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.
oh my god (Score:0, Insightful)
Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Insightful)
But what has that got to do with anything?
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:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, google being a bussiness neither means that they are automatically right, nor that they are automatically wrong, so what exactly is your point here?
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.
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.
Re:Don't know about the US (Score:0, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL, but do the libraries have the right to transfer the copyright to another entity ? I guess the absence of this right is the main reason why photocopies of books are not allwed by libraries.
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:2, Insightful)
Then in my opinion the problem is with copyright law, not with what Google is doing. A library has a copy of a book, which they are allowed to let as many people as they want read, without restriction-- but aren't allowed to display a copy of the front page of that book to anyone over telephone lines. Why? Why is one of these things unrestricted and the other one so terrible?
Last I checked copyright laws in the united states exist "to promote the useful arts and sciences", not so that IP holders can play control freak.
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.
Re:The digital generation (Score:1, Insightful)
Plus this argument about "the books degrade" is moot. Your average paper-print book can last for at least 200 years without any special care, and much more if you do take care of it. Compare that with the 10-year lifespan of a CD-Rom. Plus the fact that you need a power supply to read your "on-line" books.
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.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Writers, Myopic (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
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.
Re:This will be interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess librarys do have to actually pay for the whole book they display, but i cant see libraries being a cash cow for publishers (only having one copy for thousands of users)
And like a library Google enforces the generally regarded copyright usage by limiting their users to small portions of the book. Sure you *could* defeat this, but i *could* go to a library also. And maybe i might just buy the darn book...
All Google needs to do is convince everyone that they are a library service. Even if they do operate a for-profit company, they are in the spirit of the law and not facilitating copyright breaching.
(However i remember someone posting about a library being done for copyright infringment by having a photocopier too close to books... thus enticing people to copy. I dont know if that was in jest or not.)
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?
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?
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
the right to opt in? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it may be good advertising, but an author should have a right to opt in, not a right to opt out. Google should be asking first.
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.
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.
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google is still in the wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called "fair use".
With most legislation out there, if you have access to books either by buying them in a book store (in witch case you have paid the copyright holder), or by checking them out of a library (in which case the library pays a licensing compagny to make their books available to its users) then you can do whatever you want for your own usage :
- you can read it.
- you can store it digitaly for your own usage.
- you can tear pages and make Origamis Boulders [origamiboulder.com] with it.
Of course, if want to publish these contents, then we're beyond "private and personnal use" and you need to pay some license before doing it (like the library does).
BUT there's another thing called the right to cite.
You have the right to use small reasonnable portions of copyrighted material where you want, as long as you cite the source. (You can quote some other in an essay about this author's works. Or show a table in a presentation...)
And I think google did nothing wrong :
- They scanned books, but as long as the content is not online there's nothing wrong with that : the libraries where they borrowed the books DO pay license to make books available.
- They only show a few words of context for the matching keywords, bibliographical data, and the first or the two first pages of the book. That clearly can be considered as a "reasonable portion".
Of course, I'm european and don't have knowledge of amercan laws. Maybe the laws in the US are different than the rest of the world.
Also note that google provides an additionnal service to the copyrights owner, without being asked for and without receiving anything in return from the copyright owners : they provide links to on-line bookstore, and probably help the copyright holder to sell more.
The only that could truly be afraid are the small specialist bookshops, that usually know and sell less known book that you won't find in huge stores.
Re:What an irritation.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point being, don't assume the authors are the ones fearing the change.
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 publish documents from France's "Free of Rights" (meaning older than 75 years) works, plans and photos. Why must Google dig towards the "modern"? Because folks just aren't interested in all that ol' history stuff - or at least not interested in enough numbers to further fluff their ad program?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Limit to x pages (Score:3, Insightful)
But this is not the problem. These companies don't realize their books already are on eMule and other networks. So downloading them is a trivial task even without Google's help.
Google is just trying to do the 'right thing' _TM_ but there is an obvious flaw in their process.
Let's hope this will be settled amically out of court.
Google's Response (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be clear: Google doesn't show even a single page to users who find copyrighted books through this program (unless the copyright holder gives us permission to show more).
Not wanting Google to scan your book is like not wanting Google to crawl your website. Pretty silly but authors can completely opt out.
ever since google floated and got money.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do I Boycott these Guys? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only buy typewritten, photocopied and staple-bound books from your local hippie-collective bookshop.
And then copy them yourselves and don't worry about the bookshop going out of business, because information wants to be free and they'd be uber-capitalist hypocrites if they or their authors were to sue you for wanting compensation for copying their material.
Listen; as I said elsewhere, Google are a commercial company (albeit one who usually behave in a better manner than the stereotype), the Author's Guild members have both the moral right to say (within reason) what is done with their work and to receive compensation for it. Especially w.r.t. reference works, searchability *might* damage the sales of books; it might encourage sales in other cases, but let's not consider this as a black and white issue. If nothing else, the authors themselves should have the right to that decision.
Personally, had I written a book, I would not consider someone copying it without permission and making it searchabe to be acceptable by default.
It might "benefit" people in general, but if it doesn't benefit the author too, I think they have a right to be unhappy about this.
You, of course, have the right to boycott their books, but this seems like a kneejerk "information wants to be free and anyone who stops this is bad" reaction without considering the wider issues.
Re:cnet and google (Score:2, Insightful)
Google's stance, clearly stated, is that they are not breaking the law. The onus is on the Authors Guild, as the plaintiffs, to prove that they are. When that's all done, then we can start talking about whether Google should have done this in the first place or not.
(Note, incidentally, that "doing no evil" and "not breaking the law" are not always identical; in this case they probably are, because you can hardly compare this to any of the obvious examples of evil laws that a righteous person would have to break, but it's important to keep the distinction firmly in mind nonetheless.)
Capitalism... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Gotta go against Google on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
You also point out one of the disengenuous parts of the original article. If the use is fair as Google contends, Google doesn't need the authors approval or permission to take this action, although receiving their permission would be nice. Giving them an opt out in the manner that Google is may help their fair use argument as well.
While we're at it, let's point out that the authors are not typically the holders of their copyright in the current system. Then let's point out that the historical purpose of copyright law in the United States isn't to protect the authors or copyright holders. The Constitutional basis is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; -U.S. CONST., art. I, 8, cl. 8.
Protecting the authors is the means of encouraging the creation of new works, but it's not the point itself. The point is to ultimately benefit the public. This article relies on an appeal to the moral rights of the authors. The US has limited implementation of moral rights, but so far they've all flown in the face of the traditional rationale for copyright. Copyright law as implemented now appears to be doing more harm then good. Look at many of the DMCA's provisions.
My only problem with Google Print so far is their reported contracts with the libraries, which seem kind of unfair to the libraries.
A way of looking at this (Score:3, Insightful)
Google Print is providing the same service, except it is automated, so I don't think the service violates copyright. What might violate copyright is that they've converted printed material into electronically accessible material. If they actually own the books, then this is the same format-conversion question we've been running into with audio: can someone who buys a DVD transfer it onto videotape for their own use? Same question.
Now if Google doesn't own the books then that is a problem, because they are taking a copy from a library and then both of them own the copy. Either Google should buy a copy of the books it sells (or just pay for it; they certainly don't want a warehouse of physical books somewhere which they don't use), or they should set up the databases with the libraries themselves, so that it's the libraries who own the scans.
Someone mentioned whether it was legitimate for Google to use these books to make money without giving the authors a cut of the profits. As an academic, I use a lot of books in my business and I don't pay the authors anything but the cost of the book.
That all being said, Google might consider not providing the books of the publishers who object; if this is really a boon for the publishers, then they will eventually see the error of their ways.
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.
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
For example: Sell bootleg CD's and you will pay a harder fee (and jail time) then if you were just handing out bootleg CD's.
bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. There are a myriad of things a person can do with a book without the permission of the copyright holder. Reading it being first and foremost among said things. The *only* thing copyright gives them *any* control over is, well, copying. But it certainly doesn't give them complete control. Fair use can be stretched pretty far in some cases.
What Google is doing is rather unique. They are essentially indexing books the same way search engines index the web. One could argue that they are making complete copies for commercial purposes, which can't be considered fair use, but the same could be argued for the entirety of the web. Making something available, whether it be text on paper, digital media, or analog video and audio does not imply the right to copy. So the argument that putting something on the web implicitly gives search engines the right to index is false. But search engine indexing, which creates and permanently stores complete copies by its very nature, has survived the courts so far.
Re:Oh shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because some of the text that Google wants to use is copyrighted does not automatically make it illegal for them to use. That's the bone of contention here.
The Print Publisher project isn't illegal in the slightest, because it is opt in by the copyright holders.
The Print Library project seems, to my wholly un-law schooled mind, like it has a pretty decent case for fair use. Yes, Google is (or at least is going to try) to make money off the searches. But the self-imposed restrictions on how much of the text displayed is so limited as to be slightly more useful than a card catalogue search. Thats all. I'll grant that some very determined user or users could possibly acquire an entire replica of a copyrighted work. However, you might then want to consider suing bookstores. They'll let me sit there and read whole chapters of a book without purchasing it. And if I was a very determined person, I could violate copyrights there, too.
Re:What an irritation.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
First: You said "Generally freely available" - thats the problem, they are not all freely available. Some require registration, subscription, authorization, etc.
Second: Just because I put works on my website does not mean I authorize anyone else to put a copy of the works on their website (or search engine). I may want people to HAVE to come to my website to get my content.
I do agree it may be difficult to control, but there are ways. Google could require anyone who wants to be on Google to gaurantee they are authorized to display the copyrighted works prior to doing a google URL submission. They could also require websites to include back-end coding (in the HTML is fine) in a specific format, on the top of each page that is authorized to view. So when Google does the indexing it looks for these codes.
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cnet and google (Score:3, Insightful)
The Authors' Guild is within the normal frame of RIAA/MPAA copyright, where they insist you can only do what they say you can. That isn't the way copyright actually works, and there are many court cases to prove it.
In this case, Google shifts the content from a book to a database. It then queries that database. It has not infringed copyright in this process.
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.
Re:Oh shit (Score:2, Insightful)
First let me start by thanking you to take the time & effort to produce a book and add to human culture & knowledge.
Would you have written the book if copyrights didn't exist?
The same could be said of producers in regards to consumer's rights under copyrights. e.g. DRM, cease&desist lawsuits over fair-use(think blackboxvoting and Diebold).
Copyrights in the US were designed to promoted the Arts & Sciences. They are granted by the US Gov't in exchange for the author agreeing to let the work enter the public domain after the copyright term expires. Original term was 14 years aka a *temporary* right.
This is basically a social contract between the author and the general public. The public("We the people") agree to grant the author exclusive rights to the work for the first few years of its life to re-coup production costs in exchange for open & free access to the work a few years down the road.
Today's copyrights last life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporation. Odds are good that this will be extended again, mostly likely when Mickey is about to become public domain.
Under current copyright law, since RMS is around 45, Emacs won't enter the public domain until some time after 2100.
The social contract on which copyrights are based has been perverted. The public no longer receives a benefit from granting a copyright; open & free access to the work, a continuely growing public domain.
In this context copyrights are meaningless to the public. They are not receiving their end of the social contract. Why should they uphold their end of the contract?
/rant
Why/how would it elimate copyright? Google isn't providing whole works for download. They are just providing the ability to search.
What if it was the Library of Congress that was doing this instead of Google?
What if Google was doing this under contract for the Library of Congress?
Ummm, nothing copyrighted since 1923 will enter the public domain until 2019 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Copyrighted books (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not how copyright works. Copyright means exactly what its component words say: the right to make copies. The only entity who needs permission from the copyright holder is the publisher. The publisher prints copies of the work. What happens to those copies once they're sold is entirely beyond the control of the copyright holder, with the very narrow exceptions of cases like public performance and (of course) making additional copies. Even then, the issue of fair use comes into play.
You don't need a license to own a book. The book is utterly yours once you purchase it. Even if you make a thousand copies of that book, it is only the copies that are violations of copyright. You still legitimately own that first copy.
Re:The digital generation (Score:3, Insightful)
The text of some work might very well be public-domain, however a particular instance of a copy of that work, i.e. in a book, might not be. In other words publishers can argue that their printing of a novel by Jane Austen cannot be put on the web without permission (i.e if you scan it and put the images up).
Whether this makes sense or not, this is exactly what is happening in music sheet printing all the time. Even if the music is by Mozart, the printing is copyrighted and cannot be redistributed.
Re:Before everybody has a knee-jerk reaction ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As does any reviewer of books, movies, art, or whatever. They are selling newspapers, magazines, TV shows, with commercial spots, all without paying the creators of the works. All of these, including Google, are offering a service that provides information on copyrighted works without actually providing the copyrighted work. It can be good (e.g., increased sales or exposure) or bad (poor reviews) for the authour. Google is less likely to be bad because it doesn't provide a review, just makes it easier to find books or references.
I'm not really sure what the guild's problem with this is. Their own explanation is just that (they believe) it is a violation of copyright law. Not that it is harmful, just that it is a violation. I guess the worry is the "slippery slope" of potential lost rights. It'll be interesting to watch.
Re:A reply from an author (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, it would have been nice if they had asked every single author for permission first. However, your and the guild's subsequent moral indignation and denial does amount to a misguided effort against the greater good of the society, regardless of whether you admit it or not. It's an unavoidable and regrettable consequence of this copyright suit, not a "conspiracy theory".