Google's Print Project

[Parker]

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?  

[stacer]

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.

[Skar]

 

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.

[Skar]

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?

[Firemeboy]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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?

[Firemeboy]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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...  

[Firemeboy]

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.  

[Skar]

 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?

[Skar]

 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.

[stacer]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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.  

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?

[Firemeboy]

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.