Slashdot Mirror
Google Gives Up Fair-Use Defense, Settles Book-Scanning Lawsuit With Publishers
thomst writes "David Kravets of Wired's Threat Level blog reports that McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, Penguin Group, John Wiley & Sons and Simon & Shuster have struck a deal to end those companies' lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement over its Google Books search service. Kravets reports that Andi Sporkin, a spokesperson for the publishers, has said they've 'agreed to disagree' on Google's assertion that its scanning of books in university libraries (and making up to 20% of the scanned content available in search results) was protected by the fair use defense against copyright infringement. The terms of the deal are secret, but the result is that the companies in question have dropped their lawsuit against Google. However, the Authors Guild lawsuit against Google on the same grounds is still stuck in the appeals process, after U.S. District Judge Denny Chin rejected a proposed settlement of the suit in 2011, on the grounds that its treatment of so-called 'orphaned works' amounted to making new copyright law — a power he insisted only Congress could exercise."
Helllloooo...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
when copyright goes away. That's when science/eng will truly go into overdrive.
Yeah, yeah, the department is supposed to be humorous, but obligatory point that these book rights are *already* "private", and the vast majority of new books will also be "private." The only way that could change is if the publisher puts a book into the public domain (and thereby cedes almost any eBook revenue). Whether Google had a fair use claim or not on normally published books doesn't change this.
Making a digital copy of an entire book and re-publishing it online for profit doesn't seem like "fair" use to me. So, while I'll be the first to point out that copyright law is flawed, I'm pleased to see that Google is going to comply with it just like every other company (and individual) has to.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Soon only google will be allowed to do these things with these agreements while other competitor will be shut out. A nonruling on this matter will leave the landscape fragmented and behind the curve for decades. Which is a shame, I found way more books via google books than any other way. Usually doing research. Without the content search, I would never have found the books or bothered buying them - afterall my budget is only so large and I cannot chase after every book that might or might not have what I need.
Books publishers, even more than music publishers, despite the later arrival of mainstream ebooks, see where things are heading and are absolutely shitting themselves. Middlemen in a world of a rapidly shrinking middle. Google, otoh, has no problem monopolizing this new avenue, sign a few deals, and keeping competitors with less resources permanently out by assuring these companies a place for at least a little while longer.
It's too bad our government is so owned, because no matter which companies win, there is absolutely no representation for the public and public domain and fair use, and we all lose.
Folks,
3 or 4 post in as I write this and already the naifs discussing complete abolition of copyright have sprung up. What will be lost in all of this, as always in these discussions, is that google could have damn well gone to the publishers / copyrightholders in advance and negotiate a fee for publishing such 'abandoned' works. Im sure the publishers would have been amenable to even quite modest renumeration and a fair arrangement could have been reached. this is how copyright is SUPPOSED to work.
Instead, this ruling is, while one hand good since it means that the world hasn't gone completely stupid and decided, as it seems to have in the case of youtube, where if a big company casts a blind eye towards piracy (just youtube search "full move" if you doubt me) while making HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS if not billions on advertising from it then it's ok, in another sense it's bad.
it's bad because there appears to be little or no punitive aspect to this agreement. let's review:
1. had there been a strong punative element to the settlement, then perhaps others would be less brazen about such willful copyright violation as google had engaged in. and let's be clear - that's exactly what it was. it was:
- willful
- commercial and massively for profit
- not for any particular educational purpose other than incidental
- MASSIVE in scope
- by people who should have known better
2. if the ruling said that such works were indeed effectively in the public domain, well, while on one hand that would have been less than ideal, on the other at least this would have opened them up for all.
3. but no.. instead, what we get is some settlement where google muscles its way into paying pennies on the dollar, the information stays "locked", and there is no lesson for google except "we do what we want because we're big"
a lose-mostly lose situation for all. except google. they're laughing all the way to the bank.
don't forget folks -there is an option that is neither "insanely shortsighted abolition of all copyright" nor "information that cannot be used because it is locked down" and that is the licensing of said information by the rightsholder. you know, just like the GPL does it.
Google patents user submitted site logos that depict moments in history and sues Slashdot for infringement.