Authors' Guild Goes After University Book Digitization Projects

Scram by russotto · 2011-09-12 12:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.

Re:Scram by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ahem...
Authors in question are DEAD or unknown.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Scram by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.
The courts should first hit Google with the maximum penalty for copyright infringement, for each case of infringement they've committed. Because that's kind of what the whole case is about. If I can't photocopy a book and put it on my public website / private computer without permission of the copyright owner, then Google can't scan millions of books and put them into a university's public / semi-public library, nor can they index them on their public web site.
It's flagrant violation of copyright law, yet if you put a video of your birthday party on youtube, it's only a matter of time before the copyright bots block your video because it triggered on the performance of the copyrighted "Happy Birthday" song.
That is all wrong. The court can only hit Google with the maximum penalty for each case of copyright infringement for each person who goes to court and asks for it. In this case, it looks like some sort of industry group is suing. Too bad they can only recover for people they represent whose book has been copied. However, it may be worth it because they can sue if they can demonstrate one of their members had a book copied. They can then set a precedent for future cases by all authors.
Re:Scram by Hylandr · 2011-09-12 13:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

There really needs to be an astroturf rating.
For SexConker, what icebike said and I have to append. I have a book 200+ years old and I am damn well going to photocopy it, and will give that work up to whatever library wants to have a copy. As for the original book, long into the public domain, will be shoved up the ass of any lawyer or any copyright fist-fuck that tries to say shit.
I have some other very old books that will be scanned as well, for the preservation of their content. All in the public domain. You think my response is over the top? Copyright, and the trolls that defend it can fuck themselves. It's no longer serving the purpose it was intended for.
- One pissed off reader.

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:Scram by Runaway1956 · 2011-09-12 13:55 · Score: 1

Not if the books are out of copyright. Books that are out of circulation might be debatable. Books which the copyrights have never been enforced are again debatable. Books whose authors are dead, and there are no clear estate holders are very much debatable.
Who owns a book, if not the university that paid for it?
I've never heard that Google was digitizing books that are currently under copyright, current in print, and the authors or their estates are actively enforcing copyrights. If the owner of a 200 year old book wants Google to digitize it, there is no question in my mind that it should be done. Ditto with a 150 year old book. And, again with a 100 year old book. The guy who owns the book has final say. 75 year old book? Well, the crazy laws we have today may just bar them from being scanned, but it's alright with me. When copyrights expire, these "guilds" have no say in the matter.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Scram by Moryath · 2011-09-12 15:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real problem is, the longer copyright terms get, the more works are lost for good.
Don't believe me? Think about how many books "under copyright" may be lost simply because nobody preserves a copy. Think about how many films are lost merely because the original source, moldering under "copyright protection", went bad in the can down in the vaults of some MafiAA member and either is unreadable, or perished in a vault fire (early nitrate stock is NOTORIOUS for being susceptible to both).
We almost lost an amazing amount of black gospel music before a few concerned citizens stepped in; we STILL risk losing a large amount of it due to MafiAA meddling.
And that doesn't even discuss the loss of computer programs for formats and computers that won't expire copyright for decades, but are functionally already dead - the guy who built this is having a devil of a time finding software to test it with, merely because disk packs weren't maintained and SGI apparently wiped most of their archives. Or the various game consoles, or early home computers where most software was stored on highly volatile and quickly-degrading floppy disks...
Re:Scram by postbigbang · 2011-09-12 16:24 · Score: 1

If a book becomes dead, it might be because of the bad content, although I would hate to see one become lost because of that specific reason. I'm the author of ten books. All are trade paperback format. All will disintegrate one day. I've digitized them all, because I inarguably own the copyright.
Yet two of them have turned up in Google Books, then were taken down at my demand. If they turn up in the universities, there is a fair-use copy they can manage (or more than one, depending on how many copies they purchased). If more than that number of copies are released, then we have issue as they cannot control the repurposing for profit unintended by fair use.
My digital copies are clearly marked, as are the originals. The Author's Guild is within their rights to test the property rights and how copies are managed. I don't work for free, and you shouldn't either, unless that's what you specifically intended.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Scram by lexsird · 2011-09-12 16:47 · Score: 2

It's all about the greed. But technology is a genie that is out of the bottle and so much is changing. A friend of mine and I debate this a LOT; he's on the side of the MAFIAA and laughs about the teen girl who gets burned for downloading some MP3s. I tell him then that every library should be closed then because they violate copyrights as well. He doesn't like that. I say, think about it, what is the difference? When someone checks out a book, that author isn't getting any money from it. And they have records and movies you can check out, why not close them for the producers of said records, books and movies not making any money?
He thinks musicians are getting burned by the evil downloaders. I tell him they are like someone who builds a piece of furniture and puts it out on the curb, then complains it gets stolen. If they are going to make criminals out of teenage girls, then shouldn't THEY be outlawed for the good of everyone? He wants to get rich someday as a musician. I tell him to evolve with the times and the technology. The genie isn't going back in the bottle. I am sure the Stage Coach Company feels burned by the railroad and the invention of cars, and it's too bad. This is like the Stage Coach Company people trying to sue to keep trains and cars from taking their business. They are a past era, they are toast. The world has changed and if they are too dumb to change with it, they need to suck it.
I think they should digitize every book ever made and have it in a giant database. What a wonderful research tool that would be! But we aren't evolved enough to think like that. We are still in some reptile brained greed mode still. The simple logic of the classic line of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" are still beyond us.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:Scram by Hylandr · 2011-09-12 18:14 · Score: 1

Peace has descended upon my soul... There is hope after all.

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:Scram by CodeBuster · 2011-09-12 18:34 · Score: 2

While I am neither attorney nor judge, it seems to me that since the dispute arose out of the digitization project undertaken by Google and given that the circumstances and arguments are likely to be identical or at least similar for any individual work; the Authors Guild could probably make a case that they represent a class of plaintiffs and stand a decent chance of being certified as plaintiffs representing that class. Of course, it might be difficult from a practical standpoint to track down enough individual members who agree to be certified into the class, especially given the large numbers of works involved, but it may be possible depending upon what requirements are imposed by the judge to certify the class.
Re:Scram by CodeBuster · 2011-09-12 18:40 · Score: 1

IMHO, not every work currently under copyright is worth the time, effort and expense required of society in order to catalog and preserve it. Indeed, most modern works are probably not worth preserving for the next hundred years or at least not in their original forms. For example, millions of used mass market paperbacks are pulped every year in the United States and it doesn't seem to be any great loss.
Re:Scram by Captain+Hook · 2011-09-12 20:03 · Score: 1

Pulping a book is just retiring an object which is beyond it's service live.

So long as there is another copy of the information in that book available, nothing of value has been lost. It's the loss of information in losing the last copy of a book which matters.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Scram by next_ghost · 2011-09-12 20:58 · Score: 1

He thinks musicians are getting burned by the evil downloaders. I tell him they are like someone who builds a piece of furniture and puts it out on the curb, then complains it gets stolen.
Not stolen, it just gets sat on by random passer-bys. And sometimes gets used by a passer-by to build something completely new. Not to mention that the maker who's throwing temper tantrum about random passer-bys using his furniture himself used somebody else's furniture to make his own in the first place. That's the reality of creativity.
Re:Scram by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 21:01 · Score: 0

I tell him then that every library should be closed then because they violate copyrights as well.

When someone checks out a book, that author isn't getting any money from it. And they have records and movies you can check out, why not close them for the producers of said records, books and movies not making any money?
I don't think loaning someone a book or CD was ever a copyright violation, and you'd be welcome to do it too. Though if they'd copied them and given away the copies, that would've been a different story.

That really doesn't seem like a big distinction to us, but to most it is.
Re:Scram by tehcyder · 2011-09-12 23:47 · Score: 1

You really aretotally hatstand, no one cares about the (non-existent) copyright on 200 year old works that are in the public domain.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Scram by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-12 23:52 · Score: 2

The problem is that the Authors' Guild is trying to become the clearinghouse for permission to copy copyrighted books when you cannot find the copyright holder. If the Authors' Guild was only trying to represent their actual members, I would not have a problem. However, in the Google case the Authors' Guild took the position that they were representing all authors except those that opted out of their representation.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Scram by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-12 23:57 · Score: 1

You are correct that the majority of work currently under copyright is not worth preserving (although your example is irelevant to the discussion). The problem is that there is no good way to distinguish which are and which aren't because of the length of copyright. If copyright lasted for a reasonable length of time, people would naturally preserve those that were worth the effort.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Scram by somersault · 2011-09-13 00:30 · Score: 1

Against reasoning like that, I can see why your friend might want to side with the MAFIAA.
As someone else pointed out, libraries don't copy. They lend. If you copy part of a library book without paying the appropriate license fee, then it is copyright violation.
Comparing digital goods to physical goods doesn't work (ie comparing a chair to a song). That is definitely some "reptile brained mode" thinking. The chair would be both inside his house, and out on the curb - and when someone tried to steal it, they'd find a copy in their hands, and the original right there. It isn't stealing. However, society does recognise the value of ideas, and most people seem to agree with the concept of paying for books, magazines, music, games etc, etc.
There are many ways in this world to scam the system, but that doesn't make all of them moral. You could print a fake bus pass, and sure you'd get free rides - but why do you think you are justified in doing that? If everyone did that, the bus company would make no money, and either go out of business, or implement a more draconian pass system. I think of scam ideas like that every now and then, but I wouldn't actually do any of them.
I do think that copyright is far too long right now - but the basic concept is reasonable. People make money for the cool stuff they create. This gives them some incentive to create it. After a while, it becomes public domain.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Scram by Threni · 2011-09-13 00:38 · Score: 1

> When someone checks out a book, that author isn't getting any money from it.
Yes they do, in the UK at least. And the publishers know books are going to libraries and do nothing to stop it; on the contrary, they support it, as they sell a lot of books.
Re:Scram by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2011-09-13 00:54 · Score: 2

The real problem is, the longer copyright terms get, the more works are lost for good.
This is not a problem. The function of copyright law is to maximise profit. If these works were profitable, they would have been preserved. They were not, it cost too much to archive them, so they perished. In both cases, profit was best served.
I'm not making some polemical or rhetorical argument here(not fully anyway). Our modern copyright system revolves around the concept of private profit--not public interest--and as such any other goals you may think it has are completely irrelevant if they stand in opposition of the primary concern of profit.
If you want the situation to change, then the role of profit in modern copyright law and the practice of that law must be reduced. However, since this is about as likely as reducing the role of the pope in medieval christianity, I think your efforts would be better spent writing an apology to future historians instead.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Scram by Coren22 · 2011-09-13 01:47 · Score: 1

I would remind your friend that artists make very little money on CD sales. This is why you see the publishers going after teenage girls, not an artist. Artists make money performing, and so many artists have started giving away their songs as mp3, to increase interest in the band, and therefore increase their income.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Scram by gfreeman · 2011-09-13 03:43 · Score: 1

The function of copyright law is to maximise profit
No it's not.
The function of copyright is "to encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Scram by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 04:49 · Score: 0

Right, and all it'd get you is an assault charge to go with your copyright infringement should they choose to persecute. Being an internet toughguy is NEVER cool. Sorry.
Re:Scram by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-09-13 10:31 · Score: 1

Of course, it might be difficult from a practical standpoint to track down enough individual members who agree to be certified into the class, especially given the large numbers of works involved, but it may be possible depending upon what requirements are imposed by the judge to certify the class.
The moment that they're tracked down they are no longer authors of orphan works, i.e. Catch-22.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Scram by Hylandr · 2011-09-13 15:05 · Score: 1

I don't give a shit for being seen as a tough guy.
The corporate abuse of the copyright as I see it is pissing me off.
So much to the point I am ready to soil myself with politics and run to clean this crap up. Soapbox, Ballot, Courtroom, Bullet. In that order.
- Dan.

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:Scram by Meski · 2011-09-13 17:28 · Score: 1

I tell him then that every library should be closed then because they violate copyrights as well.

When someone checks out a book, that author isn't getting any money from it. And they have records and movies you can check out, why not close them for the producers of said records, books and movies not making any money?
I don't think loaning someone a book or CD was ever a copyright violation, and you'd be welcome to do it too. Though if they'd copied them and given away the copies, that would've been a different story. That really doesn't seem like a big distinction to us, but to most it is.
Unless the book is in electronic format. Then a different set of rules seem to apply.

oops... sorry google by decora · 2011-09-12 12:09 · Score: 0

when I read the story about the guy who ripped off the JSTOR archives by sitting in an MIT wiring closet, and got sued for it, i screamed "How is this different from what google does with google books? they didnt get copyright permission from all their authors..."

guess.. uhm.. oops. guess it wasnt THAT different.

Re:oops... sorry google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:25 · Score: 0

for anyone who's interested - background is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR#Controversy
Re:oops... sorry google by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 12:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

The JSTOR guy wasn't charged with any copyright violations. JSTOR themselves seem to have distanced themselves from the criminal prosecution too by releasing a statement that they will not pursue civil charges and, by implication, they aren't behind the criminal charges. And then last week JSTOR made all of their public domain articles freely accessible to non-subscribers.
On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned. If Google really wants this, they need to lobby for changes in the law. The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate. If they don't have a problem with "defensive" software patents, they shouldn't have a problem with defensive lobbying either....

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:oops... sorry google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate.
Wouldn't that be evil?

Heaven forbid by MacAndrew · 2011-09-12 12:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

... that people get to read these works!

As a writer I understand the tension between wanting to be read and wanting to be paid. Some want only the former, some the latter; I want both, kind of like eat to live and live to eat combined. Such is my right. But I find the resistence to digitization foolish, a fixation on money and a holdover from dead tree books plus a first use doctrine many publishers and authors never liked. It's obstructionist.

As a reader, full speed ahead. I am so tired of books missing at the library or out of print. Then there's the allure of getting a book within thirty seconds. Yes, I'll pay for the privilege, can we please hurry up with an eye to both principles (get read, get paid)? And books in the public domain? Rapture. (Topic for another day: The insane extension of copyright in the Mickey Mouse / Sonny Bono Act.....)

Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Such is my right.
Is it, though? Between this and the story about the EU copyright extension, it seems that both authors groups and content owners (and no, they aren't the same) are all supporting infinite copyright extensions with no provision for orphaned works. If your "right" to make money conflicts with society's interest in preserving this content for future generations, which wins out?
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:31 · Score: 0

Well, you compromise. That's why copyrights and patents do and should expire. If someone 100 years from now wants to read something I wrote, I'll be (1) quite dead and (2) thrilled (assuming an afterlife, which I hope will be rent-free).
Without copyright, an author doesn't have spit unless they can negotiate a really really good deal with the very first reader. After that, it's over. Or if they're available to work for free (Huffington Post), which is great but not universally practical....
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:51 · Score: 1

If society has taught the computer geeks/hackers anything its that you can solve any content problem by suing and imprisonment of said thief, just treat the book/article as an object of value and press theft charges against said corporation. After all corps are people too now. How someone would arrest and detain a corporation is an issue for courts and law enforcement community to solve.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:22 · Score: 0

I understand and accept your logic completely, as I'd guess most would. Your creative works, and you should get to say what happens with them (unlimited copyright extensions aside).
However, you can't be speaking on behalf of *all* authors, any more than Google can. I'm hoping Google takes this to a high-level court - not to win or lose, but to get some clarity as to how this whole class of content's going to be dealt with legally. Might also get the movie and music industries interested as well.
Re:Heaven forbid by ninetyninebottles · 2011-09-12 13:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

If your "right" to make money conflicts with society's interest in preserving this content for future generations, which wins out?
Well, you compromise. That's why copyrights and patents do and should expire.
Perhaps you misrepresented your position, but why should we compromise between what a special interest wants and what is best for society. Shouldn't laws just be what is best for society?

Without copyright, an author doesn't have spit unless they can negotiate a really really good deal with the very first reader.

Now look, I've made my living primarily as a writer for many years. The idea that copyright is the only viable business model for a writer is just bunk; especially in the internet age. You can post works for free and make money on ads. You can set up a fund whereby you only issue the next episode/issue/chapter when donations reach a certain level. You can use writing to promote a profitable business lecturing.
I'm not opposed to reasonable copyright law and certainly benefit from copyright laws on the books, but I'm of the very strong opinion that our current laws do more harm than good to society; and that is a trend that is only getting worse. Our society is run by big businesses and in that light the laws being passed make perfect sense. If you think what is good for big business is implicitly good for society, well I'm not sure rational discourse is even possible. We need to stand up and be clear about this complex issue; otherwise the majority will never care and the special interests will destroy what rightfully belongs to our descendants. Many works have vanished and every day the last copy of something gets destroyed. It is intolerable to me, and should be to you and everyone else. Please, think deeply on this topic.
Re:Heaven forbid by gpmanrpi · 2011-09-12 13:29 · Score: 1

Exactly. Michael Hart is not dead a week, and he is already turning in his proverbial grave. We have a medium that can provide infinite copies for no extra work. The only thing these guilds are concerned with is protecting the publishers. Look I am sad that there are many typesetters, and printing press operators that will be out of work, but I think the benefit to society for cheap and instantly available information frankly worth their jobs. They had a good run, no pun in tended.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:31 · Score: 1

Since copyright was only meant to be a very limited tool, why should you get to live forever off of work done once? No one else in useful professions do. Food recipes, fashion and data can't be copyrighted and all are far more useful. Why should we as the public continue to let art, which derives it's value from the public allow you to continue to take rights away from us? That's correct, the only value that exists in art, the only thing that separates Picasso from a pup and Shakespeare from a shrew is the value imbued by the public. The public has compromised far too much, now you're stealing things back from the public domain retroactively. You can please take your apologist attitude and do something productive, because every time I hear this entitled line of crap, that you deserve to be paid for something after you're dead, is just absurd. When I buy a book second hand, the inherent value is in the paper NOT what the paper contains.
Re:Heaven forbid by MacAndrew · 2011-09-12 13:43 · Score: 2

Writers are part of society. What is best for society includes their welfare (food, housing) and, for their readers (all of us), keeping them productive. Finally, this is for better or worse capitalism, so you have some control over the things you make (in Lockean theory). If you want to depart from that principle, fine, but don't just inflict it on the writers because it's easy!
The rest of your arguments are just that writers like musicians can get into some other business and give their work away. Well, some can, but why force them in the name of the common good? Writing is a profession in itself with real work product taht deserves the respect given other things. (Yes, I know there's a longrunning debate over "words want to be free" or something, but I can't even grasp that one imposed 100%. I *do* love old works that are public domain, i think it's a great thing -- partly because many copyrighted works are for the moment so hard to come by.)
Preservation of the text obviously takes precedence over losing them! Then everyone loses. Google is engaged in a very important thing and I hope they'll be socially mided about it ... as opposed to (evil) greedbags.
And I intimated in the original comment that our current laws are stupid. That one's easy.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:52 · Score: 1

Exactly. Michael Hart is not dead a week, and he is already turning in his proverbial grave. We have a medium that can provide infinite copies for no extra work. The only thing these guilds are concerned with is protecting the publishers. Look I am sad that there are many typesetters, and printing press operators that will be out of work, but I think the benefit to society for cheap and instantly available information frankly worth their jobs. They had a good run, no pun in tended.
You are grossly misinformed if you think that the only people publishers employ are typesetters and press operators. In fact, the vast majority of publishers don't employ so much as a single press operator -- they outsource printing to companies who specialize in it. Publishing is not the same thing as printing!
You are hereby sentenced to read Charlie Stross' excellent "Common Misconceptions about Publishing" essays until enlightenment dawns:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/common-misconceptions-about-pu-1.html
Re:Heaven forbid by artor3 · 2011-09-12 14:06 · Score: 2

Now look, I've made my living primarily as a writer for many years. The idea that copyright is the only viable business model for a writer is just bunk; especially in the internet age. (1) You can post works for free and make money on ads. (2)You can set up a fund whereby you only issue the next episode/issue/chapter when donations reach a certain level. (3)You can use writing to promote a profitable business lecturing.

1) Doesn't work without copyright. I'll just visit your website once, make a copy of your works, and post them on my own site. People will visit mine because it's a "book aggregator" -- all the best books in one place! I get money, you get nothing. Thanks for all your hard work!
2) Only works if you know exactly how much you expect to make from each work. Set your donations level too high, and it won't be reached and your fans will leave. Set it too low, and you're leaving money, perhaps a lot of money, on the table.
3) This method works, to be sure, but only if you're writing a very specific type of book. Authors of fiction wouldn't see a dime.
I don't disagree with you entirely. Our current copyright system is totally FUBAR, primarily thanks to Disney and their ilk. But copyright is a necessary evil. It needs to be reined in, but we could never eliminate it while hoping to maintain a truly vibrant culture.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:17 · Score: 0

Golly, you know someone who wrote something. Congratulations. So do I. If you were a better reader you'd see nothing in my comment that calls for abandoning copyright. The problem as I said is that the balance has been cast too far off, and that the publishers are being obstructionist, i.e., stupid. They want what they can't get and are going to delay the inevitable process to the detriment of many.
Re:Heaven forbid by gpmanrpi · 2011-09-12 14:17 · Score: 1

I was being facetious. The point was that the entire distribution channel is moot if the actual hurdles to distribution are removed. No one type sets, or even really operates the presses. I imagine like most of repeatable processes it is no longer labor intensive. Now these publishers become exclusively marketing companies, or proofreading/editing companies (they basically are). It could still render them moot. They are protecting their gatekeeper role, while not trying to actually determine how to make money in their new role. The fact that the ideas can now literally travel around the world for less than a penny. That is the revolution, and that is what they are trying to prevent.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:20 · Score: 0

'm not opposed to reasonable copyright law and certainly benefit from copyright laws on the books, but I'm of the very strong opinion that our current laws do more harm than good to society;

His idea are resumed by the precedent passage, all you seems to do is try to counter a position that is not his, while agreeing with him in your conclusion....
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:23 · Score: 0
You are missing two very important facts:
1. Writers are not the only part of society.
2. Copyright has been extended well past the length of time required to compensate individual writers for their works.
Re:Heaven forbid by JonySuede · 2011-09-12 14:37 · Score: 2

from your link I will remember mostly one thing:

If contracts were fish, then the contract on my house would be an ornamental carp, the book contract would be a bluefin tuna, and the option contract would be an angry great white shark.

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:Heaven forbid by dasunt · 2011-09-12 14:38 · Score: 2

I was using Google books awhile back for some genealogical research. One of the books I was using was the Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connecticut, published in 1901, which was originally written in 1711-1758.
It's dull diary entries, mostly describing the weather, what task the author had accomplished that day, any income, and who died.
Oddly, the book was republished in 2008, in paperback format. I can buy it on Amazon for $39. But I would have never found it. I'm not related to the author. My relatives are mentioned in there, mostly in passing, or noting their deaths. My access to the book on google doesn't result in a lost sale. I wouldn't know the book had information that was relevant without seeing it, nor would I spend $38 on a whim just in case a relative was mentioned in it.
(By the way, the publishing company (Kessinger Publishing) has been accused of ripping off public domain books digitized by other sources, including google. Here's a thread on that. I don't know if this is true or not, but buyer beware!)
Re:Heaven forbid by aztracker1 · 2011-09-12 15:49 · Score: 1

I'd really like for my grandchildren to get paid for those burgers and fries I made when I was a teenager to. Copyright protection longer than the original terms in the U.S. does little to act as an incentive for the creation of new works. If copyright were 20 years, publishing companies would still be publishing works. The cost overhead is far cheaper, with far wider distribution channels. It really doesn't make sense for society as a whole to have copyrights as long as they are. Nothing created in your parent's lifetime will ever be in the public domain. That is just an atrocity imho.

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Re:Heaven forbid by aztracker1 · 2011-09-12 15:57 · Score: 1

1) Doesn't work without copyright. I'll just visit your website once, make a copy of your works, and post them on my own site. People will visit mine because it's a "book aggregator" -- all the best books in one place! I get money, you get nothing. Thanks for all your hard work!
Though I don't speak for the GP, I can say that very few in here would want the abolishment of copyright. It's only the current term/length that people find offensive. I think that the original terms were pretty reasonable. Even the life of the original author (person, not company) + 5 years would be much more reasonable than life + 70 years. Or, say the lesser of life+30 years, or 45 years from the original date. Lasting more than 4-5 generations just isn't acceptable imho. The original 17 + 17 on renewal seems pretty damned reasonable.

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Re:Heaven forbid by spearway · 2011-09-12 16:20 · Score: 2

You probably need to modulate the length depending on what the object being copyrighted is. I find it reasonable that Mickey is copyrighted as long as Disney company actively use the character and that can be for a very long time. The same should be true of any work being actively exploited (i.e. being in print or software being distributed). I think we should have a very short expiry time for out of print, probably 10 years out of print for a book should make it fall in the public domain, 3 years for out of distribution software should be reasonable.
Re:Heaven forbid by artor3 · 2011-09-12 16:47 · Score: 1

He stated "The idea that copyright is the only viable business model for a writer is just bunk."
I proved that statement to be false.
If he had posted, "I'm not opposed to arithmetic, but the idea that 2+2 is only equal to 4 is just bunk", should I have agreed with that as well, since I too support arithmetic?
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 16:52 · Score: 0

i wanted to buy a sociology e-book at my schools bookstore, they told me they were out of stock. im still trying to figure that one out :D
Re:Heaven forbid by hitmark · 2011-09-12 19:41 · Score: 1

The best option i can see is to tack a levy on the net connection, and feed that into a creative support pool. Sure, it is not as fine grained as having a sum lifted on every download or every read/listen/view (what the laywers like to define as consumption, even tho nothing is really consumed). But in the end i think the only people that will loose out are the fat cat execs and their lawyers.
Thing is tho that for there to be a slice of the pool i think there is a need for a work to be registered rather then just uploaded somewhere and the pool petitioned. There has to be a way to prove that one is the creator of something to benefit from the pool.

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Heaven forbid by Pi1grim · 2011-09-12 22:10 · Score: 1

Why is Mickey so special all of the sudden? It's just another work, that has payed off quite handsomely, and it's time for it to be transferred into the public domain. 10-20 years of copyright is more than enough.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 00:32 · Score: 0

Er, you're the one inserting "only," and I clearly criticized copyright terms. How much agreement do you require?
Re:Heaven forbid by MacAndrew · 2011-09-13 00:42 · Score: 1

Yep. As I emphasized, the stuff should get read, and copyright at some point just gets in the way. I'm not sure how many authors, now dead, would have wanted the extensions to happen. *Disney* on the other hand wants to conserve its assets and didn't want to see new Mickey Mouses. That's the real fire behind these extensions, and weird sentimentality about the oeuvre of (semi-martyred) Sonny Bono. Now, most writers *don't* die with huge estates and do want to pass something of value to their heirs (it's unlikely to be a family estate! which doesn't expire). They have to strike a balance in there somewhere.
When you made the burgers, you were paid on the apot. That's not the usual model for writers. They get it a dime or dollar at a time. Maybe that's part of the problem.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 01:03 · Score: 0

These are the same people who can't figure out why their plastic flowers keep dying.
Re:Heaven forbid by Man+Eating+Duck · 2011-09-13 04:25 · Score: 1

I find it reasonable that Mickey is copyrighted as long as Disney company actively use the character and that can be for a very long time. The same should be true of any work being actively exploited (i.e. being in print or software being distributed).
I don't necessarily agree that a company must be able to exploit a work "for a very long time" (in perpetuity, as it turns out, with the Mickey Mouse act), that right should belong to the creator and possibly his/her immediate descendants. Otherwise I totally agree. So many works get lost because there's no practical way to obtain the rights to reproduce them, even if the work has no commercial value (probably > 99% of works still in copyright), and even if you're willing to pay for the rights. Leave the rights to commercially valuable works in the creator's hands, and let the rest be free for the public good.
In his CC book Free CultureLawrence Lessig outlines the problems with the current legislature and suggests a reasonable solution to the whole copyright issue which adresses all of Big Content's concerns, at least the overt ones. The book is a very good read, it's not outdated even if it's a few years old.

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
Re:Heaven forbid by gknoy · 2011-09-13 04:46 · Score: 1

[Providing them for free] Doesn't work without copyright. I'll just visit your website once, make a copy of your works, and post them on my own site. People will visit mine because it's a "book aggregator" -- all the best books in one place! I get money, you get nothing. Thanks for all your hard work!
Baen provides free copies of a huge number of their older books (often books 1 through (N-1) in an N-book series). Often they're bundled together in an ISO or a Zip file, in a variety of formats. (Epub, Mobi, HTML) Amazingly, Baen still makes lots of money selling physical books, despite their books being posted online in a manner which would be trivial to aggregate and re-post as a torrent. (Who knows, maybe someone has done that already.)
So ... releasing for free would work even without copyright, I imagine. You just have to ensure that your "store" (or library) is easy to access and has some value added. (Baen's does.)
Re:Heaven forbid by Man+Eating+Duck · 2011-09-13 05:00 · Score: 1

Why is Mickey so special all of the sudden?
He isn't, that's what's so sad. The only special thing about the character is that it is owned by a company which in turn owns your legislative branch, at least in this respect. Of course you know that, but what is even sadder is that they also own your Foreign Relations people, which in turn serves as errand-boys all over the world in order to cater to U.S. companies' needs and impose your arbitrariy laws on us. Yes, U.S. Govt. will pressure foreign nations on request from copyright holders.

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 11:21 · Score: 0

I was being facetious. The point was that the entire distribution channel is moot if the actual hurdles to distribution are removed. No one type sets, or even really operates the presses. I imagine like most of repeatable processes it is no longer labor intensive. Now these publishers become exclusively marketing companies, or proofreading/editing companies (they basically are). It could still render them moot. They are protecting their gatekeeper role, while not trying to actually determine how to make money in their new role. The fact that the ideas can now literally travel around the world for less than a penny. That is the revolution, and that is what they are trying to prevent.
You still don't get it. Read the essays. Seriously. It will take a while, but you will learn things you didn't know before. And they're entertaining, because Charlie's a good writer.
The key take-home point I'd like you to get is that publishers do a hell of a lot more than distribution. Charlie argues (and he's a successful fiction writer with the experience to know it) that the labor done by publishers (the stuff you dismiss as mere proofreading and editing) frees him to spend more time writing fiction, and that this is independent of distribution channels. Books don't spring forth wholly formed from the foreheads of authors, they're collaborative efforts like most other things in our society. Turfing publishers just because you think there's a HUGE OMG REVOLUTION in distribution is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 01:40 · Score: 0

I understand your need as an author, but how about this: my grandmother was an author. She wrote a small number of different books that appealed to a niche audience even at the time, but only one of them is still available today. The rights and proceeds from that book don't come to the family, rather to someone else, I don't really know who as this was worked out long ago, in the 70's perhaps earlier. This book is not, as far as I'm concerned, part of this discussion since it is still in active distribution. But the remainder of her books are out of copyright, out of print, only occasionally available in used book stores, etc. and completely unknown.
They are of no value to anyone, except to someone interested in what was even in the 50s and 60s a niche subject (the owner and family of the boarding house in Washington, DC where John Wilkes Boothe was living just before he assassinated Abraham Lincoln). I. for one, see the Google project as a way to keep her research & work available to the world. I, and I assume the rest of my family, have no greed in this, there is probably no money from it anyway, the writing style is dated and there is no great call for the work, but it would be cool to have it available.
I expect that there is a vast pool, an ocean, of work similar to this that, while not being of literary value, is of some small interest. The Google project deserves to succeed simply to preserve these works which will disappear without it. What needs to happen, however, is a way to safeguard the interests of a living author and copyright holder. It seems to me that this is possible. The problem only seems to be that there are other, more sinister forces at work who own extended copyrights to work that they have only financial (not personal) interest in . In other words they bought a copyright to suck monetary value out and plan to extend that right as long as they can suck the money out (BTW, the book which is still in print does not, in my opinion, fall into this category. It was sold to a foundation that sees it as a charming period piece that tells about my grandmother's experience in an unusual endeavor which was in the early days of the foundation. It sells a few copies of it every year and makes little out of it.). While some on this board might have some sympathy for this, I have none. Normally copyrights are sold for dirt, and the sucking continues until the new owner has regained many multiples of the cost.
Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 02:28 · Score: 0

The need of the author usually includes being read! (Some write and it's just a living; others just want to write and give it away.) It would be great if you could be sure to get your gm's work inserted explicitly into the public domain somewhere, as opposed to wondering what a commercial entity like Google might do. Bartleby.com, for example, is a good thing that I use regularly.
It's ironic that what writers do is valuable enough to argue about it, but no one really knows what that value is. I don't think there will ever be an easy answer, instead a series of compromises that current are leaning towards unfair extension of copyright that has nothing to do with the *people* who actually create stuff (Disney will be back for more I'm sure). I don't think the Framers saw Disney and 21st century greed coming.
Work being lost altogether is just plain tragic. Google is at least helping to archive everything, even if what they can do with it next is uncertain. I think the scanning and OCR of all this old stuff is terrific -- I have a nice little history of my WW I flying ace great-grandfather because of it.
Re:Heaven forbid by Yamioni · 2011-09-15 05:58 · Score: 1

This is why I'd like to see copyright law changed to the following model:

1. The creator of a copyrightable work is granted sole reproduction rights to their work indefinitely.
2. The creator may only hold copyright to one of each class of copyrightable work at a given time (book, musical album, movie, etc). Previous copyrighted works are surrendered into the public domain upon the publishing of a new work that is itself not released directly into the public domain.
3. All copyrights expire five(5) years after the creator's death.

This system allows a creator to collect money from a work for as long as it remains profitable to do so. However, being able to possess only one copyright at any given time removes the incentive to create and then retire for life. With unlimited (in number) copyrights, a creator could create several works and collect a massive amount of cash. Limiting it to one at a time ensures that as soon the popularity for that work declines below an acceptable threshold, the creator would need to create a new work in order to maintain a certain level of income. If the creator happens to create something so profound that it remains highly profitable for many years they should be allowed to kick back and reap the rewards; if it is really that valuable to society it only seems fair. Clause three just helps ensure that copyrighted works are innevitably released into the public domain, after a time period sufficient for contributing to the creator's estate. I.E. The creator could will his copyright to an heir allowing the heir to collect on it for five years, which would be held separate from the heir's own copyright count (if they indeed hold any at all.) Considering you'd actually have to die to pass that copyright to someone else, it would be very costly to abuse (especially considering you could get more than five years out of it if you simply stayed alive.)

The current system, as you say, is attrocious/an attrocity. It is robbing society of works originally promised to them simply by exptending copyright, and allowing 'ageless' corporations to hold copyrights, rather than people. The system is broken, and I feel mine is about as simple and as fair as one could conceive. I welcome anyone to poke holes in it however, I enjoy (constructive) criticism.

--
Cool post bro, highfive \o
Re:Heaven forbid by HappyPsycho · 2011-09-16 04:03 · Score: 1

As a reader in a "third world country" (at least by the definitions of some publishers) I know there are books that I will never get to find out about because they never made the top sellers list that these publishers would want to risk bringing it to such countries because they won't see enough ROI to make it worthwhile.
Re:Heaven forbid by MacAndrew · 2011-09-16 04:24 · Score: 1

Patience, it will happen. I wonder about the translation barrier—good translation is expensive. No, not all of us Americans expect everyone to learn English. :) But also, the book I'm working on ... I'm very sensitive about the way I put things and have to wonder how much is "lost in translation." Anyway, these arte other issues from copyright.... Where do you live? I'll make it a priority!
Re:Heaven forbid by ninetyninebottles · 2011-09-17 03:54 · Score: 1

Sorry it took me so long to respond, and likely you won't read this, but on the off chance you will and you're open to changing your mind I thought it important to respond to your points.

1) Doesn't work without copyright. I'll just visit your website once, make a copy of your works, and post them on my own site. People will visit mine because it's a "book aggregator" -- all the best books in one place! I get money, you get nothing. Thanks for all your hard work!
This is certainly a consideration, but it leaves out an important aspect of human culture, people want to reward the authors. People see creators as people to be looked up to and they want to be associated with them. A little advertising and guilt tripping and it can be easily made "uncool" to bypass an author's channel and go to someone who is leeching. Heck, there are people here on Slashdot who have the option of turning off ads but don't because they want to support the site financially. Authors can make a lot of money from such a site, especially because they will always be ahead of the game, not to mention they can still use trademark law to make copying a financial hole for an aggregator site.

2) Only works if you know exactly how much you expect to make from each work. Set your donations level too high, and it won't be reached and your fans will leave. Set it too low, and you're leaving money, perhaps a lot of money, on the table.
This is true of pretty much all real markets. You set the price and adjust as you learn the market better. You can even adjust one way in the middle of a run by lowering the bar. Your argument doesn't nothing to make this an unprofitable model and it's even been used by several authors in recent years, like Stephen King. Your argument is just that the logistics of pricing may take work, not that this model is unprofitable.

3) This method works, to be sure, but only if you're writing a very specific type of book. Authors of fiction wouldn't see a dime.
You've never gone to a paid signing or lecture by a fiction author? I distinctly remember listening to Vonnegut speak on more than one occasion.
In any case, you may have missed my main point, which was that I think copyright law would be the best solution, if it were re-engineered to be reasonable. Right now, it is worse for society than no copyright law at all. And no copyright law at all, does not stop the production of works nor make producing works an unprofitable career. Look at the music industry, both the low and middle part of the market makes basically nothing off of copyright and survives on live performances and memorabilia. Many of them lose money on copyright because they have to deal with RIAA which has a stranglehold on distribution chains and extracts more money from the artist than they make. Yet the artists still make money overall. Think about it.

if only by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:22 · Score: 0

Ripping a book was like ripping a CD.

Shows importance of Project Gutenberg by rafial · 2011-09-12 12:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

To me, this story shows the importance of keeping Project Gutenberg moving forward, slowly but steadily.

Re:Shows importance of Project Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 15:10 · Score: 0

Or Wikisource, which actually presents the original works as well (or at least specifies a source edition), bothers to include formatting like italics and accents and special characters, and if you find a transcription mistake, it is trivially correctable.

AG == Righthaven? by TiggertheMad · 2011-09-12 12:36 · Score: 2

On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned.

Almost sounds like Righthaven, doesn't it? But why would Google need to get slapped down? I would think that the AG is the one getting out of line here in trying to represent people legally that it has no right to.

IANAL, so....lawyers, is it legal to represent someone without their expressed consent?

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 12:46 · Score: 2

IANAL, so....lawyers, is it legal to represent someone without their expressed consent?
That's the job of the attorney general - representing "the people" as a whole. Although, AFAIK no AG has anything to do with the Google Books case.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Silvanis · 2011-09-12 12:48 · Score: 1

Sure, if it's a criminal case. That's rather the point of district attorneys and attorney generals; only someone in law enforcement can bring criminal charges to court.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by s2jcpete · 2011-09-12 12:49 · Score: 1

AG refers to the Authors Guild as mentioned in the summary, not Attorney General
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 13:03 · Score: 2

Ok. Not used to AG having other meanings in a legal context.
It isn't that the Author's Guild is right or wrong, it's that Google is wrong.
As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way, not just google because they are loaded with more than enough cash to fight anyone who does sue them.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:11 · Score: 2

As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way,
And Google prevents this HOW?

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:15 · Score: 0

The quick easy answer is "yes," as long as you have their implied consent. It is the question as to what is implied that makes the answer complicated. There are three common situations though: crimes (the People, and by extension you, have consented to the state doing the prosecution), class actions (by being notified and not opting out of the case) and diminished capacity (like guardianships/conservatorships where the law states that someone is appointed to protect their interest as they may not be able to adequately protect it themselves). Something like this situation is most likely a no, unless they are a member of the organization.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 13:26 · Score: 2

It isn't that google is preventing anything. They are just as beholden to the copyright bargain as anyone else and that includes both sides of the bargain. When they break the bargain not only are breaking it with the authors of the abandoned works they are breaking it with every member of society - we gave those rights to the authors, not to google. Because copyright is merely a temporary loan from the public domain, we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:37 · Score: 0

As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way,
And Google prevents this HOW?
Before this blew up long ago, the thing is that Google tried to strike a deal with the AG that from Googles side legitimized the claims the Authors Guild had regarding abandoned works (since they were put in the place of the rights holder) and that the AG then "gave Google permission" to do certain things, which means of course that everyone else doesn't.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
Well then trot out these authors, or the heirs of those who are dead AND have abandoned their works and lets us sit down and renegotiate. Google has long asked for any information to find these people or their heirs. They are a search company. They couldn't find them. Your level of indignation suggests you know where they are and how badly they have been treated.
Dead before the cut-off date, (i forget the exact date here, but its somewhere in the 20s IIRC) then there is no problem.
Living and already have given permission or withheld it, again no problem.
But this middle ground of unknown authors, who are quite probably dead with no heirs accounts for a tiny tiny number books, which Google will immediately remove if the authors should appear. Too date, not a one of them have.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:46 · Score: 2

But the AG never had those rights to give, and that deal never succeeded and was struck down. Now the AG wants that deal back, or at least they assert that they still have some say in this matter.
Look, its simply divide and conqueror, by suing Google in every country where there is even one author that is a member of such a guild. They still haven't any right to represent authors who are unknown, who have not given the AG written permission to represent them.
AG is a far bigger usurper in this case than Google.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 13:53 · Score: 1

Well then trot out these authors,
No. I do not need to do that in order to say that Google is wrong. This is not a court of law and you aren't a lawyer. If anything the lawyers agree with me since the court has not dismissed the Author's Guild for lack of standing.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by sjames · 2011-09-12 16:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner. The orphan books being digitized are works where the author is unfindable. There is nobody to negotiate with. Unless someone like google preserves the works, they will simply turn to dust and disappear forever. Effectively, the author has reneged on the copyright deal by vanishing without a trace and taking the works with him.
If google has wronged someone, let that someone or a rightful heir come forward and say so. Their silence tells us they either don't feel wronged or don't care (perhaps they're past caring due to a mild case of dead).
Consider, if the Author's Guild wins something on the behalf of one of these authors, do you REALLY think they will stick it in a safe until they can track the guy down? Or will they just compound the wrong by stealing the absentee author's rightful awards? Given that copyright has been lengthened several times now, it is quite likely that the authors of some of these orphaned works had every expectation that their books would be in the public domain by now.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 17:40 · Score: 1

When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner.
The problem is that is NOT the way the law is written. Not even kinda sorta, it is incontrovertibly not written that way. The handling of orphan works is one of the most broken things about current copyright law in the US.
I'm good with the law being changed to work that way. What I'm not good with is Google setting themselves up to break the law because they can afford to pay the consequences while just about everybody else can not. The law is not intended to be something anyone can violate as long as they can afford to pay the fines. Especially when the fines are so large that only the richest could hope to pay them. Law is intended to egalitarian. Google's actions here are decidedly not egalitarian. They wrong society as a whole by breaking the law.
However they could the get exact same results for themselves by lobbying for the law to be changed. The Author's Guild and any other groups' lawsuits would be completely voided by changing the law to "repatriate" orphan works to the public domain.
This isn't about the Author's Guild being right, it is about Google being wrong.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 18:01 · Score: 0

I think this would be a fine solution, if it was made into law, but google isn't attempting to change the law, they are trying to settle a single case that would apply only to them. Effectively an exception to the law just for them. Obviously that would be a hugely unfair advantage for Google to have.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by sjames · 2011-09-12 20:26 · Score: 1

Google isn't wrong, the law is. It was sloppily written by a bunch of hacks that let power go to their heads as usual.
Who are they wronging? Perhaps the dead if you can be said to wrong a ghost (if you even believe in an afterlife). So why are the courts allowing a 3rd party to butt in? Because they're broken. If the courts didn't let anyone sue for any old thing, this wouldn't be an issue for anyone. It would go like this:
Small publisher publishes works still under copyright but abandoned. Nobody with an interest in the matter exists, so nobody gets sued.
OR, small publisher publishes and legitimate copyright holder comes out of the woodwork. He sues and the court tells him to go work it out and makes it clear that it will be most displeased if the parties don't try VERY hard to settle amicably, OR legitimate rights holder says no publication, small publisher halts and settles for the already published works.
Perhaps some 3rd party like the Author's Guild tries to sue and the judge tells them they have no cause of action and further, since any competent attorney should know that, the lawyers get to pay fines for wasting the court's time.
That's not some grand theory, that's all how it is supposed to work now. Alas the courts have forgotten their duties and mandates and become a system where many cannot afford justice. It happens that if you have big bucks you can buy some semblance of justice. It also happens that you can buy a great injustice in your own favor. I suggest that Google is doing the former and that they are not wrong to do so. Instead the courts are wrong for leaving that as the only way. That problem goes well beyond copyright.
Meanwhile, I would like to see copyright reforms including shortening the term, requiring periodic renewals, and a publish or perish clause attached to the renewals.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 20:36 · Score: 1

Who are they wronging?
They are wronging everybody else in our society. We all still have to suffer those restrictions but Google doesn't simply because they "have the big bucks." They are effectively changing rule of law to rule of man and that is not how a democracy works. An oligarchy yes, but not a democracy.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by value · 2011-09-12 20:45 · Score: 0

Laws are intended to force the will of others on you. This is as far as it can be from egalitarian.

It is similar to when someone takes the kidneys of another person against their will, sells them, and donates the money to charity. Is that egalitarian?

The copyright system was created by special interests and now we are witnessing how a different, more powerful special interest is challenging that system. I predict victory for Google. Though neither Google, nor the Authors Guild cares about you, or me, or egalitarianism.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by sjames · 2011-09-12 21:35 · Score: 1

Why is it any skin off my nose if google makes a book by a dead author available to me? If I am wronged, I am wronged by anyone who would keep me from doing the same thing. I am wronged by the courts and the legislature.
Do Olympic athletes wrong you by accomplishing things you can't by virtue of genetic gifts and putting in a lot of sweat equity?
If someone is wronging us, it's the Author's Guild for helping to create a legal atmosphere where you and I can't afford to publish the works of an absentee author.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 21:53 · Score: 1

If I am wronged, I am wronged by anyone who would keep me from doing the same thing.
No. You are wronged because someone with a lot of money gets to ignore the laws that you don't get to ignore. The law is not supposed to be some other entity outside of society - it is part of society. That "anyone" who keeps you from doing the same thing is you, and me, and google and your neighbor down the road and everyone else in this country. At least it is in a functioning democracy. But not in an oligarchy. Google's move to spend their way out of being equal before the law is inherently undemocratic.
I think we are at the point where it is obvious that you are good with a might makes right argument and its obvious that I am not. I say your attitude is not viable in a democracy, I suspect you actually agree. That you think egalitarianism is over-rated. So we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye because we don't have the same beliefs as to what is most important in a society.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Pi1grim · 2011-09-12 22:02 · Score: 1

Google might not care about you, but as long as Google's actions benefit the society, I'm all for it.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by sjames · 2011-09-12 22:15 · Score: 1

If all you got from my posts is "might makes right", you aren't reading for comprehension.
I am in favor of an egalitarian solution where we are all free to do what google is doing now, I just recognize that the roadblocks to that (and thus, the enemies of the egalitarian ideal) come from the courts, legislature, and the likes of the Author's Guild, not from google.
I simply recognize that sometimes might can allow you to do what you should be allowed to do anyway but aren't. The fault for that lies with who or whatever stands in your way.
I am well aware that money and power can also let you do things nobody should be allowed to do.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 22:28 · Score: 1

I am in favor of an egalitarian solution where we are all free to do what google is doing now, I just recognize that the roadblocks to that (and thus, the enemies of the egalitarian ideal) come from the courts, legislature, and the likes of the Author's Guild, not from google.
And what you aren't recognising is that google is just as much part of the problem.
As a member of society it is incumbent on google to pursue a fix through the democratic process. That is the way our society is designed.
You keep talking about putting the blame on the courts and legislature for standing in google's way. They are only standing in google's way because google is facing in the wrong direction. The right direction is the democratic process, the wrong direction is buying their way around it.
I really don't know what else to call such circumvention other than "might makes right."

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 23:51 · Score: 0

I really don't know what else to call such circumvention other than "might makes right."
It's called "being realistic".
The broken law is not going to change, ever. Because "might makes right" on the opposite side too and they have more might than google and the so-called "democratic" process combined.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-13 00:08 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points. This is the problem I have with this action by the Authors' Guild. They are rent seekers, trying to create and then capitalize on the preception that they represent all authors. Currently, they act as if they are perfectly happy to let any who choose opt out of that representation. However, that is not how it should work, they should be required to show that the authors they claim to represent have opted in to that representation. Of course, if they could find the authors in question, then the people who wish to digitize these works could contact said authors and negotiate permission (or be denied permission). The Authors' Guild is trying to get money for reproduction of copyrighted works that they do not represent the holders of copyright.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Coren22 · 2011-09-13 02:51 · Score: 1

That is why Google is trying to fight this. If they can get a ruling on this being legal, then there is nothing stopping you from using that very same ruling in court if someone tries to go after you. Precedent doesn't only apply to Google, it applies to you and me as well. Precedent is one way of changing the law to fit the real world, another way is getting the legislature to pass a new law, which do you think it easier/cheaper?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-13 05:53 · Score: 1

If they can get a ruling on this being legal, then there is nothing stopping you from using that very same ruling in court if someone tries to go after you.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that settlements do not establish precedent and settling seems to be all that Google has been trying to do.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by HappyPsycho · 2011-09-16 03:42 · Score: 1

And if google gives the works away by offering it for free on their site (ad-supported to run the infrastructure) are they still wrong'ing society? I see a net gain by society as a whole. Even if you assume google destroys all their copies, the benefit to universities is that they can now offer it to their students in digital form which increases the amount of people that can benefit from the work.
If you limit the view to the digitization process, you can conclude that google took a calculated risk that I can easily see in their view had the potential to become a huge benefit to society as a whole. As a side note, when trying to lobby for a point-of-view having actual examples to show how a change could be beneficial has a huge impact on it succeeding.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by HappyPsycho · 2011-09-16 03:54 · Score: 1

What part of copyright law and all the extensions and updates for various lobbying groups is "the democratic process".
Google is playing the same game that everyone who has a serious monetary interest in copyright has been playing for years or even decades. Having them to following "the democratic process" seems like a very glaring double standard in this regard.
A quick touch on patents, almost every major corporation on earth finds it cheaper to build a war chest of counter patents than to litigate why don't they all follow "the democratic process" and get the patents overturned instead of just cross-licensing? That procedure locks out all the small players that don't have a matching war chest which sounds allot like what you advocating against for copyright.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by HappyPsycho · 2011-09-16 03:56 · Score: 1

Normally changing the law, but with the amount of money stacked on the other side that does not apply in this case.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by HappyPsycho · 2011-09-16 03:58 · Score: 1

This particular attack is against the universities, not google.
They aren't allowed to settle according to their own internal laws, It must be litigated to completion.
Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-16 04:42 · Score: 1

And if google gives the works away by offering it for free on their site (ad-supported to run the infrastructure) are they still wrong'ing society?
Sounds to me like you are suggesting the sell-out of a basic tenent of society - that everybody is equal before the law - for a shiny trinket. A shiny trinket that they are still going to make money on selling to us.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:45 · Score: 1

I'm tired of their bitching all the time. Give us money! Moar! MOAR!! You can't do that! That's illegal! That's mine! The authors are starving! The musicians are dying! Fuck off and die, you greedy, lying, evil sons of bitches.

Re:Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:16 · Score: 1

Remember this the next time you have an opportunity to vote. Everyone complains but still votes for one of the Old Parties.
Re:Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:59 · Score: 1

Agree completely.
I am 45 yrs. old, and have voted in every election since I was 18. I have never voted for a corporate bought and paid for democrat, or a corporate bought and paid for republican.
No candidate I have voted for has ever won.
No, I have not been throwing away my votes on "spoilers". It is all the whiners who still vote for the Republican/Democrat spoiler who will not serve them unless they can write checks for millions of dollars who waste their votes. Anybody who votes Democrat/Republican has not only thrown away their own votes, but also wasted the votes of others like me, who vote for candidates too principled to run on the Republican/Democrat ticket.
Please do us all a favor, and make the pledge, no Republican/Democrat worthless tools in November!
Re:Fuck off by Shadow99_1 · 2011-09-12 23:42 · Score: 1

In the many years since I was eligible to vote I have never once voted for either 'old party', but that hasn't changed anything yet.

--
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Re:Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 11:31 · Score: 0

They're probably so aggressive because they know their business model is pretty much already dead. Really, who in their right mind - except 50+ geezers, daddy's money Apple fanbois, and complete retards - would actually buy a copy of a recording of a song?

Simple solution by Gravis+Zero · 2011-09-12 12:52 · Score: 5, Informative

a) do not digitize any of the books of authors in the Authors Guild that do not request their books be digitized.
b) pull the books of authors in the Authors Guild from the school library and all curriculum that do not give express permission to digitize their books.

be careful what you ask for because you might just get it and more.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:22 · Score: 0

My thoughts exactly.
Re:Simple solution by mykos · 2011-09-12 14:47 · Score: 2

Amen. People need to be playing offense, not defense when it comes to copyright bullies.
Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 16:15 · Score: 0

In the link you provided, it only went to show that Google has ultimately created a monopoly. Period.
Re:Simple solution by julesh · 2011-09-13 06:00 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, the Authors' Guild do not publish a list of their members.
Re:Simple solution by Gravis+Zero · 2011-09-13 06:18 · Score: 1

i believe this information could be obtained if the Authors Guild decides to take this to court as it is the person/company that owns the copyright that must prosecute, even if it's a lawsuit. the Authors Guild does not own they copyrights and thus would require proof of who's behalf of they are prosecuting. just contact each person on the list to verify they are part of the guild and then you have authenticated the list.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

lol @ "the media" by Charliemopps · 2011-09-12 12:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Lets get one thing strait here. For a long time The media industry sought to focus the publics interest. It's hard to market to huge audiences with a wide variety of tastes. With free and easy distribution on the internet, the media industries aren't just afraid that people are pirating their content... their true fear is the availability of content not approved by them. They aren't trying to stop piracy, they are trying to stop the alternative distribution systems that are forming outside of their control. They are trying to destroy the systems that could bring new, different and FREE content to their customers not because their afraid of theft, but because they cannot compete with something that's free and tailored to the consumers needs. They want you to have choices limited to what they've chosen for you, in the format they've decided on, at the price they've agreed on with their "competitors."

Re:lol @ "the media" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:19 · Score: 0

I seriously think they have not thought that far ahead.
They *HONESTLY* think we are trying to rip them off. Also lets face it 99% of shit on torrents out there does just that. Maybe you wouldnt pay for it anyway and there is no 'loss'. But guess what you should have paid for it and are just being cheap. Oh sure there is the 'out of print' stuff. But would you pay for it if you really had access to it? Most say they would. But then many seeds of popular stuff easily available is readily available. What does that tell you? I tell you what it tells me. We are a cheap lot who do not think most of what is out there is worth much.
Just be a bit more honest and quit trying to justify your copying. You just like to get shit for free just like the rest of us...
Re:lol @ "the media" by Shikaku · 2011-09-12 21:19 · Score: 1

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2424634&cid=37382840
I know I am wasting my time replying to the mafiaa AC mouthpiece, but you are a fool to think it's only about free shit. Read the link I just posted.
Research done this way would benefit us all if moneygrubbing assholes like you would just let the fuck go.

nobody cares about copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:57 · Score: 0

copyright has been extended to 70 years in europe... i have maybe 30-40 years left to live...

do you really think i will respect copyrights and die?

not in this reality

no money for education.. no education for work... no work for money... no money for entertainment... and pointless stories about copyright left and right...

Sovereign Immunity might bar the lawsuit by pacergh · 2011-09-12 12:58 · Score: 2

You can't sue a State or the federal government unless they specifically allow it. Some States might allow their state universities to be sued, but most do not. There is already caselaw involving courts upholding sovereign immunity in these kinds of cases.

Might be a bit of a stumbling block in regards to suing the entities under the state sovereign immunity umbrella.

Re:Sovereign Immunity might bar the lawsuit by gpmanrpi · 2011-09-12 13:32 · Score: 1

This does work differently in different states; it depends on the statute. In some states there is a right to sue with a 100,000 total damage cap that requires an act of the legislature to overcome for purposes of collection. So if the only risk is 100k, it is probably money well spent.
Re:Sovereign Immunity might bar the lawsuit by whoever57 · 2011-09-12 14:24 · Score: 1

You can't sue a State or the federal government unless they specifically allow it
Just a guess here, since I am not a lawyer, but I don't think sovereign immunity protects the states from being sued under federal law.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Sovereign Immunity might bar the lawsuit by pacergh · 2011-09-12 23:51 · Score: 1

It does and it does not. You can sue the state to change its practices, but you cannot sue for money damages.
Unless you sue under a specific federal statute that allows money damages. One such example is Section 1983—a statute specifically designed to allow folks to sue for violations of civil rights and receive money damages. (Prior to this, you could sue and win, but all you'd get was a change in behavior.
There is no similar statute for copyright. At best the plaintiffs can stop the behavior, but they cannot get money damages in these cases.

"Abducted?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

First it was stealing, now it's abducted. The hyperbole increases. How long before we will be accused of 'killing' copyright holders? But it makes sense this time; we're dealing with the guild that supposedly represents people who know how to create inflammatory language.

Let us use our own hyperboles:

"With their infinitely extending copyrights, these guys have been commiting mass murder on the public domain!"
"They have totally vivesected our rights to have ideas come out of copyright."
"It's like they're hacking our limbs off, one by one!"

Re:"Abducted?" by Pi1grim · 2011-09-12 22:21 · Score: 1

But then again, if it's equal to killing, then you've got choise — pirate a book and get sued by an copyright watchdog. Or kill the copyright watchdog and pirate the book. If the consequences are the same, then what would bring more pleasure to the reader and make this place a better world?
Re:"Abducted?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 05:55 · Score: 0

"They're setting up the Buchenwald of for books!"

Rent seeking. by bmo · 2011-09-12 13:27 · Score: 2

Copyright is clearly being abused. It's time to bring it back to 14 years and a 14 year renewal like when they had it in 1790. The framers of the Constitution did not set out to enable you to create one work and sit on your ass for the rest of your life and enrich your grandkids after your demise.

We should all ignore copyright law as it stands, as practicable. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

If you are an author: too bad. Your bad apples have declared war on society at large and stolen from the public domain.

--
BMO

Re:Rent seeking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:33 · Score: 0

Copyright is clearly being abused. It's time to bring it back to 14 years and a 14 year renewal like when they had it in 1790. The framers of the Constitution did not set out to enable you to create one work and sit on your ass for the rest of your life and enrich your grandkids after your demise.
We should all ignore copyright law as it stands, as practicable. Fuck them. Fuck them all.
If you are an author: too bad. Your bad apples have declared war on society at large and stolen from the public domain.
Re:Rent seeking. by bmo · 2011-09-12 13:40 · Score: 2

I don't know what your point is, AC, but please do feel free to copy this as many times as you wish. You may even put your own name to it. Have at it.
Same with all my comments here and in Usenet and on Facebook and wherever.
--
BMO
Re:Rent seeking. by Kylon99 · 2011-09-12 14:03 · Score: 1

I just want to add something else in support of this.
If I am allowed to use Cory Doctorow as an example; he often gives away his books for free. He generates no income beyond donations with this. But what this creates is an opportunity for us sample his work. Under the "traditional" model he makes no money from this sampling. Instead, he generates interest in his future works of which I would be more than willing to pay for, because I want it *now*. This is assuming he WILL have future works.
But look at what this has done. Be it give away or have works expire under copyright, these past works generate new interest in future works. It makes it so the author can and must continue to write in order to take advantage of this, assuming his works are popular. Spuring on people to create new works is what society and the economy was supposed to do in the first place!
> create one work and sit on your ass for the rest of your life and enrich your grandkids after your demise.
In other words, the opposite of the lack of copyrights is to spur people to work and continue to work so that society may benefit from new ideas being created.
By the way, I put "traditional" model in quotes because this infinite copyright model is not REALLY the traditional model. The real traditional model is the one we're transitioning back to; where works are not under copyright but were made to be performed or shared. This is the model we had been using since the days cavemen drew paintings on the walls. What copyright is now is an artificial scarcity device, used to create a market where there should be none. To argue that we somehow need to have copyright is to argue that nothing was done from ancient history till now.
Re:Rent seeking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 15:27 · Score: 0

God bless and respect the US constitution! 14 years and a single, solitary one time 14 year renewal. Don't assume the guys who signed the constitution didn't know what was going on. 14 years for what you did. 14 more if you really want. After that, everyone gets to make copies galore! Its likely that they had seen copyright extensions in other countries, and saw how copyrights had been abused by those in power. I'm willing to deferr to the knowledge of the authors of 1790 and respect their decisions over those made in 1940, 1970, 1980, 1990 or 2006. Oh, and the 14 year rule should apply to all media.

Exactly. by jvonk · 2011-09-12 13:27 · Score: 2

They can then set a precedent for future cases by all authors.

I'm convinced that's exactly what they are trying to accomplish: they want to be the MAFIAA of written works, and seem determined to keep trying until they can bootstrap themselves into that position.

It's like watching The Omen , only real.

Let no good deed go unpunished by mauriceh · 2011-09-12 13:33 · Score: 1

Don't these numbskulls realize that books unread are just paper?
Not even as good as toilet paper. At least that stuff has a purpose.

--
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907

Cisco can bring criminal charges to court by decora · 2011-09-12 13:58 · Score: 1

all it has to do is ring up the Attorney General on the gigantic 3 foot tall "competition and free market" phone in the whitehouse.

1st Rule... by Anachragnome · 2011-09-12 14:02 · Score: 1

1st Rule for the Digital Age: The moment you digitize something, you stand to lose control of it.

2nd Rule for the Digital Age: Don't digitize something you don't want to lose control over.

Re:1st Rule... by gorgonite · 2011-09-12 18:09 · Score: 1

3rd Rule for the Digital Age: If you don't digitize it it will turn to dust.
Re:1st Rule... by Anachragnome · 2011-09-12 18:25 · Score: 1

"3rd Rule for the Digital Age: If you don't digitize it it will turn to dust."
But, by then I will have too.
Re:1st Rule... by sam_nead · 2011-09-12 20:05 · Score: 1

"Dust"? Paper, as a means of communication, is more stable than any digital formats. I can read books published in the 1980's. I can't read any of those 5 1/4 inch floppies (or the 3 1/2 inch ones, or the zip drives...). Digital formats must be maintained regularly -- paper can be left on a shelf. Nicholson Baker's book "Double Fold" gives a detailed analysis of this "books turning into dust" meme, as introduced by Patricia Battin, an administrator deeply in favor of microfilm and digitization.
Re:1st Rule... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 03:42 · Score: 0

4th Rule for the Digital Age: If anyone else digitizes it you will lose control of it.
Re:1st Rule... by xclr8r · 2011-09-13 04:55 · Score: 1

or some one will digitize it for you.

--
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
Re:1st Rule... by Devoidoid · 2011-09-13 04:56 · Score: 1

Where are my mod points when I need them. Digital is the greatest distribution format ever, but it's a lousy preservation format.

copyright isn't a right by markhahn · 2011-09-12 14:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

the US constitution had it right: copyrights and patents exist for the purpose of promoting progress. the primary goal isn't to give people a living - particularly not to guarantee profits to some company. we need to rethink the whole legal infrastructure around the concept of IP...

Authors not wanting their works digitized... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:21 · Score: 0

Authors not wanting their works digitized should have their names added to a list and the list made publicly available so that anyone can obtain it. The list can serve to let those interested in digitizing books know that books by the listed authors are never to be digitized and that if any of these books have been previously digitized that they are to be purged from storage.

The list can also be used to ensure that anyone inclined to ignore the list and digitize books anyway has fewer books available to digitize. This can be done by assiduously destroying physical copies of the book whenever they are encountered at a library sale, garage sale, or second hand book store. Buy them, burn them. If this happens enough then books by authors who don't want them digitized will eventually disappear entirely and it will be as if they never were.

If the authors don't want their works digitally preserved then we should have no interest in doing digitally or by any other means. Why bother preserving something by someone so shortsighted? Their works are unlikely to be very profound or meaningful otherwise they'd want it preserved in any and every way possible. Give the authors what they want and relegate their lives and their works to the dustbin of history.

This is not about public domain works by bgalbrecht · 2011-09-12 15:31 · Score: 4, Informative

They're not suing the universities and HathiTrust over 200 year old books which are in the public domain, they're suing over books which are clearly copyrighted because the US copyright was renewed and has not lapsed, but universities and HathiTrust can't find the current copyright holders. One of the four factors of fair use in the US is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In this case, the universities and HathiTrust claim the digitizing these works and making them available to students and faculty is fair use, and the authors/Authors Guilds are claiming this is too broad an interpretation of this factor in determining fair use.

Re:This is not about public domain works by LifesABeach · 2011-09-13 02:36 · Score: 1

This law suit paints an image in my mind of all the litigants holding hands in a circle while singing, "Kumbaya"; around a burning library, in Alexandria.
Re:This is not about public domain works by julesh · 2011-09-13 05:45 · Score: 1

I still don't see why the fact that the authors cannot be found means the Authors' Guild thinks it has the right to intervene. The Authors' Guild is not a statutory copyright licencing society (like ASCAP are), so has no standing to sue over the copyrights of anyone who has not given them explicit permission to so do. Whether the use is fair use or not is something that can only be decided in a case brought by the authors themselves, because only the authors can actually say whether or not they would authorize the use, and fair use is only relevant if the use is unauthorized.
Re:This is not about public domain works by Meski · 2011-09-13 17:24 · Score: 1

Which leaves aside the legality of renewing copyrights. It's awfully murky morally, just because Disney etc 'sanitise' it with paying off governments, doesn't make it right.

Suit is about how broad is educational fair use by bgalbrecht · 2011-09-12 16:06 · Score: 2

This suit has nothing to do with public domain works. It is whether the universities and HathiTrust have a fair use right to digitize copyrighted works for which they can't request permission because they can't find the copyright holder and make digital copies available to students and faculty. This fair use claim is based on one of the four factors for determining fair use of a US copyrighted work: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. The authors and Authors Guilds are saying the universities and HathiTrust are using a too broad an interpretation of this fair use factor, and besides that, they're using a tainted copy of the digital work because they're getting the copy from Google, which they claim is an unauthorized copy which would fail the fair use tests.

Again With Quebec? by mlauzon · 2011-09-12 17:59 · Score: 1

Will they ever realize that Quebec has what amounts to its own laws, and that a win in a court there does not mean it'll be followed in the rest of the country!

--
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163

start their own digitization project by devent · 2011-09-12 19:18 · Score: 1

Why don't they start their own digitization project? I mean, iTunes and Netfix should be of some example here. How much money do Apple make off of iTunes? Why can't the Authors' Guild and its equivalents in Australia, Quebec, and the UK just come together and start their own iBookStore? They have the books, they have the money and they would be swimming in money like Apple with iTunes.

Are they really enjoy being the asses they are, or are they really that backward? That puzzles me for a long time, even before there was Netflix or iTunes. Why are copyright holding groups not coming together and distributing their stuff online. The technology is there, they have the content, why is there no mean to embrace the new technology and make a lot of money of it?

--
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute

Re:start their own digitization project by Pi1grim · 2011-09-12 23:04 · Score: 1

Because they don't want to change a damn thing. They are quite OK as it is. Digitizing books is hard work, why bother when you can sue?

Does the author's coalition understand Congress? by ibsteve2u · 2011-09-12 21:14 · Score: 1

The digital works wouldn't be deleted, but [the author's coalition] wants to see "any computer system storing the digital copies powered down and disconnected from any network, pending an appropriate act of Congress." (Note that they want them shut down and unplugged, just to be sure.)

Stopping the computers from running may be as simple as unplugging them, but getting Congress running takes a lot more money than the author's coalition is likely to have.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"

patent control by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 21:42 · Score: 0

I wish there was such an effective patent control in Eastern Europe as well.

Walmart vs Dukes might be applicable by jfb2252 · 2011-09-12 23:13 · Score: 1

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/09/the-new-dawn-of-nonclass-aggregation/ discusses class actions in light of the Walmart vs Dukes Supreme Court decision of the last term. If I am reading it correctly (IANAL) the author suggests that class action will be essentially impossible under a series of court and legislative decisions taken in the last two decades. Perhaps Google should ask to have the Authors Guild decertified.

The new dawn of nonclass aggregation

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, of the University of Georgia School of Law, examines the difficulties of class certification after Wal-Mart and Concepcion and concludes that the decisions may ultimately pose broader questions about procedural justice and institutional legitimacy.

Solution by StripedCow · 2011-09-13 00:12 · Score: 1

Simple solution:

1. Write a book (or a rant, for that matter)
2. Put it on the internet, somewhere it is likely to be copied illegally
3. Now go out on the streets, use a megaphone, and start proclaiming you're an author and you don't take it anymore.
4. Repeat every Saturday morning in a shopping mall.
5. People in your neighborhood will eventually hate copyright.
6. ?
7. Profit.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Enough to bankrupt them by tepples · 2011-09-13 00:47 · Score: 1

Of course, it might be difficult from a practical standpoint to track down enough individual members who agree to be certified into the class

Does the Authors Guild have a newsletter? At $30,000 per work in statutory damages under United States copyright law, I guess it wouldn't take a lot of defendants to threaten to bankrupt the universities.

Re:Enough to bankrupt them by CodeBuster · 2011-09-13 18:34 · Score: 1

Judges sometimes impose conditions in order to certify the class. For example, it might be required that a certain percentage of likely future of plaintiffs sign on before the class can be certified. It would probably be something like gathering signatures for a ballot initiative; costly, tedious and labor intensive. Another fly in the ointment is that many universities have a clause in their bylaws stating that they can never settle a lawsuit; it must be litigated until won or ultimately lost in court on appeal. For example, the UCs in California have that policy; no doubt to discourage frivolous lawsuits.

Competition from orphaned works by tepples · 2011-09-13 00:49 · Score: 1

Authors don't want you reading orphaned works; they want you buying copies of new works.

Re:Competition from orphaned works by Man+Eating+Duck · 2011-09-13 04:31 · Score: 1

Authors don't want you reading orphaned works; they want you buying copies of new works.
I believe you're right about competition being an issue behind insane Copyright extensions, but that the problem lies more with Big Content than with individual creators (even if they can be handy sock-puppets). The large companies don't want you to be able to enjoy, say, 30+ year old works unimpeded, even if said works are not currently in sale and have no commercial value whatsoever. They want to bury them so that no one would be tempted to enjoy them instead of spending money on their new stuff. This, of course, leads to heaps of cultural history being lost because it's impractical to even format-shift them legally under the current laws. Think crumbling old film reels or even books printed on poor quality paper.

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)

Project Gutenberg has an end point by tepples · 2011-09-13 00:51 · Score: 1

So what does Project Gutenberg do once it finishes digitizing all notable pre-1923 books in the English language?

Re:Project Gutenberg has an end point by julesh · 2011-09-13 05:57 · Score: 1

Start digitizing books published prior to 1963 whose copyright wasn't renewed? Or start work on the books from 1923, which they will legally be able to publish in 7 years' time (I imagine it will take them at least the next 7 years to finish off everything worth keeping from prior to 1923).

Univerisities need to pay not steal!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 02:38 · Score: 0

If the authors receive their compensation due to them then fine. If the universities are stealing intellectual property then it is what it is: STEALING.

Plane Crazy by tepples · 2011-09-13 04:59 · Score: 2

Why is Mickey so special all of the sudden?

Because its copyright owner was one of the two biggest proponents of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (aka the "Bono Act"). Disney holds exclusive license to the four books by A.A. Milne on which the Winnie-the-Pooh franchise is founded, and the first of the four (When We Were Very Young) would have entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2000, had the Bono Act not been enacted. The initial Mickey Mouse trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie) would have entered the public domain in 2004.

The other was the Gershwin estate. Rhapsody in Blue would have entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 1999, had the Bono Act not been enacted.

Greed and its consequences... by GrandTeddyBearOfDoom · 2011-09-13 05:40 · Score: 1

I'm tired of all this greed by authors. Yes, they need to support a career somehow, but if they are as opposed to the dissemination of their work as they appear to be, they shouldn't publish in the first place. The world will be better without their work being distributed. I take the view that the priority is to ensure dissemination of a work to all interested and then find a way to support the author, rather than a gimme-gimme-gimmeasmuchasyougot approach to maximising profits that our business-minded friends have foisted upon us. This type of thing was never the intent of copyright.

--
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."

Start digitizing books published prior to 1963 whose copyright wasn't renewed?

For one thing, that set is also finite. For another, PGLAF would likely have to implement geolocation-based access control on these works and block them from view in non-rule of the shorter term countries in order to shield its assets in those countries.

Or start work on the books from 1923, which they will legally be able to publish in 7 years' time

For one thing, copyright owners might still be able to claim infringement even for intermediate copies. For another, you appear to forget the rumored Copyright Term Extension Act of 2018, for which The Walt Disney Company and the Estate of George Gershwin will surely push this decade.

I don't think you understand the library exemptions to copyright and the reasons for and the benefits to society

Property Tax by hicksw · 2011-09-13 23:24 · Score: 1

A lot of state and national governments are a bit short of income these days.

If intellectual property is property, why not tax it? If the copyright holders don't want to pay for each property every year they can relinquish the property to the public domain.
Or have it seized for non-payment.

It won't happen in the US or EU, where law is bought and paid for, but there might be hope for some upstanding place like Antigua, Russia, or the People's Republic of China. And become the fatherland of son-of-project-gutenberg,
--
In cyberspace, the earth is only one second wide.

Even if it isn't a class action by tepples · 2011-09-13 23:53 · Score: 1

Then perhaps I wasn't clear: Even if they don't have enough signatures for a class action, they might still have enough signatures from individual affected authors to make a sizable dent in the universities' foundations if only those authors sue.

Slashdot Mirror

Authors' Guild Goes After University Book Digitization Projects

170 comments