Slashdot Mirror
Google Looks To Convert Print Pubs Into E-Articles
bizwriter writes "A patent application by Google (GOOG), filed in August 2008 and made public last week, shows that the company is trying to automate the process of splitting printed magazines and newspapers into individual articles that it could then deliver separately. Although this could allow Google to convert stacks of periodicals into electronic archives, it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law."
Most magazines are glad to sell their content from back issues for money. So, if Google gets permission from the publisher, and then charges for back magazine items in the same way they have a paid-for newspaper archive search... is that really headed for the Supreme Court?
The patent application merely shows they know how to do such a thing. It does not mean that they plan to do so. Google has many unimplemented patents.
Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. But anyone who does will have to factor Google's patent application into their economic reckoning.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law.
They've already proved with the blatently illegal settlement on the book scanning deal that the law doesn't apply to them.
What is that famous ruling anyway? That sentence just calls for a link.
It's right there in the article:
There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.
My work here is dung.
There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.
Obligatory Wikipedia link.
My work here is dung.
There aren't as many orphan magazines as there are orphan books.
Both TFA and the summary assume leap to the conclusion that GOOGLE would run afoul of a law relating to current publications without even hinting at the utterly vast archives of newspapers molding in public libraries or on microfilm that can't be accessed conveniently if at all.
Many worry about the loss of historical content, so much so that due to so much of our modern media being released only in digital form.
Yet there is a huge wealth of old newspapers, scientific journals, and popular press magazines that could be salvaged with this technology.
Its odd, that when envisioning futuristic civilizations we almost always expect all of their literary history being contained in computers accessible from everywhere. Yet when someone develops the tools to do just that there is a huge outcry from those that posture as defenders of IP rights.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Wait, what's this article thing you're talking about? I thought this was Slashdot.
Thank you. Now, will someone please mod the parent "informative" and my GP comment "overrated?" Thanking the mods in advance.
Understanding, thanks, salutations ... delivered on Slashdot? With cordiality? Scanning for sarcasm, hatred, malice, discontent ... clean?! Taking full claim of responsibility? Strange new feelings welling up inside me. Double checking URL ... still Slashdot! No memes? Bizarre. How to appropriately respond?
... it's been a pleasure doing business with you?"
"Uh
My work here is dung.
The summary makes it sound like Google is trying to do yet another end run around actually paying publishers to access their content. Every single major publisher out there already has their article content in an advertisement free format. They have templates that they copy the content (and advertisements) into when it comes time to print. If Google wants the content, they can pay the publishers for it. They don't need to reverse engineer the final printing. They need to stop being cheap and pay content creators.