Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Skar on September 21, 2005, 01:08:47 PM
-
http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citing.htm
Interesting news blurb.
It seems pretty plain to me that Google ought not to be copying works still under copyright without the author's permission. But I wonder if there are other takes on the matter?
-
google has a history of being a little flippant about how copyrights are handled, including a number of items in a few privacy agreements that are completely unfeasable if they ever came up in court.
HOpefully this will get them to at least pay a little more attention to that.
-
At least from how Google describes the project, it doesn't necessarily seem to bad to me.
What is the Library Project?
Google Print makes offline information searchable. As part of this project, we're now working to index the book collections of several major research libraries and make this content searchable through Google Print alongside books provided by publishers through our Publisher Program.
What is the goal of Google Print for Libraries?
This project's aim is simple: make it easier to find relevant books. We hope to guide more users to books – specifically books they might not be able to find any other way – all while carefully respecting authors' and publishers' copyrights. Our ultimate goal is to work with publishers and libraries to create a comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalog of all books in all languages that helps users discover new books and publishers find new readers.
What will library books in Google look like?
If you are in the United States and you search for Books and Culture by Hamilton Wright Mabie, for instance, you'll be able to page through as much of it as you like, because its 1896 copyright means it's now in the public domain in the United States. These public domain books look very similar to publisher-submitted books except you will be able to click through all the pages of the book.
A book such as the 1924 True Stories of Pioneer Life by Mary C. Moulton, on the other hand, may still be in copyright in the United States, and we treat it as such. So, when you preview it on Google Print, you'll only see snippets of text directly around your search term. This snippet view is designed to help users find the book in their search results and make a decision about whether to go find a physical copy of the book with just bibliographic information and a few short sentences around their search query.
See what Google Print pages look like on our Google Print Screenshots page.
I played around with the search engine a bit, and I actually like the idea the more I think about it. As long as the whole thing isn't up there for everyone to read, it can't help but give books more exposure and prove to be a valuable research tool. And hey, if Google drops the ball and the e version of the book leaks out, you can make a bundle by suing the pants of 'em.
-
I didn't say it wasn't a worthy goal, though I think the world would benefit much more by them supporting Project Guttenberg instead of doing something proprietary. But the fact is STILL that they are making a copy of a book without the publisher or author's permission. You can sell the book, but making a copy, especially a copy that changes owners, is a violation of copyright.
-
I didn't look at it in that light. Point taken.
-
I really like the idea of a snippet model searchability on all those books. But the holder of copyright should get paid every time a copy of the copyrighted work is made, that includes Google. I remember making photocopies of books in libraries during school and not fiddling about with copyright. I could have copied the entire thing and no one would have blinked an eye. Is there some sort of special library copying policy/exception to copyright that would apply to Google, since they're, arguably, only making a single new copy of any given book?
I think Google would have been better served by offering authors the chance to be included in their databse for "Free for a limited time!"
It's only going to have a positive effect on sales of books that have passed from the public eye.
-
Ya Google hasn't been taking the best approach with this projects basally saying anything is free game unless the author or copyright holder contacts them before November 1st.
While I think they're process of keeping the full book out of people's hands will probably work their methods are why people are calling Google the "New Microsoft".
-
Google? Apple is the new Microsoft.
-
No according the people in Silicon Vally, google's earned the the gracious title of the "Borg" out there.
Apple is just Apple, they're acting the way they allwayse have when Job's is in charge.
-
Google is pushing it a lot with that november 1st thing. It sounds like Google is thinking, 'well, who would dare to touch us?' and thus just ignore laws.
-
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how apple is the new Microsoft when google has consistantly been more invasive of privacy, is more omni-present, and uses more unethical business practices.
-
I've never bothered getting Gmail because of the way they read it and send tailored adverts to you. That just crosses the line for me.
-
Wired is running an article on this:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,68939,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
I find the reasoning in this article specious in the extreme. Google would not be running the print project if they weren't planning on making money with it. They could not make that money without the content they are harvesting. So the owners of that content deserve, as in every other case where someone wants to use their work, compensation. How simple can it be. Google has a great idea but it's not so great that I think we should make exceptions to the laws concerning property ownership to make it possible.
The more I read about this the more Google is pissing me off. What are they thinking? This could have been handled so much better.
Of course, all they really need to do is hire some lawyers to make the case that the tax revenue on the author's property will be greater if they steal it than if they don't, then the courts can use the new definition of "public domain" (as defined by that case in...Vermont?) to grant them a blank check when it comes to thieving copyrighted works.
-
I've never bothered getting Gmail because of the way they read it and send tailored adverts to you. That just crosses the line for me.
The ads are not terribly intrusive. They've never sent me an email ad and the text ads on the side are just part of the landscape. I think it's terribly naive to think that the other webmail services don't read your mail. Anything wide out in the open like that... I just assume it's public domain and keep my communications circumspect. There are great and easy to use encryption programs out there if you want to speak privately.
To each his own though.
-
actually, I disagree with that article writer's reasoning. It's not just about profit. It's about what you want to do with YOUR property. It's not just money. Say a luddite wrote a book. He's published and he's in one of those libraries.
In order to keep his property from advantaging a technology he believes isn't helpful, he has to learn that this is even happening, then he has to opt out. Sorry, it works the OTHER way. You can't use non-public domain stuff UNTIL you get permission.
Now, I'm not a luddite, and I find the luddite position a bit ... amusing. But still. Perhaps you just don't like google. Perhaps you just want more control over your position. Either way, you have the right to restrict what happens with your intellectual property, regardless of the money involved.
-
What's a luddite?
-
Luddite--n.
1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite
-
It's a term still in usage here in the UK. :)
-
It's still in usage here, too. I just used it.
-
I've heard it before, but I can never remember what it means. Blind spot.
-
I want to be a luddite. (Non practicing, of course. Can you be a "jack luddite"?)
-
Yes but saint, your an English major. You don't count. :P
-
Yes but saint, your an English major. You don't count. :P
Well, so am I, but I learned the word from a Doctor Who episode, where I picked up a lot of vocabulary. So I guess that just throws it back to the Brits.
-
Yes but saint, your an English major. You don't count. :P
<-- not an English major.
<-- took a total 5 courses from the English department (Shakespeare, SF, Creative Writing, Myth, and Film as Literature)
-
But the fact is STILL that they are making a copy of a book without the publisher or author's permission. You can sell the book, but making a copy, especially a copy that changes owners, is a violation of copyright.
Perhaps it's time to change the 200 year old copyright laws, in light of new technology.
I'm all for Google doing this, and I'm also all for moving stuff into the public domain much, much sooner than it is already. It seems like we could come up with some method that would both compensate a creator of a work, and yet still allow that work to get into as many hands as need/want it.
It's going to happen sooner or later. We are already seeing free collaborative efforts providing just as good a service as the 'paid for' services. Linux, Wikipedia, Flickr, Creative Commons, Gimp, Open Office, Audacity, Firefox, Opera, the list goes on and on and on.
Look at some of the things going on over at MIT (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html). The faculty asked the school to please allow them to put their course material on the web, to share it with the world.
I'm all for it.
-
Copyrights use to only be for 50 years, until the copyright on "Mickey Mouse" was about to expire and then Disney lobbyed to have copyrights expanded to 70 years, which congress did. The point of this is that copyrights are an artificial creation of the law. No one has an inherent right to profit from their own work.
Internationally, copyrights are very difficult enforce (see “The International Threat to Intellectual Property Rights through Emerging Markets”
Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 213-243 (Winter 2004)) and even in the United States, a copyright is not enforced unless action is taken by the author to enforce the copyright. I'm not an IP lawyer but, Google may have several legal argument to avoid liability. Ones that I can think of are latches, waiver, and alteration of use/media. Besides, in a class action, there must be a "class certification" and that can easily be botched. Another option is that Google might get legislative reform like Disney did.
-
I'm all for easy access to public domain, but you have to think about the people who write and publish for a living: this is what we *do*. We won't do it if we can't make a living at it. I'm talking about publishing, NOT movies and music--both systems which could use a bit of reform to compensate the artists more fairly, but the general principle behind it I still support--but I just don't want to get into that side of it. I'm talking about publishing, a business which doesn't have a high profit margin. Your average author and editor are not making millions off one or two books--let alone, sometimes, even a full-time living.
They (we) have the right to fight for our intellectual property rights and to have them protected. Yeah, the law might need to change, but I would say to be more clear that this is unacceptable, rather than letting Google just do what it wants and hope authors don't notice that Google is copying their work.
-
If they did, it would be a step in the right direction, IMHO.
A good article for anybody who is interested in this subject can be found here. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html)
-
I hope to avoid a "me too" statement, but yeah, Stacer's got it
By making ALL information "free" than you will reduce the amount and quality of the creative works made in our society. I have no problem with "mickey mouse" effect changes to IP law. I'm not sure why people keep freaking out about it, actually.
Things like Wikipedia are different, ONLY because the people who own the copyrights have VOLUNTARILY put their work int he public domain early. That's fine. If that's what you want to do, I commend you. But reducing copyright lengths? Sorry. The average person LIVES longer. A guy publishes a book at age 23, let's say. He'll only be 73 when 50 years are up. You're saying that you want him to lose the right to make money off something he created while he's still alive? Heck, it's not unusual for someone to live to 93 now. Lifespan will probably continue to lengthen.
As for it not being an inherant right, I disagree. Just because there were no laws protecting it until comparatively recently doesn't mean it isn't inherent. SLavery was legal for a long time. Does this mean that black people doen't have an inherent right to not be held as slaves?
I'll accept that it's not a "NATURAL" right, but it is certainly inherent. Especially when you look at it from a capitalism perspective. You have the right, in democracy, to make a living off your labor and what you create. Copyright law is designed to protect that right. Removing that simply removes the creator's ability to earn a living off his own work.
-
No one has an inherent right to profit from their own work.
You're kidding right?
When you get to brass tacks, no one has an inherent right to anything. "Rights" are a construct of law. Even the "rights" listed in the Declaration of Independence and the "Bill" of rights mean nothing when not backed up by law and the enforcement thereof. So in that sense I suppose you have a point.
But by that reasoning, neither do you have an inherent "right" not to be murdered by me. Nor an inherent "right" to expect your neighbors to refrain from raiding your fridge or driving off in your car. All such "rights" are actually privileges you pay for with your taxes and which are protected by the organs of civilization. I'm all for most of the privileges afforded me by the society I live in. The other choices are anarchy and totalitarianism. No thank you.
While I'm all for Google's concept, it would be neat to be able to search everything that has ever been written and I'd be happy to wade through advertising aimed at me to get to do so, I'm not willing to have Google suddenly, without my consent, become defacto owner of all my intellectual property.
-
I didn't mean to irritate anyone but the very concept of intellectual property right is not universally accepted thoughout the world. Take China for example, there are few IP laws and most of what they do have is not enforced. In much of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa the idea that someone should profit by only having an idea or by publishing something is completely foriegn.
As for the comment about murder, murder is both a statutory and common law right. Copyrights and other intellectual property rights are only statutory.
As for Google, I don't know if what they are doing is legal or not, I just presuming that it is or isn't. There are also strong policy argument for and against. There certainly are a lot of published works that really don't deserve copyright protection anymore.
-
I didn't mean to irritate anyone but the very concept of intellectual property right is not universally accepted thoughout the world. Take China for example, there are few IP laws and most of what they do have is not enforced. In much of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa the idea that someone should profit by only having an idea or by publishing something is completely foriegn.
These would essentially be the same countries that don't think it's wrong for the government to torture civil prisoners or to send you to jail for worshipping God or for having divergent political beliefs? Yeah, we can look at these guys as excellent examples of inherent rights.
-
Your logic is flawed. Who cares what the chinese do? They eat dogs. :P
Seriously, for the reasons SE gives it's a bad idea to use those regions you list as a inspiration. China, the middle east and africa have totally different cultures - the modern western world was shaped by the Enlightenment era. That era gave rise to a lot of ideas, including the seperation of church and state and the promotion of the individual and his desires. China and the middle east never had that era. They had different eras instead, which raised different ideas and concepts.
And you still have not touched upon the core problem - that capitalism depends upon people feeling that they can advance and rise through hard work. A crucial part of that is protecting their ability to make a novel or whatever and not have it be stolen from them. It's exactly the same as protecting them from having their car stolen.
-
Yes, but there is value in scarcity, but there is also value in a thing that is widely used. People spend too much time trying to squeeze out every last dime. Look at Windows and Linux. Windows has made Bill Gates and a few of his cronies rich. Fabulously rich. Richer than you, your children, their children, and their children will every be combined.
What has linux done? Has it made anybody that rich? No, but it's made a whole slew of folks a comfortable living, all the while giving the world a great product.
There are many folks who write, create, produce, and give their stuff away. And guess what? They don't starve. Look at podcasting. I don't listen to the radio anymore because the stuff that amateurs produce is just as good and interesting as the stuff that is produced 'professionally', and is 1/3 commercials.
I'm not about ripping copyright laws away from people, but the current laws are hindering progression, not helping it. If you want to quote from an obscure text written in 1929, do you know how hard that can be? And since you can't find the author, or her estate rep., you either can't get that piece of knowledge out, or you turn into a criminal for putting it out.
We should be getting good information out to folks who can use it. We have the means to do it for almost nothing.
Much of the current copyright laws protect a very few people, and keep a whole wealth of information hidden from the public view. It's a waste.
Sorry, I'm on a date with my wife right now. I could go on and on about this subject, but I probably need to stop typing.
-
but the current laws are hindering progression
No they're not. The current copyright laws do not inhibit anyone's ability to give their work away for free. They protect those who choose to charge for use of their work. Under our current laws anyone could have accomplished what Gates accomplished and made the same amount of money. Under laws that do not protect copyright, no-one can make that much money because people will just steal their good idea. You're not expanding the ability to make money to more people by nixing copyright laws, you're nixing the ability for anyone to make a ton of money.
Honestly, it doesn't seem like anyone here wants to get rid of copyright laws altogether but what Google is doing by throwing their weight around is hurting the freeware cause by being rude and scary in their methods. It will make people resist the idea.
Yes it is hard to find the author or estate of a 1929 work but, if the references on this board are correct, that work is 7 years past its copyright and in the public domain. So...
I'd rather miss out on the obscure works for which no one can find a proper agent and that are still under copyright than let Google steal stuff, even if it's "just this once."
-
*sigh*
Let's try reconstructing my missive. Stupid forum erased it instead of just having me shorten it.
Yes, but there is value in scarcity, but there is also value in a thing that is widely used. People spend too much time trying to squeeze out every last dime. Look at Windows and Linux. Windows has made Bill Gates and a few of his cronies rich. Fabulously rich. Richer than you, your children, their children, and their children will every be combined.
And this is... bad? When did becoming wealthy become evil?
What has linux done? Has it made anybody that rich? No, but it's made a whole slew of folks a comfortable living, all the while giving the world a great product.
And yet, they've managed to do it with the current copyright laws in place. how are they hurt by these laws?
Also, Linux has made it impossible to get tech support without dealign with a smug, self-satisfied jerk who thinks he knows better than anyone else. Because it isn't profitable to offer linux related service, even though it's a difficult system to learn.
There are many folks who write, create, produce, and give their stuff away. And guess what? They don't starve. Look at podcasting. I don't listen to the radio anymore because the stuff that amateurs produce is just as good and interesting as the stuff that is produced 'professionally', and is 1/3 commercials.
Ugh. there is much more crap with free stuff than professional stuff. good web comics are much, much better than stuff you see in the paper, but even average newspaper comics are much much better than average web comics. because there's no reason to learn any techniques or to improve your product. you can get a lot of satisfaction from doing it for yourself, but on the whole, the product tends to be worsened, because of lack of motivation.
I'm not about ripping copyright laws away from people, but the current laws are hindering progression, not helping it.
Got some numbers to back that up? It's certainly not self evident. In fact, is seems to be extremely counter-intuitive and jars with the arguments presented in this thread.
If you want to quote from an obscure text written in 1929, do you know how hard that can be? And since you can't find the author, or her estate rep., you either can't get that piece of knowledge out, or you turn into a criminal for putting it out.
Wrong.
Quoting or siting a source, even one written yesterday is legal under the current system. it's making an entire (or substantial) copy of the source without permission, especially with the purpose of profit from that copy (which is exactly what Google is doing) that's illegal.
In most cases, even the obscure texts are available at your closest university/college library, either directly or through inter-library loan. So you have to spend a couple bucks for gas and a little of your time. Seems selfish to say that someone else's living is damaged in order to save you a little bit of trouble.
-
We should be getting good information out to folks who can use it. We have the means to do it for almost nothing.
Yup. we should also feed the poor, house the homeless, and educate the ignorant. But that all costs money. Are you sayign the government should mandate the legalization of theft in order to accomplish those goals? Remember, we're not talking about a governmental organization, or even a non-profit organization. we're talking about a for-profit company STEALING intellectual property in order to make a profit. Along the way the minor good of exposing a little bit more of information. Seems hardly to offset the damage done to the rights of an individual and his living. You're advocating hindering SOMEONE ELSE to gain YOU a benefit. Is this fair?
Much of the current copyright laws protect a very few people, and keep a whole wealth of information hidden from the public view. It's a waste.
Wrong.
The laws that protect Bill Gates are the same laws that make the Open Source license possible. remove or weaken those laws and suddenly I can fork PHP, modify linux, or whatever and sell it as my own. I don't need to release the source code. Without that, it becomes much, much harder to devlop the original. There goes all your inovation. EVERYONE is protected by copyright. The only people who will really benefit from it's serious weakening are those two lazy to do work for themselves or too cheap to pay for it.
Take my company as an example. We employ about 1 dozen people, total. Yet we manage to make one of the best and most highly respected truck routing systems in the world (a not inconsequential issue, if you know much about logistics). we are direct competitors of major international businesses like FedEx and UPS. What happens if we're forced to go open source (or just let people see our code? Suddenly, we, who have the superior product, can no longer protect it. UPS starts using the best parts of our code, and since they have more name recognition and previously had mroe marketing power, they make tons of money and we likely go out of business. Yay for Information Wants to Be Free Utopia! That sounds much better. it protects everyone. Especially the people who previously had the resources in place, not due to their ability to innovate a useful product! Only the few of use who are actually capable of making a superior product are hurt. Everything is fair and equal.
Yeah. That's a great idea. Let's just do away with all copyright.
-
e, you and I have completely different ideas about morality. We are on opposite ends of the spectrum and it's pointless to even engage in a discussion.
Though I do want to address one point that I wasn't clear enough on. You said, Quoting or siting a source, even one written yesterday is legal under the current system. it's making an entire (or substantial) copy of the source without permission, especially with the purpose of profit from that copy (which is exactly what Google is doing) that's illegal.
I spent 6 hours looking for a picture of Alan Turing yesterday that was in the public domain. Is there a market for Alan Turing photos? Is there an industry making money off of them somewhere? No, but it took me 6 hours to finally find one in the public domain that I could use in my online course. I found one in about 3 seconds with google. If you only read this far in my post, there is proof positive that copyright laws are hindering progress. They are silly laws.
Skar, you say that current copyright laws are not hindering progression. I beg to differ. I can give you a real life example.
I work at a university that is moving forward with a project to put their online content up on the Internet so that anyone can access the material.
Since I come from an agricultural university much of this material will be of great use to people all over the world. One of the university's 'specialties' is irrigation. Utah pioneered irrigation and their expertise is well know around the world. If you happen to be very wealthy, you can come to school, pay a lot of money (a lifetime's worth of wages by some standards), and learn what you need to know about irrigation. But with our online movement, we are trying to make theses classes, this information, available to people who literally are dying to get it.
With the internet we can get this information all over the world for almost no cost. To me, it is a crime to bottle up this information when people need it desperately. When lives can be made better just by giving somebody information, it is our moral responsibility to do so.
We have one of the world's experts in irrigation at my school. He is working with us to get his classes up online. He has seen first hand how folks in other countries desperately need what he knows. He can see how easy it would be for others to get it. He has written THE text in the irrigation field, and has it in electronic form. He wanted to make this available but unfortunately his publisher won't let him. He says he makes only a few hundred dollars on this book. The publisher certainly doesn't make much more. And yet for probably less than $10,000, we are withholding this valuable, life-changing information from hundreds of thousands of people.
I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but in my mind that is so wrong on so many different levels. It is a clear sign that current copyright laws are hindering progress, in a drastic way.
One more 'case-in-point'. One of my favorite authors is Frederick Brown. He was a 'pulp writer' back in the 40s or something. You can't find his books anywhere. Publishers don't want to invest in printing his book, because there is no 'market'. Brown's estate isn't making any money because his books aren't in print. I doubt there even is an 'estate. There are probably millions of books just like this. Good books, but nobody knows enough about them to generate a demand, and nobody can demand them because they aren't there. All of this work, this culture, locked away from the public. Since there is no 'demand', (in other words, since nobody can make money off of them) you are just out of luck.
What if these and other books were on google. What if you could read the whole text online? What if there was a system built like Amazon.com where I could find books that I like, and then find similar books. All of these books that are 'out-of-print' could still be read. What we would see is not a massive movement to read online, rather people would discover these book, and then be just fine paying 50 cents a book to download to a pda, or print off a copy on lulu. Making this information more freely available would generate more interest, and more sales.
But this isn't happening because people, with all due respect, who are afraid of change, and are benefiting from the current copyright laws, are standing in the way.
What other civilization has had the ability to share so much information, culture, art, and science so easily and so cheaply, and yet sits on it because they are hoping that somebody somewhere might be able make a buck off of it.
It is just like the candle makers who freaked out when the light bulb was invented. Sure, a lot of people lost their jobs making candles, and it was severe inconvenience. But many more people benefited, and many more jobs were created. We progressed.
I'm not advocating doing away with the copyright laws, but they clearly need to be drastically altered. And in my humble opinion, those that think information should be locked up for literally a hundred years or better so that a handful of people can make a few bucks, just don't get it.
Sorry for the treatise. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I'm certainly don't want to get in some silly argument. Those are my opinions.
-
wait. It's in the public domain, and it took you a long time to find it. How is that an argument AGAINST copyright law?'
what if what if what if. lot's of what ifs there. Very little solid case. There is certainly an estate somewhere. It can be done. It just takes work. so, do the work. That's what needs to be done.
Or, y'know, he could write another book about his ideas. All your solutions have to do with OTHER people making sacrifices so other people have to work less. That, again, sounds pretty selfish. You want the company to give up $10,000. Why don't you find someone WILLING to give that $10g and pay the publisher off, or pay the writer to write his ideas into another form.
The only real evidence I see here is your one specific case at your school. why not start a fund to buy out the rights from the publisher? or go over the head of the person that's had some correspondence. I'll wager that if you made a case for it with the head of the company, got it in the papers, they'd be more willing to work with you, or at least lower the price.
You probably think this is a slippery slope, but by saying it's a crime to withold something of your own that could help others is setting the precedent for nationalization of property rights. Do you *really* want to go there? Someone invests their OWN time and energy, intellect and creativity into solving a problem, they have the right to profit thereby. That's what it comes down to. Sure, I think it's immoral to not be willing to do that good, but I think it's more immoral to state that someone can't hold onto the rights for information or other property for the good of all.
I bring up my other example. The poor should be fed. That is a more direct and more morally distressing issue than helping people grow better crops. However, I am not willing to state that produce growers must give away their food. Or that people with some disposable income should be forced to pay for that food for other people to eat. This nation was founded on the idea that people have the right to be jerks about these sorts of things. Even if others find their policies disagreeable or heinous, the Constitution protects their right to believe -- and act -- differently.
Incidentally, this is little to nothing like the candle makers. Forcing those candle makers to give away the product of their labor so other people could read mroe at night. That would be more like it. Or forcing them to give all their goods over to light bulb manufacturers so that we could move to the new technology faster. But no one did that. Instead of forcing Edison to give away his patent so that light bulbs could be made by more people and yet he couldn't patent, we let him profit from his ingenuity and hard work. And we're better today for it. For this reason, I find your characterization of those who embrace the benefits of copyright protection both unfair and disrespectful. it's very subjective and tainted by biased opinion. ... with all do respect.
I've given three lengthy posts of what I believe to be very solid, rational arguments, based on law, philosophy, and hard example. Yet you refuse to address any of them. No wonder you won't convince us.
-
I didn't read your posts. I skimmed them, and came to a conclusion about you (also based on posts in other threads). I might be wrong about you, and please tell me if I am. It seems to me that you are convinced you are right. You have no interest in learning anything new, or seeing the other side. You want nothing more that to get into a pissing match.
I will admit, I'm biased. I think the work I'm doing is a good thing. It's helping a lot of people. And copyright is not just a minor inconvenience, it's more often than not it's a deal breaker. I gave you one example of a class, there are hundreds. And every University across the country involved in OpenCourseWare is running into the same problems. It is a monumental problem. In most cases nobody is making any money anywhere, it's just tied up under current copyright law.
However, I am also on the other side. I've published a book, and receive royalties because there is a copyright law. So I've seen the other side, and readily admit that there are very important parts of the copyright law. Parts that need to be kept.
So, I've seen both sides, I've studied and thought about the issue quite heavily (parts of my dissertation relate to the topic), and again, with all due respect, you appear to me to be somebody who a), hasn't thought about, or refuses to see the other side of the issue, and b) somebody who is more interested in a good argument than thinking outside the box.
Let me know if I'm wrong, and I'd love to discuss the topic.
-
actually, now I think I'm quite offended.
I post several, quite reasonable arguments, that a lot of people have agreed with, and you say I haven't thought about the issue. i find that quite rude, and it's a nasty assumption that has a basis in nothing I can tell.
Yes, I *have* thought a lot about the issue. it's true, I really enjoy a good argument. But that would be an argument where the other guy respects the other points of view and doesn't assume that because someone doesn't agree he hasn't considered other points of view.
I'm a programmer and a writer. I am also a very poor father of 3 (soon to be 4) in a single income home where I make quite a bit less than the average income in my area. We are quite lucky to be breaking even each month, let alone having enough to pay for trips or extras (like a cheap date or a day trip into the mountains). I have benefitted extensively from free software for web sites, organizing my notes and tasks, compilers, editors, and many other things. I love open source materials. I have four web sites that I have heavily modified open source portals for.
I also love free music, etc. One of the most difficult things with my research and work is that I have not had much of what I'm trying to access available to me: comics (yes, that's professional/scholarly -- I received a generous grant to study and I had to spend most of that on books so that i could do any research), papers, etc.
I *know* the consequences of copyright restrictions. I have considered the opposite. I was forced to as I tried to rationalize ways to get my hands on material without paying for them. I wasn't trying to make a profit, but any way it came down to it, it was stealing. I didn't have a right to that material.
So maybe you can pick up the respect a little, eh? I am not anti-technology. I deal with it CONSTANTLY and I want MORE of it. I am NOT anti-open source. I am NOT a close-minded twit trying to prove his own point and piss everyone off. So maybe YOU can start realizing that your assumptions (they are many) are way off base and stop trying to shove the same accusation in my face, got it?
Disagreeing and not accepting your point of view has nothing to do with not being open minded. Please get off that high horse.
-
I will admit, I'm biased. I think the work I'm doing is a good thing. It's helping a lot of people. And copyright is not just a minor inconvenience, it's more often than not it's a deal breaker. I gave you one example of a class, there are hundreds. And every University across the country involved in OpenCourseWare is running into the same problems. It is a monumental problem. In most cases nobody is making any money anywhere, it's just tied up under current copyright law.
Let's bring this back to what we were originally discussing then.
Google is NOT a university and it is NOT doing an open source activity. It is attempting to make money by taking works and making copies of them without permission. how is that justifyable? It's suddenly ok to profit off other peoples work (not by assimilating it, but by redistribution) without compensation. why would you argue such a position?
-
Fair enough.
It's suddenly ok to profit off other peoples work (not by assimilating it, but by redistribution) without compensation.
It is my understanding that google is not redistributing the work, rather they are letting you search for words or phrases in a work. Google will then display only a piece of that work. If you want to read more, then you buy the book, something that will be easier in some cases and much harder, or near impossible in others.
So technically if you did not allow Google to display part of a copyrighted piece, it would shut them down. If you a search for matthew buckley chicken armpits, the second search displays part of my blog, which, under current copyright laws, is under copyright. They are searching my entire blog.
There is no difference in copyright law between what I have written, and what an author of a published book has written. So let me ask you in turn, should google be able to search my blog, and display part of it in their search results? Isn't that a violation of my copyright?
-
I've stayed out of this argument because I really don't see much of a need to get into it, besides most people here know how I feel, but I have to step in to say that I'm finding Firemeboy to be rather arrogant and thick headed in this discussion.
This is one of those things where there are very strong beliefs in it and which ones are rite or wrong isn't going to be something where a simple thread like this will resolve. However it doesn't mean that one side should brush off another's views because they don't agree with you. One thing I know is those who refuse to even consider or listen too an opposite point of view are the people that are the most insecure in their own beliefs.
I know this isn't a typical Spriggan post, but I'm eating Pizza and drinking Mountain Dew which always elevates me to a higher plane of existance...i.e. that of a normal person.
-
Another article (http://www.lessig.org/blog/) on the topic. He says something very similar to what I was trying to say.
Google wants to do nothing more to 20,000,000 books than it does to the Internet: it wants to index them, and it offers anyone in the index the right to opt out. If it is illegal to do that with 20,000,000 books, then why is it legal to do it with the Internet? The "authors" claims, if true, mean Google itself is illegal. Common sense...revolts at the idea.
It's a great alternative view.
-
Fair enough.
It is my understanding that google is not redistributing the work, rather they are letting you search for words or phrases in a work. Google will then display only a piece of that work. If you want to read more, then you buy the book, something that will be easier in some cases and much harder, or near impossible in others.
So technically if you did not allow Google to display part of a copyrighted piece, it would shut them down. If you a search for matthew buckley chicken armpits, the second search displays part of my blog, which, under current copyright laws, is under copyright. They are searching my entire blog.
There is no difference in copyright law between what I have written, and what an author of a published book has written. So let me ask you in turn, should google be able to search my blog, and display part of it in their search results? Isn't that a violation of my copyright?
It's not showing phrases but pages at a time, at least that's how the news articles describe it. Also Google is under fire from subscription sites for letting non-subscribers get near full access (usually via caching) to their pages. That's what similar to placing a book on the net, not some silly little blog where you don't make money from (except through advertising). The problem with all your arguments is the comparisons you use have nothing to do with each other.
Frankly Google shot itself in the foot here, they should have started out with all the non-licensed books they had access too then let author's and publishers see how it works and decided if they want to opt in. But in their bullheaded way they just ran in there and started scanning everything.
Google's stocks are going for around $100 dollars a share, they don't do anything without a desire to make lots of money. And even if they did decide to do this for "the betterment of the world" their share holders will insist they make lots of money off it. This is a pure "how can we make money" thing just liike eveything else they do.
-
If I may preface my post:
"It is a fault which can be ovserved in most disputes, that, truth being mid-way between the two opinions that are held, each side departs the further from it the greater his passion for contradiction.
- René Descartes, in a letter.
First of all, I would like to make a living publishing things, if not as an author than as a professor. That said, I feel that current copyright laws are extremely excessive. I feel like current duration of copyright could be halved with no ill affects.
Let's look at the good and bad of it.
Good:
Strong copyright laws enable authors AND their families, sometimes for several generations with US copyright law (but more often publishers than authors) to control and benefit from the work for a very long period of time.
Strong copyright laws specifically also:
a) prevent others from using or benefitting from the copyrighted material in ways the copyright owner dislikes (ie, free).
Bad:
Strong copyright laws prevent others from:
a) sharing out-of-print texts easily with others
b) using works for educational purposes if the copyright owner is difficult to find
c) making derivatory works to further art or education
Strong copyright laws also enables:
a) the rich (who can afford IP lawyers) to bully the poor (who can not), legally.
b) rich copyright holders to shut down competition and stifle innovation (by threatening law suits, etc., particularly with the new "expanded" interpretation of copyright recently going through Congress)
c) government agencies to cause damage to smaller companies during "piracy" raids, regardless of whether the raid is justified legally, all with relative impunity. (à la Steve Jackson Games)
Feel free to add anything you feel I may have missed.
In addition, strong copyright (and especially patent) laws internationally hinder developing nations who need a chance to allow local innovators the freedom to create and express themselves without fear of legal action. The stronger the copyright laws, the harder it is for poor nations to pick themselves up.
I am pro-copyright, mind you. But I think it has been taken too far, and needs to be scaled back.
I have put my money where my mouth is, and donated to Creative Commons, the EFF, and Public Knowledge. Of these three, Public Knowledge is the organisation I am most supportive of (www.publicknowledge.org).
If any of you have not yet, you really should read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It's licensed under a Creative Commons license, and so is freely available (online and elsewhere). He really looks at these issues in detail. If you do not have the patience to read a book, then watch a presentation: http://lessig.org/freeculture/free.html
-
Spriggan, thanks for making my point. Copyright laws don't care if it's a "silly little blog thing", or the next Harry Potter. ANYTHING you write is copyrighted and subject to laws. If you were to copy a blog post of mine, in it's entirety, I could technically sue you. Sound silly? It is. People all over the internet use pictures, logos, sounds and text that is not their own. They are breaking the copyright. Why aren't they sued? Because they don't have Google's pockets. You claim Google is just going after money. Tell me the authors aren't doing the same thing.
But I ask you the same question, Spriggan, should Google be able to search things on the internet and display them in a search? Not just 'silly blogs', but sites that make money? It's all the same copyright code.
Oh, and Google shares are over $300.
Jade Knight, you make some good points.
One thing to remember is that we make money off other people's work all the time. Steve Jobs didn't have anything to do with inventing the computer, mp3, RAM, Silicon chips, the internet etc. etc. etc. And yet he's used this work to build upon and give millions a good solid computer. Artists, scientists, educators, lawyers, everybody modifies and uses other people's work. What copyright and patent laws do is draws a line in the sand and says this side of the line is ok, this side is not.
What Lessig and others are arguing is that with new technological advances, we should take a look at these laws that were written 50 years ago and adjust them.
-
ok, you REALLY need to define HOW you wish to modify them.
Let's look at what google is trying to do. Search engines aren't going to change, so let's talk about what CAN be prevented, and if it should.
Google is making copies of copyrighted works.
Go ahead, I know your response: "what if they're out of print?" Yeah, what if? What if the girl got pregnant due to a rape? should we legalize all abortion because of it? I don't think so. I believe the parties in this suit are in it because they CAN STILL MAKE MONEY off their work. It's either in print or they believe they can get it into print soon. That's the danger of saying "It's not in print anymore." It can come back INTO print any time the right parties decide. That's why the copyright law doesn't respect in or out of print. ANd why it shouldn't, imo. we're not talking about out of print works. We're talking about books that are in print and are still in reasonable copyright according to what anyone on this thread believes, if I understand correctly. Shall we say 20 years is a low enough number that all of us will agree copyrights should last that long? Yeah, I'm certain this describes the works that are in dispute here.
It's just not ethical. Sure you get to read it. But they don't get any profit from their work.
I understand that what google is planning is to show bits at a time for works still in copyright. but there is absolutely no mechanism to prevent somone from looking at another bit. And then putting it together. It wouldn't be too terribly difficult to write (and then distribute as open soruce) a script that would search for progressive bits, assemblign you an entire copy of the work. well, there's yet another illegal copy.
As neat as the feature would be, and as useful, I'm still thinking the rights being trampled on in this case are much more sacred than the utility that would be gotten out of it.
"we make money off other people's work all the time"
Yes, but when we do it by stealing their work, or bypassing their legally protected rights, we earn jail time. Deserved punishment, if you ask me. The issue is not making money. I make money by using my equipment, the equipment is manufactured and designed and distributed by other people. But I only make that money using it because I bought that equipment. They get the share they asked for. It's making money on copyrighted material without gaining permission that bugs me.
As for search engines, there are ways to spoof the bots and keep them from listing your site. If you want out, you can get out. However, you lose the benefit too. I don't have a problem with that.
-
Was that directed to me or someone else?
I don't particularly support Google.
-
I just wanted to point out that something similar to what Google plans to be doing has already been done extensively--for profit. It's called periodicals databases. Anytime you want to find something in a journal or a magazine, the best approach is to go to a periodicals database like EBSCO or ProQuest and search through there. What those databases do is make electroni copies of all articles in specific journals, then allow you to search those copies for a fee. Now the question is if the databases pay the journals to list their content. I have to think they do, but I'm not sure--anyone out there know? I DO know that to get access to some of those databases, you have to pay bank--1000s of dollars. For some of the journals, the results come back with full text--you can print the article off right there at home. For others, it just shows you where you can find the article in the journal.
Now granted, academic publishing is much different than fiction. Authors don't make any money on it, for one thing. And a lot of the journals don't make much, either. Their purpose is different--it's to get information out there and to let professors get tenure and make more professors. But just because a system like that exists doesn't mean that the fiction world's approach is wrong.
Google's going to make money off this. Plain and simple. Some will come from increased name recognition, some will come from advertising, etc. Of course, if you cut up the amount of money they'll make and spread it around to all the authors they'll index, then maybe everyone might make about .00000001 cent. I don't know.
I think I fall down on the side that if Google goes through with this, and makes it so that only snippets can be seen--and from what I've read they claim that it will be impossible to piece the whole book together (which I'm not sure how they'll do, but I don't get how a lot of technology works, so there it is)--then it might be a good thing. Publishers can let users on Amazon read snippets of books, and I find that very helpful. But it's up to the publisher to do that (or maybe the author--I don't know. It's up to someone not Amazon).
I don't know if this has added anything valuable to the discussion. I'm interested in it, and wanted to point out another aspect. In the end, I think it should be up to publishers and authors to let their books be indexed. The way Google's doing it right now seems to be like asking a sleeping person if they want to take a five week long vacation. "If you don't want to go, just say something in the next five minutes." Vacations are good, but not everyone's going to like the destination, and they should have a fair shot at saying no before they wind up there.
-
Good points Parker.
I'm interested in it, and wanted to point out another aspect. In the end, I think it should be up to publishers and authors to let their books be indexed.
Google has stated that anybody can opt out of this index, they only have to ask. You can also opt out of their online Google search, again, you only have to ask.
e, I answered you're question, and posed one to you, but didn't see where you answered it. Did I miss it? If copyright is copyright, then should Google be banned from searching the internet and providing snippets in their online searching?
Or are you saying the reason they can do it online is because they aren't making a copy? Because they make a copy of online content all the time, and store it in their database.
Another aspect to all of this. Libraries buy a copyrighted book, and then 'distribute it' in the sense that anybody can come in, check out the book, read it in it's entirety, and then return it. They (the reader) never gave cent one to the author or publisher, but it's allowed. We don't give it a second thought and yet when google wants to provide a searchable index we balk.
When you think about it, the library has paid for one copy, but the copy is being read multiple times. Why would authors allow this to happen? You could make the arguement (and I'm not making this arguement, only making a point), that if you pay for an electronic copy, you should be able to post that on the web for others to read (as long as you don't allow others to make a 'copy' of the document. In that case, aren't you just doing the same thing a library is doing?
Yes, but when we do it by stealing their work, or bypassing their legally protected rights, we earn jail time.
Yes, but that is the whole issue. That is the 'line in the sand'. You can 'steal' other peoples ideas up to this point, but not past it. We are talking about what is legal and illegal, not what is right or wrong. I think the entire gist of the matter is that I think what they are doing is right, but illegal, and hence we need to change the law. You think it's wrong, and illegal, therefore the law should remain as it is.
e, are you familiar with Thomas Jefferson's economy of ideas?
-
And by the way, e, I apologize publicly for any earlier comments that may have offended. The reason I wrote what I did was because I was turned off by the tone of your post. Maybe I read it in a way that was not intended, but it seemed you were trying to belittle me, rather than address the points of the argument.
-
Google has stated that anybody can opt out of this index, they only have to ask. You can also opt out of their online Google search, again, you only have to ask.
I've decided that in 20 days time i'm going to rob the houses of everyone at TWG. Anyone who doesn't want me to do so, please send me an email. And if you weren't paying attention or didn't see this post, it's not my fault. You had your chance.
-
So, you would argue that search engines are currently breaking copyright law? And should be shut down?
-
Another good article (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3550626) showing both sides of the argument.
-
The problem is the "opting out." Google doesn't have a right to say "I'm going to use your stuff unless you tell me not to." I think that it's wrong, and that's why it's illegal, not that it's something that's right but simply illegal. Libraries lending books is completely different from an individual claiming to be a "library" posting a book on the internet. Libraries are good for authors in that they allow a book to be read by someone who might not otherwise buy it. Library sales benefit authors and publishers because libraries are a market. Often library systems will buy more than one copy of a book. People who really love a book they read from the library might go buy a personal copy. Or they might tell their friends, "You should read this great book I just checked out from the library."
Libraries are still controlled access, though. You have to have a card to check out the book, proving that you are a resident of the public library's city, and therefore that you are part of the tax base that supports that library. The internet doesn't have that stipulation. I don't know how to explain it/discuss it in a way that is convincing, but I'll just say that I like the book system the way it is. Copyright laws protect all of us. Personally, I'm glad that copyright laws protect my "silly little blog" as well as the photos that I take. No one has a right to use the information I post on my blog or the photos I take without my express permission, and that's the way it should be. It's not going to affect the life of a person in the third world because I want someone to ask for permission before using things I thought of.
Universities are also different from a for-profit company making money off someone else's work, as e and many others have said. Apples to oranges. But think about this: take $10,000 away from that company, and that's a chunk in deciding whether that company is in the red or in the black. Apply that several times over, and that publisher could go under.
Copyright protects not just the author, but the entire creative team that brings a book to light. The author has agreed to those terms by contract--his book wouldn't have been published otherwise. He could have self-published and retained all rights, thereby losing the opportunity to have the help of editing, production, and design professionals. Which would have made his book that much less useful to those who learn from it.
So, should publishing professionals dedicate their lives to living without pay, because it's to the benefit of third world countries? Personally, I wouldn't eat or have a roof over my head if that were so.
-
I also wanted to point out that while by and large, things are being used on the internet that ought to be protected by copyright, if a major company--such as Google--were to suddenly start using a picture I had drawn or a story I had made--and slapped that on their website and started making lots of money off it, you can be darn sure I would at least look into the legal aspect to see if that money couldn't be going to me--the maker--rather than Google--the stealer. I think the reason the copyrights aren't normally being enforced is that the investment in legal fees wouldn't normally be worth the return. Hence, people are just happy to have things they've said on their blog be quoted by other people (though obviously they'd prefer to be quoted by name). But if someone cuts and pastes those words into their book and makes money, things would be different.
-
I feel like digressing
Libraries are still controlled access, though. You have to have a card to check out the book, proving that you are a resident of the public library's city, and therefore that you are part of the tax base that supports that library.
Actually I can have a library card for any library in the State of VA, if I apply no matter what county or city I reside in.
-
Stacer, those are some good points as well. You ask the question,
So, should publishing professionals dedicate their lives to living without pay, because it's to the benefit of third world countries? Personally, I wouldn't eat or have a roof over my head if that were so.
I don't think this would be fair at all, nor am I advocating it. You have skills that are in demand, and you can make money from those skills. There is no reason you should be asked to work for free, just because you have a skill that others could benefit from. We don't expect Doctors to work for free.
But if I could ask a question along a similar vein, assume you have edited a book, and published it, and it's made money for you, the publisher, and the author, and then it goes out of print. The author dies and it's now 15 years after his death. Can't you also argue that since the information contained in that book is no longer valuable enough to warrant another printing, but might be valuable enough to digitize and put online? If the books is just sitting there, and nobody has access to it, wouldn't it be a good thing to get that information back out where a few people might benefit from it?
The problem is the "opting out." Google doesn't have a right to say "I'm going to use your stuff unless you tell me not to." I think that it's wrong, and that's why it's illegal, not that it's something that's right but simply illegal.
So can I ask you the same question? Is what google and yahoo and archive.org doing currently online also illegal? The fact that they make copies of things on the Internet, store them on their database, and then display parts of them (or in archive.org's case, the entire document) also illegal?
I am not advocating removing copyright law, but I think that parts of it could be changed given new technology. Mickey Mouse is still being actively used by Disney to make money. They created it. Why should the have to put it in the public domain? Let them pay a small fee and extend the life that specific copyright. But let other work, VAST amounts of work, that is fifty, seventy-five, a hundred years old, go into the public domain. If there are 18 copies of a book somewhere, and the author doesn't care (or can't be found), why keep that information locked up?
-
if a major company--such as Google--were to suddenly start using a picture I had drawn or a story I had made--and slapped that on their website and started making lots of money off it, you can be darn sure I would at least look into the legal aspect to see if that money couldn't be going to me--the maker--rather than Google--the stealer.
Parker, this is exactly what Google does. This is their whole business model. You can go to google images and find all sorts of images that other people own the copyright to. They point you to the original source, but they still have copies of those images in their database and they make money off advertising because so many people use their site. They do the same thing with their basic search engine, their news site, the 15 or 20 other searches.
-
It seems to me--and again, I'm not a technical whiz kid, so I may be wrong--that Google doesn't do what you're saying. On their image search, they provide links to images on the web that other people have allowed them access to. Aren't there ways for websites to opt out of Google? Even if there aren't, I still don't think it's a fair comparison that you're making.
As I see it, what Google does is find information that is available for free on the web, and point users to that information in a quicker, more efficient manner. The sites they show you are sites that you could get to for free on your own if you had the address, etc. What they DON'T get you to is to things you would have to pay to access. Archives of many newspapers, subscription services, magazines, etc. I can't find Consumer Reports articles on Google--because I would have to pay to get them.
What Google is now trying to do is provide access to places that people normally have to pay to own copies of. At least that's what people are afraid of. If you can recreate the book without paying for it, then VOOM--someone's livelihood's in danger.
That seems like a difference to me--an important one. But maybe I'm wrong.
-
EFF on the matter:
San Francisco, CA - The Authors Guild filed a class-action copyright infringement suit Tuesday against Google over its Google Print library project. Working with major university libraries, Google Print aims to make thousands of books searchable via the Web, allowing people to search for key words or phrases in books. The public may browse the full text of public domain materials in the process of such a search, but only a few sentences of text around the search term in books still covered by copyright.
EFF applauds Google's effort to create the digital equivalent of a library card catalog and believes the company has a strong case.
"Just as libraries don't need to pay publishers when they create a card catalog, neither should Google or other search engines be required to when they create an improved digital equivalent," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann.
In defending the lawsuit, Google is relying on the copyright principle of fair use, which allows the public to copy works without having to ask permission or pay licensing fees to copyright holders. EFF believes Google is likely to prevail on its defense. One key point in Google's favor is that Google Print is a transformative use of these books - the company is creating a virtual card catalog to assist people in finding relevant books, rather than creating replacements for the books themselves.
In addition, it is almost certain that Google Print will boost, rather than hurt, the market for the copyrighted books. "It's easy to see how Google Print can stimulate demand for books that otherwise would lay undiscovered in library stacks," said von Lohmann. "It's hard to see how it could hurt publishers or authors."
For additional legal analysis, EFF recommends "The Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis," a recently published white paper by noted Washington, DC, copyright attorney Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth.
["Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged."]
Another comment on this issue may be found here:
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2005/09/another_inept_p.html
[mild language warning]
-
But if I could ask a question along a similar vein, assume you have edited a book, and published it, and it's made money for you, the publisher, and the author, and then it goes out of print. The author dies and it's now 15 years after his death. Can't you also argue that since the information contained in that book is no longer valuable enough to warrant another printing, but might be valuable enough to digitize and put online? If the books is just sitting there, and nobody has access to it, wouldn't it be a good thing to get that information back out where a few people might benefit from it?
Fifteen years? No. That author's children or relatives still should have a right to bring the books back into print within the copyright time period, such as how Christopher Tolkien has control of the Tolkien estate. Fifteen years is not long enough. A book can sometimes go out of print for thirty years and then be rediscovered by a new generation and make a killing in a new reprint when it's rediscovered. The family has a right to benefit from this as the heirs to the estate. Now, if you said seventy years later, then I'd agree. Or even fifty if there were nobody left of the author's family, but that's usually not the case.
I am not advocating removing copyright law, but I think that parts of it could be changed given new technology. Mickey Mouse is still being actively used by Disney to make money. They created it. Why should the have to put it in the public domain? Let them pay a small fee and extend the life that specific copyright. But let other work, VAST amounts of work, that is fifty, seventy-five, a hundred years old, go into the public domain. If there are 18 copies of a book somewhere, and the author doesn't care (or can't be found), why keep that information locked up?
It's usually not locked up. It's accessible by scholars who know how to find it. And yes, there should be exceptions for long-term copyright issues such as Mickey Mouse where a company is still actively making money off the trademark name as well as the copyrighted material from 80 years ago. You're right, all copyrights don't need to be extended every time Mickey Mouse's is.
However, I still agree with a seventy-year limit which is allowed by law. Books that are 100 years old are already in the public domain, so that's moot. Fifty years old is where it gets tricky, and that's the whole reason why there was the big battle over Mickey Mouse. Heck, The Hobbit is what, sixty years old, right? Tolkien's family still benefits from the sales of that book, as well as the sales of Lord of the Rings, which is, by comparison, a mere 40 or 45 years old (I think it was originally published in the mid-sixties, but I could be wrong). Would it change anything if it were available in the public domain? I don't think it would. But he's still got heirs willing to control it and I think that changes everything.
I don't know copyright law very well, honestly. But what I do know of it as it relates to print mostly makes sense to me. It's there as a protection. So what if you can't find the author? Perhaps that author is living a quiet life in Patagonia, perfectly happy with the state of his or her book forty-five years later. Or perhaps he or she is planning for a comeback reprinting next year. Do you have more right than that inaccessible author to that author's work?
So can I ask you the same question? Is what google and yahoo and archive.org doing currently online also illegal? The fact that they make copies of things on the Internet, store them on their database, and then display parts of them (or in archive.org's case, the entire document) also illegal?
Like I've already said, apples to oranges. Parker pretty much summed up my answer to that. There is a difference there, and it's an important one. And in the case of Google allowing access to cached pages of pay sites--yes, it's illegal.
-
Parker...
On their image search, they provide links to images on the web that other people have allowed them access to. Aren't there ways for websites to opt out of Google?
There is a way to opt out, you just have to ask. And it is an important difference, as you point out, however, regarding their linking, I read on several sites that were talking about this lawsuit and they spefically mentioned that Google replicates the images or documents and stores them in their databases. Archive.org certainly does that.
-
Stacer,
Fifteen years? No. That author's children or relatives still should have a right to bring the books back into print within the copyright time period, such as how Christopher Tolkien has control of the Tolkien estate. Fifteen years is not long enough.
I know that right now it's much longer than 15 years, and there are certainly instances where a book lies undiscovered, then makes a revival and is 'rediscovered'. But I bet this is by far a very rare exception rather than the rule. And I think it's too bad we have 5000 or more books just sitting there to every one book that makes money again for an author or his family. They just hang out until they are in the public domain. Why not get some mileage out of them before then?
Like I've already said, apples to oranges.
I guess I have to disagree with you here. I don't think the law differentiates between what you write and post online, and what you write and publish, or put in the trash can. Either one is copyrighted by you, and can not be copied without your express written permission, or 75 years (or something I'm not sure) after you're dead.
I think that's overkill.
I wonder if the whole thing could be solved by requiring authors to 'renew' their copyright. Every 10 years, if you want your books to keep out of the public domain, you have to pay $10 or something. That way we could find all the books that authors and publishers just don't care about, and those that somebody has a hope to 'bring back'.
It's accessible by scholars who know how to find it.
And I guess my opinion is that I think it's a shame that it's only the scholars who can benefit from it. Or those that happen to live within traveling distance of a library when the internet could get it to everybody.
-
I think the point we keep coming back to is that the way to opt out is lame. Have Google send a letter to every author or publishing house, informing them of the situation and what they plan to do, and then have that letter include a SASE that let's the author or house convey his/her/their wishes--and THEN maybe it's a bit on the less-lame side.
I have to say that I feel like I'm being put into a position that I'm not arguing. I've already said that I have ambivalent feelings on the subject. I don't think this is an "either Google is evil or it's God's gift to technology" debate. There is a middle ground. Sure, everything I write is technically protected by copyright--but it's my understanding that I have to do something to protect that copyright when it is infringed, or else I lose it. If Disney didn't protect Mickey as much as they do, they would lose their sole right to use him, or so I have been told. (Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong.)
I think the thing is that for the most of things online, people just don't care about protecting their copyright to that stuff. They don't do anything to protect it, etc. I certainly am not arguing that copyright should be enforced on everything--and I don't think it is. But what I AM arguing is that when something starts to matter--when it starts to make serious money or provide a living for a person or persons--then copyright is a great thing. Enforce away. And I agree with Stacer--just because something's not popular now doesn't mean that it won't be soon, which in turn doesn't mean that we should breach the copyright.
I'm all for Google's idea. As long as it is done legally and respectfully--and as long as it doesn't result in a bunch of illegal copies of copyright books floating around online. Firemeboy, can you honestly say that you wouldn't get in a huff if Google's plan went into action, your book was indexed without your knowing, and then someone managed to make a complete ecopy of the sucker, post it online, and your book took off like a skyrocket, being read by thousands and thousands of people, but no one actually paying any money to you the creator of it? I know that's an extreme situation. I know that you could argue that you would then have better name recognition and could then use that to write an even better book (which might then also be stolen). You could also argue that many people would want a print copy of your book--but the fact would remain that the work that could have made you x amount of dollars--and your publisher et. al.--didn't make its potential because it got pirated.
Now compare that to how you would feel if I quoted your last statement and put it on my (nonexistent) website and claimed it was my own thoughts. No one reads it, no one cares, and you probably wouldn't either. I for one don't care if people quote what I write here and claim it as their own. That just means they agree with me.
I see a big difference in the two situations. Maybe you don't. That's fine, too. But I think this is a case where those people who care about keeping copyrights the way they are trump the people who want to open them up to all. The ones who don't care can go ahead and not enforce their copyrights. But the ones who do care deserve to be protected by the terms that existed when they created whatever they created.
And that's all I have to say about that. --Forrest Gump--
-
Firemeboy, can you honestly say that you wouldn't get in a huff if Google's plan went into action, your book was indexed without your knowing, and then someone managed to make a complete ecopy of the sucker, post it online, and your book took off like a skyrocket, being read by thousands and thousands of people, but no one actually paying any money to you the creator of it?
No offense, but that's a moronic example. Someone could already do that with any book in a public library, and it would be just as legal (or illegal), and probably just as easy.
The real question here is how does what Google's doing differ in terms of how it harms the artist, any more than what a library already does.
the fact would remain that the work that could have made you x amount of dollars--and your publisher et. al.--didn't make its potential because it got pirated.
That's the fiction of it, not the fact. There have been more than one study done showing that online pre-release of movies and TV series regularly boosts sales. While this may be different for works in print (and I've never read anything that makes me believe it is any different), there's no "that's the fact about it" at all.
how you would feel if I quoted your last statement and put it on my (nonexistent) website and claimed it was my own thoughts.
That's plagiarism, not copyright infringement. They're two different things.
Re: copyright in general, I've already posted a list of pros and cons of STRONG copyright laws (vs. just "ordinary" or "old-fashioned" copyright laws). Currently the cons vastly outnumber the pros. Tell me if I've left anything off.
Again, I think Google's done a poor job of handling this, but they may well be within their "fair use" rights, especially considering what they already do. It's a service I'd like to see, even if they were stupid about it.
And for all you who say you don't know much about copyright law, please, educate yourself on some of the history and very basics:
http://lessig.org/freeculture/free.html
It's just a video presentation.
-
Have Google send a letter to every author or publishing house, informing them of the situation and what they plan to do, and then have that letter include a SASE that let's the author or house convey his/her/their wishes--and THEN maybe it's a bit on the less-lame side.
The analogy has been given that it's like announcing you are going to rob a house, and you can 'opt out' of the robbery if you want. But another analogy is that you have a right to privacy, but the phone company is going to put your name in the book unless you take the initiative and opt out. In my opinion (and I know others feel differently), it's less work for an author to opt out than for Google to do what you are suggesting.
Firemeboy, can you honestly say that you wouldn't get in a huff if Google's plan went into action
Absolutely not. In fact, if I still owned the rights, I'd put my book in the public domain tonight. But it doesn't matter what I think, because we do have laws. I think those laws need to be changed to make more sense, and then those laws need to be obeyed.
Now compare that to how you would feel if I quoted your last statement and put it on my (nonexistent) website and claimed it was my own thoughts. No one reads it, no one cares, and you probably wouldn't either.
Again, it doesn't matter what I think. You can't break the law. Though you do make a good point. Copyright infringement is happening all the time, but you don't see lawsuits unless the person committing the foul has deep pockets.
-
Jade,
It seems to me that if someone were to write a program to hack Google's proposed project, such a program could easily and automatically make e-copies of as many books as possible before they were caught. This seems easier to me than going to a library, checking the book out, and scanning page after page--essentially what Google is doing now.
How is it a moronic example? Libraries DON'T do this. Libraries help authors--they don't harm them. Libraries purchase a legal copy and allow members of that library to read it, one at a time, legally. They don't go around photocopying books to make multiple copies, or scanning books to make e-copies (although they are starting to do that--I read an article on it on CNN, but I unfortunately can't find the link). In any case, they don't do anything illegal. Scanning the book and passing it out for free on the web would be just that.
Again, I'm not harping on what Google's doing--I'm just saying people should be cautious with what they are doing.
Please show me the studies you cite. I'd be interested to see them and see how the research was done, conclusions made, etc. It seems counterintuitive to me, and until I can see some actual digits, I'll be skeptical of the claim that releasing pirated copies of a work makes more money for the creators of said work. Looking at your statement, I think I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. What do you mean when you say "online prerelease"?
On the plagiarism side, it seemed to me that Firemeboy was trying to argue that anything written by anyone was protected by copyright and cannot be used without their permission. My example--which was one of plagiarism--was intended to show why (if what Firemeboy was claiming copyright was supposed to do) it wasn't enforced. There have been lawsuits brought to court over plagiarism/copyright infringement. Aren't they just different aspects of the same thing?
Bottom line on this one for me is that I wish people in this thread would stop feeling the urge to put posters into black/white positions. (I'm probably already guilty of this, too--but I've been trying not to be.) I'm a staunch supporter of the gray here, and while some of my examples may be able to be picked apart, I haven't been writing a perfect example of a logical argument or anything--I just want to get my general ideas across.
-
It's always good to support the grey. I support the grey, but I suspect a different shade of grey than others. :)
This seems easier to me than going to a library, checking the book out, and scanning page after page--essentially what Google is doing now.
Surprising enough, there is a growing list of authors who are making their material available for free on the internet. The do this because nobody (well, very few) really wants to read a whole book online. You can't read a book online while taking a bath, riding in the car, waiting for the bus. Sure, some folks are tech savy enough, but most want the real thing.
Firemeboy was trying to argue that anything written by anyone was protected by copyright and cannot be used without their permission.
I am claiming this because it's law. If I were to copy your entire post, and paste it to my word document, and print it off and pass it out, even if I attribute the work to you, I am in violation of copyright. I'm breaking the law. I need your express written permission before I can do that. That is why I'm arguing that the laws need to be looked at, and changed to something more realistic.
By the way, this is also why creative commons (http://creativecommons.org/) came about, so that people who feel that the copyright laws are a little silly can basically put their work in the public domain, or some modified version, other than a full copyright.
-
I did answer your question. If you read my posts instead of skimming them (as you have specifically said you did), you would see this.
You can opt out of google. WITHOUT contacting them first. You can insert the code into your web page at the time of creation. I think it's fair to say that anyone making a web page as a better than reasonable chance to know about google. If they don't like it, they can search up how to opt out. I don't know why they would, but they can. I would assume you can do the same with archive.org, but since it doesn't bother me, I've not researched it.
Again, "opting out" of a project you have a less than reasonable chance of knowing about (and while the list of web-savvy authors is growing, I would still put a brand new project by Google on the list of things most print authors don't immediately learn about). The authors should be contacted prior to the copy of their copy being made. Anyone who chooses not to, doesn't respond, or asks for more compensation than Google is willing to give should be left out. That is there right.
There are two other cases of making copies that have been brought up (I don't regard people checking out a book making new copies -- even remotely, the law I believe is fair doesn't prohibit number of readings, just copies; an individual can re-read his copy of a book as many times as he likes, even loan it, as long as he's not making a copy and selling it). One is photocopying an entire book. This rarely happens, because it's so time consuming and generally speaking the cost of photocopying becomes higher than buying another copy. However, in cases where a book is copied, it's still illegal. The other copies mentioned are the "cache" in web browsers. If this were a common problem it would be dealt with, as it has been. you used to be able to pull a copy of the flash files of any flash you viewed and save it -- something a lot of people did with flash games. However, they put measures in place to prevent this ease of copying. It's not perfect, and not everyone uses it, but it's there. If the problem were more widespread, I would expect, and support, legal action against Mozilla and Microsoft (and probably Opera, and Apple) if they didn't agree to at least protect the cache better, if not remove it altogether.
Maybe this online thing will not turn out to be a problem, but this sort of thing cannot be demonstrated at this point, and writers have a right to have their material protected, without having to, by pure chance, find out about it and then contact the company.
I asked you to define how you want to change it. As Jefferson said, it is often more dangerous to act than to wait. I certainly cannot (ethically) remotely support an initiative that is not defined.
NOw, you've started to define it, but you've put forth several ideas and not codified them. Which are you advocating?
-
I think it's fair to say that anyone making a web page as a better than reasonable chance to know about google. If they don't like it, they can search up how to opt out.
What is the difference between authors having to research and do a physical action to opt out of what they write and post online, and what they write and publish? Sure, they didn't have to do it in the past, but I think we can all agree that technology has changed. We change with it. To hold to old laws when new technology emerges is silly.
It seems to me that you are arguing against yourself. You say:
I would assume you can do the same with archive.org, but since it doesn't bother me, I've not researched it.
You don't know what they do, it doesn't bother you, so it's no big deal. But then you say:
The authors should be contacted prior to the copy of their copy being made.
So should archive.org contact them? Yahoo? archive? MSN? Alta Vista? Hotbot? Lycos? There are hundreds of serach engines, to me that seems overkill for both the engines and the authors.
NOw, you've started to define it, but you've put forth several ideas and not codified them. Which are you advocating?
That is a fair question. I would like to see a way in which the needs of authors and publishers to make money, is balanced with what I see is a moral obligation to help people better their lives. We all know the 'give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish' ideology, and we now have the opportunity to literally flood the globe with information that could help folks out. Let the Tolkien estate make money for as long as they want, but let old edition textbooks, books long forgotten, and useful information get out there.
That is probably not as codified as you want. If you would really like a nice framework, it's going to take me a while...
Let me ask you a question e, do you think it's our moral obligation to give assistance to a fellow human being, if we can give that assistance without doing harm to ourselves? I'm not talking about being forced to pay taxes to support welfare, or that government should make helping others obligatory. I'm asking if you yourself think it's our moral oligation to help others.
That's not a trick quetsion. :)
-
The fundamental difference between what Google is doing and libraries and webpages (which they search and index) is the choice given to the copyright owner.
Libraries:
Any given author or publishing house (relevance depending on who owns the copyright) makes the conscious choice to sell to a library. They know what libraries do and consciously choose to permit it. Google is short-circuiting that choice.
The authors and publishers who chose to sell to libraries did not choose to sell to Google. Google didn't even give them a chance to sell to them. Google is just taking their work and profiting from it without compensating them. I as an author would probably choose to sell or even give a copy of my book to Google because of the beneifit it would provide me, same reason I'd sell to a library. But they're not offering me that choice. They're just taking the work. That's theft. Not allowed. Should be stopped and punished.
Internet:
Anyone who publishes on the internet is expecting people to access their work and read it and it is expected that the people who do so are making a copy of the site on their machine and reading that. It's part of the deal. Google's indexing of the web is accomplished by their being exactly like any other user. They do more with their cache than most other users but no more than any other user could if they chose to.
Making (and cacheing) a digital copy of a print book is entirely different. It is specifically fobidden. The authors and publishers, expect that it won't be done. Not like the internet at all. Again, Google is just taking.
Several people have made the point that it would be great to have free access to books that were out of print for reasons ranging from "it would really help the poor people of the world" in the case of a text on irrigation to "I really wish I could get my hands on my favorite obscure author."
Heartwrenching. The problem with both those cases is that the work in question would not have been produced if the author or publisher didn't expect to make money from their efforts. If we were to change copyright law to the point where Google (and therefore anyone else) could make digital copies of anything they wanted and publishers could be forced to distribute their copyrighted property for free, even if it was "to help the poor people(sob)" Innovation and the production of new works would die. If copyright, ergo the right to private control of private property, had never existed most of the nifty things people so desperately want to share with the poor and enjoy for themselves would not be around today. The authors would not have bothered to produce the work.
For an example of exactly this effect in operation in the real world compare the sheer volume of innovation, brilliance, and new work that came out of the United States from 1917 to the 1990s with what came out of the Soviet Union during the same time period.
The ability to profit from your own work is the prime motivator for nearly everything new. Whether the profit comes in the form of royalties or continued employment at a University, the cause and effect is the same.
There would be no problem here if Google had asked people to opt in instead of telling them they have to opt out with copyrighted works. If they really wanted to index copyrighted works there's an easy solution. They could have paid the authors or estates for a single copy and then indexed that. If they were unable through obscurity or the inability to pay for the search to locate an author or an estate they could put payment for each and every book in question into a holding account and pay the people the people in question (the ones they couldn't find) when they presented themselves with their request. If no one comes forward before the copyright runs out, the money and all its interest goes back into their coffers. This is, of course, assuming that the publishers and authors trust Google to not let their copyrighted material be copied and illegally distributed. Off the top of my head I can think of three or four methods for extracting an entire work from a snippet search using fairly simple scripting but...I, for one, think that of all the outfits out there Google is the one most likely to be able to find a way to keep that from happening.
</ramble>
-
What is the difference between authors having to research and do a physical action to opt out of what they write and post online, and what they write and publish? Sure, they didn't have to do it in the past, but I think we can all agree that technology has changed. We change with it. To hold to old laws when new technology emerges is silly.
The difference is whether you can opt out without having to contact them. You can do it up front. No one has to look it up, there's no paperwork to be filed. End of story. This, I believe, answers the contradiction you think you see.
Let me ask you a question e, do you think it's our moral obligation to give assistance to a fellow human being, if we can give that assistance without doing harm to ourselves? I'm not talking about being forced to pay taxes to support welfare, or that government should make helping others obligatory. I'm asking if you yourself think it's our moral oligation to help others.
Yes, I do. I believe that if I have spare resources and I have a way to dispose of those resources in a way that will help others less fortunate, that I have a stewardship to help them.
I also, however, believe in the sacredness of personal property. If someone chooses not to help others, for whatever reason, they are not legally obligated to do so (I speak in absolutes, but I can think of exceptions -- community service is a good sentence for some criminal acts, for example). Especially since there are different understandings of what that moral law is, or whether certain charities deserve it (There are pro-abortion organizations, for example, that are considered charities, or state sponsored religions in some countries, and I find it a violation of my basic civil rights, and my morality, were I forced to donate resources to such an organization.
So yes, I donate. I pay my tithing first. I try to be as generous as possible with fast offerings, I try to lend my physical service for needed labor and give to others. I'm not as good with this as I believe I should be, but there are lots of things I need to improve, and I'm doing better.
And skar, it's amazing when we find our opinions coinciding, but here they do.
My biggest problem with what Google is that there was never even an ATTEMPT to contact copyright holders. The result of what they're doing will be very cool indeed. I just don't want them to weaken our basic constitutional and legal rights while they do it.
-
Good points, Skar--although I have to point out that libraries (at least Orem Public Library) get their books from book distributors, not directly from the publisher. Still, I think your point stands.
Firemeboy, it seems you want to make a distinction between fiction and "books that might help people," like textbooks. It seems that each time someone in this thread talks about the importance of protecting fiction writers, someone comes back with the argument that nonfiction should be available to all, at which point the Defenders of Fiction step in again. It's a vicious cycle--one which looks like it might not end.
Can't we all just get along? ;)
-
Good points, Skar--although I have to point out that libraries (at least Orem Public Library) get their books from book distributors, not directly from the publisher. Still, I think your point stands.
Distributors are still in the business chain; it's a moot point. Publishers and authors still get their money from distributors. Most publishers either have their own distributing arm or use separate distribution houses.
-
And skar, it's amazing when we find our opinions coinciding, but here they do.
Yeah, bizarre. I feel closer to you now somehow, like we have a more basic connection, as though, together, we could [the following content has been deleted by Skar's internal editor] in a pirate ship.
My biggest problem with what Google is that there was never even an ATTEMPT to contact copyright holders. The result of what they're doing will be very cool indeed. I just don't want them to weaken our basic constitutional and legal rights while they do it.
Yes. It would be cool. Not worth weakening property laws but dang cool nonetheless.
-
On a related note I happen to know that there are at least a couple print houses out there who are willing to print a single copy of a book on demand, if they have an electronic copy of it. It costs a little more than you'd pay at Barnes and Noble for a single copy but for most of the obscure titles I want I'd gladly pay the extra. If the major publishing houses ever wake up they'll start getting their own out of print titles into digital format and offer vast online warehouses of obscure books available for one-time printing. Heck, maybe they could partner with Google, who's apparently doing the scanning already, and achieve some kind of trade where Google gets to index and offer the search while the print-house/author who owns the copyright gets to use the scanned digital copy to provide one off printing of their work. That would solve the obscure book problem at least.
I mean honestly, they should already be doing that with all the books they're publishing now. They've got to have an electronic copy of some sort, so they could have all these titles available for one-off printing from their websites, thus at least partially solving the short shelf-life problem many books have. The music indistry has done something very like with the iTunes store and the rest, why not publishers?
Well, Stacer?
-
The difference is whether you can opt out without having to contact them. You can do it up front.
E, are you telling me there is a bit of code you can put on your website that opts out of all of the search engines? I'd like to know what that code is...
I disagree, I do not think you can 'opt out' so easily. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Any given author or publishing house (relevance depending on who owns the copyright) makes the conscious choice to sell to a library.
Wait, do you mean that libraries can't buy some books? If the author does not want them to? I've never heard of this, but then I don't work in the 'industry'. Is this true? Does a library need permission to buy a book?
-
Anyone who publishes on the internet is expecting people to access their work and read it and it is expected that the people who do so are making a copy of the site on their machine and reading that.
Right, but my point is that it is technically against copyright law. It doesn't matter if people are expecting it, or don't object to it, or whatever. It's still technically against the law, you can't copy somebody else's work and distribute it without their permission.
So you have to argue that either a) the law needs to be changed (and if it is, then it at least gives further basis for what Google is doing with print), or b) Google and all other search engines should cease and desist their current operations.
-
Yes. It would be cool. Not worth weakening property laws but dang cool nonetheless.
I wonder if anybody said this about the Internet in the early 90s... :)
-
On a related note I happen to know that there are at least a couple print houses out there who are willing to print a single copy of a book on demand, if they have an electronic copy of it. It costs a little more than you'd pay at Barnes and Noble for a single copy but for most of the obscure titles I want I'd gladly pay the extra. If the major publishing houses ever wake up they'll start getting their own out of print titles into digital format and offer vast online warehouses of obscure books available for one-time printing. Heck, maybe they could partner with Google, who's apparently doing the scanning already, and achieve some kind of trade where Google gets to index and offer the search while the print-house/author who owns the copyright gets to use the scanned digital copy to provide one off printing of their work. That would solve the obscure book problem at least.
I'd be 'down with that'. In my opinion it would at least be a step in the right direction. Amazon.com already allows things like this, as has been pointed out, and Lulu/Amazon/Google would be a great marriage.
I just hate to see a great project like this die beacuse a few authors are uncomfortable with it.
-
Right, but my point is that it is technically against copyright law. It doesn't matter if people are expecting it, or don't object to it, or whatever. It's still technically against the law, you can't copy somebody else's work and distribute it without their permission.
So you have to argue that either a) the law needs to be changed (and if it is, then it at least gives further basis for what Google is doing with print), or b) Google and all other search engines should cease and desist their current operations.
Nope, it is not even technically against copyright law. Distributing it would be but the key is in the word distribute. The copy on my machine is not distribution and even if you wanted to quibble and say it was a distribution of 1 my machine asks and gets permission of the machine hosting the site to make the copy. Search engine's links are not distribution because they merely point the way to the referenced site, not reproduce it. In the end the author of internet material explicitly grants permission to users to make the copy onto their machine so they can read it. The guts of the process is automated but it still takes place.
Google does nothing with a website that the host machine and therefore the author, does not give them, and everyone else, explicit permission to do.
Books are different.
Are you really prepared to argue that anyone who prints a book is explicitly or even implicitly granting you the right to copy it and use it to make money, without giving him a cut? Are you prepared to argue that it's morally correct to steal someone's property because you think you know someone who needs it more?
-
I wonder if anybody said this about the Internet in the early 90s... :)
What property laws, exactly, does the internet threaten?
I'd be 'down with that'. In my opinion it would at least be a step in the right direction. Amazon.com already allows things like this, as has been pointed out, and Lulu/Amazon/Google would be a great marriage.
I just hate to see a great project like this die beacuse a few authors are uncomfortable with it.
It's not that a few authors are uncomfortable with it, it's that it's illegal and were it to be made legal would crush invention and innovation. The source of the material you're so anxious to gain free access to would dry up.
Later thought:
In the end the difference between a library and sharing over the internet is that a library gets as many copies as it pays for and doesn't make any more. Many people read one copy. On the internet sharing a file with someone means they copy it. If you give someone your copy of a book to read, as a library does, you don't have that copy any more and you expect to get it back or they owe you money. If you give someone an electronic file you still have your copy because you made a new one for them and you didn't delete your copy. And, of course, on top of that a big difference between libraries and Google is that libraries are non-profit.
-
I mean honestly, they should already be doing that with all the books they're publishing now. They've got to have an electronic copy of some sort, so they could have all these titles available for one-off printing from their websites, thus at least partially solving the short shelf-life problem many books have. The music indistry has done something very like with the iTunes store and the rest, why not publishers?
Well, Stacer?
I've heard that print-on-demand is actually pretty cost prohibitive still, and gives you a lower-quality book. But I know that one of the textbooks that I used my last semester of grad school was POD. I think you have a good idea there. Just not sure how it would be implemented on a company-by-company basis. It wouldn't be at the top of my priority list, just because that list is already long enough. But I do think it's a good idea.
-
What property laws, exactly, does the internet threaten?
The ease at which somebody can copy/pirate/alter copyrighted material.
It's not that a few authors are uncomfortable with it, it's that it's illegal and were it to be made legal would crush invention and innovation. The source of the material you're so anxious to gain free access to would dry up.
Ok, I have to very much disagree with these statements.
Did you read Lessig's article? Back in the 50's the law stated that when you owned land, you owned all of the space above that land. Well, as planes started flying over farmer's land a 'few of them' started getting uncomfortable. Since it was the 'law' that they owned this airspace, they took it to court. It went all the way to the supreme court where they decided that law was no longer practical. So, I argue that it is a (relatively) few authors who are falling back on a law that should be changed in light of new technology, that is keeping this 'cool' service from being available to everybody else. I hope it goes to the court quickly.
And then in regards to the second statement, "The source material would not dry up. There are numerous instances and examples of open source software being designed, built, distributed and used, all for 'free'. Nobody makes money off of them. This new open source material will never replace all of the 'traditional' material, but to think that it will dry up is simply not true.
-
Nope, it is not even technically against copyright law. Distributing it would be but the key is in the word distribute.
No, that is incorrect. You are breaking the copyright as soon as you press the copy button. Look at the law (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci).
Search engine's links are not distribution because they merely point the way to the referenced site, not reproduce it.
This is where we get into the circular arguments. We've already covered this. Google does make a copy, and they store it on their machine. They are not just redirecting.
Are you prepared to argue that it's morally correct to steal someone's property because you think you know someone who needs it more?
That is a loaded question, and not really pertinent to the issue. I could ask you a loaded question as well. Are you prepared to say that it's morally correct to withhold information from people who might die without it? This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a more efficient way to get information to the masses without cheating those who benefit from it. I argue the current law does a lousy job on both fronts, are you saying that it does a good job? And that we don’t need to change it?
-
On the internet sharing a file with someone means they copy it.
So if I can find a way to display a book without somebody making a copy of it, that would be legal? I think you'd have more authors screaming about that than from what Google is doing.
And, of course, on top of that a big difference between libraries and Google is that libraries are non-profit.
What if google didn't make money on it? What if it was like their news system that shows no ads? Would you be more open to it if they were to do it as a service? Because right now they don't run ads, but I certainly couldn't say if they plan to continue running it as a free service.
-
Any given author or publishing house (relevance depending on who owns the copyright) makes the conscious choice to sell to a library.
Not true. Libraries often catalogue books and movies which are donated. Yes, you can check out DVDs and CDs from libraries (at least ours), and likely burn them easier than you could hack Google's project. Often, authors are not compensated for a book in a library any more than they would be for a book in "Google's library". However, Library use is "Fair Use", and Google's project, EFF argues, is also "Fair Use".
Making (and cacheing) a digital copy of a print book is entirely different.
Once again, you're incorrect. It's just as illegal to copy (and cache) web content, but it's often considered to be part of "fair use".
The problem with both those cases is that the work in question would not have been produced if the author or publisher didn't expect to make money from their efforts.
Not always true.
Please understand that I am not suggesting we eliminate copyright. Copyright is good, when limited.
I just don't want them to weaken our basic constitutional and legal rights while they do it.
Copyright laws in America are the most oppressive and limiting they've been in the history of publishing. I hardly consider scaling things back and opening up "Fair Use" to be "weakening basic constitutional and legal rights".
E, are you telling me there is a bit of code you can put on your website that opts out of all of the search engines? I'd like to know what that code is...
Yes there is, but not all bots obey it.
Is this true? Does a library need permission to buy a book?
It is not true.
Nope, it is not even technically against copyright law.
Yes, it is. Making ANY copy gets placed under Regulation. You can argue it's within your "Fair Use" rights, but many "Fair Use" arguments have been shot down in court lately. Also, see Firemeboy's post.
And, of course, on top of that a big difference between libraries and Google is that libraries are non-profit.
Not always, though you've hit the nail on the head, Skar. Internet use always requires making a copy. However, libraries are within their rights to allow patrons to make limited (small/short/excerpt) copies of the books they carry, similar to what Google would be doing.
-
Not always, though you've hit the nail on the head, Skar. Internet use always requires making a copy. However, libraries are within their rights to allow patrons to make limited (small/short/excerpt) copies of the books they carry, similar to what Google would be doing.
Making "...limited (small/short/excerpt) copies of the books..." is not what Google would be doing. Google would be making full copies of the books and then profiting from it without paying the authors. The whole point is that comparing what Google wants to do with what libraries already do is comparing apples to oranges. If libraries started making electronic copies of the books they have, the same objections would be raised by the people who are being stolen from.
No, that is incorrect. You are breaking the copyright as soon as you press the copy button. Look at the law.
No one said anything about pressing the copy button. On the internet every user gets permission to copy the web page onto his machine every time he looks at one. He couldn't see it otherwise. Google doesn't want to bother to get permission. That's the whole problem.
Not true. Libraries often catalogue books and movies which are donated. Yes, you can check out DVDs and CDs from libraries (at least ours), and likely burn them easier than you could hack Google's project. Often, authors are not compensated for a book in a library any more than they would be for a book in "Google's library".
You are correct that libraries catalogue donated material. I hadn't considered that in my earlier statement. I was thinking of the publishers and authors I have talked to who referenced special "library copies" and the merits of selling to libraries vs not. However, your statement that authors are not compensated for books in libraries is entirely false. Even in the case of a donation the author was paid for that copy of the book when it was originally purchased. At that point his interest ends. Google wishes to make new copies of the books and make money from those, cutting the author out entirely. I don't see that as any more acceptable than it would be for a man walking past your house to borrow your car without your permission.
Are you prepared to say that it's morally correct to withhold information from people who might die without it?
You're correct. I asked you a loaded question. You asked me one in turn, we are balanced. I'll answer your loaded question though. I say, no. It is not. However, it is just as morally incorrect to steal from Peter to pay Paul. If Peter wishes to disagree with my moral judgement on what he ought to do with his book on irrigation that's his problem. I will find another way to get the information to those that need it rather than haranguing Peter about his moral obligation and changing the law to force him into compliance with my worldview. What gives Paul any more rights than Peter?
At this point I feel constrained to say I agree with the unreasonableness of the pain involved in getting copyrighted works with no owner out into the public domain. I don't know how to fix the problem though. Even "ten dollars every ten years" is unreasonable in my opinion. You don't have to pay money to make stealing anything else illegal why should you have to do it for copyrighted works?
All the examples I've heard against the current state of copyright law consist of the speaker not agreeing with the owner of the work on how to dispose of it. The speaker thinks it's unreasonable for the owner of a work to insist on payment for use of his property. The owner thinks it's unreasonable to be asked to give away his property for free. They do not agree and one wants to change the law to force the other to act in accordance with his will. Problem.
I argue the current law does a lousy job on both fronts, are you saying that it does a good job?
Yes. For this reason. There is already a mechanism in place, a very simple one, for Google to do what they want to do. Pay the authors. The law does not need to change to allow this to happen. Google just has to pay the people who did the work, for the work.
-
Making "...limited (small/short/excerpt) copies of the books..." is not what Google would be doing. Google would be making full copies of the books and then profiting from it without paying the authors... If libraries started making electronic copies of the books they have, the same objections would be raised by the people who are being stolen from.
Actually, some libraries have done just that. Now, how is Google obtaining the books? The only real objection I can see to what Google is doing is if they do not own the books they are cataloguing.
Google doesn't want to bother to get permission. That's the whole problem.
No, it's just part of the problem. Libraries don't get permission, either. The only real issue here that I see that doesn't have a very strong "Fair Use" case is if Google doesn't own copies of the materials they're putting up.
However, your statement that authors are not compensated for books in libraries is entirely false.
Not always true. Books can exchange several hands, none of which times, except initially, does the author see a penny. So a book going from someone's house to the library wont compensate the writer one whit. He only gets paid for the initial purchase.
I don't see that as any more acceptable than it would be for a man walking past your house to borrow your car without your permission.
Despite the fact that a) certain levels of theft are classed as misdemeanors, and certain as felony, and you're forgetting this and b) that borrowing a book at a library is done with permission, where taking one out of your home would not (unless you gave express permission), private libraries may make money from obtaining copies of books and they're within their rights to do so.
However, it is just as morally incorrect to steal from Peter to pay Paul.
Isn't this exactly what suing is, as supported by our legal system?
You don't have to pay money to make stealing anything else illegal why should you have to do it for copyrighted works?
You do have to pay to register a copyright, just as you do for a patent. It helps fund the system. Currently, you don't have to register copyrights under the law, however.
Another solution I think would be adequate is to give everything an automatic copyright for 20 years, and then require people to register for copyright after that.
However, I think 50 years or life + 10 is more than adequate time for a copyright, seeing as that's practically four times the maximum allowed when this nation was founded. The point is to encourage the creation of good works, not to line the pockets of the author's descendants long after he's gone. (in my opinion, at any rate, and I'm willing to bet Carnagie would agree with me).
They do not agree and one wants to change the law to force the other to act in accordance with his will.
Actually, you've got it somewhat backwards. They keep changing the law to extend copyright. The public domain is something that is supposed to naturally (and continuously) expand, so we all may be free and enriched. However, thanks to the SBCEA, no new works will enter the public domain for 15 years yet. There have been dozens of copyright extension laws in the last century, all paid for (sponsored) by already-wealthy individuals and organisations.
-
I attended a dinner hosted by the Hewlett Foundation on open education. The toast for the evening was relevent to the topic at hand. It went something like, "Information that is shared is infinitely more valuable than information that is idle."
That is all. It's late. I'm going to bed.
-
Actually, some libraries have done just that. Now, how is Google obtaining the books? The only real objection I can see to what Google is doing is if they do not own the books they are cataloguing.
No, it's just part of the problem. Libraries don't get permission, either. The only real issue here that I see that doesn't have a very strong "Fair Use" case is if Google doesn't own copies of the materials they're putting up.
Yeah. Have you been reading this thread from the beginning? That's one of the givens. They do not own the books they're cataloguing, they are going into libraries to make the copies.
Not always true. Books can exchange several hands, none of which times, except initially, does the author see a penny. So a book going from someone's house to the library won't compensate the writer one whit. He only gets paid for the initial purchase.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. He gets paid for the one copy. No new copies are made.
Despite the fact that a) certain levels of theft are classed as misdemeanors, and certain as felony, and you're forgetting this and b) that borrowing a book at a library is done with permission, where taking one out of your home would not (unless you gave express permission), private libraries may make money from obtaining copies of books and they're within their rights to do so.
Yeah. The car borrowing example was Google not the library. You seem to have the impression that I am against Libraries. I am not. I am against Google stealing copyrighted works for their own profit. And the misdemeanor/felony thing? I'm not forgetting it. It's just irrelevant. Unless, of course, you think that misdemeanors should be made legal...but not felonys.
Isn't this exactly what suing is, as supported by our legal system?
Nope, you misunderstand the concept of the lawsuit. Suing someone has to to with repairing damage that has been done to the suer, monetary or otherwise, through disobedience to the law by the suee. For instance, I could sue Google if they copied copyrighted material of mine without permission. Because by doing so they break the law and take from me something of monetary value.
You do have to pay to register a copyright, just as you do for a patent. It helps fund the system. Currently, you don't have to register copyrights under the law, however.
You'll have to explain that one again.
Another solution I think would be adequate is to give everything an automatic copyright for 20 years, and then require people to register for copyright after that.
However, I think 50 years or life + 10 is more than adequate time for a copyright, seeing as that's practically four times the maximum allowed when this nation was founded. The point is to encourage the creation of good works, not to line the pockets of the author's descendants long after he's gone. (in my opinion, at any rate, and I'm willing to bet Carnagie would agree with me).
How about 50/ +10 and then give the author's heirs the option to keep up the copyright through a minimal fee.
Actually, you've got it somewhat backwards. They keep changing the law to extend copyright. The public domain is something that is supposed to naturally (and continuously) expand, so we all may be free and enriched. However, thanks to the SBCEA, no new works will enter the public domain for 15 years yet. There have been dozens of copyright extension laws in the last century, all paid for (sponsored) by already-wealthy individuals and organisations.
I don't have it backwards it's simply that bad behavior is rampant on both sides. While it's unfortunate that copyright law is such a tangled mess nowadays, in my opinion, stated again, it would be worse were people given the right under the law to copy and profit from other people's work without giving them compensation.
We've heard alot about the open source movement and how great it is. I agree that it's great. It also has to do with people voluntarily creating something new and then, again voluntarily, not charging others for its use. More power to them. The Google Print Project, on the other hand, is about Google taking (not creating) the work of others and then charging(not the users, the advertisers) for its use. It's about as diametrically opposite Open Source as you can get.
What pains me the most is that Google could have handled this in such a way as to tap into the huge energy and momentum of the Open Source movement. They could have invited owners of copyright to participate and I think they would have gotten a huge response. Instead they're just stealing.
-
Copyright is twenty years plus however many years since Mickey Mouse was created. As soon as it's about to become public domain, Disney will extend copyright again. Because it's an evil corporation and all western governments are corrupt.
-
Yeah. Have you been reading this thread from the beginning?
I have a poor short-term memory. So, well, what Google should be doing is just getting a copy of the works in question, accepting donations, allowing authors to sign up/etc. Whatever.
I've never been particularly pro-Google this entire discussion. If they've got copies of the books in question, I can't see how what they're doing would be wrong. However, if they don't, then the project better explicitly have some library's named attached to it (where they're getting the books).
Suing someone has to to with repairing damage that has been done to the suer, monetary or otherwise, through disobedience to the law by the suee.
You overestimate our legal system. Criminals have sued those they were burglurizing, etc., but that aside, suing is a legal way of stealing from Peter to pay Paul, if the Judge feels that Peter, for whatever reason (whatever damages or obligation), should pay Paul.
You'll have to explain that one again.
Easy. All printed works are protected by copyright laws, but are unregistered. In order to register a copyright you have to send it in with a fee. Today, this is generally considered unnecessary. However, it hasn't been too long since you had to register every copyrighted work in order to have it covered, and only some 15 years ago a work wasn't protected if it lacked the copyright (©) symbol.
How about 50/ +10 and then give the author's heirs the option to keep up the copyright through a minimal fee.
I'm personally of the opinion that it's of more worth to the Public Domain than it is for fattening one's heirs. I understand that others disagree with me in this, but I take after Carnegie (the name is significant for this discussion for two reasons).
I don't have it backwards it's simply that bad behavior is rampant on both sides. While it's unfortunate that copyright law is such a tangled mess nowadays, in my opinion, stated again, it would be worse were people given the right under the law to copy and profit from other people's work without giving them compensation.
No. Copyright laws have been expanded significantly in the past century, and not once have they been reduced. There has been nothing done through legislation in that direction. It is, as things stand, completely one-sided.
For the latter part of your comment, you over-generalize. Once again, I support copyright. I do feel, however, that it needs to be much more limited than it now is.
Again, I don't condone what Google is doing since they don't own the books. However, if they managed to do this "as a service for" a library which did own the books, I would see no problem with it, as the library owns the books, and Google would merely be expanding that library's services.
FYI: You don't need to be local to benefit from, or even hold a card at, a library. In addition, my state, at least, has services where anyone in the world can hop online and ask them Reference questions, etc., online. And I'm sure if they were to give a page and paragraph number, the Librarian would be quite willing to grab the book and type up a few sentences for them, if it would somehow help them out. Google would be merely automating that process (making it much easier on the librarians, and more convenient for the patrons).
-
I'm going to simplify my position (and what I understand Skar's position to be, though he can correct me if I misrepresent him), so that (hopefully) it will stop being confused.
The issue has little to nothing to do with a library. I wish that would stop coming up. Libraries are not the same as what google is doing. It has nothing to do with how many people see the information. A library gets a legal copy. That copy was paid for somewhere (or else donated by the copyright owner). This is not what happens with Google. we can drop that.
The position is this: Google could have VERY easily followed a procedure to make this much more agreeable. Not only did they choose not too, they appear to be adamently against ever being concilatory. They are making copies that are illegal, of properties they don't own, with the purpose of exposing them for profit. That seems pretty simple to me. You can quible, but that's still a fact.
As for changing copyright, give me a solid example of changing it and I'll consider it. I don't agree that it's dangerous as it is, or remotely unfair. It works, it's simple, and it protects more people than it harms. I don't think it's perfect, but I don't think much is. I'm not sure how to fix it. Give me a better system, and I'll look at it.
Now, two points that have been brought up.
JadeKnight, in reference to code to opt out of Google:
Yes there is, but not all bots obey it.
So what? What those bots do is illegal and a source of no little consternation to rights to privacy advocates and intellectual property concerns. People have lost jobs and spent quite a bit of money fighting about this. Just because someone (or even many people) breaks the law doesn't mean that the activity is legal. Not all people obey the speed limit either. Should we drastically raise all the speed limits for this reason?
JamPaladin said:
Copyright is twenty years plus however many years since Mickey Mouse was created. As soon as it's about to become public domain, Disney will extend copyright again. Because it's an evil corporation and all western governments are corrupt.
Yes, good boy. You get a Tummy Yummy. We hashed that already, but apparently you didn't read it. It's not the point of the discussion and your conclusion is neither rational nor in most people's opinion remotely correct. Thanks for playing.
I believe that covers it.
-
. Not all people obey the speed limit either. Should we drastically raise all the speed limits for this reason?
Actually they did that in the 90s on most interstates and highways but the number of accidents drastically increased (want to say doubled but I don't care to look up the exact figure) because people were still speeding but instead of going 75 in a 65 area they were going 85 in a 75 area. That experience taught us that people were still going to break the law even if the government accommodated them by making changes so that their previous activities were no longer illegal.
I could relate this to the actually discussion at hand but the topic will probably have changed again by the time I hit "post".
-
Sprig: Good point.
e: The nail is rubbing it's head. I agree. Thanks.
-
I've just finished listening to the Flash speech Lessig did and Jade Knight posted a link to.
It was interesting. Amidst all the rhetorical and emotionally inflammatory language he made some very good points. Unfortunately it had very little to do with what Google is trying to do. In no way was he advocating giving a corporation carteblanche to copy protected works.
He was complaining about the system that allows vested interests to change copyright in ways that suit them and no one else. His prime example was Disney and Mickey Mouse. I'm sure there are others he could have used but we'll stick with that one. I see nothing wrong with Disney retaining control of Mickey Mouse for eternity, as long as the parent corp. is still around. They own it, they should get to keep control of it. I do have a problem with their efforts to do so having the side effect of automatically expanding copyright on everything. I would say that the solution there is to make copyright extend to the owner's death and not beyond, not applicable to corporations. But let Disney(corporations) keep Mickey(whatever they want) as long as they're extant and pay the ten bucks a decade or whatever.
Lessig's other telling point is that the net is an entirely new playground that needs new rules. Seems to me the most efficient method for fairly regulating it is to say "the net is public domain, anything posted there by or with permission of the author is therefore in the public domain." You don't want your work in the public domain? Don't post it to the net and sue anyone who does so without your permission for lost income and damages.
Problem solved. Now we just have to get it enacted.
-
I agree with Skar on most of that except the "if you post on the net its public domain". Should, for example, Homestarrunner be public domain?
-
Yeah, thats a pretty bad idea Skar. Your proposal would kill the internet as a place to sell or advertise goods. Goodbye every company on the internet!
-
What about author and film websites?
Should the first 3 chapters of Elantris be public domain (including all the IP in them)?
The speech isn't about Google, but it is about current copyright laws, and putting things into perspective. Again, I care about the Public Domain more than I care about corporations. I think that, eventually, every work should enter the public domain. Lessig makes it quite clear that Disney could not have gotten where it is if it weren't for the Public Domain and the fact that laws were more lax then than they are now.
It works, it's simple, and it protects more people than it harms.
Taking it to this extreme (as opposed to, say, where it was 100 years ago), I would argue, harms more people than it protects, such as students, DJs, webcasters, iTunes users, and, to hit closer to home, Steve Jackson Games.
Again, I realize that Google's gone about this the wrong way. I'm in this discussion more over the copyright issues than I am about the Google issues. I don't particularly care whether they win or lose their case for the very reasons you bring up, E.
What those bots do is illegal
I wasn't aware that it was illegal - in fact, having read a synopsis of a court case involving such an issue, I had the distinct impression that it was not illegal. I could have been in error, however.
Sadly, it appears that FreeMickey.org is no longer up. I expect Lessig received a C&D from Disney.
-
I agree with Skar on most of that except the "if you post on the net its public domain". Should, for example, Homestarrunner be public domain?
Yes you are probably right. Perhaps "If it's posted on the net, and not registered, then it's automatically considered public domain?"
-
And how do you plan to enforce that rule? You could say TWG is registered on the website, but someone could hack it and remove that notice, thus making your work Public Domain.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that, y'know, the USA doesn't make laws for everyone. The net isn't your private backyard to administrate as you will.
-
General question. I don't see why just because something used to be a certain way implies that it's better that way. Both sides of this argument seem to be appealing to this concept, and it doesn't hold much water for me.
Against current copyrights: The argument is that copyrights were less stringent 100 years ago, and so that is obviously the way that they were supposed to be.
For current copyrights: The argument is that copyrights are the way they are now and have been for the last X years, so they shouldn't be changed in the future.
Is it just me, or does this seem to be the same argument, separated by about 100 years? I'm not saying this to be snippety--just to point out an area of dispute that really should be laid to rest on both sides. 100 years ago was 100 years ago, not now. The last ten years is ten years ago--not now. Both situations require changes. If copyrights should be changed now, that's a separate issue--one I don't see relating to how they used to be 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 years ago.
-
And how do you plan to enforce that rule? You could say TWG is registered on the website, but someone could hack it and remove that notice, thus making your work Public Domain.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that, y'know, the USA doesn't make laws for everyone. The net isn't your private backyard to administrate as you will.
as for the first, there's an OFFICE you register with. You don't just pop it in the code. Sure they can hack it and take off the notice, but that doesn't remove the registry.
As for the second, no, they don't. But most countries play ball with US copyright, if only for trade reasons.
-
Against current copyrights: The argument is that copyrights were less stringent 100 years ago, and so that is obviously the way that they were supposed to be.
No. My argument is that the way copyrights were 100 years ago worked better than the system we have now. I am not saying we should revert to exactly the same laws, nor do I think that mere antiquity made them better. They were better becuase they were more free. And so long as certain basic protections are met (encouraging artistic work), the more free, the better.
-
They play ball within their own copyright systems SE. What Skar is proposing is modifying the USA copyright system, and it's unlikely the whole of civilisation is just gonna tag along with you.
-
yes, I understood what he was saying. The whole world doesn't play ball that way right now. Yet those we're friendly with and do a lot of trade with try to protect US copyrights.
I don't see why they would do any different if we changed the laws.
-
My argument is that the way copyrights were 100 years ago worked better than the system we have now.
I don't think you've said it that concretely before. You've just said "we didn't have this 100 years ago" but neither did we have clean hospitals or radios or such. I had just interpreted those remarks as "this is not a sacred tradition handed down to us from our forefathers."
So... HOW was it better than it is today?
-
It was more free. Less restrictive of our culture.
Have you looked at that presentation by Lessig yet? If not, this would be a good time. He illustrates how it was more free. In his book Free Culture he gives more details, references, better explanations, etc. But the presentation is shorter than the book.
-
They play ball within their own copyright systems SE. What Skar is proposing is modifying the USA copyright system, and it's unlikely the whole of civilisation is just gonna tag along with you.
They will if the new system makes sense.
-
...Your proposal would kill the internet as a place to sell or advertise goods. Goodbye every company on the internet!
How the heck would it do that? Do you seriously think that I was proposing that if a car were advertised on the net that the car itself would be public domain?
Give a little more credit please.
-
I only got around to reading this thread (well, I started yesterday -- it just took a while to get through it all.)
For what it's worth, I think it'd be awesome if my books were part of this Google project. It's just another free-to-me method of getting people to look at my work. I could care less that there's a full ecopy of it somewhere on Google's database -- in my mind, this would only boost sales, not hurt them. Google isn't offering a free online copy -- just excerpts. (Also, it doesn't bother me a bit that they didn't ask permission -- I just don't see it as harmful to me. Other people certainly have a right to their opinion, though.)
However, I really dislike the idea that we're freeing information for the destitute masses. If people want to teach third world countries about irrigation, or show the Nepalese how to build roads, or instruct the French on the proper use of deodorant, then good for them -- more power to 'em. They can write all they want to on the subject and distribute it freely. But we shouldn't be taking works from authors who don't want their works used. That smacks of socialism and the-government-knows-best.
-
OK, I just started reading this thread again and I have a few thoughts. If Google does do this they should (with any copyrighted information) only take a certain amount of it....lets say a scattered 50% of the information. This way it eliminates the free distribution of the copyrighted information. Now with information that is not copyrighted it could take all of it. In addition to this they could also have an area on the website where people who have copyrighted information on this can have there stuff omitted. Therefore anyone who wants there stuff on it, like Mustard, could have it posted, and others who do not like it could have it removed. How does this sound to people?
-
That smacks of socialism and the-government-knows-best.
Actually, I take the opposite approach. Oppressive and invasive copyright laws smack of socialism and government-knows-best to me. Free Culture and Socialism are uncompatable.
Certainly, Steve Jackson Games being raided was more a mark of Socialism than it was of an uninvolved government.
Again, I like copyright. It's a good thing. It's just way too strong right now.
You know, I wouldn't mind it so much if we went back 300 years to universal monopolies on copyright which did not extend past copying. Granted, there are a few problems with this system, such as the fact that it essentially abolishes IP in the copyright world (doesn't prevent people from translating or using your characters or world to write their own - which would certainly bother me), but it does give you an eternal copyright on your work.
My deal is that I want less restrictive copyright and to preserve the Public Domain (and keep it expanding, even if it's slow expansion.
-
Actually, I take the opposite approach. Oppressive and invasive copyright laws smack of socialism and government-knows-best to me. Free Culture and Socialism are uncompatable.
Well, on the one hand you've got a camp advocating keeping private property more under the control of its owners/creators. On the other you've got a camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses. The second looks an awful lot like "re-distribution of wealth" to me.
Invasive is not always bad. I'm all for an invasive government when the referenced invasiveness is protecting rights I hold dear. Raiding a serial killers home, even with a search warrant, is bloody invasive and I'm glad for it.
Saying a government is invasive is like saying it exists. No kidding. There are situations where any government you care to postulate would be justifiably invasive. As long as it's acting within laws that its citizens had a hand in creating and which they support, it's a good thing.
It sounds like you're lumping the people benefitting from copyright in with big brother government. You forget that the people who would lose income, even the big corporate folks, are citizens as much as you are and deserve protection as much as you do. Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're somehow different from you under the law.
-
Well, on the one hand you've got a camp advocating keeping private property more under the control of its owners/creators.
"Private Property"? You have a strange concept of private property, and Lockean notions of private property had nothing to do with copyright as it's observed today.
The government isn't taking anything away from you. It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc. That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism). If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all. Keep that in mind.
Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're somehow different from you under the law.
Actually, they are. In practice in America, copyright protects those with money (ie, who can afford Copyright/IP lawyers), and does not protect those without it (the rest of us). They lobby congress to change and enact laws that the general populace wouldn't want (or benefit from), but we don't have money to throw to politicial candidates to try to counteract that.
Once again, I am pro-copyright. Please remember this! I am not arguing against copyright entirely. I think it's important that we have copyright. But I don't think it should be at the expense of personal freedoms, fair use rights, and the Public Domain (remember: without some copyright protection, people wont create works to go into the Public Domain)!
-
It's interesting to note that despite insistance that ideas are not property, your voicing of that opinion relies entirely on possessives to communicate it. Whether Locke accepted it or not, I (and most people, from my experience) look at ideas as property. The way we choose to describe them casually shows that. We refer to branded characters and situations as "properties" quite explicitly.
de facto and de juris are different matters. If you're looking to change the fact that the rich have more protection de facto than others, in ANY area, you've got many more worries than adjusting copyright. The fact that they can hire the best lawyers instead of relying on the public defender lottery is the most basic of these inequalities. As long as people are willing to do things for money, that's the case.
However, the *law* does not recognize the difference between rich or poor. Writing the law so that it inherently does so would be, I think, a severe case of prejudice, in either direction. I would venture to say that it violates the foundations of the Constitution.
So, the obvious response to this view I've stated is that the law, by forcing people to have to enforce their own copyright by identifying and then suing those who infringe favors the rich. Well, fair enough. But instead of writing into law words that explicitly discriminate on the basis of net value, how about we just urge the government to employ people to investigate copyright violations and perform the prosecution (if necessary) rather than have it be a civil suit? That removes the expensive lawyer lawsuit advantage, and puts copyright enforcement on equalfooting with any other crime.
I guess my point is that the PRINCIPLES of copyright law do not favor the rich any more than any other law on the books, so I don't think that it's a fair argument to make that a sticking point.
-
The government isn't taking anything away from you. It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc. That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism). If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all. Keep that in mind.
uhm.. so writing a law is proactive enforcement? No. The government has simply written a law to protect others from moving in on your property. Enforcing this one, currently, is entirely up to the owner. You have to sue to enforce it. There are currently no CSI agents locating instances of copyright infringement or turning out evidence for those violated to use in court.
I think it comes down to a matter of perception over which the government is doing. But I don't really see any fascist intervention by the government when they stop me from taking someone else's property without permission. That, it seems to me, is the same as saying that the government is dictatorial when it says that trespassing private property or burglarizing my neighbors is illegal.
Ideas are like any other commodity. The more you have access to, the more you can do. I don't see why, in an economy that is primarily based on ideas, you find it abhorrent that ideas are treated like property. If anything, it seems to me that this situation calls for stronger protection of ideas, not less.
--note, it seems I misread a couple words in this quote. It seems I'm in more agreement on this with JadeKnight than I thought, at least in terms of the activity of the government. HOwever, the disagreement over the degree to which this activity has gotten to the degree of "oppressive" remains, so I won't change the main body of my comments.
-
We refer to branded characters and situations as "properties" quite explicitly.
IPs, yes. But they follow quite a different set of rules, and even our concepts of "property" get shattered from time to time (the definition of traditional property was revolutionized this century alone).
. The fact that they can hire the best lawyers instead of relying on the public defender lottery is the most basic of these inequalities.
I agree that it's not a limited problem, but part of this is that the rich expand usage of "copyright protections" to edge out competition, legislate copyright meanings, and terrorize those who oppose its agenda.
However, the *law* does not recognize the difference between rich or poor. Writing the law so that it inherently does so would be, I think, a severe case of prejudice, in either direction.
I agree, and yet the laws are being written to encourage monopolies in the IP-world.
But instead of writing into law words that explicitly discriminate on the basis of net value
I would never suggest this. I like your suggestion better, but part of the problem is that the big corporations are the ones deciding, to an extent, what laws get written.
Again, I'm not opposed to copyright. I've stated that at least half a dozen times by now. Copyright is a good thing. But, in my mind, at least, the purpose of copyright is to encourage Creativity. And if creating means you have to constantly be worried about a lawsuit on your hands, or if many types of creating are deemed illegal or are filled with red tape because some corporation has lobbied to make it so, and fair use is being eroded, then we have a problem.
Now, this isn't as big of a problem with printed works as it is in other domains - thank goodness there's no print version of the RIAA (to lobby congress to pass legislation installing locks on word processors, printers, and scanners). However, there's still the problem of the Public Domain suffering, and Fair Use Rights vanishing.
-
"Private Property"? You have a strange concept of private property, and Lockean notions of private property had nothing to do with copyright as it's observed today.
The government isn't taking anything away from you. It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc. That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism). If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all. Keep that in mind.
Capitalistic Socialism? In the most polite manner possible I ask, did you make that up?
I never said the government wanted to take anything away from me. I said you did, as in, the "camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses". Currently my government protects my private property (and to clear something up, I'm not referring to Lockean notions of private property. I'm referring to things that belong to me/private citizens.) for me, at my behest. Whether it's my car or my book, the government enforces laws that make it illegal for others to steal them from me. Whether you say you are "pro copyright" or not, you're advocating that that protection be lessened. You are advocating that my property be more easily taken from me.
And as for the government staying entirely out of it, you're the one that was complaining about oppressive/invasive government, not I. Keep in mind that you should take the time to read and understand other people's posts before responding to them.
Actually, they are. In practice in America, copyright protects those with money (ie, who can afford Copyright/IP lawyers), and does not protect those without it (the rest of us).
Did you read what you quoted? This is exactly why I said, "under the law." Pointing out that we have not acheived the ideal is meaningless. It doesn't change the ideal we're striving for. It just points to a whole slew of other problems that allow the rich to work the system, and only in the most general sense does it have anything to do with the discussion at hand. Focus.
They lobby congress to change and enact laws that the general populace wouldn't want (or benefit from), but we don't have money to throw to politicial candidates to try to counteract that.
At least half the blame you ascribe to the rich here actually belongs to the people who keep electing politicians who bow to special interest groups. Again, the reality doesn't match the ideal. No surprise there.
But the core of the matter I was responding to was your claim that strict copyright law smacks of socialism. It is there that you seem to equate the rich folk with government. If the rich folk were the government, then you'd have a point. They aren't. I recognize that rich folk have more clout, for all the wrong reasons, but they do. Oh well. Would you draw a line at some point and say, "Once you're this rich you don't get to have a say in government anymore." ?
Keeping the private citizen in control of his own property protects him from the rich as well as everyone else who wants to steal his property. It's what allows him to join the rich in their richness. Take it away and he's got no chance at all to improve his situation.
I recognize that your pro-copyright and just think some things should be changed about it. I can say the same. I'm objecting to your charactrisation of those who want to keep strong copyright laws in place as socialist. It's a bit of a reach.
-
There are currently no CSI agents locating instances of copyright infringement or turning out evidence for those violated to use in court.
Actually, government raids have begun, and the RIAA and MPAA are pressing the government to increase them significantly.
I agree that ideas need to be protected.
That said, I've seen too many abuses of this, and I think things need to change to reduce the abuses.
-
Look, I've yet to say you're in favor of completely removing copyrights. I jsut don't agree that it's as bad as you say.
What do you think about my idea of making copyright enforcement a government job, rather than being done by private law suit?
-
In the most polite manner possible I ask, did you make that up?
Certainly not. A quick google search of Capitalist Socialism gives nearly two thousand hits. I don't consider the two mutually exclusive. Capitalist Communism, on the other hand. . .
I said you did, as in, the "camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses".
Well, let's look at this one way:
More control: You should have no right to quote me, or to even mention my ideas. You should not be able to read my writing aloud, or write anything that uses any of the ideas it contains. You should not be able to resell or modify copies you've boughten.
Less control: You should have the right to quote me, but not copy my writing in its entirety. You should be able to read it aloud, or share it with others. You should be able to write things that are based on my own writing (such as using an Academic theory I invented), so long as you attribute to me my contributions. You should be free to modify (for personal use), or resell what you have.
Out of these two, I think "less control" is vastly superior. I think the lives of everyone, on the whole, will be much better for it, and I feel that it would harm the "copyright owner" very little. It's a good with very little bad. "More control", however, I see as a bad with very little good. As you can see, it's not a simple matter of "how easily things are taken away from you".
At least half the blame you ascribe to the rich here actually belongs to the people who keep electing politicians who bow to special interest groups.
Partly because these politicians get more advertising/campaign funding. But we're starting to get onto a different discussion here, and I think we'd both prefer we didn't for now.
I'm objecting to your charactrisation of those who want to keep strong copyright laws in place as socialist.
I view the government intervention they're advocating as Socialist. For me, Socialism = big government. I do understand, however, that there's a difference between theoretical Socialism (government for the people) and practical Socialism (big, invasive government, regardless of whether it helps the people or not).
[Ooh. Earthquake]
-
What do you think about my idea of making copyright enforcement a government job, rather than being done by private law suit?
Perhaps what would be best is if lawyers for both sides were government-provided. Your suggestion would only encourage the sort of Socialism I'm opposed to, and would only be more invasive, and needlessly expensive.
However, having the government provide the lawyers would prevent the problem of the big guys being able to afford high-quality copyright lawyers and the poor guy getting someone who may not know a thing about copyright.
-
Out of curiousity Jade Knight, what changes would you propose? How would you balance the protection of personal property with making information available to everyone?
-
Out of curiousity Jade Knight, what changes would you propose? How would you balance the protection of personal property with making information available to everyone?
I would personally advocate repealling the DMCA and the SBCEA, and writing legislation that protects Fair Use rights and specifies activities that are specifically unregulated (if possible/feasible). It probably wouldn't hurt to have some sort of provision to make it easier for "orphan works" to enter the Public Domain, either, or to include legislation pre-empting further copyright extensions (may not make a difference, but at least it would be a slight deterrent).
It may be worth noting that the ALA (and even some publishers) were opposed to the SBCEA.
-
Perhaps what would be best is if lawyers for both sides were government-provided. Your suggestion would only encourage the sort of Socialism I'm opposed to, and would only be more invasive, and needlessly expensive.
I'm not sure I follow you there.
I'm not talking strictly about lawyers, though I am saying there should be prosecutors and public defenders for copyright, just like any other crime. I'm talking about the investigators being law enforcement officers, the cases being tried in criminal courts instead of civil, etc. Treat it like any other law. Instead of saying that it's a law and then not do anything about it (which seems pointless). Sure, this is more expensive. But it seems to be the only fair way to enforce it if your complaint is about the rich always getting their way. Any reform you suggest that doesn't involve fairly adjucated enforcement won't correct any of the de facto problems you speak about. I would imagine they'd just make things worse, in fact, making it easier to pin the guy with no money with a crime more easily while the rich attacking them paint their own crimes in a better light more easily with relaxed laws.
Well, let's look at this one way:
More control: You should have no right to quote me, or to even mention my ideas. You should not be able to read my writing aloud, or write anything that uses any of the ideas it contains. You should not be able to resell or modify copies you've boughten.
Less control: You should have the right to quote me, but not copy my writing in its entirely. You should be able to read it aloud, or share it with others. You should be able to write things that are based on my own writing (such as using an Academic theory I invented), so long as you attribute to me my contributions. You should be free to modify (for personal use), or resell what you have.
I think that sets up a false dichotomy. There's a continuum. A happy medium.
And plus, "less control" pretty much describes what we have right now. At least, more so than "more control" does.
-
I'm at a conference, and will freely admit I haven't read all the posts. But I saw something that looked like there was a discussion about ideas as properties. Thomas Jefferson wrote a great piece on the economy of ideas. If you do a google search you can find it, and if you want a nice discussion on the topic, search for economy of ideas site:wired.com.
I fully agree with the Jeffersonian notion that ideas are not property, rather the artifacts you produce from those ideas are private property.
To think ideas are property is a naive, IMO.
-
You'll have to defend that notion much better.
I hardly find it naive to look at how ideas are treated in the world: and they're treated as properties. That's what patents are all about.
-
I would imagine they'd just make things worse, in fact, making it easier to pin the guy with no money with a crime more easily while the rich attacking them paint their own crimes in a better light more easily with relaxed laws.
Not if you read my suggestion: a) removing the DMCA removes a lot of the "rich guy's" ammunition. b) repealling the SBCEA means they have less issues to fight over. c) Writing legislation to expand/preserve "Fair Use Rights" would give the defender more of a fighting chance, and finally d) if it were possible to specify "unregulated" [by copyright] uses, these would be uses that a law suit can't even come up over.
One of the big problems between the "little man" and the "big corporation" is copyright law - only a copyright lawyer can do well with it, and the poor absolutely cannot afford to hire copyright lawyers. Having the court provide both with equal lawyers (for free) would level the playing field considerably. Having the goverment actively hunting down copyright violators and prosecuting them would do the exact opposite of what I want (that is, to encourage Free Culture).
There's a continuum. A happy medium.
And plus, "less control" pretty much describes what we have right now. At least, more so than "more control" does.
I agree that "Less Control" is closer to what we have now than "more control". My point was, however, to illustrate that "more control" is a bad thing, so long as there is "adequate control". Definition of "adequate control" will obviously vary. For me, very little control is adequate. Just a few basic protections (no direct copying, no quoting/using [specific, new] ideas without attributing, no using specific [named] characters or worlds without owners permission, all for a limited time [even if it's 50 years]). I think, if we put it in perspective, we can all agree that less control is better so long as control is "adequate". That's kind of my point.
-
Yup. Less is more as long as it's adequate.
What's adequate?
-
I've already specified what I feel is "adequate". Granted, it's certainly not "legalese", but for a basic sense…
However, after looking it over, I feel that there are some things I generalize too much over.
By "characters or worlds", I mean pretty much anything you can call a "proper noun". This includes named races, religions, nations etc. This is to prevent people from writing a book with your character doing things you really don't want your character doing, and also to help authors keep world-consistency (without fear that others will publish popular events in the world that the creator dislikes).
My comment about "ideas" is also primarily to avoid plagiarism.
-
Yes. It was a rherotical question meant to invoke the vast disagreement that would result were you to ask said question of any two groups of people. Even assuming they were all private citizens.
-
Obviously.
So, here's a question: Were protections adequate 300 years ago? 200? 100? 20?
Are they adequate now?
I already pointed out that there would be disagreement on the issue. I find your own post superfluous.
The real issue is, I guess, at what point do we sacrifice "protections" for Free Culture, and at what point do we sacrifice Free Culture for "protections"?
The only things I see that need to be protected are:
Name control (for reasons mentioned)
Plagiarism (or the prevention of it)
Direct copies (keeping in mind strong "Fair Use" protections)
-
One of the big problems between the "little man" and the "big corporation" is copyright law - only a copyright lawyer can do well with it, and the poor absolutely cannot afford to hire copyright lawyers. Having the court provide both with equal lawyers (for free) would level the playing field considerably. Having the goverment actively hunting down copyright violators and prosecuting them would do the exact opposite of what I want (that is, to encourage Free Culture).
Ah, yes. Now I follow. That makes much more sense. I shall mull it over, for I'm not sure what my opinion is.
My point about trying to define "more" and "less" control is that it doesn't paint a valid picture. But more control can also be exactly what you said for "less" but with one more stipulation. "less" is not inherantly better than "more," it depends entirely on what the starting point is. It just wasnt' an effective means of showing what you mean, is all.
As for how much was adequate, more controls are necessary now than were before.
To go back to Jefferson, he envisioned the US as a loose collective of nearly autonomous states, where the primary factor was the gentleman farmer, and where land was THE primary commodity for most businesses of any type.
Little of that is true these days. The states aren't even what you can call "semi-autonomous." They have independent powers, but those are superceded by a central federal government. There are very few privately held farms anymore, and even if you stretch that to "small business owners" you're stretching a description of our modern society. Most people work for someone else and do well that way. The laborer is a more significant voting block when they actively participate. And land isn't nearly as precious. Many, many business don't own ANY land or real estate. They rent their location and do extremely well with it. Their primary commodity is intellectual property -- to wit, in most cases, the data on their hard drives. Thus we need more protection of that property than 200 years ago.
Now, this doesn't do anything to the previous discussion: are we adequate now or too harsh. All it does is give my response on that one question: protections 200 years ago are not sufficient for today's society. I would probably extend the same argument to 100 or even 50 years ago. In my opinion, the demands of IP protection 20 years ago are what they are now. NOt knowing exactly when laws changed though, I'm not ready to defend or decry the differences in protection then and now -- I suspect that some aspects are better and others worse.
-
I hardly find it naive to look at how ideas are treated in the world: and they're treated as properties. That's what patents are all about.
A patent isn't for ideas, it's for an object. It's a design of a tangible thing. Copyright is copyrighting a piece of work. But a true 'idea' is not something you can patent.
I'm currently in a session called, "The Google Library Digitization Project: For the Good of the World or for Google?"
I'll try to get the powerpoint if anybody is interested.
-
uhm... no, the object itself isn't patented. Or else the other objects wouldn't be protected. THe patent is on the DESIGN. WHich is an idea.
-
No, the patent is on a design of a product you plan to build. You are patenting a product that stems from an idea.
Let me ask you a question. Assume that we live in a neighborhood that doesn't know that salt melts ice. We all struggle through the winter slipping and sliding on our sidewalks. I decide that there has to be something and start to experiment. After much work, trial and error, I come upon the idea to put salt on the sidewalk. Sure enough, the ice melts.
Now, everybody has salt, everybody has ice. I ask you, can I patent this idea? If so, what do I patent? The salt? The action of putting ice on the sidewalk?
I can patent a salt spreader that gives nice spread. Or I can patent a trademark of 'Uncle Willies Ice Melt', but surely you can't argue I can patent the 'idea' of putting salt on ice.
-
That's a little simplistic, don't you think?
Ideas, INFORMATION is negotiable. People will buy and sell information. They will write contracts, at great expense, to control the flow of information. sharing some information is criminal. Yet you want to treat this information as not being possessed.
The patent, frankly, is on the IDEA of HOW TO BUILD the object. It is not on the object itself.
Frankly, that's a semantic point, a relevant one, but one that ultimately comes down to opinion.
-
Or I can patent a trademark of 'Uncle Willies Ice Melt', but surely you can't argue I can patent the 'idea' of putting salt on ice.
Smuckers patented making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a certain way (with peanut butter on both sides). How ridiculous is that?
And Bell.ca tried to register "the net" as a trademark. Thank goodness the Canadians had enough sense to reject that request.
-
Frankly, that's a semantic point, a relevant one, but one that ultimately comes down to opinion.
It is a semantic point, but a crucial one. And it's not opinion. The law is incredibly clear on the subject. You can't copyright an idea. To do so would bring all progress to a grinding halt. I could say something like, If I could patent the idea of harnessing the power of the sun, I could preclude anybody anywhere from working on anything related to solar power. It's the product, or design of a product, that can be copyrighted or patented (or trademarked), not the idea.
If we can agree on nothing else, I think this point is something we should be able to agree on, since the law is clear on the matter, and you have to admit that tying up an idea just isn't a good thing to do.
-
You can patent a process. A product or device is not necessary.
To use the salt on ice example, if nobody knew that spreading salt on roads helped melt ice until you discovered that, you could patent that. You'd call it "A Process for Decreasing Ice on Roads Through the Spreading of Salt."
-
It'd be a moronic patent, mind you, but you could still patent it.
And hopefully if you sued someone over the patent you'd lose.
-
Here is a link that states you cannot patent an idea.
http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p120010.htm
And yes, you could patent a process, but you can't patent the idea. They are two separate things. So in the salt case you could patent the process of pouring salt onto a road using machine X, or method Y, but you couldn't stop anybody from changing the process with the same result, that of getting salt on the ice.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#whatpat
-
Your definition of "idea" is far too narrow, imo. A process is an conceptualization -- an idea.
That doesn't mean ALL ideas can be patented, but some categories of ideas CAN.
-
This, in my opinion, is where the discussion gets pointless for both of us. I've provided links to several sites, including the patent office that states ideas cannot be copyrighted. It's common sense. If you think ideas should be copyrighted, that is fine, but that is not the law, nor does it make any sense. All I'm trying to do is get us on the same page, of accepting that processes, designs or objects, etc. can be patented, but ideas cannot. Instead we are arguing over a settled point.
What would have happened if Edgar Allen Poe had patent 'idea' of writing a story that presents a mystery to the reader. He was the first to write such a story. Had he been able to 'patent' that idea, we would have missed out on Sherlock Holmes, Poirot, and a thousand other such characters and stories that have enriched our lives.
-
And that's actually one reason that Copyright Law and Patent Law are and absolutely need to be different.
-
(http://www.omnistar.org/images/random/storm.jpg)
-
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=902
There you go. Something to think on about balancing copyright, the "pizzaright" test.
-
The problem with that argument being that pizza is an actual product, which is clearly different than intellectual property.
-
Yeah, but the test still seems to work failry well, ne?
-
Smuckers patented making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a certain way (with peanut butter on both sides). How ridiculous is that?
Correction they tried to patent a way of making the sandwich (which seals in the jelly so it doesn't shoot out of the sides when you eat it) but they were denied since the judge ruled that it was to common sense of an idea and he was sure that other people have done it before the patent request was made.
But I really don't think this is too relevant to this discussion since you cannot patent recipes in any country nor have you ever been able to since copyrights came into place that I'm aware of. Smuckers was trying to argue around this but wasn't successful.
Just in case your were curious the method was to make a pocket out of the peanut butter, then when you cut off the crust it would make a seal that would keep the jelly in since the outside 1cm of the sandwich was peanut butter acting as a glue.
-
I do believe they were initially successful in obtaining the patent, but that it got shot down when it went to court.
-
Score: Google 0 Yahoo 1
http://news.com.com/Yahoo+to+digitize+public+domain+books/2100-1038_3-5887374.html?tag=nefd.top
************
Unlike Google, Yahoo will scan and digitize only texts in the public domain, except where the copyright holder has expressly given permission. The OCA project also will make the index of digitized works searchable by any Web search engine. Because Google is restricting public access to excerpts of copyright protected books, it is maintaining control over the searching of all the digitized texts in its program.
*****************************
Honestly, google's got some of the smartest people working for it yet was too stupid to do it this way.
-
Yes. As I've said from day one on this thread, the idea is a good one but stealing copyrighted works is a bad idea. I'm thrilled, go Yahoo.
Even now though, I'd much rather use an interface Google designed than one by Yahoo. They're just better at that kind of thing. Too bad they blew it.
Maybe Google will wise up and restrict themselves to works they have legal access to.
-
Yeah, what Skar said.
-
Latest news on the Google Print situation:
(from a Publisher's Weekly email newsletter (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6275614.html))
AAP Sues Google
A little less than one month after the Author Guild filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Google over its Library Project, the Association of American Publishers has filed its own suit that charges Google with infringing the rights of authors and publishers.
The AAP, which is coordinating and funding the suit, filed the complaint on behalf of the McGraw-Hill Cos., Pearson Education, Penguin Group USA, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley. "The publishing industry is united behind this lawsuit against Google and united in the fight to defend their rights," said AAP president Pat Schroeder. "While authors and publishers know how useful Google's search engine can be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource, the bottom line is that under its current plan Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers."
As a way of accomplishing the legal use of copyrighted works in the Library Project, AAP proposed to Google that they utilize the ISBN numbering system to identify works under copyright and secure permission from publishers and authors to scan these works. Google rejected the offer.
Schroeder noted that while "Google Print Library could help many authors get more exposure and maybe even sell more books, authors and publishers should not be asked to waive their long-held rights so that Google can profit from this venture."
More here. (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6275986.html?pubdate=10%2F19%2F2005&display=breaking)
And here: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051019/dcw031.html?.v=31
-
Those are some big names.
-
AAP proposed to Google that they utilize the ISBN numbering system to identify works under copyright and secure permission from publishers and authors to scan these works.
They make that sound like such a simple thing. For recent titles it would be, but the power of what Google is doing is not scanning in Harry Potter and The DaVinci Code, but the millions of titles that are out of print. It is next to impossible to track down the author, let alone the publisher who has probably been bought and sold 15 times.
This does nothing but impede progress. It's time to take the 200 year old copyright laws and reconsider them in light of new technology. Laws that would better protect authors, and better ensure a free flow of information.
-
"The lesson is, kids, never try."
That argument is so absurd I don't know where to start. YOur argument seems to be essentially "that's hard. we shouldn't have to do it."
How about Google, a big company with lots of resources, starts doign some research. Yes, it takes time, but it *can* be done. If there's no copyright owner anymore, than they can run it. No lawsuit.
How about Google, a big company with lots of resources, starts trying to do things that don't steal from people? Especially when those people provide a way to take care of it.
How about Google, a big company with lots of resources, does this *at least* for the people suing them instead of making a court case out of it, literally. If the people suing them are compensated or at least appeased, than there's no lawsuit.
You act like the other side is 100% about greed and hate. That's ridiculous. Google isn't doing this out of altruism, they get something out of it. And they're not even TRYING to help people who want protection of their property.
The sort of one-sided, fail to think that anyone might possibly be right in any respect is exactly why I think /. is a retarded site.
I think I'm done, and I'll ignore this thread from now on. You haven't cared to actually read most of what I've written, and at the start you even admitted that. You don't appear to be interested in doing anything but ranting about how people who don't believe "information wants to be free, man" are jerks trying to destroy the world.
-
The part I most agree with is this, in the second link from PW I posted above:
The lawsuit also makes clear that Google's opt-out offer--in which Google will exclude copyrighted works from the Library Project if a publisher notifies the company--runs contrary to the Copyright Act. Google already knows that publishers do not want the company to include copyrighted works in Google Library without their permission, the complaint states, therefore publishers "are under no obligation to provide Google with any further information."
Google already knows that publishers think it's hogwash to have to opt out of something they already have the right to and that Google does not have the right to. They are under no obligation to opt out book-by-book. I think the ISBN idea is very good--it's really not that hard for books published after 1967 (66?) to look them up by ISBN.
-
Stacer, what do you mean by 'look up'? Do you mean find the publisher and get permission? I just attended a workshop at a conference that tackled this very topic (the head librarian from one of the libraries Google is working with spoke) He said that most publishing companies don't even know what they have in their inventory. If you are trying to find out who has the rights to a particular book, even if you find the publisher, often they don't know for sure if they in fact own those rights, let alone how to contact the author/next of kin.
And what about this 1967 year? Are you saying that they don't need permission for books before this?
One last question. Google is doing the exact same thing (copying information) to web pages. The copyright law doesn't treat a web page any different than an article, a book, or scribbling on a napkin. So how do we resolve this issue? Is it ok to make copies of things online, but not print? What about something in print, and also online? Wouldn't you at least say that changes have to be made in light of new technology?
-
And e, for the record, that is not what I'm saying. I'm not standing up in defense of Google, I'm trying to understand the issue better. I see the current copyright law as outdated and ill suited to do what it was originally set up to do (protect authors, spread information, foster creativity, reward innovation) in light of new technology. If I had all the answers, I certainly wouldn't be here trying to convince you that I'm right. I would be running for office. But I don’t have the answers, and that is why I'm asking questions, and sharing my opinion. I think that since I am an author, and since I work very closely with copyright law every day, I have some valid opinions, insights, and certainly lots and lots of questions. I'm not trying to argue, and it is my perception based on several other threads (I'll admit, the perception is very possibly a wrong one) that you would rather argue than discuss.
I'm more than happy to discuss things but when a person uses phrases like "so absurd", "You act like", "That's ridiculous", "You haven't cared to", "You don't appear to be", and "ranting about", I tend to not want to discuss things anymore because we aren't talking about the issues, we're arguing.
You and I are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and that's fine. I'm not going to try to convince you. I'm just going to ask my questions. If you want to answer them I would be very interested in your opinions. If not, that's fine too.
-
1967 is the year in which ISBNs began. Every book since then has a registered ISBN.
"Most publishing companies don't know what they have in their inventory."
Huh? What they have in inventory has nothing to do with whether they hold the rights to a copyrighted book. You contact the publisher's legal department with the ISBN. And if it involves a lot of red tape, you go through the motions of the law. If the law changes, so be it. I'm interested to see what changes might come out of the suits. But for Google to say that it's okay and to go ahead with the project when a NUMBER of publishers who obviously own copyright have said that they object, and the law is clearly in their favor--Google is going about it the wrong way.
As for what changes should be made, honestly, I'm not interested in it enough to think about it. I think it's fine the way it is, actually, and that Google is in the wrong.
-
I'm more than happy to discuss things but when a person uses phrases like "so absurd", "You act like", "That's ridiculous", "You haven't cared to", "You don't appear to be", and "ranting about", I tend to not want to discuss things anymore because we aren't talking about the issues, we're arguing.
Pot, Kettle, black.
You aren't bothering to try and understand what I say. You are only repeating your position. That doesn't sound like "trying to understand the issue" or discussion. You're saying your impression of me (gained from "other threads" is more important than actually reading what I have to say. You've made a great many statements in response to my posts that I would expect to hear from someone reacting to key words I've said, but not rreading my actual meaning.
So no, I don't think any of those phrases I've used are inaccurate or inappropriate. I used them because that's what's coming across.
I can't see another way to take the post I responded to other than "this is a lot of work, thus those demanding the work be done are nothing but obstructionists." Even being generous, that's a fair summary of the words you posted. And that *is* absurd, and it shows a complete lack of trying to understand what the other side is doing. You want a discussion of the issues, try doing something other than repeating your position, again and making blanket characterizations of very large groups of people, and do it without such malice in your words for the other position.
-
protect authors, spread information, foster creativity, reward innovation
There is only a single item on that list that has anything to do with the "purpose" of copyright law. Protect Authors. (Authors meaning copyright owners)
There is nothing else. It is not the mission of our government and therefore not a purpose of the laws it creates to do any of the other three. The other three are natural offshoots of the rule of law but it is not the government's role to actively DO any of them. Why not? Because if it were we'd be stuck with the government deciding what information should be spread, what sorts of creativity should be fostered, and what sorts of innovation should be rewarded. Hello totalitarian dictatorship/socialist-communism.
The basic principle behind copyright law is to prevent people stealing from other people.
You've brought up the website/Google search engine argument before and in a perfect example of the kind of behavior E is laying at your door you're bringing it up again, untouched by any of the discussion that has surrounded it on this thread to date.
Again, Google gets permission from the website owners to copy every single thing it indexes. It's an automated process that Google and the copyright owners have both bought into. You and I do the same thing Google does every time we look at a webpage. We make a local copy with permission from the servers hosting the information.
What Google is trying to do with the books is different because they want to do it without getting permission.
If Google were really hot after benefitting the little guys who own all the copyrights they want to steal they could have approached the publishers to begin with, touting all the "increase of sales" rhetoric they're throwing around now and had them voluntarily give them the works in question with, I predict, a very high rate of return. Strong-arming is offensive and makes people want to tell Google to go jump. It's totally the wrong approach.
-
There is only a single item on that list that has anything to do with the "purpose" of copyright law.
I disagree, Skar.
Here's what the U.S. Constitution has to say about copyright:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . ..
The purpose of copyright law is not just to protect authors -- it protects authors for a reason, and that reason is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
The items you disparaged on Firemeboy's list ("spread information, foster creativity, reward innovation") certainly seem related to the purpose of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.
By enabling authors to earn money from their work, copyright law encourages people to engage in creating copyrightable material. However, if protecting authors prevented progress in science and art, then protecting the author would actually be against the purpose of copyright law.
-
I disagree, but I see your point. I thought I addressed it when I pointed out that the things Firemeboy listed (I wasn't disparaging them) were natural offshoots of protecting copyright. My interpretation of the passage you quoted is that Congress is given a specific power: "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." (protecting copyright), in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." I don't read that to mean that they are to give themselves whatever power they want to accomplish that end.
To restate (since I know I am rarely as clear as I think I am) IMO That passage does not give Congress power to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts but only the power to secure "...for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." with that end in mind.
The distinction is a subtle one but I think an important one.
So I stand by my statement. The sole purpose of copyright law, as it supports and is defined by the constitution, is to protect authors. The framers intended that the resulting laws would promote progress and so on but the purpose of the law itself is solely to secure exclusive rights..., exactly what the constitution says. I don't think it was an accident that the framers gave congress such a limited tool with which to bring about the desired ends. They didn't want a government with the power to decide what to protect and when anymore than we do.
-
That passage does not give Congress power to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts but only the power to secure "...for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." with that end in mind.
Right.
Which means that the ultimate purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The means by which it is supposed to accomplish that purpose is through protecting authors from having their work copied.
Imagine that the Constitution contained the following clause:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Colonization of Space, by granting unto Astronauts the Right to ride atop giant Rockets.
Pursuant to that clause, Congress passes the Rocketright Act.
Now, you would be correct in claiming that such a grant of power does not allow Congress to promote the colonization of space by building space elevators.
But you would be incorrect in claiming that the sole purpose of the Rocketright Act is to give rockets to astronauts. The reason for giving rockets to astronauts is to promote the colonization of space.
And if, in fact, giving rockets to astronauts does not promote the colonization of space because the astronauts think space is a nice place to visit but they wouldn't want to live there, then the Rocketright Act has actually failed in its ultimate purpose, no matter how many rockets it gives to astronauts.
-
What they have in inventory has nothing to do with whether they hold the rights to a copyrighted book.
Sorry, that is what I meant. This gentleman who spoke about the Google project said that finding who owned most of these books was next to impossible because nobody is even sure who owns the copyright anymore.
As for what changes should be made, honestly, I'm not interested in it enough to think about it. I think it's fine the way it is, actually, and that Google is in the wrong.
Fair enough. But you are in an industry benefiting from the copyright as it now stands. I see potential for good things to come out of changes in the copyright that both protect the author, and afford new and exciting changes.
One other thought I had, and I may be wrong, I'm just throwing it out there for comments; right now the copyright act protects authors, but there is also an entire industry making money off the work of others. Many here work in this industry, myself included. So for example, I wrote a book but there are many others making money off my work. My editor is paid from the money made from my book. The managing editor is paid from the money made from my book. There are secretaries, marketing personnel, financial folks, the landlord who owns the building, all are paid in part from the proceeds of my book. But it doesn't end there. Every book store owner who has sold a copy of my book has profited. The clerks in the store, the janitors... You get the point. People can use my work to make money for themselves. Anybody can make money off my book. A person may buy 50 copies and give them away in hopes of attracting people to his car dealership. This is the free market, this is the free economy. So while what Google is doing may or may not be illegal, is it fair to paint them as 'evil' because they are trying to make money off somebody else's work? Remember, there are all sorts of provisions in the Fair Use act, and since this is new technology, judges have to look at new developments and determine what to do. We've already established that technically what every search engine does is illegal, but nobody seems to care. We understand that the benefit of 'bending' the law far outweighs consequences of sticking to a law written before the technology.
Anyway, again, I think the current copyright is stifling new and innovative ways that could benefit both author, publisher, and other companies. We've seen examples of authors, artists, musicians and others who are realizing that it is possible to work 'outside' of the current system. I hope the court rules in favor of Google.
-
e. I think we are both reading way too much in each others tone. You are correct. When I type, the tone in my mind is, "hmmmm, I wonder about this. I wonder about that. I'm not sure. That's interesting" I picture myself asking my class these questions. I'm have opinions about the quetsion, but I honestly what to know what other people think. I went back and read my post and pretended I was banging my shoe on the lecturn, and screaming at the top of my voice, and you are right, you could read my posts with malice. I assure you, there is none.
I certainly am not making blanket statements. I was simply asking Stacer some questions. They aren't rhetorical, I don't pretend to know the answers, they aren't trick questions. I'm really interested in her opinion, your opinion, anybody's opinion.
So anyway, I'm not sure how to make my tone sound malice free. I could throw in a few 'I love you' phrases here and there, but I don't think that would go over well.
-
The means by which it is supposed to accomplish that purpose is through protecting authors from having their work copied.(emphasis added)
Again, I have to disagree. The copyright law is, itself, the means. And it is the only means which the constitution grants unto congress.
Your example of the rocketright act, while entertaining, is not germaine to the discussion. It's a straw man. If the passage we are discussing were as specific as your example, say the congress was only granted power to protect an inventor's property with a 12 guage shotgun of a certain brand, then we might have a comparison. But your example deals in absurd specifics while the constitution deals in a broad principle.
There are problems with granting to the government the power to decide how to promote progress, and therefore to decide what kind of progress to promote and whose. The clause does not in fact grant unto congress the power to decide how to promote progress. It gives the purpose, and the principle to be used to promote that purpose, in the same breath. The best way to promote progress is to give an author or an inventor rock solid right to profit from his own work. In order to enforce that right the congress enacts a copyright law. There are three steps there and only in the third is the government given any latitude.
Purpose-> principle-> law. The law, copyright, is connected to the principle, protect authors, which is connected to the Purpose, promote progress. Connecting copyright directly to the purpose would allow congress to ignore the principle, as it is laid out in the constitution. That's not how it works.
In the end you're right, the copyright law is inseperably connected to promoting progress but there's an intermediate step in there that simply cannot be skipped.
-
The best way to promote progress is to give an author or an inventor rock solid right to profit from his own work.
But Skar, I would argue (without any malice whatsoever), that even the current copyright doesn't even try to go this far.
For example, if you write a book, I can quote from that book, as long as I cite the quote, as long as I do not give away the 'key part' of the book, or as long as I don't quote large sections of it. The copyright law doesn't give absolute power to the author or inventor, rather it seeks a balance between author and user. Fair Use and the Teach Act is all about taking the 'rock solid' power away from the author, and promoting exchange of information, at least to some level.
Isn't it fair to say that the author does not in fact have the 'rock solid' protection you are talking about? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
-
So for example, I wrote a book but there are many others making money off my work. My editor is paid from the money made from my book. The managing editor is paid from the money made from my book. There are secretaries, marketing personnel, financial folks, the landlord who owns the building, all are paid in part from the proceeds of my book. But it doesn't end there. Every book store owner who has sold a copy of my book has profited. The clerks in the store, the janitors... You get the point. People can use my work to make money for themselves. Anybody can make money off my book. A person may buy 50 copies and give them away in hopes of attracting people to his car dealership. This is the free market, this is the free economy. So while what Google is doing may or may not be illegal, is it fair to paint them as 'evil' because they are trying to make money off somebody else's work?
I have trouble believing that you are serious. Do you honestly fail to realize that in the example you give the author has been paid for his work while what Google is trying to do is, specifically, not pay him for his work?
We've already established that technically what every search engine does is illegal, but nobody seems to care.
Not so. Apparently, you're simply ignoring anyone who disagrees with you on that particular point, which is not the same as establishing anything, although it does seem to be more and more the academician's norm nowadays.
Fair enough. But you are in an industry benefiting from the copyright as it now stands.
So are you my friend. Or are University Presses now giving books away for free?
The difference you see is simply that in the academic world, where payment is recieved in kind (barter), publish or perish have a nice steaming plate of tenure, the word for stealing someone else's work is plagiarism rather than theft. And you're payment, tenure, chairmanships, etc... are not threatened by simple theft of the kind that Google is contemplating since they're only peripherally based on money. If Google were proposing to somehow steal away your credit for having produced a work, replacing your name with theirs, rather than mere money you'd be screaming bloody murder along with the rest of us.
Reply to Firemeboy's latest post, read after I wrote the above:
What I mean by rock solid is more of an attempt at inevitability rather than totality. Making a copy of an Author's work, the "key part" is illegal unless you pay the author. Period. This is the rock solid of which I speak. And unless I'm very much mistaken, Google is proposing to, nay has, made full and total copies of the "key parts" of the copyrighted works in question. And their project would, in fact, be pointless unless they did make complete copies of the works in question. So fair use, providing for the display of "snippets" is in fact irrelevant.
Now I go to sleep. I shall return to the field on the morrow.
-
Apparently, you're simply ignoring anyone who disagrees with you on that particular point, You know, you keep saying that, but I think the only person who responded to this quetsion said something to the affect of 'well, people just expect others to make copies when you put something on the web.' That's all fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that technically they are breaking the law. So I'll ask you the same question. Google makes a copy of web pages. They store them on their servers. How is this not breaking the copyright law? This is the crux of the whole issue.
Do you honestly fail to realize that in the example you give the author has been paid for his work while what Google is trying to do is, specifically, not pay him for his work?
Without malice, I beg to differ. This kind of thing happens all the time. I can start a blog entitled, "favorite quotes". I can quote things from books checked out from the library. If I get a large enough following, I can throw google ads on my site, and make money and never pay the author a dime. This is exactly what Google is doing with online content. They are simply using other people's information to make money, and making copies while they're doing it. This is why I think the above question I pose is so crucial.
What I mean by rock solid is more of an attempt at inevitability rather than totality. Making a copy of an Author's work, the "key part" is illegal unless you pay the author. Period. This is the rock solid of which I speak.
Agreed. I just wanted to make sure we understood that the 'purpose' of fostering creativity and growth does not stem from giving total and absolute power to the author over his work. There is a compromise between the rights of the author, and the rights of the general public. Copyright law attempts to protect the author, while still encourage the free flow of information.
Google has been sued by the Authors Guild, and a number of individual authors. This follows similar threats hinted at by the American Association of Publishers. The authors and the publishers consider Google’s latest fantastic idea, Google Print — a project to Google-ize 20,000,000 books — to be “massive copyright infringement.” They have asked a federal court to shut Google Print down.
It is 1976 all over again. Then, like now, content owners turned to the courts to stop an extraordinary new technology. Then, like now, copyright is the weapon of choice. But then, like now, the content owners of course don’t really want the court to stop the new technology. Then, like now, they simply want to be paid for the innovations of someone else. Then, like now, the content owners ought to lose.
This is the best case to illustrate the story I told at the start of Free Culture. Property law since time immemorial had held that your land reached from the ground to the heavens. Then airplanes were invented — a technology oblivious to this ancient law. A couple of farmers sued to enforce their ancient rights — insisting airplanes can’t fly over land without their permission. And thus the Supreme Court had to decide whether this ancient law — much older than the law of copyright — should prevail over this new technology.
The Supreme Court’s answer was perfectly clear: Absolutely not. “Common sense revolts at the idea,” Justice Douglas wrote. And with that sentence, hundreds of years of property law was gone, and the world was a much wealthier place.
So too should common sense revolt at the claims of this law suit. I’m an academic, so this is a bit biased, but: Google Print could be the most important contribution to the spread of knowledge since Jefferson dreamed of national libraries. It is an astonishing opportunity to revive our cultural past, and make it accessible. Sure, Google will profit from it. Good for them. But if the law requires Google (or anyone else) to ask permission before they make knowledge available like this, then Google Print can’t exist. Given the total mess of copyright records, there is absolutely no way to enable this sort of access to our past while asking permission of authors up front. Or at least, even if Google could afford that cost, no one else could.
Google’s use is fair use. It would be in any case, but the total disaster of a property system that the Copyright Office has produced reinforces the conclusion that Google’s use is fair use. And for all those people who devoted years of their life to defend the right to p2p file-sharing — here’s your chance to show what this battle is really about:
Google wants to do nothing more to 20,000,000 books than it does to the Internet: it wants to index them, and it offers anyone in the index the right to opt out. If it is illegal to do that with 20,000,000 books, then why is it legal to do it with the Internet? The “authors’” claims, if true, mean Google itself is illegal. Common sense, or better, commons sense, revolts at the idea. And so too should you.
From Lawrence Lessig's blog.
And technically, I just broke the copyright law. :)
-
I can start a blog entitled, "favorite quotes". I can quote things from books checked out from the library. If I get a large enough following, I can throw google ads on my site, and make money and never pay the author a dime.
Maybe... or you could get sued ... it all depends. Did the author think you quoted too much, does he want someone making money off his work... is he aware of it?
And most importantly are you using the authors name and popularity to sell your site? If you are your treading on very dangerous legal ground.
I bet if he knew about said site and you were selling his product (lets say you quote a page or a chapter instead of a sentance) you wouldnt be in buisness long. But lets say your selling a sentance without his permission... your still selling his work, if its iconic of the book or not.
I belive their is a standard of whats reasonable to quote, but you seem to suggest that its ok to sell those quotes to others without asking permission of the author or offering the author compensation. Thats theft plain and simple its also pretty arrogant.
From Lawrence Lessig's blog.
And technically, I just broke the copyright law.
No, actually you didnt. You cited your sources gave credit to the author and didnt charge for the work. Granted you posted all of the text, but since it seems relevent to the conversation intact Im pretty sure its ok.
-
This kind of thing happens all the time. I can start a blog entitled, "favorite quotes". I can quote things from books checked out from the library. If I get a large enough following, I can throw google ads on my site, and make money and never pay the author a dime. This is exactly what Google is doing with online content.
Two things: First, your favorite quotes example is nothing like what you described in your example of a book going through normal retail channels and being paid for. Focus.
Second, your current example is not what Google is proposing to do with books nor is it what they do with online content.
In the case of the books, while Google is proposing to only display snippets (your "favorite quotes" example) in order to do so they must make a copy of the entire work, which they search behind the scenes. That copy is what's illegal. If you made a copy of an entire book, the author could sue you whether you threw snippets of it up on your website or not. The issue at hand is not whether Google has the right to display snippets. They do, as you endlessly point out. It's whether they have the right to make a complete copy of work they don't own. They don't and never should, unless they pay for it.
If the courts suddenly grant Google the right to make a copy of work they don't own and haven't paid for, what keeps me from making my own copy of a work I'd like to have and putting it on my shelf at home without paying for it? What stops anyone from doing that once it's legal for Google?
As for the online portion, what Google is already doing, what you and I are already doing, when we view a web page. You keep saying that Google takes things from websites without the author's permission and makes complete copies which they store in their caches. You then connect that to what they want to do with books. You're right and wrong. You're right that Google makes complete copies and holds onto them in their caches. You're wrong in saying that they don't ask permission. They do. It's automated, but they do. Everyone does. You can't tell me you've never hit the webpage that says "access to this page denied" or "you don't have permission to access this server" Those are cases where the authors have not granted you permission to access the content you're requesting. In all other cases permission is granted.
-
There are problems with granting to the government the power to decide how to promote progress, and therefore to decide what kind of progress to promote and whose. The clause does not in fact grant unto congress the power to decide how to promote progress. It gives the purpose, and the principle to be used to promote that purpose, in the same breath. The best way to promote progress is to give an author or an inventor rock solid right to profit from his own work. In order to enforce that right the congress enacts a copyright law. There are three steps there and only in the third is the government given any latitude.
Purpose-> principle-> law. The law, copyright, is connected to the principle, protect authors, which is connected to the Purpose, promote progress. Connecting copyright directly to the purpose would allow congress to ignore the principle, as it is laid out in the constitution. That's not how it works.
Nobody here is claiming that Congress should just go ahead and promote the progress of science and art through means other than copyright.
But in designing copyright law, Congress should not just look at how best to protect authors. The best protection for authors would not have the "fair use" exceptions to copyright law.
Instead, Congress should look at how best to use the power of granting copyrights in order to promote the progress of science and art. So, for example, allowing educators to make copies of portions of an author's work in order to teach students is a reasonable exception to make, because in such cases the societal benefit in terms of promoting knowledge of science and the arts outweighs the negative effect such copying would have on the copyright-related incentives for authors to produce new works.
-
Granted. The fair use laws navigate the line between, a) an author being able to sue someone for using the word "the" because he, the author, had in fact used that word in his work (this could be taken further down to the very letters themselves but that's a little silly) and b) anyone being able to make complete copies of whatever they want whenever they want for whatever purpose.
But in the end I suspect that the drafters of the fair use laws had to primarily take into account what harm would be done to the authors by their exceptions-drafted-into-law. For example, although it would no doubt be easier and of more benefit to student's knowledge of science and the arts to allow educators to make and distribute full copies of the works in question, that is not, in fact, allowed.
So we are mostly in agreement I think. The purpose must be taken into account but the only way congress is given to advance that purpose is to protect authors, either more or less, in whatever way they see fit, but, in the end, their primary charge is to protect authors, not to promote progress.
Protecting authors does promote progress. And, to an extent, I even agree with Firemeboy that the current state of copyright is a sad one. Changing the law to suit Disney is almost as bad as changing the law to suit Google would be. But in this case, changing the law to suit Google would contravene the constitutional principle involved entirely where changing it to suit Disney merely strengthens it beyond what might be seen as reasonable.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that being able to search everything would be amazing and awesome. I just don't think it's worth making it legal for private citizens to copy copyrighted work. And that is exactly what would be required, no more no less, to legalize what Google wants. Instead, I think it would be worth a great deal of effort, within the law, to open as much work as possible to Google's use. Heck, they could have tapped into an amazing amount of free labor and energy if they had called on the OpenSource community and librarians and library volunteers and anyone else who cared to volunteer to do some of the legwork in tracking down old copyright owners, and worked with the publishers to make their out-of-print books in-print again benefitting both sides. They'd have had a large chunk of what they want dropped in their laps for free, legally, if they'd gone that route. Heck they could even have tried to talk libraries into donating duplicate copies to them. No problem there as long as they retained control of those copies, not just giving them back to the libraries when they were done.
If Google could express legal ownership of a hardcopy then they could have made a very persuasive case, based on all the work that has already been done on the ripping and burning of CDs and the like for personal use, merely in different formats, for their digitizing the book they own being legal.
-
but, in the end, their primary charge is to protect authors, not to promote progress.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Their primary charge is to promote progress in science and art. The means they are given to do so is by granting exclusive control for limited times to authors.
-
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
But now I fail to see the distinction I thought you were making, or any distinction at all for that matter. Claiming that the highest charge of congress in this matter is to promote progress, but that they may only do so by protecting authors is nearly identical with saying that their highest charge is to protect authors, with the aim of promoting progress.
What's the difference? I don't think, now, that you are saying that congress has the power to promote progress however they see fit, so what are you objecting to?
-
Did the author think you quoted too much, does he want someone making money off his work... is he aware of it?
And most importantly are you using the authors name and popularity to sell your site? If you are your treading on very dangerous legal ground.
Dr. Jeffe. Actually this wasn't a hypothetical. It happens all the time. Do a search for quotes on the internet and see all the sites you get. You can go to IMDB and see quotes from TV shows and movies. This is common stuff. I don't think it's 'dangerous ground' at all, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.
No, actually you didnt.
I think technically I did. I made a copy of something he wrote. It doesn't matter that I cited. If I were to copy the entire DaVinci Code book here, you can bet I would be sued. The law doesn't see a different, but common sense tells us that what I just did isn't that bad.
-
Two things: First, your favorite quotes example is nothing like what you described in your example of a book going through normal retail channels and being paid for. Focus.
Skar, you are missing the point, or I am not being clear. You said, Do you honestly fail to realize that in the example you give the author has been paid for his work while what Google is trying to do is, specifically, not pay him for his work?
So I gave you an example of somebody making money off of another person's work without ever paying that person. You are right, it's not the same thing. But conceptually it is the same thing. I can make money off of somebody elses work, not by making a copy, but without give the original creator any money at all. That is the similarity.
You're wrong in saying that they don't ask permission. They do. It's automated, but they do.
Wait, I don't think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Google asks for permission before they make a copy of my blog to store on their servers? Because they never asked me, and yet they've made a copy. They've copied this site as well. Did they ask anybody here?
It is my understanding that rather than ask permission to make a copy of every site, they copy everything unless you opt out of their serach engince. Everything else they copy and store.
-
I made a copy of something he wrote. It doesn't matter that I cited. If I were to copy the entire DaVinci Code book here, you can bet I would be sued. The law doesn't see a different, but common sense tells us that what I just did isn't that bad.
But you did it with his permission. It has nothing to do with common sense and it not being that bad. You copying Lawrence Lessig's blog is legal because he bloody well gave you permission to copy it. If you hadn't cited him he could have nailed you for plagiarism but that's an entirely different issue. If the owner of the DaVinci code posted his book on the web and set his server permissions to allow anyone that wanted to to download it, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on if he objected when you went and copied it, even reposting it is not providing it to anymore people than he already had himself. He's out of luck.
You're arguing the same two ideas over and over again.
1) That what Google wants to do is covered under fair use.
It's not. Displaying snippets would be, but what they want to do, and indeed have to do to provide the service they want, is make complete copies. Complete copies are not covered under fair use.
2) That they already do on the web with their search engine what they propose to do with books.
That's not the case because on the web they get permission first and with books they don't.
Is there anything else you're trying to say?
-
But now I fail to see the distinction I thought you were making, or any distinction at all for that matter. Claiming that the highest charge of congress in this matter is to promote progress, but that they may only do so by protecting authors is nearly identical with saying that their highest charge is to protect authors, with the aim of promoting progress.
Because it's possible to protect authors in ways that do not promote progress.
It might be a little more obvious in patent law, which is part of the same clause in the Constitution.
If the primary charge were to protect inventors, then a 100-year patent term would be better than the current 20-year term.
Now, if we ignore for the moment the financial incentives to innovation provided by patent law, then patents actually work against innovation by making it more difficult to incorporate patented inventions into new inventions. So the ideal patent term for scientific progress would be zero.
But if we consider the financial incentives provided by patents, we see that patents encourage inventors to invest time and money into inventing, so patents can offfset their negative impact with a positive impact on the rate of innovation.
If we consider Congress's prime charge to use patent law to protect the inventor, then 100-year terms for patents make sense. But if the prime charge is to use patent law to encourage progress in science, then what Congress needs to do is find a patent term that is long enough to make it worthwhile for inventors to invest in inventing, but short enough that its negative effects on subsequent innovation are minimized.
You see the difference? I'm saying that in drafting copyright/patent law, Congress needs to consider that the purpose of the law is to promote progress in science/art, and that if they go too far in protecting the author/inventor, it can actually have a negative effect.
-
Wait, I don't think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Google asks for permission before they make a copy of my blog to store on their servers? Because they never asked me, and yet they've made a copy. They've copied this site as well. Did they ask anybody here?
It is my understanding that rather than ask permission to make a copy of every site, they copy everything unless you opt out of their serach engince. Everything else they copy and store.
Your understanding is wrong. They did ask you and they did ask me. Or rather, their machines asked our machines. For public web pages, like this one and your blog, we set our machines to give permission to anyone who asks to download the content we post there. Google's machines have to have permission from our machines in order to download (copy) the content we put there. Heck, they have to get permission before they can even see a list of file names much less the contents of each file. Since we have not yet created machines that are self-willed somebody caused those machines to give that permission and that somebody is you and me. We set it up to be automatic, probably without giving it a second thought, since the whole point of posting something to the web is let other people copy it to their machines and then read it, but we did set it up. We gave permission and Google asked for it before making the copy.
-
Because it's possible to protect authors in ways that do not promote progress...
...Congress needs to consider that the purpose of the law is to promote progress in science/art, and that if they go too far in protecting the author/inventor, it can actually have a negative effect.
Perhaps we can agree that protecting authors and promoting progress are granted equal weight by the constitution because they are tied together inseperably by that document. So just as protecting authors can be detrimental to promoting progress, so can promoting progress be detrimental to protecting authors. If either is given pre-eminence the other suffers.
Thus, in the given discussion, if Google were to be given the legal right to copy protected works, so that progress could be promoted, then author's protection would have been done away with, since all citizens are equal under the law and giving Google that right would give it to all of us. The motivation to creat new work, the ability to profit from it, would be gone and so both the protection of authors and the promotion of progress would be dead.
?
-
Dr. Jeffe. Actually this wasn't a hypothetical. It happens all the time. Do a search for quotes on the internet and see all the sites you get. You can go to IMDB and see quotes from TV shows and movies. This is common stuff. I don't think it's 'dangerous ground' at all, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.
No it doesnt,... at least not in the way you seem to be suggesting. Quote sites exist, but the quotes are availible for free and are never large chunks of material. Providing them is called fair use and its tolerated (see Skars post). But I havent found a single site that charges $ to access those quotes. If you know of one be my guest and I'll point it out to the authors and have it shut down. Why, because they didnt write the quotes, and charging money for them is stealing from the author.
-
The motivation to create new work, the ability to profit from it, would be gone and so both the protection of authors and the promotion of progress would be dead.
And if people cant see that then I pity them. Writing is hard work, sure it seems easy (I mean you just sit at a desk and type right?) but actually putting down meaningful prose on a page takes time and effort. Why invest that effort for no reason. If you cant say its yours or reap the benefits of it then why do it?
Granted thats not the only reason people write, but it sure as heck is the reason that many are able to write.
-
Firemeboy wrote:
So I gave you an example of somebody making money off of another person's work without ever paying that person. You are right, it's not the same thing. But conceptually it is the same thing. I can make money off of somebody elses work, not by making a copy, but without give the original creator any money at all. That is the similarity.
It's not similar in any meaningful way. The copies of an author's work are a finite resource. He expects to profit from that resource and from any increase to it. Are you saying that my loaning a copy of a book to my friend for him to read (totally legal) such that my friend now has the book and I do not, is equivalent to my making a copy of the book and giving it to my friend so that we now both have copies?
Surely not for in the first case, if my friend keeps the book I will have to go to the author and buy a new one if I want a copy or, if my friend gives the book back and wants a copy, he'll have to go buy one from the author. In the second case we've both got copies of the book but only one of us paid for it. Therein lies the problem.
-
Quote sites exist, but the quotes are availible for free and are never large chunks of material.
Right, but they are still making money. Google isn't going to charge to have you search these texts, they will make money by selling ads, the same way IMDB.com makes money, and many, many other sites on the internet. The only reason I brought this up was that I felt some were saying it was a bad thing for Google to make money of another person's work. I simply wanted to point out that this happens all the time. Steve Jobs didn't invent the MP3, but he is making a boatload of money off of the technology. Bill Gate didn't invent the computer, but he has made a lot of money off the idea. Making money off of another person's idea is just a part of capitalism. Sometimes the inventor gets a share of that, more often than not they don't.
It's not similar in any meaningful way. The copies of an author's work are a finite resource. He expects to profit from that resource and from any increase to it. Are you saying that my loaning a copy of a book to my friend for him to read (totally legal) such that my friend now has the book and I do not, is equivalent to my making a copy of the book and giving it to my friend so that we now both have copies?
I would argue it is a meaningful way, but I'm sure neither of us will convince the other person to change their opinion. And as far as your examples go, I absolutely agree. One is totally legal, the other totally illegal.
I think we are going in circles, but I have very much enjoyed the discussion. I've learned several things, and my opinion has been shaped by it.
I completely see the rational behind the arguments of the 'other side', and understand where you are coming from. Google is doing something that has never been done before; making copies of printed texts and allowing others to search those copies. It absolutely needs to go to court to get settled. I also understand how you can point to the law and say what they are doing is illegal. I agree, technically it is illegal, just as planes flying over the farmers fields back in the 50s was technically illegal.
I merely wanted to point out why I think the law needs to be changed to allow innovations such as the one Google is proposing, while still protecting the author. While nobody has done anything like what Google is proposing, similar things are being done with text on the internet. Again, you can point to the law and say what Google does online is illegal, but it would be silly to shut down search engines based on old copyright law.
So I would argue that since Google is not distributing the entire text, since there is a precedence online, and I think that open information is usually a healthy thing, I fall on the side of Google.
-
Your understanding is wrong. They did ask you and they did ask me. Or rather, their machines asked our machines. For public web pages, like this one and your blog, we set our machines to give permission to anyone who asks to download the content we post there. Google's machines have to have permission from our machines in order to download (copy) the content we put there.
There is a difference between my machine contacting cnn.com and 'downloading' the information stored on it's computer to display, and Google making a permanent copy on their machines to store, display later, and archive.
I wrote a poem about 15 years ago and posted it to an old usenet group. That poem is still stored on Google's servers. They have made a copy of it. And the argument that "if I put it on the web, I should just expect it", isn't in the current copyright law.
-
For public web pages, like this one and your blog, we set our machines to give permission to anyone who asks to download the content we post there. Google's machines have to have permission from our machines in order to download (copy) the content we put there.
Oh, so you're telling me that because they posted stuff on their website, I can legally copy everything on Games Workshop's website and put it up on my own?
I don't know where you get your ideas, Skar, but if I did this, I could (and would) be sued, and would lose. Posting something publicly on the Internet is NOT the same as granting people to legally copy it - and telling a bot to "go away" is NOT considered a security provision (as protected by the DMCA). I actually read about a case where this was brought up and shot down. In other words, no one is under any obligation to not bot (and thus auto-list/archive) your site. Posting stuff on the internet still means it's copyrighted, and yet Google can go and archive it publicly without asking you (by any real, useful definition of the term).
So tell me, again, how you specifically give Google permission?
-
Google is doing something that has never been done before; making copies of printed texts...
It most certainly has been done before, and without permission like Google wants to do. That kind of theft is why the copyright laws were seen as necessary in the first place.
Again, you can point to the law and say what Google does online is illegal, but it would be silly to shut down search engines based on old copyright law.
Dude, no one is saying that what Google is doing online is illegal. Only you.
I wrote a poem about 15 years ago and posted it to an old usenet group. That poem is still stored on Google's servers. They have made a copy of it. And the argument that "if I put it on the web, I should just expect it", isn't in the current copyright law.
Yes, it is in the copyright law. The current copyright law allows you to give people permission to copy your work. 15 years ago you gave permission to everybody and their dog to make a copy of your poem and store it locally. It's how the web works. You can't read a web page without making a copy of it. And you can't make a copy of it without getting PERMISSION first. It's built into the machines.
I've said before that Google does more with their copy than the rest of us. But it doesn't make their use of their copy of your poem, which you gave them permission to make 15 years ago, either illegal or any different than the use everybody else makes or could make of it. The salient point here is that you gave EVERYBODY permission to make local copies of your work, including Google. We're having this discussion because they are trying to make copies of works for which they DON'T have permission.
Oh, so you're telling me that because they posted stuff on their website, I can legally copy everything on Games Workshop's website and put it up on my own?
Again, this is a situation that is fundamentally different from what the rest of us are talking about. Posting Games Workshop's entire website on your own website can only reasonably be compared to posting an entire book on Google's website. Google is NOT proposing to display entire books on their website. Only snippets. No one has a problem with snippets because they are covered by fair use. I have permission from Games Workshop to make a local copy of every page on their site. I couldn't view them otherwise. What I have a problem with is Google making a copy of a book that they DON'T have permission to copy.
I don't know where you get your ideas, Skar, but if I did this, I could (and would) be sued, and would lose. Posting something publicly on the Internet is NOT the same as granting people to legally copy it - and telling a bot to "go away" is NOT considered a security provision (as protected by the DMCA). I actually read about a case where this was brought up and shot down. In other words, no one is under any obligation to not bot (and thus auto-list/archive) your site. Posting stuff on the internet still means it's copyrighted, and yet Google can go and archive it publicly without asking you (by any real, useful definition of the term).
No one is talking about bots here. I wasn't talking about bots. It's got nothing to do with bots. The infrastructure of the web is expressly designed, you could say it is hardcoded, to provide the means to copy data to those who request it. You cannot view a webpage without getting permission to copy it. Period.
So tell me, again, how you specifically give Google permission?
You give Google permission to copy your website by telling your server to give their servers permission. You. It's not some sort of cosmic force that causes files stored in a certain place to be shared on the internet. Your server doesn't make the decision on its own. You make the decision. You grant permission. If you wanted, you could store your poem on the same server you store your publicly available webpages, you could even store it in the same directory structure, and NOT grant permission for that particular file to be shared. (lots of people choose to share certain pages on their site only with paid subscribers, that is the principle in action) The only way Google can make a copy of your webpage is if YOU told the server to allow the copy to be made. It doesn't matter what you consider to be a "real, useful definition of the term." Unless servers have gained the power of independent thought while I wasn't looking you explicitly instructed the servers that served your poem to grant permission to copy it to anyone who asked. It doesn't matter if you don't have a firm grasp on how the internet works, you still gave permission to everyone to copy your web page. Google takes that permission and does a lot with it. Good for them. If they had permission to copy the books they want to copy then I would be absolutely thrilled at the use they propose to make of it. The fact remains that they don't have that permission.
-
The infrastructure of the web is expressly designed, you could say it is hardcoded, to provide the means to copy data to those who request it. You cannot view a webpage without getting permission to copy it. Period.
Your use of "permission to copy" is somewhat dysfunctional - while you are technically copying the page technologically, you are still forbidden by copyright to make copies of the page (even for personal use) through any sort of "manual" (or meaningful) process. Your computer's temporary copying of the webpage in order to view it is considered "Fair Use". The pages in question do not abridge their copyright protections by posting on the internet. However, internet technology requires, in order for the internet to function, an important acceptance of Fair Use or unregulated use provisions.
And that's exactly the sort of thing we're talking about here.
-
Ok, if anything was dysfunctional it was that paragraph. ;D
Your use of "permission to copy" is somewhat dysfunctional - while you are technically copying the page technologically, you are still forbidden by copyright to make copies of the page (even for personal use) through any sort of "manual" (or meaningful) process.
You're forbidden to make copies unless given permission and unless you give permission, no one can view your webpage. What's so hard about that?
Your computer's temporary copying of the webpage in order to view it is considered "Fair Use". The pages in question do not abridge their copyright protections by posting on the internet.
You're absolutely right. Posting pages on the internet does not abridge their copyright protections. I never said it did. Giving permission to people to copy your webpages, so that they can view them, is totally within the copyright law. It doesn't require an abridgement of any sort. It's just like you giving someone permission to make a copy of your book.
However, internet technology requires, in order for the internet to function, an important acceptance of Fair Use or unregulated use provisions.
And that's exactly the sort of thing we're talking about here.
As I've pointed out internet technology does not, in fact, require acceptance of "fair use or unregulated use provisions." Permission is requested and granted in every transaction.
Look. You misunderstand my position. I'm not arguing that posting something to the internet implies a waiver of copyright protection. Far from it. No one can view anything you've posted to the internet without getting EXPLICIT permission, from you, to make a copy of it. Just because that permission is asked for and received automatically by the various computers used by the requestor and the requestee doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does. And you instructed your server to grant permission to all those who request it to copy your web pages. The computer isn't responsible for itself; you are responsible for your computer.
-
It's just like you giving someone permission to make a copy of your book.
This is absolutely false.
I could take an article published on TWG and reproduce it on my website, but I would be in violation of copyright if I did not receive express permission to make such a copy. The same rule would apply if I were to print such an article out and begin making copies for my friends. In either case, TWG would be within their rights to sue, and if they did, they would win.
Just because something is posted on the internet does not mean the user has permission to copy as he likes. I've read enough books and articles on copyright, intellectual property, and internet regulation in the past few years to be quite certain of this.
-
I could take an article published on TWG and reproduce it on my website, but I would be in violation of copyright if I did not receive express permission to make such a copy.
The same rule would apply if I were to print such an article out and begin making copies for my friends. In either case, TWG would be within their rights to sue, and if they did, they would win.
You're smearing two different things together here. Making a copy of a TWG webpage so you can view it is not, as you seem to think, the same as redistributing it on your own website. I've never claimed it was. I'm getting kind of tired of you taking part of my statements, out of context, and attempting to make hay with them. In my post, a single sentence away from what you quoted was the phrase, "Giving permission to people to copy your webpages, SO THAT THEY CAN VIEW THEM, is totally within the copyright law." The difference you're failing to grasp is the one between viewing a webpage and redistributing it. Google's online search does not redistribute entire webpages, it displays snippets, which is covered under fair use. In order to search the webpages we're talking about Google did, in fact, have to make copies of them and store them locally. This is where you seem to think that what Google is doing online coincides with what they want to do with the print project.
They do not coincide.
This is why: Google obtains permission to make a local copy of every webpage is puts on its servers. It is physically impossible for Google to obtain a local copy of the webpages in question without getting permission first. Period. There is no way around this. It is physically impossible for ANYONE to view webpages without getting permission to make a local copy. Google has permission for every single webpage they have stored on their servers.
Google wants to copy books WITHOUT getting permission.
If they got permission to make a copy of a book, by paying for it, or by obtaining the permission of the author, they could display snippets from it all day long and not break copyright.
So, to restate.
Google copies webpage locally, displays only snippets?
Legal because permission was obtained first.
Google copies book locally, displays only snippets?
Illegal because permission was NOT obtained first.
Just because something is posted on the internet does not mean the user has permission to copy as he likes. I've read enough books and articles on copyright, intellectual property, and internet regulation in the past few years to be quite certain of this.
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, because you seem to really want to argue someone who takes this view, no one here thinks that way. And it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
You seem to be struggling with the mechanics of interaction on the internet. I've tried to explain it as best I could but it has made no impression. Perhaps you should get someone else to explain to you how your computer goes about obtaining and displaying the webpages you look at.
-
Skar, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying either. Are you saying that fact that you put your material on the internet, is granting permission for anybody to make a copy (for display purposes) of your work? Google goes well beyond this.
Making a copy of a TWG webpage so you can view it is not, as you seem to think, the same as redistributing it on your own website.
This is, in fact, exactly what Google does. They make a copy of websites to store on their servers. They display those sites in their entirety, in snippets, as well as searching through them. If I closed down my blog today, you could still access it from the servers on google. They would be distributing their copy of my site, a copy they made without my express permission. I can opt out, but they don't have to ask to make a copy and store it.
So Google isn't making a copy of my site just to view locally, they are making a copy to both search through, re-distribute snippets, and re-distribute the site in it's entirety.
If this isn't 'technically' breaking copyright law, I don't know what it. But if you shut this down, you would shut down the usefulness of the internet.
I think we can both agree that what Google is doing is good for the free flow of information, and that the same free flow can, and should, be applied to books (with the exception of redistributing them in their entirety, of course).
Another good article for those interested.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/point-of-google-print.html
Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages. The aim of the Copyright Act is to protect and enhance the value of creative works in order to encourage more of them -- in this case, to ensure that authors write and publishers publish. We find it difficult to believe that authors will stop writing books because Google Print makes them easier to find, or that publishers will stop selling books because Google Print might increase their sales.
And why they are doing it...
Imagine sitting at your computer and, in less than a second, searching the full text of every book ever written. Imagine an historian being able to instantly find every book that mentions the Battle of Algiers. Imagine a high school student in Bangladesh discovering an out-of-print author held only in a library in Ann Arbor. Imagine one giant electronic card catalog that makes all the world's books discoverable with just a few keystrokes by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
And on the mechanics of web searching.
In order to guide users to the information they're looking for, we copy and index all the Web sites we find. If we didn't, a useful search engine would be impossible, and the same dynamic applies to the Google Print Library Project. By most estimates, less than 20% of books are in print, and only around 20% of titles, according to the Online Computer Library Center, are in the public domain. This leaves a startling 60% of all books that publishers are unlikely to be able to add to our program and readers are unlikely to find. Only by physically scanning and indexing every word of the extraordinary collections of our partner libraries at Michigan, Stanford, Oxford, the New York Public Library and Harvard can we make all these lost titles discoverable with the level of comprehensiveness that will make Google Print a world-changing resource.
That last one is particularly important, I think, in this discussion. 60 percent of all books are for the most part, unavailable to almost all of the population. To me, that is a tragedy. But a tragedy that Google has proposed a solution to, and I think we shouldn’t use old laws and technicalities to prevent the solution from being implemented.
That is, of course, all personal opinion.
-
Skar, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying either. Are you saying that fact that you put your material on the internet, is granting permission for anybody to make a copy (for display purposes) of your work? ...
That is not what I'm saying. I honestly don't know how I can say this any more plainly. "Viewing" a webpage IS making a copy of it. In order to view a webpage you have to download a copy of it. There is no other way for you to view it. It is not like looking at a book. You don't have to make a new copy of a book to look at it. You do have to make a new copy of a webpage to look at it. Here's the crunch: In order for you to make a new copy of a webpage you have to get permission to do so. This is what happens when you click on a link or type in a URL. Your computer talks to the computer that hosts the webpage you want to look at. Your computer says, "I want to make a copy of such-and-such file." The host computer checks what its users have instructed it to do concerning that file. If the host computer's users have instructed it to allow other computers to download copies of that file it says, "You have permission to make a copy of that file, prepare to receive it." Your computer then receives the file from the host computer. Permission is requested and granted for every single file.
This is, in fact, exactly what Google does. They make a copy of websites to store on their servers. They display those sites in their entirety, in snippets, as well as searching through them. If I closed down my blog today, you could still access it from the servers on google. They would be distributing their copy of my site, a copy they made without my express permission. I can opt out, but they don't have to ask to make a copy and store it.
So Google isn't making a copy of my site just to view locally, they are making a copy to both search through, re-distribute snippets, and re-distribute the site in it's entirety.
Ok, you have a good point. I never use the cached copy Google provides and so I wasn't factoring it in. My mistake. In my opinion Google is on shaky ground with the redistribution you're talking about, what you get when you click the "cached" link instead of the primary link. The extenuating circumstances (why I don't just say what they're doing is illegal) are things like the fact that they don't display cached copies of pages that are behind paying member portals. They only display things that were/are freely available to anyone who cared to ask. And they don't claim or even imply that they are the authors. But in the end, Google's redistribution is not germaine to the discussion at hand because it is neither what they are proposing to do with the Print project, nor is it integral to what they do on the web.
But if you shut this down, you would shut down the usefulness of the internet.
And this is patently untrue. The only thing Google is doing that's on shaky ground is the redistribution. The searching and snippeting is not (permission is sought and gained for every webpage) since snippeting is covered under fair use already. If you shut down Google's redistributing practices (the displaying of cached webpages) the internet and indeed Google's role in it with the search capability they provide would carry on without a ripple.
Snippeting a copy of a work you have permission to possess is not the same as redistributing the entire work. They are apples and oranges. Just because Google is doing both does not mean that they are interchangeable or that one necessitates the other.
I think we can both agree that what Google is doing is good for the free flow of information
In their web search yes. Since they get permission to make the copies they search.
, and that the same free flow can, and should, be applied to books (with the exception of redistributing them in their entirety, of course).
Nope. Once Google is granted permission to make copies of books for which they have not gained permission what keeps you or me from doing the same? Lets say that, like Google, I'd like to have a copy of a book from a library but I don't feel like paying for it or getting permission from the author to make a copy. So I check it out, take it to my home copier, and copy it. I then put my new copy on my shelf and return the book to the library. This is obviously not OK for me to do, so why is it OK for Google to do?
-
And on the mechanics of web searching...
That last one is particularly important, I think, in this discussion. 60 percent of all books are for the most part, unavailable to almost all of the population. To me, that is a tragedy. But a tragedy that Google has proposed a solution to, and I think we shouldn’t use old laws and technicalities to prevent the solution from being implemented.
That is, of course, all personal opinion.
This is just a discourse on why it would be neat if Google could index and make searchable all those books. I agree, it would be neat. Heck, I drool just thinking about it. It would be AWESOME. But it's not worth dumping everything out there into the public domain though. And once you make it legal for Google to make copies of books they don't own you make it legal for everyone to do it, since everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
Now, here's another solution. If the Library of Congress, a government institution that owns legal copies of a great many books or any of the great libraries, or all the libraries, were to contract Google to index their books we'd have a whole 'nother kettle of fish because the owners of the books would, technically, be the ones indexing, searching, and snippeting, all activities provided for under fair use for the owners of the books. The owners would still be the only ones with copies, Google would not be making money from stolen goods and we'd be getting index access to all those books.
Right there is an example of why it's not "old laws and technicalities" preventing this from happening. It's Google's refusal to work within the law.
-
Why are you people still argueing? :s
-
What's wrong with arguing? ;D
-
Wow. I think we're making progress. Not in convincing the other person, but in understanding each other's point of view. I have just a few more questions.
And this is patently untrue. The only thing Google is doing that's on shaky ground is the redistribution. The searching and snippeting is not (permission is sought and gained for every webpage) since snippeting is covered under fair use already. If you shut down Google's redistributing practices (the displaying of cached webpages) the internet and indeed Google's role in it with the search capability they provide would carry on without a ripple.
I love the phrase, 'patently untrue', by the way.
So, you say you are uncomfortable with Google redistribution. This would pretty much shut down Internetarchive.com, but that's another topic. You are, however, OK with Google making a copy, storing it, and displaying snippets, right?
So you are saying this is OK to do with copyrighted material online, only because the mechanism used to display pages make copying pages necessary? And it doesn't apply to books because authors never agreed to allow somebody to make a copy to read it?
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). And I also would never suggest that Google should not be forced to stop making and redistributing their copies.
I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It is my opinion that authors will not lose rights or money, in fact for the most part they and their publishers will benefit from this project. With 60 percent of books out of the hands of the public, and since we have the technology to change that, I think it is our moral responsibility to do so.
I'd love to see all of the authors, who no longer see money from their books (because they are out of print, hook up with lulu.com and actually see profits again. People would find their books using Google print, find an interest, and then buy and print the book from lulu.
Again, I'm not trying to change your opinion, just telling you what mine is and the reasons for it.
It would be AWESOME. But it's not worth dumping everything out there into the public domain though. And once you make it legal for Google to make copies of books they don't own you make it legal for everyone to do it, since everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
I have never supported dumping everything into the public domain. I do think that copying and displaying snippets should fall within Fair Use, because the damage to authors would be non-existant, and we would get information out to folks who might benefit from it.
-
So you are saying this is OK to do with copyrighted material online, only because the mechanism used to display pages make copying pages necessary?
Close. I think it's OK because the mechanism used to display pages doesn't work unless you have permission to copy. If you don't have permission you get an error or a "you are not authorized to view this page" message. The person posting the webpage explicitly gives you permission to make a copy of it by telling his computer to do so. The computer is essentially acting as his agent. The computer doesn't give permission for copies to be made unless the user/author tells it to. Thus the author gives permission for the copies of his webpage made by the browsing public.
And it doesn't apply to books because authors never agreed to allow somebody to make a copy to read it?
And it doesn't apply to books because the authors never agreed to let someone make a copy of it (without paying for it) period.
...and just because I put something on the web doesn't mean folks can make copies of it (other than caching
Caching is all that's needed and all that Google does to enable its search.
It is my opinion that authors will not lose rights...
Once it's made legal for Google to copy works they don't own what stops everybody else from copying works that they don't own?
I'd love to see all of the authors, who no longer see money from their books (because they are out of print, hook up with lulu.com and actually see profits again.
Ditto.
People would find their books using Google print, find an interest, and then buy and print the book from lulu.
If it's determined that it is legal for Google to copy books they don't own it becomes legal for people to simply copy the books THEY don't own instead of buying them from Lulu.
Google can still copy all those books without making it legal for others to copy books they don't own. All they need to do is become contractually obligated to the libraries to act as their agent. So that the libraries still own and exercise control over the copies in Google's database. And since the libraries still own the books Google will have to arrange for the profit they want to make to come through the libraries first. Whether the libraries just sign away all profit to Google or they get a cut for profits related to their books (like Google's Publisher program only for libraries) it doesn't matter. If the library retains ownership of the book, contractually and effectively, Google can perform the print project and copyright can stay intact as it stands today.
-
Once it's made legal for Google to copy works they don't own what stops everybody else from copying works that they don't own?
Well, one can aruge 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.
All they need to do is become contractually obligated to the libraries to act as their agent. So that the libraries still own and exercise control over the copies in Google's database. And since the libraries still own the books Google will have to arrange for the profit they want to make to come through the libraries first. Whether the libraries just sign away all profit to Google or they get a cut for profits related to their books (like Google's Publisher program only for libraries) it doesn't matter. If the library retains ownership of the book, contractually and effectively, Google can perform the print project and copyright can stay intact as it stands today.
Wait, to clarify, are you saying if Google if Google were to buy a copy of a book, they could copy it in digital format, and allow others to 'search' through it?
-
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.
-
Fair enough.
Thanks for the discussion, I've found it quite stimulating and enlightening.
-
Likewise.
Here's to hoping they find a way to legally index and make searchable every book in the world.
-
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.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4403388.stm
-
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
-
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 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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dude. Have you read the rest of this thread or even this page? That's my entire blanking point.
The problem seems to be that you misread my stance.
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.
This is exactly what I'm talking about! This has gone to court and been upheld as Fair Use. On the same note, what Google is trying to do now, with the ALA's backing (even court cases are political to a degree), may end up being declared Fair Use.
I'm not saying that it is Fair Use - the fact that they haven't purchased the books calls that into doubt for me, personally, but I say that it still may well be Fair Use. And I wont condemn it as "copyright infringement" until I see how it pans out. Intellectual Property and Copyright definitions and concepts are shifting these days. They're not the same thing they were 100 years ago.
-
The problem seems to be that you misread my stance.
Except you've never said that before and I have, clearly and in many different contexts, for the last five pages or so.
Just take your lumps for not reading the thread you were replying to.
This is exactly what I'm talking about! ... Intellectual Property and Copyright definitions and concepts are shifting these days. They're not the same thing they were 100 years ago.
True enough. They are shifting and changing, and rightly so. I desperately hope that Google doesn't win the right to make copies of books without permission and profit from their use of them. That would spell the end of self-motivated innovation in the long run.
Incidentally, I only brought up Google's archiving functionality because that sort of activity could be declared illegal and not significantly impact the net. Whether it's been declared fair use or not isn't germain to the current discussion because it's not comparable to the print project, since Google is not planning to redistribute the books they're copying. Apples and Oranges.