Google's Print Project

[Skar]

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?

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

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.

[Parker]

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.

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

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.

[Parker]

I didn't look at it in that light.  Point taken.

[Skar]

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.

[Spriggan]

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".

[The Jade Knight]

Google?  Apple is the new Microsoft.

[Spriggan]

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.

[Entsuropi]

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.

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

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.

[Entsuropi]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[Skar]

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.

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

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.