Authors Guild Sues Google Over Print Program 598
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.
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.
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.
This is how libraries work. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:1, Informative)
So does the New York Review of Books, and you don't see these "Authors' Guild" dinosaurs suing them. These fossilized assclowns know which side their bread is buttered on.
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.
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. They could even make monye from it by turning this google method into the iTunes of books.
NOARCHIVE (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:2, Informative)
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.
I agree with the sentiment, but just want to point out that "copyright" doesn't mean the "right to make copies". Not logically and not etymologically.
Re:cnet and google (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The digital generation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re:Don't know about the US (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite. They're scanning all out-of-copyright works (principly the pre-1920 catalogue).
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/news/news58.htm [ox.ac.uk]
Aside from that, there are 2 parts to what google is doing.
1. Google print. This is opt-in for works still in copyright, and there's nothing the publishers can do for out-of-copyright. This is where they show the whole page containing the search result + 2 pages either side. You can only look at a certain fraction of the book before it stops you (even if you do a subsequent search). The viewing restrictions only apply for in-copyright workds.
2. Google library. This is opt-out for still-in-copyright works. This only shows the line containing the search result (+/- a line or two). If a publisher wants to show the whole page, they can sign up for full google-print. Google's legal advice says this should be covered by fair-use.
http://print.google.com/googleprint/screenshots.h
Value vs. Control (Score:2, Informative)
What is the use of something if not too many people know that it's there and can't purchase it/don't have access to it? Since Google Print started, I have been able to find books that are actually relevant. This is especially important in an multidisciplinary academic environment where you may be researching a topic and not know the exact domain.
In fact, without this service I would never have bought the 4 books I did. Granted, these purchases couldn't automatically be traced to Google Print, but maybe if online sellers created a checkbox (Google Print recommended) they would be able to find out just how many sales were attributable to it and would give them a general idea of whether it does more good than harm or vice versa.
Re:Sharing the profits (Re:Before everybody...) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Limit to x pages (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, from the librarian's point of view, photocopying is also unwelcome as it is pretty bad for the book (if many people do it, the spine on most books will quickly break).
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not. It's just a copy, not a derivative.
There is a definition in the law for what constitutes a derivative work: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
This doesn't change the fact that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies, so the end result is the same.
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Informative)
An excerpt from the tool:
Why can't I read the entire book? We respect copyright law and the tremendous creative effort authors put into their work. So you'll only be able to see a limited portion - in some cases only a few sentences - of books that we treat as under copyright. If the book is not under copyright, then you can browse the entire book. In general, Google Print aims to help you discover books, not read them from start to finish. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing - only with a Google twist.
Google's public response (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Informative)
No, they're not. Libraries pay per loan, which is paid by taxes, and that money goes to the author. This was one reason the public library movement was able to get authors on side in its early days. Google does not pay this fee.
I'm not sure how anyone has any right to complain.
You are clearly not trying to make a living from writing, then.
TWW