Google's Print Project

[Spriggan]

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.

[The Jade Knight]

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

[Firemeboy]

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.

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

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.

[The Jade Knight]

Was that directed to me or someone else?

I don't particularly support Google.

[Parker]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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?

[Firemeboy]

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.  

[Entsuropi]

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.

[Firemeboy]

So, you would argue that search engines are currently breaking copyright law?  And should be shut down?

[Firemeboy]

Another good article showing both sides of the argument.

[stacer]

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.

[Parker]

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.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

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.

[Firemeboy]

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?