Slashdot Log In
Authors Guild Sues Google Over Print Program
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 21, 2005 03:32 AM
from the calling-evil-down-on-do-no-evil dept.
from the calling-evil-down-on-do-no-evil dept.
heavy snowfall writes to tell us that The Authors Guild has filed a class action lawsuit against Google. The lawsuit claims that Google's scanning and digitizing of library books as a part of the Google Print Project constitutes "massive copyright infringement". In addition to the lawsuit The Authors Guild has also issued a press release to explain its actions.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Copyrighted books (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are still under a copyright, I don't see how Google could provide such a service. AFAIK, I am not allowed to borrow a book from a library and make a complete photocopy of it even for private use.
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:3, Interesting)
However, google does seem to have contracts with certain libraries to scan their books, so they are not just randomly grabbing copyrighted material and scanning it.
If this is enough to make what they are doing legal is a question I simply can't answer, but suits like the one at hand should clear this situation up.
Finally, I can understand that some people find what google is doing problematic, on the other hand I really think that it is extremely usef
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
Got it?
Whether such an act is terrible or not is an unanswered question, but it is a breach of copyright law.
Parent
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with everything else you've said, but whether it really is a breach of copyright still isn't clear imho, hence the lawsuit.
Limit to x pages (Score:3, Informative)
Find a page from the book. Google displays the previous and the next page(s) too.
Look at previous page, and search on a term at the start of the previous page, and you will get the page before that, etc.
The result is that you have access to the whole book.
I do think Google is breaking copyright law with this, but since the authors will most likely not sell any book less (the method I just described is boring and cumbersome), I think they should find a way to cooperate.
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but do the libraries have the right to transfer the copyright to another entity ?
The Libraries don't have the copyright themselves, so they couldn't transfer it to someone else. The libraries have licence from the actual copyright owners to have the book on their shelves, but other rights are reserved.
Parent
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:4, Informative)
No, the libraries have printed copies of the books, which they own. There's no "license" held by the library...
Please re-read my post. I didn't say the libraries had a licence, I said they had licence.. it means they have permission.
That's what I just said. Thanks for your time.
Parent
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one of those creeping IP things. If you own a DVD, you have every right to lend it to whomever you want, no permission or end user license agreement required. Same thing with CD's, printer cartridges, and steak knives.
Many companies are pushing to have IP-style EULA's and rules extended to physical objects. Others are attempting to convince consumers that the companies retain "ownership" over the objects that people purchase. Neither of these is correct. It is our job to be careful walking through this minefield, and to push back on the encroachment of this not just unjust but also legally incorrect way of looking at the world.
Parent
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't these authors want to sell their books? It is not like I can download the whole text (unless I actually knew a set of unique searches that would mean I could access each chapter as a sample), so where is the copyright infringement?
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They have to be consulted only for some uses specified by the law. If I want to distribute an author's book I need to ask permission. If I want to quote a sentence from his book, I don't need permission. If I want to burn his book, I don't need permission either. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know in what category Google Print falls, but it's certainly not obvious.
Parent
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, burning a book doesn't involve copying it, so that's irrelevant to copyright. And copyright law is fairly explicit in its exceptions. (See sections 107-122 of Title 17, circ 92)
I don't see "F
What an irritation.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What an irritation.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"If Google combined this with publishing on demand, they could put every publisher in existence not only out of business, but do it while offering far better deals for the authors."
This is what authors are afriad of -- change from the status quo. I think it's a change for the better, but when you're talking about your livelihood, it's a scary thought to imagine -- the way you make your money is about to change drastically.
Parent
Re:What an irritation.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point being, don't assume the authors are the ones fearing the change.
Parent
Re:What an irritation.... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, the problem is that one company controlling an entire market is never a good thing, even if it is Google.
My personal thought is that systems like this are beneficial to society as a whole, and so long as Google don't use the technology in the way you describe, they should be allowed, whether or not that's what the law says. Copyright law needs radical reform.
Parent
Don't know about the US (Score:3, Informative)
And before anyone from the US replies, old in Oxford means pre 1600 ie before anyone went to your country from Europe and killed the natives.
Re:Don't know about the US (Score:5, Funny)
old in Oxford means pre 1600 ie before anyone went to your country from Europe and killed the natives.
Typical Oxford whippersnapper. Here in York, `old' means before the Vikings got here. I quite like the modern architecture of the Minster, though.Parent
Re:Don't know about the US (Score:5, Funny)
Typical ivory tower crusties.
Here in Colchester, 'old' means before Boudica kicked Roman arse :-)
Parent
Re:Don't know about the US (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Don't know about the US (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
This is just insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is providing a useful service that allows you to find the books you want, so that you can purchase them legally from bookshops.
They are showing a little bit of content in order to let people make up their minds, analogous to be able to browse a book at a bookstore to find out if you want it or not.
This is simply taking common fair use in a bookstore (browsing) and moving it onto the digital domain.
While I agree Google should probably have asked the publishers for permission, a lawsuit is just far beyond common decency.
It is time copyright gets a huge makeover to make it more edible for consumers and work better in the new "digital reality", and I am not talking about stronger measurements and DRM.
Re:This is just insane (Score:4, Insightful)
And Google is getting one huge f***** free ride for the "service" they're providing, including ad revenue from the Google ads associated, and the valuable customer data associated with 'what people want to read' - you know, the kind of stuff Amazon spends millions researching and tracking?
Parent
The digital generation (Score:5, Informative)
Welcome to the digital generation people of the authors guild. This is a big battle between old value people and the new digital wave that google is riding.
I am not saying that it is google's responsibility to be the sole holder of books and other information, that is why MSN, Yahoo and other organisations should start a similar program. Or even the government to archive part of our society for future generations.
I found it very revealing that in their press release they say that google is uploading "Public Domain Works" -- and then goes on to say that this is wrong and is against copyright law? Maybe it is just badly written (>sniggle) but they should be careful with their words; a public domain piece of text is, by definition something anyone can use.
Re:The digital generation (Score:3, Informative)
This will be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one had the authors do have a point: regardless of how little of the copyrighted works Google exposes to people searching, the fact is that Google itself is copying and making use of the whole work. Google is a for profit enterprise, and making books available for searching is part of that endeavour, so having a copy of the text is worth something to Google, yet they haven't sought any agreement with the authors to do so.
On the other hand, this is just stupid! What the fuck are they thinking? Google is effectively providing free advertising for them. Moreover such a service is obviously invaluable to the wider public, making it much easier for them to find (and then buy) the information they want.
Jedidiah.
Lets hope they lose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, with the convuleted interest ridden mess the copyright system is the Writer Guild might actually win this.
Because, why would Google be allowed to copy all these books to their hard disks, and then make a mint from advertising by showing peeks of it to searchers.
They sure aren't paying anyone for the priviledge.
In university they have pretty big posters against wholesale copying of library books above the photocopiers, with all the usual heavy handed copyright warnings.
It seems technology, is as per usual, ahead of the law. Google would have to establish some kind of copyright free zone (bit like a tax free export zone) where they can safely process search actions on this huge Alexandria library.
Better beat around some congress critters to support this as the potential benefit to mankind ( access to all written knowlegde current and past, no matter how insightful or inane) would probably be worthy of "World Wonder" status, and give the society that has it a serious scientific advantage.
cnet and google (Score:5, Interesting)
Google did talk to the associated press [businessweek.com], however.
Re:cnet and google (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
No bussines any more? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think China (that comunist country) is going to be the next Big Fish, because enterprises are more interested in get easy money suing [google.es] everybody than in make new products or offer new services. And they make consumer electronic that sux because you are a potentia Pirate so the devices decides what you can do and what you can't do.
I for one welcom or new chinese overlords.
This is how libraries work. (Score:3, Informative)
After thinking a little more, I'm suing Google (Score:5, Funny)
They never asked me for permission, and I'm pretty sure they all contained the footer (c) Me, All Rights Reserved.
In fact, the entire web is copyrighted by numerous authors and corporations, and I'm pretty sure Google has never asked anyone for permission.
Google can't even hide behind the mantra of not being able to micromanage automatic indexing, because the ENTIRE WEB is copyrighted in some form or another.
I'm going to completely disregard that my web pages increased in value by Google announcing their presence to the world, and rather sue them for copyright infringement. I'm also suing Microsoft, Yahoo and Altavista.
Anyone for a class action lawsuit?
Re:NOARCHIVE (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I as a copyright owner have to OPT OUT of Google violating my copyright?
The Authors Guild also have this opt out possibility, but they are still suing.
Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
Open Letter to the Authors Guild (Score:5, Interesting)
It is with some shock that I read about your latest decision to take legal action against Google, which could, and should, be interpreted as a direct attack against a more progressive and free society.
Whether or not you approve of Google, the company's "libarary" program has made a bold move towards an age where information is searchable to everyone. The ability to see inside a book, albeit only an excerpt at a time, which is stored deep within a vault on the otherside of the globe has to be a great thing. This assists everyone from casual browsers of the internet to academic reseachers, such as myself. Upon utilising the search engine and associated search algorithms we can look and search within every title and work for relevant information, and disregard the irrelevancies, with no more hassle than a couple of clicks on a browser. This is a far greater model than the overburdening and cumbersome system currently in operation, where books have to be physically sought after, a greatly innefficient, resource consuming and wasteful affair.
Surely Google's system represents an electronic library bookshelf of infinite size, where the user can browse at will until the relevant material is found. To sue Google is equivalent to taking legal action against the British library for allowing users to flick through books. Libraries also allows users to read the entire text of a book, not merely small excerpts, so surely there is a greater case for taking legal action against the library services of every nation, university and school in the entire world. No such action has been taken, and indeed I pray it would never be.
Indeed I agree that it is a gray area that Google is a profit making company and will be generating revenue indirectly through advertising, and possibly the sale of hard and electronic copies of the full text. Yet, had the traditional organisations of the book publishing and writing world such as yourselves, the Authors Guild, taken steps to create an electronic source back when the internet was growing the need for Google, a corporation, to do this would have been neglible. Your legal action is not a reaction against copyright infingement but an indicator of failure on your, and your peers, behalf. To prevent access to a searchable library to the entire populous of the world is to hide information and create a teired society, those who have access to the information and those that do not. This is backward and unjust.
You have failed to provide or encourage authors, your clients, to present their work in a relevant medium, electronic, to the masses, their customers, and as such have stifled your industry, the fallout and backlash is obvious to see when observing the blogging phenomena that has grown in the last few years. The Authors guild has failed to keep up with current technology and culture trends and as such has resorted to hiding behind the somewhat dated copyright laws of your country.
Whatever your views on the Google corporation it is unjust to take legal action against such a noble scheme and I urge you to revoke your action and change your policies.
A Guild? (Score:4, Funny)
Now, I just wonder why they asked the Lawyers Guild to sort things out with the Clacks Guild, "Vetinari's method" being that of letting Guild to enforce law by themselves by using, at option, a pointy stick or a big club.
But perhaps it's just a --ing polite way to say they don't --ing want the books to be read by everybody. Just from those willing to pay some good dollars the right people.
Anyway, I'll just believe that Google will bring the Authors' Guild kicking and screaming out of the Century of the Fruitbat.
(Sorry for the useless Discworld parallel, but I couldn't resist anyway.)
-- "The Truth shall make ye fret'"
Mr. Goodmountain doing one of the first movable typo.
Google is still in the wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
By showing only a portion or sample of the work may sound fine and dandy, but if anyone can do this without permission, I can easily see this being abused. Google's setting a very risky precedent.
If I make a service called "Krunk4Ever Print", does that entitle me to the right to take any copyrighted text and digitize it into my library without permission? Though I may not be as big as Google, what gives Google the right to do it and not any small company or individual?
Bear in mind what copyright is for... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate aim is to increase the education of the public through availability of information - not to bestow some inalienable commercial right.
Google print == Amazon "look inside" (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is whether the publisher agrees to it. (The author has no say in this.) If you read the license agreement (yes - there is one!) when you buy the book it says "not stored in electronic retrieval format". Browsing in a bookshop doesn't break this... storing in Google Print does. This trumps all other laws of "freedom" unless a precedence is set in court.
Disclaimer: I am a writer with my books on Amazon.
Care to split hairs? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, at worst, Google is making (and offering to remove on request) at most single copy that would be unauthorized under a strict reading of copyright law, assuming the context they're showing is indeed held to be fair use. So, the authors want to sue over a single easy opt-out copy of each work that will drive far greater sales. Why are they doing this?
It's about control. It's always about control. Read the press release. "...the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights..." But the authors (almost always) aren't actually the legal holders of those copyrights! Authors have been getting screwed by publishers for centuries, but at least things have settled down into a predictable pattern of getting screwed. They don't know what changes are coming next, but they can hardly be blamed for suspecting that as individuals they're less equipped to adapt to whatever changes are coming than the centralized publishing houses, and that they'll end up even worse off.
Ultimately, the decoupling of data and media and obsolescence of traditional publishing will benefit authors, but it may take a very long time to happen.
Do you really think Google hadn't considered this? (Score:4, Insightful)
a) Google and the libraries had considered copyright issues very carefully before doing this; and
b) that the offended authors had already tried negotiating with Google.
So, there are probably a battery of high paid Google lawyers who have already determined that Google's actions are legal. Following which Google evidently felt it did not have to negotiate and likely expected a lawsuit to follow. To think otherwise is to assume that Google is run by a bunch of idiots which is very clearly not the case.
The Guild and authors are blowing smoke in that time-honoured American tradition of suing as the last possible recourse when all other avenues for a blatant money grab have failed.
Google's public response (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it raises the ethical and moral issue that they are making money off the back of work they're not paying for. I don't think it has any legal bearing, at least not much in the US and none at all in the UK.
TWW
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, web sites are usually happy to be searchable through Google, because their goal is to be visible and read, however if you put a web site up, you can opt out of Google searching your site with a simple robot.txt file.
Now if you have a book published, it is usually NOT freely available, the author/publisher is usually NOT willing to divulge the content without compensation, and there is no obvious way to opt out of Google's scanning program.
Parent
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all the content of public web sites is generally freely available to all.
And the contents of the libraries Google is scanning are not?
Google only provides a free indexing service to all that content.
Google caches Web pages and provides a short blurb from each page with the link to help you determine if this is valuable material for you. Now Google has added library books and you can view a page or two of the book to determine if it is a book you want to buy or check out from a library.
Further, web sites are usually happy to be searchable through Google, because their goal is to be visible and read...
The libraries Google is scanning are providing them with access and often free office space while performing their scans. They to want their catalogue to be easily searchable. It is the library that owns the book that is using their right to copy small portions of the book for literary endeavors. It seems pretty kosher to me. Any library that does not want to participate can just say "no" or not invite Google to come over.
You have looked at the Google pages right? You know they only let you see a few pages of most books and only public domain books and books whose copyright holder has given permission are shown in their entirety right? Surely you don't begrudge any library the right to build a searchable database of the books they own, just like you don't begrudge me the right to build a searchable database of the books I own.
I'm not sure how anyone has any right to complain. But this is America, so a lawsuit was inevitable.
Parent
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Google (and some of it's supporters) think this is a good idea does not make it legal.
We can all have our opinions about what "should" happen, but whether Google is allowed to do this is down to the Courts, now that the copyright owners have asked that it be looked into.
I think the OP's point is that Google are not doing this because of the wonderful, freeing effect it will have on literature, rather that they are doing it to make money.
I wonder what would happen if Google started to charge for access to this library?
Parent
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind this at all if the Google "reference" venture turns out to be what it says it will be - but perhaps they should "reign in" on the timeline of what they choose to publish. I know of an already-existing example of an online library, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ [gallica.bnf.fr], that is a result of an exhaustive effort to scan and
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sharing the profits (Re:Before everybody...) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Robots.txt (Score:3, Funny)