Google's Print Project

[The Lost One]

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.

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

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.

[Entsuropi]

Your logic is flawed. Who cares what the chinese do? They eat dogs.

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.

[Firemeboy]

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.  

[Skar]

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."

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

*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.

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

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.

[Firemeboy]

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.

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

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.

[Firemeboy]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

[Firemeboy]

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?

[Spriggan]

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.

[Firemeboy]

Another article 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.