OT: "Google trying to rewrite copyright law"

[Maple Leafs]

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...3349-7482r.htm

Reining in Google
By Pat Schroeder/Bob Barr
November 3, 2005

You're probably reading the byline above and wondering, "What could these two, from opposite sides of the aisle in Congress, possibly have in common with each other?"

The answer is when it comes to Google's Print Library Project we have much in common: We're both authors and both believe intellectual property should actually mean something.

And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion company bent on unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit and in turn denying publishers and authors the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

Internet behemoth Google, plans to launch their Library project in November. It plans to scan the entire contents of the Stanford, Harvard and University of Michigan libraries and make what it calls "snippets" of the works available online, for free.

The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A chapter? A whole book? Meanwhile Google will gain a huge new revenue stream by selling ad space on library search results. Selling ads on its search engine is how Google makes 99 percent of its billions.

Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is also crushing creativity. If publishers and authors have to spend all their time policing Google for works they have already written, it is hard to create more. Our laws say if you wish to copy someone's work, you must get their permission. Google wants to trash that.

Google's position essentially amounts to a license to steal, so long as it returns the loot upon a formal request by their victims. This is precisely why Google's argument has no basis in U.S. intellectual property law or jurisprudence. Just because Google is huge, it should not be allowed to change the law.

Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has argued the "fair use" provision in copyright law allows Google to scan copyrighted books and put them on their Web site without seeking permission. He compares this to someone at home taping a television show and watching it later. Taped TV show are watched in millions of households every night and is quite legal; rebroadcasting that show to make a buck is not.

Next time Dr. Schmidt watches television, he should keep his ears open for the common disclaimer "rebroadcast of this program without the express written consent of" the broadcaster is "prohibited." Google's plans are tantamount to the same thing, profiting from someone else's work without permission. It isn't up to the broadcaster to track down someone profiting from their work, why should it be up to publishers and authors to do so?

Authors may be the first targets in Google's drive to make the intellectual property of others a cost-free inventory for delivery of its ad content, but we will hardly be the last. Media companies, engineering firms, software designers, architects, scientists, manufacturers, entertainers and professional services firms all produce products that could easily be considered for "fair use" by Google.

Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of course, it controls the portal through which Internet user's access that content. It would completely devalue everyone else's property and massively increase the value of its own.

The company contends it will allow authors of copyrighted works to "opt-out" of the free online library by notifying Google they don't want their works online. Most authors and publishers do not know who bought their books. And have you ever tried to get a live person on the phone at an Internet company?

And so, five publishing companies on behalf of the entire publishing industry and the Author's Guild have filed two major lawsuits against Google seeking to stop this plan and deter such conduct in the future.

Politically, we may not agree on much. But on this, we can both agree: These lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual property. To see it any other way is intellectually dishonest.

Pat Schroeder is president of the Association of American Publishers and a former member of Congress from Colorado. Bob Barr, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee, is an author, newspaper columnist and analyst for CNN.

Hyperbole about "crushing creativity" aside, this will be an interesting case, especially since Google is widely considered one of the 'good guys' of the online world. Is this the next mainsteam battleground for the IP debate?

[Airhog]

I think its a moot point. I don't know a single person that reads books on their computer. This will only have an effect on people doing research papers and such.

[monte_mcguire]

I think I would disagree. If I was looking for something and found a "snippet" about a subject I'm searching on, I would have a good chance of buying that book... I think. We've all used google and I have a good idea what they are calling a snippet.

[Ksyrup]

Check it out yourselves...google print went beta. I did a quick search for harry potter to see if it pulled up something that obvious, and I didn't find an actual HP book on the first page, but I pulled an HP companion book and it took a bit of search within the book, but it took me into the text of it and appeared to be the whole thing.

But really, as Airhog says, who the hell is going to read a book online, within Google Print?

[JonInMiddleGA]

As often as Bob Barr seems to be on the wrong side of an issue lately, I'm just shocked & awed that he actually seems to be right about something.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by monte_mcguire

We've all used google and I have a good idea what they are calling a snippet.

But that can't be the legal standard, can it? It may turn out that what google does ultimately qualifies as "fair use." But we certainly can't take their word that their definition of a "snippet" won't change. That's somewhat like saying that we don't need 4th Amendment protection in a town because you trust the current chief of police.

People and corporations tend to change quickly for the worse once legal oversight is taken away.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I really don't know about this one. This sounds an awful lot like the mp3 music debate.

Originally Posted by Airhog

I think its a moot point. I don't know a single person that reads books on their computer. This will only have an effect on people doing research papers and such.

This reasoning just clouds the issue, similar to the mp3 debate, and shouldn't matter. If a company doesn't want their works distributed that way, it's their call not Google's.

SI

[Galaxy]

Is Google violating it's own "Don't Be Evil" model?

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, this thread's going to go down the primrose path REAL quickly...

Let's just let the topic die, folks, we know where this one's going.

[QuikSand]

What makes this whole thing even more interesting to me is the universally-accepted concept of a public library. Libaraies buy copies of books today, and there's no doubt that there are some people who decline to buy a book and loan it from a library instead. The sales to libraries ultimately cost other sales, at least to some degree. To me, that makes finding a completely coherent argument on all this (and on what is "best") a little trickier -- nobody expects the library in Pittsburgh to pay extra for its copies of particular books because it serves more people than the library in Altoona, right?

I think this is an interesting... and inevitable... issue.

[Blade6119]

to hollywood for affleks next crappy movie?

[SirFozzie]

http://print.google.com/intl/en/googleprint/help.html

Makes me believe this is a lot closer to fair use then the folks who want to crush this will want you to believe.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What makes this whole thing even more interesting to me is the universally-accepted concept of a public library. Libaraies buy copies of books today, and there's no doubt that there are some people who decline to buy a book and loan it from a library instead. The sales to libraries ultimately cost other sales, at least to some degree. To me, that makes finding a completely coherent argument on all this (and on what is "best") a little trickier -- nobody expects the library in Pittsburgh to pay extra for its copies of particular books because it serves more people than the library in Altoona, right?

Tho wouldn't you say an important part of this distinction is because it's a free library for the public good. In short, that what separates a public library from a video rental place is that it is 1) run by the government for the public and 2) not for profit.

SI

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by OpEd piece

The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated...

Originally Posted by google

Does Google profit when I buy a book from a Google Print page?

No, we don't. Google Print offers links to popular booksellers from whom you can buy the books you find. These links aren't paid for by those booksellers, and we gain no benefit when you buy books from them. We do earn revenue, however, from user clicks on the contextually targeted ads that appear on Google Print book pages. We share this ad revenue with the publishers of those books.

Looks like a parsing of words is going on here. The OpEd piece suggests that google is keeping every penny for itself... when, if you are to believe their own press, they have a revenue sharing arrangement with publishers. (I have no knowledge of how this is set up, but I could imagine this being a fairly equitable vehicle)

If there exists some sort of arrangement where the publishers (who have the right to distribute the material) agree to a revenue sharing deal with the host... I'm a good deal less pissed off about this than I might have been.

It does seem fair that the creators would get a cut, as this mioght be introducing a form of distrubution that they could not have envisioned under existing royalty arrangements... but that, to me, is far more subtle an issue than "they are stealing this" versus "no, they aren't!"

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Tho wouldn't you say an important part of this distinction is because it's a free library for the public good. In short, that what separates a public library from a video rental place is that it is 1) run by the government for the public and 2) not for profit.

Yes, I would agree with that... but I think those lines have already been pretty blurred as many public libraries have increasingly encroached into the territory previously held by private enterprise (for better or worse). There may be a bright line there to some, but I don't think it's universal... and the "public good" argument still contradicts a good deal of the logic of the most aggressive defenders of IP rights, it seems to me. (Though I'm willing to be led to a new position on the subject)

[Draft Dodger]

you know, for two people with a strong background in writing, that was a pretty poorly written article.

[gstelmack]

The discussion I read on this a month or so ago talked about how Google was getting publisher's permissions for their works before putting them up. The real legal debate has centered on obscure works where Google can't find a publisher, or a publisher has no record of the rights-holder, etc. In other words, cases where Google can't find anyone to ask permission of despite an exhaustive search.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

you know, for two people with a strong background in writing, that was a pretty poorly written article.

Agreed. It needs more paragraphs.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What makes this whole thing even more interesting to me is the universally-accepted concept of a public library. Libaraies buy copies of books today, and there's no doubt that there are some people who decline to buy a book and loan it from a library instead.

Isn't this why we have libraries?

Heck, I have four books checked out now.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What makes this whole thing even more interesting to me is the universally-accepted concept of a public library. Libaraies buy copies of books today, and there's no doubt that there are some people who decline to buy a book and loan it from a library instead. The sales to libraries ultimately cost other sales, at least to some degree. To me, that makes finding a completely coherent argument on all this (and on what is "best") a little trickier -- nobody expects the library in Pittsburgh to pay extra for its copies of particular books because it serves more people than the library in Altoona, right?

There's a big line of distinction between a library and what Google is purported to be doing. Once I buy a book, I can pretty much do anything I want to with it, including lending it or reselling it. The only thing I can't do legally is reproduce it. On the surface, that would appear to be what Google is doing.

What is "best" and what is "legal" are two different things, and this somewhat goes back to the MP3 debate. I'll content till the cows come home -- with evidence to support -- that the availability of MP3s has largley been good for the music industry. The emergence of the MP3 and file sharing killed off the cassette/CD single, which record companies couldn't produce for a profit, and have dramatically boosted independent record sales and concert sales. The record industry points to sluggish album sales and lack of a bonafide big seller, but I think product quality and competition has more to do with that. The bottom line is that in the file sharing era record companies and artists are making more money from record sales, digital sales and concert sales than ever before despite the fiercest competition for the consumer's entertainment dollar.

I think that while this is a copyright infringement, it's one of those they would be better off not fighting, especially independent authors. The more exposure people get to a work of art the more likely they are to buy it. But it's certainly within their right to protect their copyright.

The best legal comparison would obvioulsy be the publisher's fight against Kinko's back in the early '90s. The younger kids won't remember this, but back in the day it wasn't uncommon for college professors to put together reading kits that would be filled with photocopies from books. The publishers eventually won a lawsuit preventing Kinko's from continuing to sell these.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by finkenst

Isn't this why we have libraries?

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with "universally accepted."

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There's a big line of distinction between a library and what Google is purported to be doing. Once I buy a book, I can pretty much do anything I want to with it, including lending it or reselling it. The only thing I can't do legally is reproduce it. On the surface, that would appear to be what Google is doing.

But doesn't that argument hinge on the actions of the users?

Right now, I can go the library, check out a book for free, bring it home and reproduce its contents with a copier or scanner. It's against the law, of course, and as a practical matter it's impractical for me to do it... but I could do so.

Google offers a connection to the media of a different sort, as I understand it... but it only becomes reproduced if I choose to do so. Sure, it's easier for me to do this electronically, but it's still my actions that are at cross purposes with the law, right? (If google's service includes some distribution of the electronic files themselves, then I haven't read that)

[Solecismic]

Same goes for any software pirate. All they're doing is disabling the copy protection, so that it's practical for someone to download their version under their conditions, and you can then play the game. We don't know that the pirate is illegally playing the game himself.

If all pirates did was allow people to play "snippets" of each game, then the relevant question would be whether it's fair use to do that on your own site, diverting possible ad revenue and using pieces of the game by making a copy without permission.

In Google's case, they're disabling the "copy protection" of a bound book. Which does two things:

1) You have to trust Google not to screw you by releasing too much in a snippet, or inadvertently giving a determined snippet hunter the ability to download everything through repeated query.

2) You no longer have the ability down the road the generate ad revenue for your own snippet server. Even though that's not a logical application in 2005, it might be in 2015.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But doesn't that argument hinge on the actions of the users?

Right now, I can go the library, check out a book for free, bring it home and reproduce its contents with a copier or scanner. It's against the law, of course, and as a practical matter it's impractical for me to do it... but I could do so.

Google offers a connection to the media of a different sort, as I understand it... but it only becomes reproduced if I choose to do so. Sure, it's easier for me to do this electronically, but it's still my actions that are at cross purposes with the law, right? (If google's service includes some distribution of the electronic files themselves, then I haven't read that)

Except in this case Google is reproducing the material. The moment they scan the material they are reproducing it. It's really Google's actions that are at cross purposes with the law. If they bought a copy of the book and performed a "NetFlix" service where they shipped the book to Google users, that would be one thing. But what Google is doing is more akin to making a photocopy and letting you "view" it and providing an option to copy it. The act of Google scanning the book is the same as you making a photocopy of a book from the library. Both are copyright violations.

The thing with the "snippets" from a cursory glance at the beta site appears to be that Google does not make some complete pages available to get around the fair use provisions. I'm not sure if missing a couple of pages from a 200-page book is fair use.

I think this has the potential to be an invaluable service. Searching for specific lines from a book or making public-domain books available would be fabulous, as would making books available with the author/publisher's OK. I think they are asking for more trouble than it's worth by being presumptive about the rights holder's wishes.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

What makes this whole thing even more interesting to me is the universally-accepted concept of a public library. Libaraies buy copies of books today, and there's no doubt that there are some people who decline to buy a book and loan it from a library instead. The sales to libraries ultimately cost other sales, at least to some degree. To me, that makes finding a completely coherent argument on all this (and on what is "best") a little trickier -- nobody expects the library in Pittsburgh to pay extra for its copies of particular books because it serves more people than the library in Altoona, right?

I think this is an interesting... and inevitable... issue.

But library purchases count for a lot of sales. Authors want libraries to buy their books. Google isn't buying the books.

[clintl]

Dola...

Basically, Google is trying to argue fair use, but there is no legitimate reason Google needs to scan whole books to put snippets up. In addition, publishers are suing Google, so the publishers are not at all satisfied with Google's unilateral "revenue sharing" plan. And depending on the contracts concerning individual books, the publishers may not even own the electronic publishing rights, so even a publisher's approval may not be good enough. Basically, Google is trying to get away with being lazy by working with five libraries who don't own the electronic publishing rights, instead of actually procuring the rights the publishers and authors who actually do own them. I think if Google went about this correctly, it could be a good thing for writers, but Google is not going about it correctly.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Except in this case Google is reproducing the material. The moment they scan the material they are reproducing it. It's really Google's actions that are at cross purposes with the law. If they bought a copy of the book and performed a "NetFlix" service where they shipped the book to Google users, that would be one thing. But what Google is doing is more akin to making a photocopy and letting you "view" it and providing an option to copy it. The act of Google scanning the book is the same as you making a photocopy of a book from the library. Both are copyright violations.

The thing with the "snippets" from a cursory glance at the beta site appears to be that Google does not make some complete pages available to get around the fair use provisions. I'm not sure if missing a couple of pages from a 200-page book is fair use.

I think this has the potential to be an invaluable service. Searching for specific lines from a book or making public-domain books available would be fabulous, as would making books available with the author/publisher's OK. I think they are asking for more trouble than it's worth by being presumptive about the rights holder's wishes.

How is Google, by attempting to create an online repository of these major university libraries, being any different than those SAME libraries making their contents available to people online themselves?

UMASS library system has access points to universities around the world, with the ability to bring up not only snippets, but entire manuscripts. The library system actually makes profit on this ability by charging the rest of the state's town and country libraries a fee to allow them access to it from any library in the state.

From what I've just read, Google isn't making a profit from the access to anything, they are actually helping these institutions get more of their overall content online this way and in return they are sharing whatever AD profits they might make on their clickthroughs.

I fail to see how Google is doing anything but helping everyone in this deal and in exchange using their vast ad-clicks system to make a bit back for the effort?

They aren't doing anything that isn't already being done by Colleges and Libraries world-wide. It smells to me as if the dear old polittians are bored and needed something to get attention.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Google offers a connection to the media of a different sort, as I understand it... but it only becomes reproduced if I choose to do so. Sure, it's easier for me to do this electronically, but it's still my actions that are at cross purposes with the law, right? (If google's service includes some distribution of the electronic files themselves, then I haven't read that)

You can save the actual jpegs of the pages you're looking at, if that's what you mean (although it's a little tricky since they disabled right clicking).

I can see their argument on fair use, but I have a strong feeling they're going to go down in flames in these suits. The basic fair use criteria:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is presumably a commercial use (I guess they can argue it's a charitable service, but I don't see a court buying it).

I don't know how "nature of the work" comes out...

The amount will be hotly disputed as to whether it is the entire work (which presumably you could reach given the right search terms) or the three pages that come up on any given search. Even if it's three pages, that's enough that it might hurt Google's claim.

The effect on the market will vary widely based on the type of book. It could have a serious impact on the market for reference materials where users typically only need a couple pages at a time, but is unlikely to have much impact on novels and such. Unfortunately for Google, they're on the hook for everything in their database, so if some of it will suffer economic harm, they're in trouble.

Then there's the X-factor, which is how the courts will treat the fact that this is a comprehensive system offering access to a huge number of works with multiple entry points to each work. All in all, I don't think they have a ghost of a chance, and I can't believe they've invested this much effort in it. Don't they have in-house counsel?

That said, I think it's a cool service and I wish them luck.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The discussion I read on this a month or so ago talked about how Google was getting publisher's permissions for their works before putting them up. The real legal debate has centered on obscure works where Google can't find a publisher, or a publisher has no record of the rights-holder, etc. In other words, cases where Google can't find anyone to ask permission of despite an exhaustive search.

Can anyone confirm or deny this? Because I think it would make a huge difference in how this come out... I can't find anything on it on the Google FAQ..

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Can anyone confirm or deny this? Because I think it would make a huge difference in how this come out... I can't find anything on it on the Google FAQ..

I'll see if I can dig up the original discussion. I think it was one of the last few issues of one of the magazines I get at home (Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Consumer Reports, Discover, and it could be in any of them...)

[Maple Leafs]

Personally, I find it interesting that this seems to hit home with so many people on either side, when Google has been doing far more with online content for years. Google not only makes money by pointing to other people's copyrighted content (hard to object to that, I'd imagine), but actually stores copies of that content on their own servers -- even after it's been removed by the owner in many cases. They don't ask permission, it's just assumed that if you post anything on the web then Google will make a copy and hold onto it.

There have been occasional complaints about that, but they've been pretty muted and tend to be slapped down quickly. Yet here we have Google doing substantially less with printed works, and the issue seems to crystalize for many people. I think that says something about the way we perceive copyrights in the online world.

[QuikSand]

I guess I have a hard time coming to terms with the notion that the practical difference between online availability (and potential opportunity to make an illegal copy) is so fundamentally different than in-person availability (and the same potential). Of course, I can understand the difference in numbers of people who would actually do so... and while I never thought of bookbinding as a sort of "copy protection" device, I see the argument.

Maybe it's the economist in me, who has a too-common tendency to just assume away transaction costs and move on with a rational analysis of decision-making and proper policy. Here, it's starting to seem like the dissolution of transaction costs (simply making easier for people to break the copyright laws) is the real issue.


And thanks for the good discussion...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll see if I can dig up the original discussion. I think it was one of the last few issues of one of the magazines I get at home (Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Consumer Reports, Discover, and it could be in any of them...)

I don't know if this will help, but I read a similar article (likely boiled down from the print version of one of those magazines) probably a month or so ago in the tech news headlines on myway.com. That means it was almost certainly a Reuters or AP story, so you might find something online if it doesn't turn up in your hard copies.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I guess I have a hard time coming to terms with the notion that the practical difference between online availability (and potential opportunity to make an illegal copy) is so fundamentally different than in-person availability (and the same potential). Of course, I can understand the difference in numbers of people who would actually do so... and while I never thought of bookbinding as a sort of "copy protection" device, I see the argument.

Maybe it's the economist in me, who has a too-common tendency to just assume away transaction costs and move on with a rational analysis of decision-making and proper policy. Here, it's starting to seem like the dissolution of transaction costs (simply making easier for people to break the copyright laws) is the real issue.


And thanks for the good discussion...

The legal system tends to reason by analogy. We have precedents for various situations, and when new situations arise, we tend to try to find the box in which they best fit.

To give a very rough analogy, let's say that we have precedent saying that if I keep a wild animal on my property, and it injures you, I am subject to a certain kind of liability. And lets also say that we have precedent saying that if I keep a domesticated animal on my property and it injures you, I am subject to a different kind of liability.

Now lets say that I am keeping some sort of new, exotic animal (a Quikosaurus) on my property as a pet, and it injures you. If you give that case to an attorney, his first instinct will be to boil the issue down to the question--is a Quikosaurus more like a domesticated animal or a wild animal? That's how lawyers are trained to think. New facts are placed into these comfortable boxes that developed over the centuries of common law development. We don't try to create new boxes everytime we have a new set of facts.

There was a fascinating article that I read (and I can't find it again to post it here for the life of me, and if I did, it is probably copyright protected (irony)) which took the position that--despite our lawyerly instincts--we need to create new boxes to apply to the new era of intellectual property.

The primary case that he used as an example was Moore v. Regents of the Unviersity of California (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/con..._v_Regents.htm)

In short, Mr. Moore had a type of lukemia. He went to the UCLA medical center for treatment. They treated him, but they then used the cells that they extracted from him to create a valuable new medicine. He sued them for conversion (theft)--arguing that they stole his tissues from him and he needed compensation. The court in that case looked at the facts--tried to fit those facts into the box of traditional property law--and decided, in effect, that he had "abandoned" his cells to the hospital. No liability for theft.

The professor's argument was that the traditional law simply had no way of seeing something as crazy and a hospital being able to make valuable medicine out of the cells of former patients. And that a whole new way of looking at the law was needed.

Same thing with Napster. The law was able to deal with the idea of me lending you my Beatles CDs. Or me borrowing a couple of books from you--maybe even making a copy or two. But then Napster came along with the idea of "me and 10,000,000 of my closest friends are simply swapping music--it's just like me and my neighbor trading CDs with each other."

Some would argue that it is not. That things like Napster so fundamentally change the way that we interact that we need to come up with new ways of looking at the world and adjudicating property rights in that world.

All of which is a long way around of saying that some people have picked up on the idea that you are expressing. That copyright law was created in a world in which grad students will make copies of articles from the library and take them home, and maybe that isn't 100% OK--but we will allow it because there is a sense where it is too hard to police and there isn't that much harm done anyway. But, once you make it that the book is available for free online with almost no transaction costs to anyone--then you simply have to break out of the model that says that libraries and copying are OK and create a new model to deal with the new situation. It's not like anything that has ever happened.

Maybe its most like (here I am--a lawyer--thinking in analogies) what happened with zero coupon bonds. Back in the day, the IRS used to allow you to collect tax free income on appreciation on the face of bonds. That was a function of the fact that it took time to print bonds, so interest rates may have moved slightly by the time the bond is actually printed. You would buy a $100 bond from me for $99.50 with ten coupon payments of $10 over the course of a year. You would pay taxes on the coupon payments, but the IRS would let you keep the 50c tax free when you turned in the actual bond at the end for $100. It was income, but it was just too hard to police.

The Farrahs of the world--being smart, then created zero coupon bonds. You pay me $100 for a $200 bond. You pay no taxes, and get a tax-free profit of $100 when you turn in the bond at the end. So the IRS had to change its rules to come up with a way to tax non-coupon appreciation.

So--we may be cool with libraries and de minimus xeroxing--we may even allow them as part of fair use. But once someone tries to create an industry based entirely on the loophole--you need to change the rules.

(I'm not saying that what Google is planning to do is right or wrong. Just that Quik is right to start wondering if we need to break outside of our traditional ways of thinking when we decide if it is right or wrong).

[QuikSand]

Great post.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I guess I have a hard time coming to terms with the notion that the practical difference between online availability (and potential opportunity to make an illegal copy) is so fundamentally different than in-person availability (and the same potential). Of course, I can understand the difference in numbers of people who would actually do so... and while I never thought of bookbinding as a sort of "copy protection" device, I see the argument.

The difference is that print rights and electronic rights are different rights, and until the creator licenses each of them explicitly, no one else has the right to distribute the work in that format. When libraries buy a hardcopy of a book, part of the deal is that they have acquired the right to loan out that particular copy of the book to others. Buying the book does not give them the right to distribute any other copies in any other format, especially not electronic. In Google's case, they have not even bought the rights to distribute either print or electronic copies to anyone. They have no rights to distribute the content in any format.

[Galaxy]

Amazon is doing the same thing, expect they are a pay-for-page service.

Reading the WSJ today, and see that the Google boys bought a old 767 private plane.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by clintl

Buying the book does not give them the right to distribute any other copies in any other format, especially not electronic. In Google's case, they have not even bought the rights to distribute either print or electronic copies to anyone. They have no rights to distribute the content in any format.

It sounds like you know more about this than I do (which is pretty easy to do), so I'm curious -- is Google's plan really to "distribute" the material to people? As in, they will send me an electronic file with some or all of the content of a book, that would presumably then be mine to keep? Or is their model just one of access?

And, I suppose, it's fair to say that in the electronic medium... it's fair to ponder whether that difference matters any more (as we presume that it does for bound books from a library, where access is granted, even with the knowledge that the user could theoretically make an illegal copy for himself).

[clintl]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It sounds like you know more about this than I do (which is pretty easy to do), so I'm curious -- is Google's plan really to "distribute" the material to people? As in, they will send me an electronic file with some or all of the content of a book, that would presumably then be mine to keep? Or is their model just one of access?

And, I suppose, it's fair to say that in the electronic medium... it's fair to ponder whether that difference matters any more (as we presume that it does for bound books from a library, where access is granted, even with the knowledge that the user could theoretically make an illegal copy for himself).

There's no difference between electronic access and electronic distribution with text. Access is distribution, because you can save the file when you access it.

As far as Google's plan is concerned, they're saying they're only giving access to a small portion of the works, but that their service requires scanning the whole book. I don't know why they need to scan whole books to do what they say they're doing, and they don't seem to be providing details. And I suspect they won't until they either reach an out-of-court settlement with the Author's Guild and the publishers, or they're forced to do so under oath in a civil trial.

My bet is on an out-of-court settlement, because I do think if Google is being honest, it could be good for writers and publishers. Google just has to be less greedy and lazy here, work with the people they need work with, and share some of the wealth.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Amazon is doing the same thing, expect they are a pay-for-page service.

Reading the WSJ today, and see that the Google boys bought a old 767 private plane.

Amazon acquires the electronic publishing rights to post the book excerpts they do. That is what Google is not doing.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by clintl

Amazon acquires the electronic publishing rights to post the book excerpts they do. That is what Google is not doing.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by clintl

I don't know why they need to scan whole books to do what they say they're doing

How else can they provide keyword access to any part of the book without scanning the whole book?

[clintl]

That's why abstracts exist.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by clintl

There's no difference between electronic access and electronic distribution with text. Access is distribution, because you can save the file when you access it.

As a corollary (and perhaps insight as to how a plaintiff might challenge Google's actions), this is consistent with how other government agencies have interpreted electronic media. Most notably, with regard to prospectus delivery requirements in the securities laws, the SEC has issued guidance that electronic access to a prospectus (i.e., when it is available on the SEC's EDGAR document system) satisfies the issuer's initial prospectus distribution requirements.

[QuikSand]

For those interested in this topic, there was a local radio show that did an hour on this today... I got the first few minutes before I had to tune out, but wanted to share a link:

Kojo Nnamdi Show, Nov 8

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally Posted by clintl

In Google's case, they have not even bought the rights to distribute either print or electronic copies to anyone. They have no rights to distribute the content in any format.

This to me seems to be the crux of the issue. As an author, I would want my stuff to be included in their library project (at least as far as they have presented it to date). However, I would like them to adhere to copyright laws and ask my permission before they reproduce my work and put it online.

Their stance has been the opposite: if authors want to opt out of the project, they should contact Google and tell them so. This is inane. The responsibility for fair use lies in the user's hands, not in the hands of the creator of the content.

What Google is doing is tantamount to saying, "Tell us if you don't want to steal your stuff and we won't do it."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Amazon is doing the same thing, expect they are a pay-for-page service.

As somebody else pointed out, they're getting publisher permission, but I believe it goes further than that.

I think the Amazon business model is similar to the iTunes model in that Amazon isn't keeping all of that revenue. They're making money from the business model, yes, but they're paying royalties for the right to do that. That's where "permission" comes into play.

[Maple Leafs]

Salon has posted a very in-depth piece on this. Since it's Salon, you can guess which way they lean on the issue, but still worth a read.

(You will have to watch a brief ad before reading the full article.)

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...gle/print.html

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Salon has posted a very in-depth piece on this. Since it's Salon, you can guess which way they lean on the issue, but still worth a read.

(You will have to watch a brief ad before reading the full article.)

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...gle/print.html

Ugh. I had to stop less than halfway through. When you start doing badly correlated hypotheticals and analogies to prove your point, it's just not worth my time. "Well, Google printing books is like a pig rolling around in mud. It's cool and messy". And their biggest arguments are like reading about CDs: "the lesser known authors are who really benefit so who care if we take it away from the big people (never mind that it's their right as to how they distribute it in the first place)"

SI