Slashdot Mirror
Google To Resume Scanning Books
SenseOfHumor writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google will resume scanning copyrighted books from Stanford and Univ of Michigan libraries. Let the battle resume!" From the article: "It isn't known just what percentage of library holdings fall into the category of being in copyright but out of print. About 18% of the books held by the libraries working with Google were printed prior to 1923 and are therefore in the public domain, according to an analysis by the Online Computer Library Center, a Dublin, Ohio, nonprofit library cooperative. An unknown percentage of the rest still are protected by copyright, depending on whether it was renewed. Google's resumption of its scanning of copyrighted works comes amid heated debate in the library community over participation in the program."
Is there some machine they have that separates all the pages and scans each one?
How do they verify that the items being scanned are being scanned properly?
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I'm not usually one to support the knee-jerk slashweenie response, that all intellectual property is theft, but I do object to commercial enterprises refusing to sell me something and insisting that I can't copy it.
It might be their intellectual property but it's my culture, dammit. If they won't keep it in print and sell me a copy, which I'm willing to pay for, then they should keep their mouths shut when I go and find one for myself.
Anybody got a DVD of Dance of the Vampires they can let me copy then?
A lot of folks are going mental about the "copyright implictions" of google books, and I'm just laughing. On my bookshelf is a first-edition colleciton of George Bernard Shaw plays, printed in the UK in 1911. There's a legend on the inside cover that is a reference to the U.S.'s lack of copyright laws at the time: (paraphrasing from memory:)
As a recognition of this debt to society, intellectual property that is not in the public domain should be taxed. Just as our other physical property is taxed, why not intellectual property?
And the taxes can be used to invest in new science, technology, and the arts.
This has the added benefit of also moving a bunch of stuff into the public domain.
If the taxes aren't paid within two years, then the item moves into the public domain. If you aren't sure on the status of an item, see if it has had IP taxes paid in the last two years. If not, then it's free!
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
It's a shame to see many libraries taking such a regressive approach to this. I happen to think libraries and access to information are the cornerstone of a free society -- they level the playing field and provide education and knowledge to people who otherwise couldn't afford it. However as a result of the digital age, our current standard of living and draconian copyright laws, the importance of libraries has diminished of late, as people turn to the web for information, buy their books at Barnes & Noble instead of borrowing them, or are merely incapable of borrowing copyrighted material because of digital or legal barriers created by content owners. What Google is doing here is progressive and in the spirit of free access to information. They're not giving away books, here. They're merely adding the ability to search for and view specific pieces of information. If anything this will only increase demand for the books they're scanning. And on top of that, it will provide access to information for a new generation who might not otherwise be able to afford it. Really now, I thought most librarians were more hip and with-it than this...
My colleague Jamie wrote the following letter to Wired yesterday regarding Lawrence Lessig's column supporting Google Print.
I think she makes some compelling points about the problems with Google's plan...
-------------
Lessig's Tough Call
In defending Google Print ("Google's Tough Call," issue 13.11), Lawrence Lessig and others overlook one thing. If the publishers and authors have no rights to prevent this, what rights does Google have to protect its own extensive efforts in creating this database? By their own arguments, the answer must be: none. Google does not own the raw data. In almost talking point fashion, Google, Lessig and others describe this as nothing more than a "card catalog." This description could come back to haunt Google, as the only thing they own is their original presentation of the data itself. And the image of a card catalog does not bring to mind "originality."
If the Google DRM is broken and I create my own "Jamie Print" index on the web... without Google's ads... what basis would Google have to argue? Google can scan a million books and by Lessig's arguments, that investment is irrelevant. If I find a way to download those million books from Google, store the data and use my own search engine, Google's supposed benevolence in creating this project will be hard to swallow amidst a flurry of lawsuits against my superior ad-free index. Google would have little basis to sue except under the DMCA, a statute whose very existence is vilified by Lessig and the very people defending Google Print as progress (and I don't care for it either).
If Google's investment in the project cannot be protected, they may have little incentive to create this and other projects. Isn't this much the same for the publishers and authors seeking protection for the right to control their work? Lessig defends Google Print in the name of progress, but progress is a careful balance of reward and public benefit. Google might not create Google Print if it cannot profit from the ads it inserts and publishers may lose out if they cannot choose how to profit from their properties.
It is almost inevitable that Google Print will be subverted and Google will seek the very same protections that it claims the publishers should not have.
Jamie Cole
New York, NY
What I find funniest about the entire copyright debate is how so few people are actually aware of what a flimsy basis copyright rests on.Intellectual property rights are not property, nor rights. They're grants (a decidedly un-libertarian form of state monopoly), given by the government, with the explicit intent of promoting the public good. Copyright holders are created for the good of society, not the other way around. The way I see it, once copyright starts being used to limit the creation and propagation of information and culture rather than encourage it, copyright might as well just not exist
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The fact that out-of-print books have copyright protection is further proof that Congress is more interested in hewing to the corporate line than adhering to Constitutional principles. How does preventing any further publication of a work for nearly 100 years promote the useful arts and sciences?
I would make copyright dependent upon making the copyrighted material available for the duration of the copyright. If it falls out of publication for a year and a day, then the copyright lapses. Making the material available online would be a cheap and easy way to maintain your copyright. Those that don't like that notion are free to publish and warehouse physical copies. In order to close an obvious loophole, I would further require that the copyrighted material be available at no more than the original cost, adjusted each year for inflation.
What you missed here is that Google intends to make a lot of money from selling ads on the pages where the search results are shown. The publishers see this as someone else taking their intellectual property and using it to make a profit, without asking their permission, and more importantly, without offering them a share of the profits. This is not about fears of people downloading books or not buying the books because they can get a 3 sentence answer from Google (anyone whose question can be answered in 3 sentences wasn't going to buy the book anyway). It's clear that even the publishers involved in the lawsuits realize that this service would result in higher booksales.
It's a question of how far fair use rights extend. Fair use does not prohibit you from making a profit from exercising your rights (the NY Times Review of Books can excerpt content in a review and profit from selling ads on that page). The publishers argue that Google's use of their material goes beyond fair use, particularly because they're copying the entire work and not just an excerpt.
It will be up to a court to weigh the many factors involved and come up with a ruling. The obvious question is, if Google loses the lawsuits, what then happens to web search engines that spider and cache copyrighted text without the author's explicit permission? Will they be held to the same standard, and will plain old Google, Yahoo!, MSN Search and their ilk become "opt in" only search engines?
This has probably been mentioned in previous articles but oh well.
Many librarians I have met (not all, or even most, but some) have this weird mentality of "I am the gatekeeper of knowledge, you must have my leave to access the wisdom of the ages." The basically believe that knowledge is so sacred (it is) that only they are fit to gaurd it and distribute it (very not true).
When I was younger (elementry school, early-mid 90s) and you needed to research something you had to goto the library (either your schools or the public one), use a computer to look up a book (if you knew what it was) or (more often) ask a librarian to help you find books that would be useful for your topic. This gave the librarians great power because it allows them to deturmine all the information you are going to be using. When you learn and retain something, it becomes a part of you, by deciding what you learn they are in essense chaning you.
Now (for me, ever since middle school), you want to know more about ancient egyptian art? Google it and find 100s of pages of information (well, realistically you will only likely use about 10 of those pages but you get the idea). Want to know more about the 2000 US election? Google it. Before, if you wanted to find out information about certain topics (primarily recent or highly specific) then you were out of luck because often the libraries didn't have it. However, with things such as google and wikipedia, you now have access to almost any information you want from anywhere you have a computer with an internet connection.
(Beware, point soon approaching. Be prepared to duck)
Taking all this into account, it is not suprising that many librarians are reacting so harshly to this. They are all for making information more accesible but not if it doesn't go through them. Its like a company with a monopoly that it has had for ages: They've become used to the power and don't want to give it up.
The world has been slowly changing. It has become more and more difficult to control information. And as the cliche goes: Knowledge is power.
Speaking is NOT communication
No, they would have to go back and find a public-domain edition that contains the story. For instance, if you search for "Moby Dick", you will see several recent editions that have the copyright restrictions on them. However, Google could find a pre-1923 edition of Moby Dick, scan it, and put the whole thing online.
I may twist orthodoxy to partly justify a tyrant. But I can easily make up a German philosophy to justify him entirely.
Though I personally believe what Google are doing is not ethically/morally wrong, they are most probably 'breaking' our unjust (injust?) copyright laws. The only reason they are 'getting away' with it is because they are the most powerful domain on the net. No-one dares mess with Google.
About 18% of the books held by the libraries working with Google were printed prior to 1923 and are therefore in the public domain
From what I gather, these books printed prior to 1923 are considered public domain and hence, no longer in the scope of copyright laws. Lawsuits are still bad press for Google as is for any publicly-listed company, and I seriously doubt no-one would "dare mess" with Google simply because they are "the most powerful domain" on the net. If anything else, Google has money and can definitely pay large sums of money to settle any lawsuits hurled against them, which makes it a good move as long as you are at the side of the law. Take a look at guys like RIAA and Microsoft -- they may be powerful both as an entity and economically-speaking, however, it does not render them safe from lawsuits.
A law suit against Google is very bad publicity, and they could subtly drop your page rank and you'd never notice until the visitors stopped coming.. or even remove you completely.
Google drops your page rank or removes you? Fine, guess I'll just fire another lawsuit against them. I'm sure there's a law being broken somewhere for this.
Take off every 'sig'!
All your 'sig' are belong to us!
There is really no precedent for what Google is doing, so it has become a test-case for the limits of fair-use. We may all agree that it seems obvious that it is fair-use, in fact many lawyers have suggested just that, but until a court of law deems it fair-use Google will be challenged. It will probably go to the Supreme Court within a couple of years and we can only hope that the conservative justices being appointed by Bush will allow it under fair-use. Fortunately, Google has fairly deep pockets so may be able to win the case.