Google's Print Project

[The Jade Knight]

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.

[Skar]

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.  

[The Jade Knight]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[JP Dogberry]

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.

[The Jade Knight]

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).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Spriggan]

. 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".

[Skar]

Sprig: Good point.

e: The nail is rubbing it's head.  I agree.  Thanks.

[Skar]

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.

[Spriggan]

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?

[Entsuropi]

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!

[The Jade Knight]

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.

[Skar]

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?"