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."

Comments

"Reprinted by permission"

[LostCluster]

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?

Re:"Reprinted by permission"

[Overzeetop]

I'm not saying google intends to do this, but I doubt sports illustrated would let their swimsuit issue go for the same price as the rest.

Yeah, but you don't really read the swimsuit edition for "the articles."

Re:"Reprinted by permission"

[DragonWriter]

Most magazines wouldn't be ok with an automated process because it wouldn't let them charge extra for some issues.

An automated conversion process has no effect on what can be charged for individual portions of the results, it just streamlines the process of getting material into a form where it can be distributed online, separated by (and, potentially, priced differently by) article, which is even more specific than particular issue.

Now, certainly, Google would probably like to get everything from everyone and pay and charge nothing for it, making money by serving targetted ads alongside the content. But that's not the only could do with the technology, and patenting the technology (even if one assumes that they intend to deploy it at all) doesn't tell you anything about how they plan to deploy it.

Re:"Reprinted by permission"

[edumacator]

No kidding...those pictures are ... degrading to women. If it wasn't for the articles, I wouldn't pick up Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. Are you one of those perverts that just buys it for the pictures. You and your ilk disgust me.

.
.

Whew...that was close. She's gone now, but my wife was standing over my shoulder. Those girls are hot!

Re:Which ruling?

[eldavojohn]

Seriously, folks, it's 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.

Obligatory Wikipedia link.

Leaping to conclusions

[icebike]

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.

Re:Which ruling?

[eldavojohn]

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?

"Uh ... it's been a pleasure doing business with you?"

Re:Googling getting questionable

[belmolis]

It's only recent material for which this is true. Google appears to be interested in older material, for which the publishers generally do not have split out versions, or, for that matter, in many cases, any electronic version at all.