Reining in Google

CDPatten writes "The Washington Times has an op-ed piece by two writers typically on opposing sides of the isle, Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr. The article is brief, but overwhelmingly opposes the Google Print service. From the article 'Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is also crushing creativity ...Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of course, it controls the portal through which Internet user's access that content. It would completely devalue everyone else's property and massively increase the value of its own.'. It sounds to me like they might be slightly peeved that Google is resuming the scanning.

Comments

Indexing or Caching?

[sbaker]

I don't see any difference between what Google are doing here and what they do to index web sites.

The roam the web - they take local copies of every web page - they index those pages - then they display a 'snippet' of the page in response to a search query.

Same deal with the books. Scan them into a private archive, index the archive - display the title and a sentence or two of content to provide context. I see no problem with that.

What is problematic (both with the Web indexing and Book indexing) is the Google 'cache' - where you can get the content of the web page from Googles cache if the original web page is missing or slow. That is (in my opinion) a breach of the Web page owner's copyright - and would be a breech of the book's copyright too.

However, the indexing service that Google (and others) provide for the Web is the only thing that makes the Internet useful. Doing that for books would be of HUGE benefit to mankind and absolutely must be allowed - even if copyright law has to be changed to make it happen.

Let's think carefully about the 'Google cache' thing though - that's dubious because it allows people access to content without going through the content provider's access mechanisms. That's the thing that deprives the author of value. Indexing actually increases the value of a work because it allows people to find it - and therefore increases the pool of potential purchasers by an enormous factor.

Google indexing should be the savior of printed media and authors should support it.

Google caching is morally dubious.

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing for Google to scan snippets or otherwise create an index - that is 'fair use', lots of people do it (reviewers, for example). But it's quite another to scan every single word and make those words available in some manner. That *is* a clear breach of copyright and isn't fair use.

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[shanen]

I think you're completely missing the boat here. When someone puts something on the Web, they have agreed to try to make it visible, and Google is serving their interests by making it more visible.

The conflict of Google caching is not that they scan pages and use that content for indexing and search results, but that they allow the cached content to remain available even after the authors have changed the site so those keywords no longer exist. I frankly think it's difficult to justify that use of caching. That's the goal of the Internet Archives Project, but in Google's case it would make good sense to offer the cache-based version only if the original site is down (or /.ed).

(For people who are eager to distribute content but who want to minimize their bandwidth charges for their own servers, it would actually make excellent sense for Google to offer some special metatag to encourage cache availability all of the time. (Though they ought to offer some kind of service for site owners to get a "hit report" for the cached access directly from Google. Obvious implementation would be with a metatag that authorizes an address for a robotic query--only the site owner could add that to the webpage.))

The conflict with the publishers and authors is *completely* different. However, I don't blame Google for trying to adapt to the new technologies, and you can't blame the defenders of the old system for crying when those new technologies are threatening the very existence of their system. To heck with the children! What about the money!?!

Libraries have always had a tenuous relationship with publishers, because borrowed books are only sold once. The argument there was that the public derived large enough benefits that it was okay. Also, the libraries are seen as kind of good publicity and not very accessible, so they (the publishers) can still still books, and perhaps even make more sales to a more literate population.

The Internet is changing things radically. The recent story about newspapers suffering is only a different tip of the same iceberg. From that perspective, the only solution is to ban the technology, which seems unlikely.

When the Internet library is banned, only outlaws will have libraries?

In conclusion, I think the publishers are doomed. The Internet is not going to be banned. It doesn't matter if Google or someone else does it. The books are going to become available via the Web, and the publishers can try to adapt or they can become extinct. Google just wants to be first for the same reason Amazon wanted to be first.

(And the CSS weirdness in the preview and editing areas is over here, too? Looks like an accessible page now. I'm still wondering if it's somehow linked to the latest abuses of anonymous moderation...)

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[scolby]

There is a HUGE difference between indexing a web site and indexing a printed work.
Indexing a web site leads people to that actual web site, encouraging the user to do the things that will make money for that web site. In this case, Google makes money helping others make money.
Indexing a printed work in no leads to the user actually doing anything that will make money for the person(s) responsible for that work. Although Google makes money in this scenario, the owners of that content do not. This is what we call exploitation.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion of the cache.

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[WindBourne]

You have already said that indiexing is fair use. In order to index, they need the whole book.

Google only makes available a limited selection of the book at a time. that is, you can see pages 1, 2, and 3 while I may actually see pages 100,101, and 102. If we are limited to how many pages can be seen, then clearly that is fair use.

Now, the argument is that I can piece the book together via the google mechanism. Yes, that is true. It is work on my part, but it can occur. Of course, I can also scan it myself. The very nature of doing that, though, indicates that I am the one breaking the copyright. In both cases, I had to work at breaking the copyright mechanism.

So no, Google is not breaching copyright.

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[div_2n]

The Internet is an entirely new medium for which copyright laws as they were written prior to its creation do not adequately address its operation and functionality. For example, I can view a web page by which the content is literally copied to my computer in order for me to read it. I COULD leave that web page up indefinitely on my machine. Just for fun, I could load up a page on a public terminal and leave it for all who walk by to view. Heck, even some of the images may be cached on my machine locally. Maybe I run an ISP and I have a proxy in place that caches most of the entire web page. By your definition and that of copyright law, the use of a caching proxy server is copyright violation.

It seems to me that if a content provider of a web page doesn't want their pages cached either by my machine, my proxy or even Google that they should employ a robots.txt file AND password protect the site to keep Google out. Otherwise the Internet is basically no different than putting stacks of fliers (web pages) everywhere and being upset if someone takes (types in a URL) more than one (caching) to give to their friends (serving cached pages).

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[sbaker]

> Indexing a printed work in no leads to the user actually doing anything that will
> make money for the person(s) responsible for that work.

How not?

How is this different from the list of citations at the end of a scientific paper?

How else do you lead someone to something that'll make money for the author?

1) You quote the title of the work, the name of the author and the name of the publisher. I'm pretty sure Google will do that.

2) You might provide a link to a website where you can purchase the book. How long do you think it'll be before Google are making money by pointing you to Amazon and taking a click-though fee for that?

I'm 100% certain that indexing printed works will be a win for the authors and publishers.

What's much less certain is how much of the work Google could quote without destroying sales - their usual two lines of contextual quotation is *occasionally* enough to prevent me from clicking through to the underlying web site. If you were looking for the atomic weight of cadmium and enough of the target were quoted to tell you the answer - why would you click through? (Well, you might...but you wouldn't have to). In that case, the original web page author might be denied some advertising revenue or other valuable statistical data that he was seeking when putting up that information for free access.

I think a couple of sentances of content is enough to verify that the web site is talking about the chemistry of Cadmium - and is not an artist supplier selling Cadmium Yellow paint. But it's a thin line.

But what about books? I think the threshold for a book is much larger than for a web site. I would be buy the book just in order to read the rest of that paragraph? I think not. I think quoting *more* of the book is useful to both the author and to the person doing the searching.

The cache is a different matter...there are many good reasons (listed ably by others earlier in this thread) why I might want my copy of the page to be the only one people access. I let them read it - but I might prefer that copying were not allowed.

There is also a distinction here between what IS legal and what OUGHT TO BE legal. Both are worthy of discussion in the context of "Should the copyright law be changed in order to *clearly* allow indexing?" - which is obviously a huge public good.

Re:Indexing or Caching?

[geoffspear]

Read the US Code. Excerpts for the purpose to commentary and criticism are explicitly exempt under the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law. Reviews are most certainly not illegal.

As for web indexing, that's debatable. I think you'd probably have the law on your side if you tried suing Google for violating the copyright on your web pages, and the fact that you don't explicitly opt out of their indexing with a robots.txt shouldn't make a bit of difference.

Note that I'm not a lawyer, and the lawyers you'd have to hire to make this case would almost certainly cost you more than the damages you'd get from Google if you won it.

Intellectual Property FUD

[It doesn't come easy]

Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not. The courts will decide, the losers will appeal, and eventually we will have a final ruling. Personally, I think a searchable index might just boost sales of lesser known books (considering that the mainstream bookstores only carry the most "popular" books and if you're not carried by the Barnes & Nobles, et al, you don't have much chance to become known to most of the population).

Re:Intellectual Property FUD

[EpsCylonB]

Either what Google is doing is allowed by copyright law, or it's not. The courts will decide, the losers will appeal, and eventually we will have a final ruling.

But what if the law is wrong ?. Copyright was originally supposed to be a contract between an artist and soceity, the deal is that your work will be protected for a period of time in order to encourage you to make further cultural contributions. How many of these books that google is scanning are over 30 years old ?, has the author not had enough time to profit from his work ?.

Copyright in the US (and also in the UK shamefully) is now effectively infinite. Copyright is a anti capitalist monopoly that rewards people for the work of others and puts a price on our culture. Imagine if shaespeare's plays were under copyright today.

One of the great ironies of this copyright law is that Disney, one of the main proponents of extensions, would have been unable to rip off the all those fairy tales had todays copyright laws existed a 100 years ago.

Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.

[Jerk City Troll]

I hear there are places where there are shelves after shelves of books, conveniently organized for quick reference, all at the disposal of the public, free of charge. What's more, these places, sometimes called "libraries", will even let you photocopy any of the material you find there for only the cost of the copy machine! Just imagine how much creativity is being stifled by these rackets! If we hope to save our society from the menace of intellectual property theft, we should be shutting them down, and not allowing Google start doing the same!

Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.

[interiot]

Checking books out from a library does not involve copyright law, as you're not making a copy of anything.

There are four factors to US Fair Use law. The differences between Google's copying and library photocopying are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

   Google's use is commercial (see the judge's argument in the my.mp3.com case). Most use at a library is usually educational, but it may not be.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work

   No difference

3. Amount and substantiality

   Google is copying 100% of the books. It's fairly well established that it's not legal to copy an entire book in your library's copier, that it's only legal to copy some subset of the pages.

4. Effect upon work's value

   No difference

You can take the politician out of politics......

[carlos_benj]

Good grief. Google's not making the works available. They're just making them searchable. The TV taping isn't a good analogy from either viewpoint as the television show will be watched in whole. What Google makes available would be akin to watching a one minute clip of the television show.

I was going to argue against it stifling creativity, but I guess paranoia would keep you from writing new works as it's hard to type while running from imaginary enemies.

The article claims Google has not defined what a "snippet" is. They go on to ask if it's a paragraph, a page or even a chapter..... This is willful ignorance as Google has provided examples of what a snippet will look like. Best to ignore what's out there so we can create the monster to look the way we want it to.....

Who Gets to Decide?

[Zacha]

"The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A chapter? A whole book?
This is the better point of the article: who said that Google gets to decide what's fair use? It can't just be Google's say so, court decisions aside. Nor just the balance of opinion on the web.
I admire Google's robust approach to copyright - that it's better to try things first, find out if you're right second. It's a very cool company. But it's not elected and it is straying into the area of other people's copyrights... be it for good reason, or otherwise.

.. on this, we can both agree: These lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual property. To see it any other way is intellectually dishonest.
This is the more unsettling point in the article. In the same vein: why do Schroeder and Barr get to decide what is fair use? To point out the problem, reasonably, is something the article does very well until right near the end. These last few paragraphs stray unsettlingly into RIAA languge, be it intentionally or otherwise.

wow it hurts doesn't it

[portwojc]

And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion company bent on unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit and in turn denying publishers and authors the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

It sucks when another company comes along and try and change the rules. It's ok when you do it though huh?

Let's see as I understand it. You look for certain phrases through searching books scanned in on google. It finds those books and displays a page or so of the text (probably less). So you know what you searching for is actually found. Then you can if you want, now see if you can keep up, buy the book.

Wow the authors and publishers really loose out. I see what they mean. Why would you want to sell more books? Google must be stopped!

Didn't amazon do something like this already? Well at least a few pages of the book.

I'm more confused than ever

[el_womble]

If I write a novel, and put on the floor in the street, somebody picks it up and reads it, they arn't violating copyright because they haven't create a copy.

If I write the same novel and leave it on a public file server, if someone picks it up and reads it or saves it to disk they have made a copy of it (because thats how digital reading works) so they have violated copyright, unless I allow them the right to make one copy. So what happens the next time I open the file? Technically I'll have a copy on disk and a copy in memory - so I'll have two copies. Or worse, I decide I want to read it on a different computer, I copy it to the other computer, delete from the current computer and then read it on the other computer. As far as I'm concerned there is still only one copy, but in reality there are three: the copy marked for deletion on my harddrive, the copy on the other computers harddrive and the copy in memory. All this before we start getting our knickers in a twist about caching and registers!

Digital data really stuggles with copyright, because even the most simple of actions require that the data be duplicated, and the reason we duplicate over transfer is because it's faster and safer. Once something is digitized good luck trying to keep control over its distribution.

Googles actions here show a complete disregard for conventional copoyright. Taking a none digital medium and transcoding it to digital, then disitributing it on the web is not what fair use had in mind, and really should involve giving some money to the copyright holders, probably a lot of money.

Re:Seems like fair use to me.

[PornMaster]

From the EFF analysis:
Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: Favors Google. Google appears to be copying only as much as necessary (if you are enabling full-text searching, you need the full text), and only tiny snippets are made publicly accessible. Once again, Google looks a lot more like Arriba Soft than MP3.com.

They may only be providing snippets, but they're copying the whole damn thing.

What the f*** is wrong with these people?

[raddan]

How aren't they able to see that allowing all published books to be searched online-- searched but not read -- will mean MORE REVENUE for publishers. This solves the "don't judge a book by it's cover" problem. The success of publishers like O'Reilly, who put huge excerpts of books on the web, and retailers like Amazon, who provide snippets for customers to read through, shows that providing a way of looking before you buy brings in MORE CUSTOMERS. And do we really need to point out... Google says that you won't be able to read the whole fucking book online!

If we'd had a "Napster of books" that blew the doors off of print like it did for music, publishers would be beyond this now. I know the RIAA/MPAA take the stance that P2P has had a negative effect on the music/movies biz, but with the massive success of the iPod/iTMS/[insert favorite online music store] does anyone really beleive that anymore?

preserving the heritage trumps copyright

[GerardM]

As the publishing companies have an abysmal record of preserving the heritage; they leave it to libraries. History is full of important libraries that have burned with all its content.

The argument that these people use is ONLY about copyright and how they THINK they might be worse off in this deal. Their reasoning is not at all why this is a good thing for the society and they do not even consider how it will benefit themselves.

It is a well known but little understood fact that people who go to libraries are the ones most likely to buy books. It is as little understood that file sharers are the ones most likely to buy records.. You do not need to stretch your imagination to understand that when books are known courtesy of this program, that people will be interested in copies these often out of print books.

Please wake up, you are robbing yourself when you spout this nonsence.

Thanks,
      GerardM

Profitability and Creative Works

[weemattisnot]

To all the people that beleive that free content "crushes" creativity:

Creativity is more obviously crushed by the idea that you should use your creativity to make money. Some examples:

• How creative are Hollywood films? How much more creative are independant films that do not exist solely to make a profit?
• How many local bands can't get radio time / aren't heard because of the MEGABANDS that have had millions of dollars put into them (so that a huge profit can be made off of them). Now, if you think "but local bands all suck!" Then (a) you're wrong, and (b) you've just made my point by being brainwashed by the moneymakers.
• How many bands "make it" and are told how / forced to make their music more marketable? This is a pretty direct example of destruction of creativity.
• How many mom and pop restaurants are put out of business by chains? (Yes, cooking is a form of creativity.)
• How many playwrights and authors are unread / unknown by their local community -- because they're all watching the latest blockbuster or reading the current Top-Seller?

Creativity isn't quashed by making content free. The potential for making money from being creative is reduced by making content free. There are millions of people who enjoy being creative for creativity's sake and not for money-making. Look at all the bands that have supported free downloading of their MP3s etc.

Huge big budget creative projects (e.g. War of the Worlds) couldn't afford to be produced with out profiting from ticket-sales etc....but free content doesn't prevent them from doing so -- it just reduces their potential profit (from DVD sales etc.).

So maybe, if the potential for profit from creative-works were reduced (e.g. by making content more free), then the Big Companies would butt-out a little bit and let people be creative for creativity's sake!

You are confusing two issues

[Darius Jedburgh]

There are two issues here: whether or not Google is breaching fair use, and whether or not they are enabling Google users to breach fair use. By providing only snippets Google are encouraging end users to make fair use of texts. But the question of whether or not Google is breaching copyright does not hinge on what their end users do. The fact is: in order to make available snippets to end users they hold entire copies of the original works. So let me spell this out clearly: Google hold copies of original works. They use these entire copies to serve up snippets to individual users. By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit. This is so far from fair use it's not debatable. So Google are clearly in breach of copyright even though the end users aren't. I can't spell it out more simply than that. The only reason Google have survived this far is that they have encouraged confusion, in the eyes of onlookers, between the notion of fair use by the end user and the notion of fair use by themselves.

I'll spell this out even more clearly. I have written book X recently. They have an entire copy of my book sitting on their servers. (It may in fact be an index and hence a derivative work from which the complete original can be constructed, but that is still subject to copyright.) They are using their complete copy of X to make profit. I don't see a penny of this except maybe occasionally someone will buy my book X because Google mentioned it. And there's certain no law that compels me to accept free advertising in recompense for abuse of my copyright.

Re:You are confusing two issues

[WindBourne]

By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit. This is so far from fair use it's not debatable.

A used book stores pays the owner of a book a .25, places it on its shelf and then sells it for $2.00.

A coffe shop owner sees the book, buys it, and leaves it hanging around their shop for customers to read.

These 2 examples are no different. Yes, I am aware that some book sellers are pushing the idea that they should get money from the 2'nd sale (they should not), and that is why I showed the second example.

In fact, the place that I have seen Google's book search in use was in tech book stores in Denver. They are using it to help sell more books (I bought 3 more books than I wanted; damn search). So clearly, Google is NOT abusing copyright.

Re:You are confusing two issues

[mikehdow]

I agree. It seems that many people are missing the point that Google would now be making money off books when the writers of the books should be. If Google would like to provide this service -- and it would be a great service to its users -- they need to pay royalties. I wish people would see the middle ground -- that Google pay royalties. Instead, many are taking the extreme and saying that those who are seeking to protect authors are effectively preventing a great service to the world's population from being made available. The fact that Google wants to provide this type of service is great; however, they need to share the wealth with those whose content they are using.

Re:You are confusing two issues

[bitingduck]

By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit. This is so far from fair use it's not debatable.

Yes, it is debatable. They aren't republishing the entire book.

If their potentially infringing use decreases the value of the original (i.e. makes a user of gBooks not want to get a copy of the original) then it's probably infringing. If their use increases the likelihood that someone will want to get the original, then it's probably not infringing.

Book reviews depend on this-- they excerpt things all the time without needing permission. The whole point of book reviews is to help evaluate whether you want to get a book or not. They also make a profit from republishing snippets, but it's certainly not infringing. Authors don't see a penny of that unless it encourages someone to go out and buy the book.

What Google is doing is providing customized excerpts based on what you're looking for. In all probability it will increase sales for books that it indexes-- there are plenty of times that I haven't bought a book online because I couldn't tell if it included what I wanted. Then I check it out in person at a bookstore if it's available. If it's not, then I just don't buy it.

And as a side note, bookstores already provide a service that allows you to do what people are afraid Google will enable, and possibly for less effort. If you're a reasonably quick reader it's not hard to read an entire book (or at least as much as you want) in a single bookstore visit. There are plenty of books that I've read in the bookstore that I didn't buy.

Making full copies may be irrelevant- libraries routinely make full copies of damaged books that are out of print in order to preserve their content.

Copyright wasn't intended to give authors absolute control over the ability to profit from their content. It strikes a balance (at least it used to) between protecting authors' ability to profit and the benefit to society of having things made publicly available.

I'll spell this out even more clearly. I have written book X recently...[lots of stuff cut out for space]... And there's certain no law that compels me to accept free advertising in recompense for abuse of my copyright.

Ok, so suppose your Book X is on the shelf at the library and I decide to read it there and write a review of it. I pull out a couple of excerpts and include them in the review. I sell this review to some book of reviews, who then publish it with ads. They and I have both profited from your book, and you don't see a penny (except from the single sale to the library). That's free advertising for your book, and there's nothing you can say or do about it- it falls under fair use. I can even say your book sucks in the review, and it's still fair use.

In fact, I just did something like that in this post-- if you read "The Fine Print" at the top of all the replies, all your comments belong to you. I just excerpted your copyrighted material (I could even have fairly included the whole thing, but it would have been annoying for other readers) to write a negative review of it, and Slashdot profits from it.

Re:You are confusing two issues

[robertjw]

In neither of these cases are there copies made. Google is making copies!!! If you fail to see that difference you really amazes me. It is the creation of those copies that are the copyright infringement.

Actually, I do see the difference. The the parent's example the publishers lost a sale because a consumer purchased the book in a secondary market. Google does NOT intend to redistribute content. They are making ONE copy of each book for their own used, not to resell. Now they are going to use that content to enhance their searches, but I don't know if that's against fair use.

The publishers are just pissed that Google's making money and they aren't, it has nothing to do with copyright or fair use. If it's such an issue, why don't they just encourage all of their authors to opt-out and setup their own search index to compete. That's not what they want at all, they just want a bigger piece of the pie than they are already going to get from purchases of searched books. Don't assign altruistic values to the publishing companies, they are just greedy like everyone else.

Re:You are confusing two issues

[Big Boss]

>In neither of these cases are there copies made. Google is making copies!!! If you fail to see that >difference you really amazes me. It is the creation of those copies that are the copyright infringement.

It's always been my understanding that Copyright doesn't cover MAKING copies, only DISTRIBUTING them. There is a HUGE difference in the two. This means that I can go to the store, buy a CD, and rip it to MP3 to put on my iPod. That makes 3 copies of the work (the rip to WAV (even if it's just in RAM, it's still a copy), compression to MP3, putting it on my iPod). Am I violating copyright there? The courts say no (IIRC, the lawsuit against the Rio covered this). However, I am violating copyright if I give someone else a copy of my MP3s.

As I see it, Google Print is pretty much the same. They index the copies they make (and keep to themselves) and give only a few lines of text in the search results. That's like me giving 1 second of an MP3 to a friend. It's excerpting and generally accepted as fair use. Honestly, for public domain works, I don't see a problem with making the entire text downloadable. For in copyright works, I see no moral or legal problem with giving out only a few lines of text and a listing of what book it came from. Obviously, they can't let me download the whole book, and I see no indication that Google intends to allow any such thing. They aren't so stupid as to not realize that is a clear violation.

If publishers were smart, they would set up a website that google could link results to for purchasing the book. Even just linking to Amazon would be great. I could get on, search, find a book that looks to have the info I want, click buy and it shows up a few days later. Perfect. But no, they just have to keep thier buggy whips moving....... Copyright isn't a guarantee that you can make ever increasing profits by doing the same thing for all eternity. It's a guarantee that I can't give away or sell full copies of your work. Making money on it becomes your problem. If a service like Google indexing your book causes you to loose money, it's your business model that is flawed and needs updating.

It's funny how poeople here revile the RIAA and MPAA for the same sort of antics, but defend book publishers for the same crap. Technology is moving along and your customers want the world to move with it. Your job as an author or publisher is to provide the customers what they want, and find a way to make money out of it. If you can't do that, it's time to step aside for the next generation that can. The future is a steamroller and you're getting run over. Are you going to do something to get ahead of it, or are you going to sit there an be crushed? Doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I'll happily pay whoever is providing the services I want. If nobody is willing to take my money for what I want, I'll find another way, as will a vast majority of people. There IS money to be made here, but you have to change your perspective to make it. Hint: People are more than willing to pay for convience.

Re:You are confusing two issues

[JSBiff]

Could, would, should. . . vague words. All we have is the law. The question isn't whether Google should be allowed to make money off the books. . . the question is, do they violate copyright? You might think it's 'not fair' that Google can make money from allowing the users to search the books, and sell ads next to the search results, but that doesn't mean that what Google is doing *IS* or *IS NOT* legal. It may be that what Google is doing is in violation of copyright, or maybe not. I'm not a lawyer.

The thing is, copyright law doesn't govern making money off of someone else's copyrighted work. It only governs specific actions - namely, making copies and distributing those copies. For example, I could arguably have a for-profit library, where I buy copies of books, and then rent them out to people (would be tough, since there are free public libraries, but I believe would be essentially legal). Now, in this specific example, I've had to first buy my copies from the publishers, so the publisher and author are getting paid, and probably nobody would care.

But, consider another example. I go to the public library. I read a *LOT* of books. I now decide to publish a newsletter of my book reviews, including maybe a few choice quotes, or even a couple paragraphs of text, and I sell ad space in my newsletter. I've made money off your books, without paying you anything. Am I in violation of copyright law for making book recommendations/reviews? No - even if I include short pieces of your text to illustrate my review/recommendation. That is *fair use*. And this happens all the time. Most newspapers have book review sections, magazines as well, and nobody complains about them.

I personally don't see much difference between what I've outlined above, and what Google is doing. I personally think it comes down to fair use. I suppose, at this point, it will be up to the courts (most likely the Supreme Court) to decide if this constitutes fair use.

The main points of question seem to be, 1) Does scanning/digitizing the entire work, even if Google isn't distributing the entire work, constitute an illegal copy or not, 2) If Google is making only a small portion available to any one searcher, but over the course of thousands of requests, makes the entire work available (albeit piece-by-piece to potentially hundreds of different users), does that constitute illegal copying/distribution (I personally think Google would be on much safer territory here if they only made available like the preface, or a couple paragraphs from the first chapter from the book, so that regardless of what you search on, you would only ever see that one small portion of the work - and *possibly* like the single sentence that the search terms were found in)?

Ultimately, though, as copyright holders fight Google, they may just be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Authors and publishers need to seriously consider this: do you want your competitors works to be findable through Google Print, but *your* work not to be? The outcome of Google 'losing' this legal battle would simply be that they would continue on, but only indexing and returning search results for public domain books, and books from publishers/authors who have explicitely granted them permission (and many will, as they will see it for the opportunity it is). Do you *really* want your books to be the only books that people *can't* find through Google? You might want to have your book listed, *and* get a royalty from Google. Not gonna happen. Ever. Get over it. Google will just pull you out of the index and move on, and not really care. It would take an industry-wide boycott for Google to care, and again, that's not gonna happen, because it's too tempting to be on Google when your competitors are not.

Is it always in the interest of content providers?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

When someone puts something on the Web, they have agreed to try to make it visible,

...on their web site...

and Google is serving their interests by making it more visible.

But who are we to say that for someone else's material?

It's very easy to take the public-spirited view in any intellectual property debate, be it on copyright or patents or whatever. Allowing anyone to control access to or use of information is (almost) always against the public interest in any isolated case and once the information has already been published. But you have to consider the bigger picture, which is why concepts like copyright exist in law.

Personally, I agree with the original reply that started this subthread: things like Google Cache and the Wayback Machine are on very dubious ground, both legally and ethically. It isn't a no-brainer that these caching systems are of benefit to the original creators of the material. I've enumerated some reasons that I believe this before, but probably the three most important are:

• potential financial damage (for example, not seeing ads on the original site)
• potential disruption of feedback (not getting an accurate idea of numbers of page impressions, click-throughs, referrers, etc.)
• presenting out of date or incorrect information that's been removed from the real site.

Caching/archival services disrupt all of these things, potentially damaging the interests of the content provider. Those interests are protected by copyright to encourage them to offer the content to the public in the first place, and thus I have a problem with violating the letter and/or spirit of copyright law to set up a cache. If you want to offer such a service, by all means do, but make it opt-in; "You can just disable it with robots.txt/by e-mailing us at.../by setting up a password" really isn't good enough.

Although commercial entities can be killed off by the unfortunate side effects of dubious caching, this isn't automatically a money issue, either. For example, I help to run a relatively large web site for a local club, and we rely on server logs to see which links visitors do and don't follow and which pages they want to get to from which other pages. We use this information to improve the links and menus on our site. We have no commercial stake here; this is a non-profit organisation, providing the site purely to help our members and anyone else with common interests. However, if everyone started seeing our site indirectly via Google Cache or whatever, we couldn't do this because our server logs would be empty, and therefore we couldn't continue to update our site to better provide for our visitors.

We also update our content regularly, sometimes even providing information in an afternoon that's relevant only to the same evening. Yes, we make mistakes occasionally too, and have to fix them. Having a cache that's out of date by even a couple of hours could spoil a whole evening for one of our members who missed a last-minute announcement or saw cached data that was copied while there was a mistake on the site that had since been fixed.

None of this is in either our interests or that of our members/random visitors interested in our stuff, and there's not a single financial consideration in any of the above problems. So no, Google Cache isn't automatically serving the interests of either the copyright holder or the general public, and more to the point, it's not up to them to decide what's in the best interests of others and whether it's OK to break the law on that basis.

Funny things about those libraries

[kwhite]

There is a funny thing about those libraries - They actually had to buy or have all of those books donated. That is one of the things the Carnegie institute does. It helps libraries purchase and keep there books up to date.

Another thing about libraries - Only ONE person can take a book out at a time or even use it to do the research. Now if a library has multiple copies of a book because it is popular then multiple people can do that.

Also as for copying, the libraries I have gone to always have those nice little signs that say photocopying a book is wrong and should not be done. Hmmmm I wonder why, maybe because they are protecthing themself from copyright lawsuits.

So please do not tell me that Google and the libraries are the same.

Ken

R.I.P. Copyright

[dada21]

As a writer and content creator, I'm a rarity -- I hate copyright.

Why do we need it? I learned in business never to write or say anything proprietary that you don't want others to know.

Copyright is basically using the force of government to enact a monopoly on thought. I'm not sure the process of thought should be regulated or licensed.

The web's easy access to millions of commercial (ie, for profit) copyright works "for free" proves why copyright is outdated: people still buy content they could download freely.

Why do people buy versus download?

1. They appreciate the author's work and want to compensate them.
2. They want to support the author's future work.
3. The time-requirements or download quality is wors than buying the author's version.
4. They're afraid of government force.

I doubt the last is a big reason.

I'm 31. I buy content as its time-cheaper than downloading. For the youth, the reverse is true. The major pirates can't vote, can't sign a contract and can't get credit. 6 years of "piracy" can set up their preferences for 50 years of purchasing.

I say use the web to set up your future customers. Dump copyright.

Seems pretty "fair use" esque to me

[Antifuse]

Having played with it a little bit (they have it up here), a "snippet" appears to be a few pages in either direction of your search result. And they provide handy dandy links to purchase the book if you so desire. If I was a publisher, I would think this was a GREAT way to have people find my books... but then, I am NOT a publisher, so what do I know?

Imagine that, people writing just to express ideas

[almound]

[Let me preface this comment by noting that I write many things, including music.]

If copyright was abandoned it would get rid of a lot of tripe out there in the marketplace. Wouldn't it be great if people wrote not for money but ideas, for a change, if there was genuine competition among ideas and artistic expression?

Idealism? Fantasy? Poppycock? I doubt as if those who have a burning desire to write would be stopped by poor remuneration for their efforts. (The practice of blogging demonstrates this point. Podcasting expands the idea to radio and video.) If the tripe written by those motivated mainly by money was allowed to whither, then eventually the field would be cleared to allow content written by those actually interested to surface and flourish. (Just removal of the advertising efforts to promote the latest schlock would see to that.)

Oh yes, I realize that those writing for money are interested in their subject, too. And yes, many important things wouldn't be written except for the remuneration. (Authors must live, etc.) But I for one can't see the situation getting worse by removing the profit motive from the publishing field. The current system of copyright may benefit works written through coporate collaboration, but is not a friend of the independent. And it is the independent who gave us the calculus, the Tesla coil, Linux, and cellular automata.

Far more work that is of crucial importance has been buried than ever benefited from the skewed book selling and promoting practices now rife in the publishing world. (Note that I refer not to my own work, by the way.)

In addition, most authors are required on their own dime to go out and hawk their work on a touring circuit. There are very few corporate advertising dollars being spent on authors; only a handful are darlings, and they get constant coverage and prominent product placement. Readers are reduced to consumers and it well-known that most markets are created, not discovered. In such contrived circumstances, the very purpose for a readily presentable media -- the content -- suffers.

These remarks apply to most anything able to be copyrighted, by the way.

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise

[abb3w]

Indexing a printed work in no leads to the user actually doing anything that will make money for the person(s) responsible for that work.

Doing anything like, oh... buying the book?

While O'Reilly Books are seriously cool people, they aren't publishing just for the fun of it. They're out to make some money (although they're not completely averse to having fun while doing it). They're also, judging by bookshelves in local geek circles and by the cover prices I've been paying, doing a decent job of it.

So why does O'Reilly Books have the entire (conventional) index of a HELL of a lot of their books available on the web? Free. No charge. Google searchable even. Why? Well, they might be trying to drum up interest in the Safari on-line library, but I don't think that's it. I think that, like Baen's Free Library, they "expect this to make us money by selling books".

I would also suggest you (and Schroeder and Barr) play with Google Scholar before sounding off. Google is already indexing copyrighted materials, many of which are in journals that cost a couple hundred bucks a year to subscribe to. However, they don't show the full text of the article in many cases (unless the publisher wants to). You will see the usual two lines worth of context, and there's usually a link to an abstract. If you search from a .edu IP address, your school may have a electronic subscription that Google will link to. Otherwise... get up off your lazy backside and get thee to a library. When Schroeder and Barr are wondering what Google may mean by "Snippets", this ought to give them a clue about what Google plans to do. Google's lawyers are not stupid; I'd be suprised if even full paragraphs show up on material not yet lasped to the public domain.

I'll also note that Google Scholar has a distinct lack of ads on it. The Google Library might not be ad-free, but it will probably be limited to ads trying to sell books or related materials. Gee, what might that do for the publishing industry?