Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Once Again, US DoJ Opposes Google Book Search

Posted by kdawson on from the no-so-fast-there-cappy dept.

angry tapir and several other readers passed along the news that the US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers. This is a major blow to Google's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library. From the DoJ filing (PDF): "...the [Amended Settlement Agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation. As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright. Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity — Google."

3 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yay! by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Google wants to strike a deal with me, then why are they litigating with other people?

    No, Google does not want to strike a deal over my rights with me. Google wants to strike a deal over my rights with those other people.

    This is slashdot. We think that copyright terms are way too long and so forth. This isnt the solution.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  2. Opt-In Copyright? by BlackCreek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why can't these guys introduce some required opt-in copyright for works older than say 25 years? Make the renewal 20 years long and put a US$5 price on it.

    Lawrence Lessig has been arguing for something like this for years... it would solve the orphaned works problem, and Disney probably wouldn't care, so they actually might let it happen.

  3. Re:I agree with the DOJ by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree with the government's position on this one. What started out as a lawsuit over the scanning of books (to make them searchable, which I consider fair use)

    Unfortunately, that you consider it fair use doesn't really matter. Fair use is defined, and it is not defined to include copying an entire work for your own commercial purposes, which is exactly what Google did.

    Google should be sued for a vast sum of money over this, just like you or I did if we copied all the works the RIAA or MPAA get so jumpy about "just to make them searchable".

    You don't get to abuse other people's property rights just because you're Google.