Google To Seek Dismissal of Suit Against Google Books

angry tapir writes with an update on the drawn out legal battle between Google and everyone else over their Books service. From the article: "After a so-far fruitless three-year effort to settle the case, Google and the plaintiffs suing it for alleged book-related copyright infringement apparently are moving away from seeking a friendly solution. Google has notified the court that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against it by authors and publishers in 2005, in which they allege copyright infringement stemming from Google's wholesale scanning of millions of library books without the permission of copyright owners. Google Books has been at the center of copyright-related controversy since 2005 when the Authors Guild of America and Association of American Publishers sued the search giant. This has been followed by other legal wrangles, including a 2010 suit by the American Society of Media Photographers, lawsuits in France and Germany and conflict with Chinese authors over the book-scanning project."

Comments

If I were an author ...

[Taco Cowboy]

Which I am not, but if I were an author, I would be THRILLED to find my book on googlebooks !!

Why?

Unless I am a very well known author, so well known that even people deep in the jungle in Africa or people from the hinterland of Siberia know me, there is NO WAY my book get to people in those places.

Getting my book scanned and placed online by google is a way to get my book to THE WORLD.

Profit loss?

No way.

As my book wouldn't be getting into the hands of people living in deep jungle in Africa or in the hands of people living in the frozen Siberia, I wouldn't be able to make money selling my books to those people in the first place.

BUT, as Google scanned my book and place it online, people all over, as long as they can get access to the Net, can, in theory, access my book.

So what if those people reading my book online don't pay me?

I ain't losing any money one way or another.

Those who sued Google are greedy bastards.

And no, I am not employed by Google.

Re:If I were an author ...

[ackthpt]

It's the case of a blind dog attempting biting a hand which feeds it, because it can't see that the food doesn't magically appear, but has been delivered by the hand it can smell, and thus growls and snaps at.

I, also, would prefer as much visibility of any of my works as Google could provide. I've certainly bought several books because one search lead to another and suddenly I'm looking at a book I'd never have heard of, but contains some fascinating material relevent to my research. As a result I now have a highly comprehensive knowledge of various events in history and a library of books which overflows my shelves. Good thing these people are trying to fight it, I don't know where I'd put more books. :-\

Re:If I were an author ...

[wolvesofthenight]

You make a strong point for why an author should want their works on Google. But I think a better analogy might be that the authors are like a starving dog biting the hand of someone who is tying to tie it up and shove steaks down its gullet. Google is not offering the authors a (possibly beneficial) service; it is doing everything it can to force it upon them.

The fact remains that Google is scanning large numbers of books and posting them freely on the internet. And, while it may not be their only motive, they are doing it for their own profit.

Should massive digital libraries be allowed? Yes. However, this should be take care of by two things: For slightly old works, reasonable limits on copyright duration - thus allowing anyone to create such an index. For new works, the copyright holder should be able to offer their works as they see fit. And the idea that they should have to opt out of Google copying their work is insane (even if there is some appeal to the idea of the RIAA/MPAA having to opt out of people copying their works).

Re:If I were an author ...

[bfields]

"Rule of law"?

Look, google isn't distributing copies of these books. They're searching for terms in them and returning snippets. That doesn't compete in the least with the business of people that are selling the entire book.

"there is nothing good about what Google is doing, except to the very short sighted."

They're providing an unprecedented and extremely useful service: the ability to perform full-text searches of entire multiple libraries' worth of books in fractions of a second from anywhere in the world.

If we require opt-in, then the immense number of rights owners involved is likely to make building such a service impractical.

We could be having the same argument about libraries: why shouldn't copyright owners be consulted about whether they want their books loaned out?

Fortunately the drafters of the copright law produced something flexible enough to provide incentives to authors while still allowing for services such as libraries. Flexible enough, even, to accommodate services like Google's that didn't exist at the time--fair use and first-sale rights provide all the basis the courts would need to find Google well within the rule of law, and I very much hope that's what happens.

Re:If I were an author ...

[khipu]

So because you choose to have Google profit from your work, you declare everyone else must have the choice taken away from them?

Nobody is taking your choice away; if you don't want your books on Google, just tell them. Furthermore, just because you own a copyright doesn't mean other people can't profit from your content without paying you. Copyright doesn't give you exclusive rights to any possible use of your works, it only gives you a specific, limited monopoly.

I shan't speak in defence of copyright or "intellectual property" but I shall speak in defence of rule of law.

Yes, so shall I: the rule of law in the US includes fair use and the public domain. "Authors guilds" and publishers have been trying to subvert the rule of law for decades by trying to carve out ever increasing special privileges. By default, Google makes books searchable and publishes snippets that is fair use.

You and the publishers want to steal from the public and from companies like Google, by deriving profit from fair use activities and content you don't even own. It is high time that the rule of law puts a stop to people like you.

Re:If I were an author ...

[macshit]

Er, well until there are reasonable limits on copyright duration—and fat chance of that happening any time soon given the massive corporate lobbying power behind making copyright infinitely long—attempts like Google's to work around the copyright lobby seem to be the only way to preserve the public interest. It's far more important to spread knowledge widely than preserve the illusory "rights" of dead authors for works written 75 years ago...

A solution that allows everybody to do this, rather than just Google, is of course superior. But there has to be something, and better just Google than nobody (other parties can of course make their own deals, or try to change the law, independent of what Google is doing). If you don't like that, then by all means press for a more universal solution—but the status quo is unacceptable.

Defense?

[geminidomino]

Regardless of my own opinions on the state of copyright/IP law in the US (I can't speak for the other countries listed in TFS), it is what it is. So I have to ask... What is Google's defense? It can't be the "public good" or "cultural preservation" play, because those have already been stabbed, short, burned, poisoned, beheaded, then drawn and quartered.

So what the hell are they claiming that's had the lawsuits lasting six frigging years?

While I think it's a good thing they're trying to do (though maybe not their motivations), I really thought they would have been bitchslapped down a long, long time ago. What cards are they holding here?

Re:Defense?

[bfields]

"What is Google's defense?"

They're not distributing copies of books--they're doing searches and returning small snippets. The books are scanned, with the permission of their owners, only in order to allow those searches.

I would have thought first-sale rights would permit the owners of books to have their own copies scanned, and that fair use would permit Google to search them and return snippets.

None of this cuts into the publisher's traditional source of profits at all, as the publisher is still who a member of the public goes to to get a copy of the book.

If we really think copyright holders should have complete control over how every copy of their work is *used*, not only distributed, then they should have cut off the problem at the source and forbidden libraries....

Shut up and take my money

[adoarns]

All I want--far, far more than Netflix or Rhapsody--is to be able to give somebody money on a monthly basis to have access to nearly every book in every library in the world. Just somebody make this easy. I don't want to have to think, "Is reading a chapter of this obscure work on Russian formalism worth $0.50?" I just want to fucking click on a link, and read it.

stop lying

[khipu]

snippets = dozens of pages = not fair use

Stop lying. Google shows "dozens of pages" only for publishers and authors who opt into their partner program.

http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=43729&topic=9259&hl=en

And, if, for some reason, your book slipped through the cracks, you can have it removed.

But what you and the publishers really want is to force Google to promote your books and then pay for the privilege. And you want to make it so cumbersome for small authors and publishers to get onto services like Google that you retain a monopoly. I don't think so.

What we have to admit here is that Google is a massively wealthy company, and that authors are, in general, poor as shit.

The reason authors are "poor as shit" is simple supply and demand: there is a glut of authors and books. The world doesn't owe you a living as an author. If you can't make it as an author under the existing copyright law, which is already very strict, choose a different profession or get a day job to pay the bills.

Authors own their property, just like you own your toothbrush or your socks.

Copyright is a temporary, limited grant by the government. It is nothing like physical property. Read the Constitution.

Google comes in and makes money off of this property, without asking, in violation of the rule of law and the custom of law.

There is nothing in copyright law that generally prohibits others from profiting from your writings; such a notion is contrary to the very idea of copyright laws. Your rights in your copyrighted materials are limited.

There are countless scandals and corruption episodes going on right now that we will never know about because there are no journalists being payed to report on them.

Same thing applies to journalists as to authors: either there is a demand for their services or there is not, either they can make a living at it or they can't. Because of the Internet, it turns out that we need far fewer journalists than we used to, so a lot of them lose their jobs. I don't see a problem.

The publishers are often horrible, but Google is just another publisher - the funny thing is that it doesnt really pay anyone to write anything, and there is only one of it (i.e. its a monopoly).

Google has spent billions on creating free software. That alone more than makes up for any moral quibbles you may have with them.