Google's Print Project

[Skar]

Well, one can argue that they are doing it under Fair Use.  A professor can copy a chapter out of a book, and distribute it to his/her class under the teach act.  If Google is allowed to do this, it's not suddenly an 'open season' for copying books and distributing them.  Remember, Google is only displaying snippets.

Google is not a teaching organization.  And while they are displaying only snippets, they are still copying the entire thing.  They couldn't display the snippets if they didn't copy the entire thing.

I'm not worried, for the purposes of this discussion, whether Google's project will  make it easier for people to get pirated copies of books.  What I'm worried about is the fact that if it's made legal for Google to copy books without their author's permission it becomes legal for everyone to do so.

Wait, to clarify, are you saying if Google were to buy a copy of a book, they could copy it in digital format, and allow others to 'search' through it?

Yes.  As long as they didn't distribute whole copies of the book, but only snippets.

Edit: And I might point out that at the beginning of this discussion/thread I would probably have answered this last question the opposite way.  So for those of you out there who think this has been an acrimonious battle between two close-minded people, I say, thppppppt.

[Firemeboy]

Fair enough.  

Thanks for the discussion, I've found it quite stimulating and enlightening.

[Skar]

Likewise.  

Here's to hoping they find a way to legally index and make searchable every book in the world.

[The Jade Knight]

If so, I think I understand where  you are coming from, but I'm pretty sure copyright laws don't delineates it in this way, and just because I put something on the web doesn't mean folks can make copies of it (other than caching).

Copyright laws don't delineate it in that way, from all I've seen.

I'm quite aware that all websites allow caching, but I believe that copyright law treats this much differently than most definitions of the term "making a copy".  It may even go beyond Fair Use into unregulated territoy (I'm not sure), though I doubt it.

At any rate, it's been interesting.  Goodnight.

[Skar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4403388.stm

[Firemeboy]

I was going to post that article...  

I also liked this article.  Many of the points the author brings up we've already covered in this thread.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/11/03/google-print-project_cx_ns_1103googlecomment.html

[Skar]

He does cover some of the same points but he doesn't answer them.  The issue is not Google making snippets.  The issue is Google making whole copies.  Once you give Google the ability to legally make a whole copy you give it to everyone.  Problem.  

He starts the article by pointing out how neat it would be, as if that were justification enough.  It's not.  I'm not trying to start this fire again.  I just felt constrained to point out that this guy made the same irrelevant points that are made by everyone else standing in googles corner on this.

[The Jade Knight]

The entire crux of the matter is on whether or not that use of copied text is fair.

There's nothing in US copyright law that states that anything set to public access is free for copying, but certain uses (à la webbrowsing, Google, or the Internet Archive) are considered "fair".

So it's a matter of if this use of copying is considered "fair".

[Skar]

Ok.  I admit it.  I blew it.  If I really didn't want to open this up again I should not have stuck my two cent response to that article in my last post.  

The crux of the matter is not the use of the copied works.  Snippets are fair use, no one here has ever said they weren't.  In order to make snippets Google has to make copies for which they don't have permission.  That is illegal and rightly so.  

Web browsing is not making copies without permission it is making copies with permission.  You can natter on and on about there being no provision in copyright law for things being "set to public access" all you want.  It's not what's happening on the net.  Permission is requested and granted for every single copy made therefrom.  Requesting and granting permission to make copies is provided for in copyright law.  That's how books are published in the first place and that's all that's happening on the internet whether you understand the magic box with the funny cables on your desk or not.

Claiming that it's a question of whether snippets are fair use is a smoke screen/red herring/strawman designed to draw attention away from the fact that Google is making copies of works they don't have permission to copy.  

If your whole argument is the fair use thing, don't bother replying because we can all just peruse your previous posts and see the same argument phrased differently a couple of dozen times along with the rebuttals that you have totally failed to answer every time.

[The Jade Knight]

Claiming that it's a question of whether snippets are fair use is a smoke screen/red herring/strawman designed to draw attention away from the fact that Google is making copies of works they don't have permission to copy.

I'm not talking about snippets at all, to begin with.

You seem to vociferously disagree with my declarations of the nature of copyright law, and I'm personally inclined to believe that I understand copyright law reasonably well, considering that I'm a paying (and very active in regards to reading up on issues) member of no less than three organisations that deal with it, and a former public library worker.  You can tell me that I don't understand the law, or that I don't have a grasp on how it works, but if you expect me to listen to you and not my own experiences, please either provide new information, some sort of credentials (however informal), or quote something.

[Skar]

Since you said:

The entire crux of the matter is on whether or not that use of copied text is fair.

and then said:

I'm not talking about snippets at all, to begin with.

Pray tell me, to what use, besides snippets, Google is planning on putting the copied material in question?

I'm not saying you

don't understand the law, or that [you] don't have a grasp on how it works,...

I'm saying that you don't know how the internet works or you wouldn't keep insisting that looking at things on the internet is a violation of copyright law.  Just because Lawrence Lessig said it is doesn't make it so.

This is the issue you persistently skirt.  The internet is not an example of people making copies of things they don't have permission to copy.  They do have permission. They have to get it in order to view the webpages.

But back to the understanding of copyright law.  Correct me if I'm wrong but under copyright law, copying works you don't have permission to copy is illegal.  Is that not the case?

So the questions I'd like you to answer are:
1: How is it legal for Google to make a full copy of a coprighted work when it is illegal for me to do the same thing. (just dealing with books here, not webpages)

2:How do you look at webpages posted on the net without getting permission from the host server to make  the copy you need to do so?

You can claim membership to whatever organizations you want.  Be they ever so high and mighty, it doesn't answer these 2 questions.

[The Jade Knight]

Pray tell me, to what use, besides snippets, Google is planning on putting the copied material in question?

Searchable text.  The fact that you can search the entire book for a phrase and find out where it's to be found.

Just because Lawrence Lessig said it is doesn't make it so.

Indeed, but Lawrence Lessig is a both a Practicing IP attorney, as well as a Professor of Law (at Stanford).  I'll take his word (and his citations of precedent) over yours as to what is and isn't copyright law.

Correct me if I'm wrong but under copyright law, copying works you don't have permission to copy is illegal.  Is that not the case?

Not entirely.  Copying works you don't have permission to copy is illegal unless your copy is Fair Use.

That's a critical part of it that you're forgetting.  You actually CAN make "Fair Use" copies of works, depending on the circumstances, etc.

1: How is it legal for Google to make a full copy of a coprighted work when it is illegal for me to do the same thing. (just dealing with books here, not webpages)

It isn't, if it's not fair use.  If it is Fair Use, it's legal, for both you and Google.

2:How do you look at webpages posted on the net without getting permission from the host server to make  the copy you need to do so?

It's a limited permission.  It does NOT give me the right to copy the webpage as I see fit, but it does give me a "Fair Use" right to copy under limited circumstances.  You're starting to enter into DMCA/Copyright territory (à la when something is no longer a matter of copyright but is a matter of technology or security) , here, though, and that's a discussion that's so convoluted in how it's currently being treated in court that I don't want to begin to address it here.

Just like the fact that by publishing a book, the publisher grants a library the right to make microfiche backups of it (regardless of whether the publisher specifies this or not), or to lend it out to as many patrons as the library wishes.  These are all considered fair use.

[Skar]

It isn't, if it's not fair use.  If it is Fair Use, it's legal, for both you and Google.

Ok, so you're claiming that Google making a complete copy of a work they don't own is fair use.  Fair enough. I ask you again, if it's legal for Google to make a complete copy of work they don't own why isn't it legal for me to do the same?  Or do you consider it fair use when I do it as well?

It's a limited permission.

So you agree that permission is granted when Google downloads a webpage. Hallelujah.  And you've already stated, many times, that quoting or snippeting a copyrighted work is covered under fair use.  So Google gets permission to make a local copy of a webpage and their search and snippet quote is covered under fair use.  We are in agreement.

The difference, of course, between Google making a copy of a webpage and making a copy of a book is that Google gets permission for the webpage but does not for the book.

Copyright law is already very clear on this.  If you want to copy someone else's work you must get permission, unless your activity is an exception covered under "Fair Use."  Google gets permission for webpages, by your own admission, and does not want to get it for books.

Just like the fact that by publishing a book, the publisher grants a library the right to make microfiche backups of it (regardless of whether the publisher specifies this or not), or to lend it out to as many patrons as the library wishes.  These are all considered fair use.

The difference here is that the library bought or otherwise legally recieved a copy of the book they're copying.  Google is not.

We already agree that searching and quoting works you don't own is covered under Fair Use, so this comes down to your and Google's claim that a private for-profit company making a complete copy of a book without permission is Fair Use.   I repeat my questions from above.

[The Jade Knight]

Ok, so you're claiming that Google making a complete copy of a work they don't own is fair use.  Fair enough. I ask you again, if it's legal for Google to make a complete copy of work they don't own why isn't it legal for me to do the same?  Or do you consider it fair use when I do it as well?

Actually, not quite.  I say that it may be Fair Use.  I'm not sure how it'll come out in court, though I suspect that the use will hold as Fair.

But it's not that "copying" a work is automatically Fair Use.  It's that copying a work for certain uses is Fair.  If copying a work is Fair Use for Google, then it will be Fair Use for you if you're using it the same way.

The difference, of course, between Google making a copy of a webpage and making a copy of a book is that Google gets permission for the webpage but does not for the book.

Not exactly.  The permission granted is to copy it once technologically ONLY to view the website, not to archive it.  The rest of what Google does would be a copyright violation if it were not Fair Use.  However, it is Fair Use.  So you see, the author hasn't granted Google permission to do what it's doing (though he has granted google permission to look at his page, much as an author inherently grants the public permission to look at his book by publishing it).  Google can do what it's doing anyways because it falls under Fair Use.  This may well apply to making copies of books.

The difference here is that the library bought or otherwise legally recieved a copy of the book they're copying.  Google is not.

We already agree that searching and quoting works you don't own is covered under Fair Use, so this comes down to your and Google's claim that a private for-profit company making a complete copy of a book without permission is Fair Use.   I repeat my questions from above.

Once again, I'm not saying that I know for sure that it is Fair Use, but that I believe it may well be.  No one would have thought, 10 years ago, that making a wholesale copy of someone else's webpage and reposting it on the web could be fair use, but trial has shown us that, in certain circumstances (and certain circumstances only) it is indeed Fair Use.

The main doubt I have of Google's Use being fair is that they are not purchasing the books they are scanning.  That's the one thing I can see that could hurt their case for Fair Use.  If they owned a copy of the book, I think they'd almost certainly have Fair Use, but lacking that, the thing that might pull them through is that they're working with public libraries, and when the ALA cries fair game when it comes to IP, courts aren't quick to judge otherwise, from what I've seen.

[Skar]

The main doubt I have of Google's Use being fair is that they are not purchasing the books they are scanning.  That's the one thing I can see that could hurt their case for Fair Use.  If they owned a copy of the book, I think they'd almost certainly have Fair Use, but lacking that, the thing that might pull them through is that they're working with public libraries, and when the ALA cries fair game when it comes to IP, courts aren't quick to judge otherwise, from what I've seen.

Dude.  Have you read the rest of this thread or even this page?  That's my entire blanking point.  If they bought a copy of the books they want to scan there would be no problem.  I've said that a dozen times, the most recent being at the top of this very page.  Even if they scanned the books "for" libraries, as long as the library maintained ownership and control of the digital copy Google uses to privide their search
(and by maintain ownership and control I mean the ability to do things like:
demand a share of the profits Google makes from a search of their books
or
take their digital copy from Google and give it to another search engine
or
decide they don't like what Google is doing and take their copies back and make their own search archive
or etc...)
there would be no problem.  And it would be entirely covered by existing copyright law.
________________________________________

As for the other half of your argument, that what Google is doing on the net is covered under fair use, there's a problem with your reasoning.

Not exactly.  The permission granted is to copy it once technologically ONLY to view the website, not to archive it....

You seem to be under the impression that Google archiving a copy of a webpage to search through is different from what your computer does when you view it.  It's not.  They are exacly the same.  

You can even search your local copy.  And then you could quote your local copy and it would be covered under traditional fair use.  Google does exactly what you do, just on a much grander scale.  That's the only difference.  Scale.  And doing legal things on a large scale does not make them illegal or even put them in a different class under the law.

Now, Googles archive functionality, where they repost webpages that are not theirs rather than snippeting and linking, is a different kettle of fish.  Fortunately, that could be declared illegal and Google could be forced to stop without impacting their search engine or the function of the net as a whole at all.