author's Guild lawsuit) trying to get a cut of the ad revenue on the Google Print search results page, and it's about the publishers suing to make sure that Google Print doesn't somehow turn into something some sort of on-line viewing system or on-demand printing system that makes the publishers obsolete.