Slashdot Mirror
Google Books Wins Again (documentcloud.org)
cpt kangarooski writes: After Google won a lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild alleging that Google's project to scan and provide a searchable index of books was copyright infringement, Google has now won the inevitable appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court found that Google is engaging in fair use, and reminds all that "[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding." The ruling (PDF) adds, "while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public."
Gotcha
from the humorous comment about how "[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding". They are such kidders.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
The devil must be in the details.
"[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding."
Not in Soviet, I mean Corporate America. In Corporate America, copyright own you!
Yes, this is what the true goal of copyright is, and kudos for actually understanding the real purpose. Millions of teachers in millions of college classrooms today will be teaching that copyright is for making money and nothing more.
"Happy Birthday to You" is still in contention as copyright material. It's ridiculous.
>> while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public
In whose lifetime?
Won't 'fair use' vanish after Obamatrade is signed?
I like that what google is officially is trying to achieve. It's great to access and search the content and eventually buy what I want.
On the other hand, google is using not even an opt out policy (or barely using it). I've written something on the internet which I thought wasn't groundbreaking or even relevant but now when you search for it, there's a nice ad for something I actually wrote against.
I can't stress enough the use of ad blockers.
No question that the internet is killing authors.
Dammit. I did have a question about that. You're always one step ahead of me.
This is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement should never be ratified.
That tends to buy more books because of Google books? I can honestly say that because of Google books, I can find better what I'm looking for.
Sadly, I'm far more freaked about how dependent I've become on Google for DNS, maps, books, translate, etc... than I ever was on Microsoft. I sometimes find myself trying intentionally to use Microsoft just to cut the cord.
Now do something about that "Life plus 70 years" copyright term.
On the one hand, I loathe the monster that copyright law has become, and I think that a searchable database of fulltext library books is a definite positive for society, contributing strongly to the original stated purpose of copyright, which is to advance and safeguard the people's collective knowledge.
On the other hand, I really don't think this qualifies as fair use. It would be fine if the Library of Congress was doing the scanning, and retaining the copies. But Google is a company, not a government entity. If it's legal for them to do this, wouldn't it be legal for me to scan every book in the library myself, as long as I don't let anyone else access the copies?
Wait, is that legal? Has it been legal this whole time?
Serious question.
How do you read Google Books?
Reading these books with Firefox seems an exercise in frustration.
Is there some "reader" that can improve my experience?
I suspect that few people actually read Google Books.
Otherwise, Mr. Bezos might voice some strong objections.
How exactly does extending copyright by 70 years past the authors death achieve "[t]heSo ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding."
Video, Source Code, and Books are all copyrighted. My opinion is that it should go exactly the opposite copyright period should be shortened not lengthened. The reason copyright was introduce is because of the discontent between reproducing a working and creating a work so an author can get a fair return on creating a work.
But exactly how is it fair for an author to benefit by receiving more than a 100x the initial cost as benefit. If an author do not receive a fair return on his investment within 2 years of releasing a work lets be honest he is not going to earn it in the rest of his live and the 70 years after his death.
Make it 5 years still the same argument.
How does allowing google to scan and display the books for their own financial gain. If it were the LoC maintaining the database then I could agree but it's not, and it is not for the enrichment of mankind it is for the enrichment of Googles stock.
It must be that a bunch of authors have started hanging themselves with Cat5, as I cannot see any way that a global network of computers could kill an author...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Do any non politicians even know what the TPP says?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
He must talking about Skynet. It's going after the authors first!
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You notice the word "limited" has pretty much been ignored, too.
The founders were not micro-managers.
The limits of copyright were meant to be defined by legislation.
The average length of a state constitution is 26,000 words (compared to about 8,700 words for the U.S. constitution). The longest state governing document is that of Alabama, which has over 172,000 words. That document is also the most amended state constitution in the Union, with over 770 amendments. The average state constitution has been amended about 115 times. The oldest state constitution still in effect is that of Massachusetts, which took effect in 1780. The newest is the Georgia Constitution, which was ratified in 1983.
Georgia has had nine constitutions. Massachusetts one.
State constitution
The success of the framers of the U.S. Constitution in writing a document geared to serving the varied and changing needs of Americans has been complemented by an ability on the part of successive Congresses and courts to readapt it to these changing demands. The Constitution's 27 amendments, added over a period of 200 years, have in most cases plugged minor loopholes rather than changed the focus or the general structure of the document. As Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt stated in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933, ''Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced.'' Constitution of the United States
I think Google buys the book and then does the scan.
No, they borrow them from a library and scan them:
Google developed agreements with major libraries to start the project. The New York Public Library, as well as university libraries at Harvard, Michigan and Stanford, all agreed to let Google scan their volumes.
http://computer.howstuffworks....
It would make sense, the authors are the ones that warn of our impending subjugation by the AI overlords.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Do any politicians even know what the TPP says?
Just the trade representatives & their lawyers.
Congress voted to abdicate their responsibilities via fast track.
"Do any non politicians even know what the TPP says?"
They know what it is for
First, science on reasoning... our brain is really bad at reasoning and reality generally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
They are getting concerned, that's why the NSA and the TPP are trying to lock down everything, they are trying to strip us of our rights and control us and the information channels we communicate on because they are at their weakest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4usbR_kKCDs
They are getting rid of state sovereignty with trade agreements and basically constructing kangaroo courts for the corporate world.
Wikileaks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&feature=youtu.be
They also are using it to try to lockdown the internet because they fear us politically waking up...
The (mass surveillance) by the NSA/others and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://youtu.be/Ttv6n7PFniY?t=10
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
States experiencing serious systemic "handicaps":
https://youtu.be/0kmUS--QCYY?t=246
Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.
https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397
The real news:
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
US distribution of wealth
https://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
https://vimeo.com/39566117
Crisis of democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI
I don't think corporations should be allowed to own copyrights at all. They should be assigned to human beings and corporations should license them.
I don't know if I'd go that far. If nothing else, many works are created as a result of the work of many individuals co-ordinating as part of or on behalf of an organisation, and the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. The overheads of not allowing any collective ownership of rights in creative works, and thus having to negotiate individually with everyone involved having an ability to unilaterally roadblock/veto new deals, would surely be prohibitive. Ultimately the idea is to incentivise creators to share their work and so promote distribution and enjoyment all round, and the easier it is to reach mutually beneficial deals the better that is going to work.
Now, if you were to adapt that argument a little to say that anyone other than the original creator of a work could hold only a temporary licence -- for example, if distributors such as record labels and book publishers could only hold the rights to a song or book for a couple of years without renewing -- then we might be getting somewhere, because those organisations would suddenly have to actually produce good returns for their sources in a competitive environment or risk losing their margin on a good work when the next deal went to someone else.
In terms of the collective ownership, I also wouldn't be averse to some sort of scheme where the rights were administered centrally, like some sort of trust, but all of the original contributors retained acknowledgement and a share of any future benefits or royalties. Just have everyone's contract include both an assignment of their rights to the collective trust and a clear statement of any agreed terms (e.g., this contributor will receive x% of any future royalties or other financial benefits, or this contribution is made on the basis that the work as a whole will be available under some open licence).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I don't believe they're trying to ratify it, which would take 2/3 of the Senate. I think the idea is to essentially pass it as a law, which is slightly less bad, as Congress could change it without the need for diplomacy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How come google books wins all the time but apple books lost in court? Anti-apple bias in the judicial system?
Do any politicians even know what the TPP says?
Translated and summarised
Bend over and take it like a prison bitch unless your really rich in which case you get your choice of prison bitch
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
TPP will probably overturn this.
They have to pass it to see what's in it.
O'Bama will do it as a Royal Proclam.... errrr, Executive Order.
Obama can order the Executive Branch mostly as he pleases, but he can't make new law.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes