Presently, all their mass transit is just buses. Some form of rail would be desirable. The city's been trying to get trains for ages; the monorail is actually a citizen initiative. The reason for it being a monorail, btw, is because there already is one in Seattle, it's just not very useful since it doesn't go far.
What they could really use out there, however, is a rail link from downtown Bellevue (which is fairly central for the East Side) to Seattle. With only two bridges across the lake, it's a hell of a bottleneck.
I don't know about Star Cops. That's one amazingly boring show. I'll give it points for a certain amount of realism, jumpsuits aside, but it's really dull.
Actually, that depends upon the contract and the nature of the breach. Not just any old breach will discharge the other party from performance of their obligations under the contract.
you need to set up your own end-to-end encryption. Only then can you be sure (or at least reasonably sure) that no one is listening in.
Well, what you can be reasonably sure about is that they aren't decrypting it. Listening to either endpoint with bugs or mics or whatnot still works. Remember, in this sort of situation, law enforcement is the attacker, and attackers can always try to go around the barriers you set up, rather than trying to go through them.
Because if you read the actual text of 512(b), there's nothing in there that would allow one and disallow the other. The temporary storage requirement might, but there's no solid definition for what temporary means, and I expect that Google does update their database periodically.
The trick is to comply with the requirements of the law.
However, I'm not sure what you think would allow you to make copies of copyrighted works, without authorization, provided that you commercially distribute them, at least not without something more. And so I'm unconvinced that Google's plan is a good one. I think they stand a good chance of getting the bejeezus sued out of them.
Well, the main reason why the 512(b) safe harbor is inapplicable here is at 512(b)(1)(A): the material that's being cached in the database has to be put online by someone other than the party doing the caching.
As for the Guild, what revenue? Google isn't paying them to engage in this project. If they were, maybe they wouldn't be suing them. While one could argue that there might be increased sales down the road that are attributable to what Google is doing, that sort of thing is often too nebulous and uncertain to convince rightsholders who would prefer to be paid now and get possible future benefits.
Finally, your point about libraries hosting the databases wouldn't change anything. While libraries have some additional exemptions that let them make copies, they're not broad enough to support anything like this. They're more along the lines of making a copy of a one-of-a-kind manuscript that's falling apart and is irreplacable.
Doesn't really matter. The narrow exception for libraries aside, no one, whether they own a copy of a copyrighted book or not, can lawfully reproduce copies of it without permission. While in some cases, ownership of a copy might change the outcome of a fair use analysis (factor 4, basically), that's not an issue here. Google is not making copies of books to avoid having to buy the copies they used as their source; they're making copies that are basically unrelated to what they used as source material. (In that they could've purchased the right to build their database, but that's not the same thing as buying paperbacks)
Intent is not a factor. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense -- even if you do it without meaning to, and with the best of motives, you are still liable. Intent can only play a role in damages, and perhaps whether the offense is criminal as well.
The problem, however, is that Z is inclusive of A. You can't have a full-text index without having a copy of the work within the index.
As for indexing of web sites, this has long fallen under a safe harbor that's inapplicable to the book project. One of the reasons the safe harbor was created, however, was the uncertain ground that numerous Internet companies found themselves on. They were not consistently winning cases.
Google reads in copyrighted works, and then keeps the electronic copy in a database that no humans ever see.
And it's this part that is infringing.
Now, did I just describe Google Print, Google News, or the original Google web search?
Of course, two of these can fall within the safe harbor of 512(b). One of these can't. If the books were already online, Google would have a far stronger case.
Sure. They don't really notice, and they don't especially care. That doesn't mean that they can't.
There have been numerous cases where the issue was decided as part of a larger effort (e.g. as the direct infringement on which an indirect infringement case was founded). And there have even been cases along these lines, such as Texaco.
If these copyright holders can use it to shut down this project, then don't think that they won't.
Of course, this means that you agree that the authors in question can make a prima facie case against Google. This puts Google on the defensive.
Fair use is certainly a possible defense, but it is far from clear that what Google is doing will fall within it. Personally, I think it is unlikely that Google can win.
First, permission from the copyright holder always means that there is no infringement, at least within the boundaries of the permission.
Second, your analogy doesn't hold up. We're talking about making a copy, not discussing facts about a copy, or pointing something out within a lawfully made copy. Your analogy doesn't involve a prima facie infringement to begin with.
Third, while book reviews may harm the value of the work, the issue is more along the lines of whether the use in question would serve as a substitute for the work. Here, if the copyright holders have a program where they license people to copy the work and put it in a database, Google's project of copying it themselves without license serves as a substitute.
Remember, creating the database is an infringement on its own, apart from letting people use it. So it needs to be defended against specifically.
Yes. Reproduction even without later distribution of the unlawfully made copies is an infringement.
If Google scans in this stuff to their database, that's going to get them in trouble right there, unless they have some sort of defense. It doesn't matter how much they show to users down the line (although that can also be infringing).
The examples don't mean anything. The four factor analysis is what is used to determine if a use is a fair use or not. It is possible to have news reporting, for example, that is not fair use, and cases along those lines are well known.
With regards to the four factors, you have to consider all of them, although fair use is not a simple matter of adding them up; they have differing weights depending on the circumstances involved.
Here, 1) the use is commercial and non-transformative, but does seem to have a significant research aspect to it. I'd call this one largely in favor of authors. 2) The works are both factual and creative, coming out solidly in favor of authors. 3) Google is copying the works in their entirety so as to have them in their database. That users might only see one small excerpt is irrelevant to the reproduction infringement; that's a distribution infringement. As everything is being copied, that's very bad. As for the distribution later, it is more likely that it will involve the important parts of the works than the unimportant parts. This too weighs heavily against Google. 4) It is utterly irrelevant whether a fair use has beneficial impacts on copyright holders; we're only interested in the harm involved. While it doesn't seem as though there would be a great deal of harm, alternatives that involve the copyright holders licensing these materials to Google are likely to be an issue that goes against this project, rather like Texaco.
All in all, I think this is dicey at best. It's certainly not a sure fair use.
FACT : A scanned copy of a book is a derivative work of that book.
No it's not. It's just a copy, not a derivative.
There is a definition in the law for what constitutes a derivative work: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
This doesn't change the fact that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies, so the end result is the same.
Under 17 USC 106, distribution is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
But under 109, significant forms of distribution are excepted from copyright. Of course, note that there are exceptions to the exceptions within 109. There are some other sections that touch on the distribution right, but this is the big one.
I don't know if libraries rely on a Fair use clause or if they have to get a blanket license from the publishers version of RIAA.
In the US, neither. Buying books, storing them, letting the public read them, and lending them out, are covered under first sale. Anyone can do it, and indeed, there are such things as private libraries (where anyone can join, but they're not open to the non-paying public). Libraries don't pay publishers to loan books, and don't bother with fair use.
However, libraries don't go around making copies of all their materials, as Google intends to do. (And while libraries have a limited exception that allows them to make copies, it's not broad enough to apply here)
There would be greater difficulty in doing so. There is an exception in the statutory first sale doctrine, which prohibits renting sound recordings and computer software (other than console games).
While you can just go out and rent DVDs as you like, you'd have to argue that you were actually selling the CDs and that it wasn't a convoluted rental scheme.
Libraries have an exception, but not just anyone is a library.
What's sad is that the seal is untrue. Unauthorized copying _may_ be punishable under federal law, but there's no guarantee that it is. Depends on the circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. I think that The Fast and the Furious was compromised by being a shitty movie, rather than insufficiently advanced cameras.
Haven't been to Seattle, huh?
Presently, all their mass transit is just buses. Some form of rail would be desirable. The city's been trying to get trains for ages; the monorail is actually a citizen initiative. The reason for it being a monorail, btw, is because there already is one in Seattle, it's just not very useful since it doesn't go far.
What they could really use out there, however, is a rail link from downtown Bellevue (which is fairly central for the East Side) to Seattle. With only two bridges across the lake, it's a hell of a bottleneck.
I don't know about Star Cops. That's one amazingly boring show. I'll give it points for a certain amount of realism, jumpsuits aside, but it's really dull.
Actually, that depends upon the contract and the nature of the breach. Not just any old breach will discharge the other party from performance of their obligations under the contract.
you need to set up your own end-to-end encryption. Only then can you be sure (or at least reasonably sure) that no one is listening in.
Well, what you can be reasonably sure about is that they aren't decrypting it. Listening to either endpoint with bugs or mics or whatnot still works. Remember, in this sort of situation, law enforcement is the attacker, and attackers can always try to go around the barriers you set up, rather than trying to go through them.
Because if you read the actual text of 512(b), there's nothing in there that would allow one and disallow the other. The temporary storage requirement might, but there's no solid definition for what temporary means, and I expect that Google does update their database periodically.
The trick is to comply with the requirements of the law.
However, I'm not sure what you think would allow you to make copies of copyrighted works, without authorization, provided that you commercially distribute them, at least not without something more. And so I'm unconvinced that Google's plan is a good one. I think they stand a good chance of getting the bejeezus sued out of them.
Well, the main reason why the 512(b) safe harbor is inapplicable here is at 512(b)(1)(A): the material that's being cached in the database has to be put online by someone other than the party doing the caching.
As for the Guild, what revenue? Google isn't paying them to engage in this project. If they were, maybe they wouldn't be suing them. While one could argue that there might be increased sales down the road that are attributable to what Google is doing, that sort of thing is often too nebulous and uncertain to convince rightsholders who would prefer to be paid now and get possible future benefits.
Finally, your point about libraries hosting the databases wouldn't change anything. While libraries have some additional exemptions that let them make copies, they're not broad enough to support anything like this. They're more along the lines of making a copy of a one-of-a-kind manuscript that's falling apart and is irreplacable.
Doesn't really matter. The narrow exception for libraries aside, no one, whether they own a copy of a copyrighted book or not, can lawfully reproduce copies of it without permission. While in some cases, ownership of a copy might change the outcome of a fair use analysis (factor 4, basically), that's not an issue here. Google is not making copies of books to avoid having to buy the copies they used as their source; they're making copies that are basically unrelated to what they used as source material. (In that they could've purchased the right to build their database, but that's not the same thing as buying paperbacks)
Intent is not a factor. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense -- even if you do it without meaning to, and with the best of motives, you are still liable. Intent can only play a role in damages, and perhaps whether the offense is criminal as well.
But kudos for citing to the essay.
The problem, however, is that Z is inclusive of A. You can't have a full-text index without having a copy of the work within the index.
As for indexing of web sites, this has long fallen under a safe harbor that's inapplicable to the book project. One of the reasons the safe harbor was created, however, was the uncertain ground that numerous Internet companies found themselves on. They were not consistently winning cases.
17 USC 106(1). Compare with 106(3). Definitions are at 101.
Google reads in copyrighted works, and then keeps the electronic copy in a database that no humans ever see.
And it's this part that is infringing.
Now, did I just describe Google Print, Google News, or the original Google web search?
Of course, two of these can fall within the safe harbor of 512(b). One of these can't. If the books were already online, Google would have a far stronger case.
Sure. They don't really notice, and they don't especially care. That doesn't mean that they can't.
There have been numerous cases where the issue was decided as part of a larger effort (e.g. as the direct infringement on which an indirect infringement case was founded). And there have even been cases along these lines, such as Texaco.
If these copyright holders can use it to shut down this project, then don't think that they won't.
Of course, this means that you agree that the authors in question can make a prima facie case against Google. This puts Google on the defensive.
Fair use is certainly a possible defense, but it is far from clear that what Google is doing will fall within it. Personally, I think it is unlikely that Google can win.
First, permission from the copyright holder always means that there is no infringement, at least within the boundaries of the permission.
Second, your analogy doesn't hold up. We're talking about making a copy, not discussing facts about a copy, or pointing something out within a lawfully made copy. Your analogy doesn't involve a prima facie infringement to begin with.
Third, while book reviews may harm the value of the work, the issue is more along the lines of whether the use in question would serve as a substitute for the work. Here, if the copyright holders have a program where they license people to copy the work and put it in a database, Google's project of copying it themselves without license serves as a substitute.
Remember, creating the database is an infringement on its own, apart from letting people use it. So it needs to be defended against specifically.
Yes. Reproduction even without later distribution of the unlawfully made copies is an infringement.
If Google scans in this stuff to their database, that's going to get them in trouble right there, unless they have some sort of defense. It doesn't matter how much they show to users down the line (although that can also be infringing).
The examples don't mean anything. The four factor analysis is what is used to determine if a use is a fair use or not. It is possible to have news reporting, for example, that is not fair use, and cases along those lines are well known.
With regards to the four factors, you have to consider all of them, although fair use is not a simple matter of adding them up; they have differing weights depending on the circumstances involved.
Here, 1) the use is commercial and non-transformative, but does seem to have a significant research aspect to it. I'd call this one largely in favor of authors. 2) The works are both factual and creative, coming out solidly in favor of authors. 3) Google is copying the works in their entirety so as to have them in their database. That users might only see one small excerpt is irrelevant to the reproduction infringement; that's a distribution infringement. As everything is being copied, that's very bad. As for the distribution later, it is more likely that it will involve the important parts of the works than the unimportant parts. This too weighs heavily against Google. 4) It is utterly irrelevant whether a fair use has beneficial impacts on copyright holders; we're only interested in the harm involved. While it doesn't seem as though there would be a great deal of harm, alternatives that involve the copyright holders licensing these materials to Google are likely to be an issue that goes against this project, rather like Texaco.
All in all, I think this is dicey at best. It's certainly not a sure fair use.
FACT : A scanned copy of a book is a derivative work of that book.
No it's not. It's just a copy, not a derivative.
There is a definition in the law for what constitutes a derivative work: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
This doesn't change the fact that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies, so the end result is the same.
Under 17 USC 106, distribution is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
But under 109, significant forms of distribution are excepted from copyright. Of course, note that there are exceptions to the exceptions within 109. There are some other sections that touch on the distribution right, but this is the big one.
I don't know if libraries rely on a Fair use clause or if they have to get a blanket license from the publishers version of RIAA.
In the US, neither. Buying books, storing them, letting the public read them, and lending them out, are covered under first sale. Anyone can do it, and indeed, there are such things as private libraries (where anyone can join, but they're not open to the non-paying public). Libraries don't pay publishers to loan books, and don't bother with fair use.
However, libraries don't go around making copies of all their materials, as Google intends to do. (And while libraries have a limited exception that allows them to make copies, it's not broad enough to apply here)
There would be greater difficulty in doing so. There is an exception in the statutory first sale doctrine, which prohibits renting sound recordings and computer software (other than console games).
While you can just go out and rent DVDs as you like, you'd have to argue that you were actually selling the CDs and that it wasn't a convoluted rental scheme.
Libraries have an exception, but not just anyone is a library.
What's sad is that the seal is untrue. Unauthorized copying _may_ be punishable under federal law, but there's no guarantee that it is. Depends on the circumstances.
No, Firefox was thinking in Russian, alright. Firefly would probably involve thinking in Chinese.
Ooh, Firefox.
"Think in Russian!"