- Related Stories
-
Publishers sue Google over book search project
October 19, 2005 -
Yahoo to digitize public domain books
October 2, 2005 -
Authors Guild sues Google over library project
September 20, 2005 -
Adult-site publisher takes action against Google
August 25, 2005 -
All the news that robots pick
March 25, 2005 -
MP3.com pays $53.4 million to end copyright suit
November 15, 2000 -
Judge issues injunction against Napster
July 26, 2000
But there's a big catch: Many of those books are protected by copyrights, and Google is requiring copyright holders to opt out of the scanning process if they don't want their books in libraries to be searchable.
That's raised plenty of hackles among publishers, who argue that they--not Google--should control who can see and search the books. And last week, five leading publishers filed suit against Google to stop the program.
"It's a commercial use" of the books and therefore a copyright violation, said Ralph Oman, a lawyer and former Register of Copyrights for the U.S. Copyright office. "This is masquerading as an educational use (which wouldn't be an obvious violation), but from Google's point of view this is a money-making exercise."
But not every copyright expert is so sure Google is on thin ice. Truth is, there's no consensus in the legal community on this one-of-a-kind case. The fight comes down to a simple question: Is the search king setting itself up to be a copyright violator of epic proportions, or is it a champion of learning trying to make even the most obscure books readily accessible in a Web search?
"It's an incredibly interesting test case. I don't see a clear winner, at the moment," said Bruce Sostek, an intellectual-property lawyer at the Dallas firm of Thompson & Knight. "The issue of supplanting the rights of authors and trying to substitute ones and zeros for real books, I think there is something that strikes people as unsettling about that."
The library scanning project is part of Google's Print Program, which was launched a year ago with the goal of making books all over the world as full-text searchable as possible through a virtual or electronic card catalog.
The Print Program has two components, one for publishers and one for libraries. Under the Google Publisher Program, the company is working with book publishers to make titles searchable and easy to purchase. The search result pages include advertisements if publishers want them, and most of the revenue goes to the publishers, Google said.
The controversial part of the Print Program, which has prompted two lawsuits so far, is the Print Library Project. Under the Library Project, the search giant is scanning, digitizing and making searchable parts or all of the collections from Stanford University, Harvard University, Oxford University, the University of Michigan and The New York Public Library.
Google says it will scan copyright protected books from libraries unless the publisher or copyright holder expressly opts out. If the book is copyright protected, there is minimal text, only a few sentences, or "snippets," surrounding the keywords searched. There are no ads on Google Library Project pages.
If the work is in the public domain, the entire page will be shown and
See more CNET content tagged:
publisher,
Google Inc.,
library,
lawyer,
Yahoo! Inc.
I especially liked this line from the article:
"However, they will not be able to print or download the book, Google says."
Yeah, right. Just like CSS and MacroVision keep people from copying movies. Unless, of course, you happen to have the freeware programs DVD Decrypter or DVD Shrink, in which case you can make an exact copy of any movie on Netflix in about 30 minutes. The same will be true here.
The problem is that there's no strong-arm agency to protect the writers, like the MPAA and RIAA, with their powerful lobby groups, protect their actors and musicians. It's just a bunch of publishers banding together and hoping for the best. Given that Google is now worth $100 billion, they'll simply outspend the publishers in legal fees. (For those of you either very young, or new to America, money wins the court battles here, not justice)
The sad part of this is, if a songwriter or actor misses out on some royalties because people are downloading their songs or movies, they've probably still got a load of cash in the bank from previous songs/movies, and have future songs/movies to look forward to. That is, once established, most musicians and actors produce more than one work. In the world of publishing, however, this isn't true. Most writers only get that one shot at fame, and if half the profits go down the Google drain, tough luck, buddy.
The theory here is that Google can do this because it's 'educational', which, in turn, implies that songs and movies are not. I'm sure this will come as a big surprise to the makers of documentaries, not to mention movies like "Amadeus", which can be a real eye-opener to people who think opera is just a bunch of screeching divas. That's what I thought prior to seeing it, and, while this doesn't mean I now like opera music, I certainly have a lot more respect for it after seeing the movie.
Let's hope the courts see the sense of all this and give writers the same protection they offer musicians and actors.
But let's not be surprised if they don't.
And that is exactly the type of material that the quote you cite referred to -- basically, you will only be able to read full version of public domain books; for the copyrighted works, you get just a snippet (see the picture).
So yeah, maybe someone will figure out how to get digital version of public domain works, but it'd be no violation. This pretty much makes the rest of your argument moot. Next time, read the darn article more carefully.
Maquiavelian? Paranoid? Come on... Everything is game when doing business, and trying to get rid of competitors.
Once Google makes books available over the web, (and obviously, a couple of competitors spring up); why would you need the physical book? you would pay online and print it!
I especially liked this line from the article:
"However, they will not be able to print or download the book, Google says."
Yeah, right. Just like CSS and MacroVision keep people from copying movies. Unless, of course, you happen to have the freeware programs DVD Decrypter or DVD Shrink, in which case you can make an exact copy of any movie on Netflix in about 30 minutes. The same will be true here.
The problem is that there's no strong-arm agency to protect the writers, like the MPAA and RIAA, with their powerful lobby groups, protect their actors and musicians. It's just a bunch of publishers banding together and hoping for the best. Given that Google is now worth $100 billion, they'll simply outspend the publishers in legal fees. (For those of you either very young, or new to America, money wins the court battles here, not justice)
The sad part of this is, if a songwriter or actor misses out on some royalties because people are downloading their songs or movies, they've probably still got a load of cash in the bank from previous songs/movies, and have future songs/movies to look forward to. That is, once established, most musicians and actors produce more than one work. In the world of publishing, however, this isn't true. Most writers only get that one shot at fame, and if half the profits go down the Google drain, tough luck, buddy.
The theory here is that Google can do this because it's 'educational', which, in turn, implies that songs and movies are not. I'm sure this will come as a big surprise to the makers of documentaries, not to mention movies like "Amadeus", which can be a real eye-opener to people who think opera is just a bunch of screeching divas. That's what I thought prior to seeing it, and, while this doesn't mean I now like opera music, I certainly have a lot more respect for it after seeing the movie.
Let's hope the courts see the sense of all this and give writers the same protection they offer musicians and actors.
But let's not be surprised if they don't.
And that is exactly the type of material that the quote you cite referred to -- basically, you will only be able to read full version of public domain books; for the copyrighted works, you get just a snippet (see the picture).
So yeah, maybe someone will figure out how to get digital version of public domain works, but it'd be no violation. This pretty much makes the rest of your argument moot. Next time, read the darn article more carefully.
Maquiavelian? Paranoid? Come on... Everything is game when doing business, and trying to get rid of competitors.
Once Google makes books available over the web, (and obviously, a couple of competitors spring up); why would you need the physical book? you would pay online and print it!
I see this development as a great boon for all of humanity. Google is enhancing the ready access to information and doing so in a way that protects the spirit of innovation and creation. Although MP3 pirates discourage the creation of new music by eating into profits, Google does not. Publishers should view this as fanatic online advertising for their product.
The only downside I see involves the data Google is collecting on each user. This data, combined with other private source, will result in predictive modeling capibility that will make a "right to privacy" as a mote point. But this is a concern for another day.
I see this development as a great boon for all of humanity. Google is enchancing the avalible knowledge to us all and doing so in just a way that protects captailism. (I myself recently purchased a book off of Amazon and finding it on Google Print.)
The only downside I do see involved the data Google is collecting on each user. This data, combined with other private source, will result in prodictive modeling possibilities for Google that will make a "right to privicy" as a mote point. But this is a concern for another day. Today I have come not to kill Google, but to praise it.
Concept searching is, somewhat like what Bill Gates put it, to get instant and direct "Answer(s), not web link(s)".
IBM's UIMA (Unstructured Information Management Architectures) is somewhat the first giant step to test the uncharted territories. However, its immediate public release is becoming immediate start of "suicidal process" due to its obvious "conceptual" flaw on understanding the key element, "Concept". To simply put, IBM does not have critically needed in-depth view on What a concept is. Nonetheless, such defectiveness may teach an unprecedented lesson for IBM, and serve as a necessary stepping stone for other company like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, which, without doubt, will mightily explore such ever-attracting frontier of Concept Searching Technology.
Now, back to digitizing the contents. Let's assume that we already have had all the contents digitized. Next big step is "structuring into meaning", not just leave them in text format(Natural Language). Getting "meaning" or "concept" from the contents existing in digital format may make a possibly plausible phenomenon, named "Direct Understanding Exchange" ("DUE" in short), happen. If it happen, internet searching experience will be revolutionized to a new level. Upon such achievement, slow and confusing "words to words" traditional human communication will be replaced (gradually) with more efficient manner of "Direct Understanding Exchange". You may speak less but understand more.
Regarding the future publishing business, we know that same "meaning" or "concept" can be imbedded in many different contents, including different languages. As a publisher embracing future "Concept Searching" technology, the first and most important thing you do NOT want to do is BLOCKING any intentions and actions of digitization of the published contents.
For the future, of yourself and your company, think again and think hard.
For the readers, who are interested in my personal thought or theory on such matter, please go to my web side: www.Codonology.com
Regard & Good Future,
Hua Fang, MD
I see this development as a great boon for all of humanity. Google is enhancing the ready access to information and doing so in a way that protects the spirit of innovation and creation. Although MP3 pirates discourage the creation of new music by eating into profits, Google does not. Publishers should view this as fanatic online advertising for their product.
The only downside I see involves the data Google is collecting on each user. This data, combined with other private source, will result in predictive modeling capibility that will make a "right to privacy" as a mote point. But this is a concern for another day.
I see this development as a great boon for all of humanity. Google is enchancing the avalible knowledge to us all and doing so in just a way that protects captailism. (I myself recently purchased a book off of Amazon and finding it on Google Print.)
The only downside I do see involved the data Google is collecting on each user. This data, combined with other private source, will result in prodictive modeling possibilities for Google that will make a "right to privicy" as a mote point. But this is a concern for another day. Today I have come not to kill Google, but to praise it.
Concept searching is, somewhat like what Bill Gates put it, to get instant and direct "Answer(s), not web link(s)".
IBM's UIMA (Unstructured Information Management Architectures) is somewhat the first giant step to test the uncharted territories. However, its immediate public release is becoming immediate start of "suicidal process" due to its obvious "conceptual" flaw on understanding the key element, "Concept". To simply put, IBM does not have critically needed in-depth view on What a concept is. Nonetheless, such defectiveness may teach an unprecedented lesson for IBM, and serve as a necessary stepping stone for other company like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, which, without doubt, will mightily explore such ever-attracting frontier of Concept Searching Technology.
Now, back to digitizing the contents. Let's assume that we already have had all the contents digitized. Next big step is "structuring into meaning", not just leave them in text format(Natural Language). Getting "meaning" or "concept" from the contents existing in digital format may make a possibly plausible phenomenon, named "Direct Understanding Exchange" ("DUE" in short), happen. If it happen, internet searching experience will be revolutionized to a new level. Upon such achievement, slow and confusing "words to words" traditional human communication will be replaced (gradually) with more efficient manner of "Direct Understanding Exchange". You may speak less but understand more.
Regarding the future publishing business, we know that same "meaning" or "concept" can be imbedded in many different contents, including different languages. As a publisher embracing future "Concept Searching" technology, the first and most important thing you do NOT want to do is BLOCKING any intentions and actions of digitization of the published contents.
For the future, of yourself and your company, think again and think hard.
For the readers, who are interested in my personal thought or theory on such matter, please go to my web side: www.Codonology.com
Regard & Good Future,
Hua Fang, MD
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
Google idea to make small segments of copyrighted works available to the public for evaluations purposes is not a new idea. This business model is implemented in almost every legal online music store where you download music or purchase CD's. The users are generally allowed to play clips of certain songs to see if there interested in buying the Music. The business model is legal.
However...
Businesses that implement this model to sell there product, either own the copyrights or have a license from the copyright holders to sell and distribute those works.
The Issue...
In Google's case, the copyright infringment is not that google plans to show just small segments of copyrighted books, but rather that it will sell its product(Advertisments) by distibuting pieces of copyrighted works for which it does not possess the copyright or license. The fact that Google intends to make a profit off the copyrighted works of others is a clear violation fo copyright laws.
Another thought...
I would also assert that the mere possession of FULL COPIES of copyrighted material which it does not own or have a license for, violates copyright law. Under fair use, the courts are supposed to determine the amount of the original work that was used. Google argues that they are only showing small segments, but how little they display to the user is irrelevant. The fact is, the service will utilize full copies of thousands of copyrighted materials.
Google idea to make small segments of copyrighted works available to the public for evaluations purposes is not a new idea. This business model is implemented in almost every legal online music store where you download music or purchase CD's. The users are generally allowed to play clips of certain songs to see if there interested in buying the Music. The business model is legal.
However...
Businesses that implement this model to sell there product, either own the copyrights or have a license from the copyright holders to sell and distribute those works.
The Issue...
In Google's case, the copyright infringment is not that google plans to show just small segments of copyrighted books, but rather that it will sell its product(Advertisments) by distibuting pieces of copyrighted works for which it does not possess the copyright or license. The fact that Google intends to make a profit off the copyrighted works of others is a clear violation fo copyright laws.
Another thought...
I would also assert that the mere possession of FULL COPIES of copyrighted material which it does not own or have a license for, violates copyright law. Under fair use, the courts are supposed to determine the amount of the original work that was used. Google argues that they are only showing small segments, but how little they display to the user is irrelevant. The fact is, the service will utilize full copies of thousands of copyrighted materials.
In a number of legal hassles (e.g. Tasini vs. New York Times et al., and myriad disputes over publishers' online direct resale or republishing in online form of copyrighted articles), an argument similar to the one Google is making was offered BY PUBLISHERS.
Hypocrisy indeed; but, publishers are at a big disadvantage here, because Google--unlike the publishers--is not illegally directly reselling content--and is arguing in effect that the scanning is only being done to facilitate a fair use search engine process--one that has not been challenged successfully in all the years of the Internet.
Certainly offering a searchable index is a fair use; the only question is whether scanning ENTIRE WORKS (not allowed by fair use normally) is a fair use in this context. Google's advantage is that copyright law is defined in two ways: By statute and by industry practice. Just as the law assumes that when an article is "sold" to a publisher ONLY the right to publish on one instance transfers, it MAY happen that the courts could rule that there is an IMPLICIT allowance for scanning full texts for FAIR USE purposes, which might come out of the long failure of any previous challenges to search engine processes in the courts. I guesstimate Google has a chance of swinging this.
Google is clearly hoping that publishers' previous failure to challenge search engines meaningfully, and indeed publishers' participation in search engine processes previously, will establish a new allowance for fair use.
In a number of legal hassles (e.g. Tasini vs. New York Times et al., and myriad disputes over publishers' online direct resale or republishing in online form of copyrighted articles), an argument similar to the one Google is making was offered BY PUBLISHERS.
Hypocrisy indeed; but, publishers are at a big disadvantage here, because Google--unlike the publishers--is not illegally directly reselling content--and is arguing in effect that the scanning is only being done to facilitate a fair use search engine process--one that has not been challenged successfully in all the years of the Internet.
Certainly offering a searchable index is a fair use; the only question is whether scanning ENTIRE WORKS (not allowed by fair use normally) is a fair use in this context. Google's advantage is that copyright law is defined in two ways: By statute and by industry practice. Just as the law assumes that when an article is "sold" to a publisher ONLY the right to publish on one instance transfers, it MAY happen that the courts could rule that there is an IMPLICIT allowance for scanning full texts for FAIR USE purposes, which might come out of the long failure of any previous challenges to search engine processes in the courts. I guesstimate Google has a chance of swinging this.
Google is clearly hoping that publishers' previous failure to challenge search engines meaningfully, and indeed publishers' participation in search engine processes previously, will establish a new allowance for fair use.
If Google does not explicitly have permission of the copyright holder, they should be forced to respect that copyright. Just like everyone else.
Here is an excerpt from a recent newsletter I recieved:
Have you heard about the latest 'sport' in dirty online business? It's called Google Bowling and it represents a gaping flaw in Google's system that allows your competitors to sabotage your site to the point of getting it banned or penalized.
This can't happen, right? I mean, Google would have us believe their algorithms are not easily manipulated and that your rankings are safely under your (and their) control. But in fact there's a ***** in Google's armor that can have massive consequences for any web business unfortunate enough to have aggressive and unethical competitors.
Here's the loophole, explained
It all began with Google's aggressive attempts to curb link popularity manipulation by penalizing sites that purchase site-wide text link ads to get lots of incoming links in a hurry. (eg: If the ad selling site had 1,000 pages, the advertiser's link would instantly be on 1,000 pages.)
Google began filtering sites that indulged in this kind of linkage and either penalized or flat-out removed the site from its database. Bad news for that business. Excellent news for their competition. Can you guess what's coming next?
Certain scoundrels began thinking: 'If buying site-wide text link ads en masse will get my site into hot water with Google, why not buy them for my competitor's site instead? Then just sit back and wait for Google to solve my number one business headache... the competition.' (Cue evil laughter sound track.)
http://adult1.multiis.co.uk
This, ladies and gentlemen, is Google Bowling. Simple. Devious. Devastating. And not just in theory; it's really happening out there.
If Google does not explicitly have permission of the copyright holder, they should be forced to respect that copyright. Just like everyone else.
Here is an excerpt from a recent newsletter I recieved:
Have you heard about the latest 'sport' in dirty online business? It's called Google Bowling and it represents a gaping flaw in Google's system that allows your competitors to sabotage your site to the point of getting it banned or penalized.
This can't happen, right? I mean, Google would have us believe their algorithms are not easily manipulated and that your rankings are safely under your (and their) control. But in fact there's a ***** in Google's armor that can have massive consequences for any web business unfortunate enough to have aggressive and unethical competitors.
Here's the loophole, explained
It all began with Google's aggressive attempts to curb link popularity manipulation by penalizing sites that purchase site-wide text link ads to get lots of incoming links in a hurry. (eg: If the ad selling site had 1,000 pages, the advertiser's link would instantly be on 1,000 pages.)
Google began filtering sites that indulged in this kind of linkage and either penalized or flat-out removed the site from its database. Bad news for that business. Excellent news for their competition. Can you guess what's coming next?
Certain scoundrels began thinking: 'If buying site-wide text link ads en masse will get my site into hot water with Google, why not buy them for my competitor's site instead? Then just sit back and wait for Google to solve my number one business headache... the competition.' (Cue evil laughter sound track.)
http://adult1.multiis.co.uk
This, ladies and gentlemen, is Google Bowling. Simple. Devious. Devastating. And not just in theory; it's really happening out there.
Honestly as a publisher of books, magazines and websites, I have no qualms whatsoever of businesses profiting with aftermarket use of the products I develop as long as I and the authors I represent are paid for the use or at least given the option to donate the material to legitimate nonprofit use. Through magazine and book reprints the practice of reformatting text is well-established with licensing fees and usage terms clearly established in contracts signed by both parties PRIOR to the execution of the new product.
My concern is that GOOGLE seeks to sidestep the common business practice of entering into a contract with the copyright holder prior to the execution of depositing it into their product?their database. What gives them the legal certainty that they are able to do this? Not Fair Use. Fair Use is designed for scholarly or journalistically exploiting Portions of material for contextual clarity and critical assessment. Fair Use isn?t scanning and exploiting Entire Works in a database managed by a for-profit entity. It doesn?t matter how much or how little GOOGLE elects to post on their website, the fact is for cross-referencing, they deem it appropriate to scan entire works and use the data to refine their search capabilities. So in essence they are using the entire work for gain by exposing the entire product through relational excerpts.
If any company seeks to scan my products and use them to benefit monetarily without our consent then they are stealing. GOOGLE should be much more transparent about their endeavors. Enlist publishers? support by developing the database with an opting-in approach that offers compensation for usage.
The arguments are recent and familiar. Sampling a phrase or melody from a song requires a contractual agreement between the sampling party and the originator of the copyright. Clearly GOOGLE does not have the right to sample text for their database in whole or in part without the legal agreement of the copyright holder.
Honestly as a publisher of books, magazines and websites, I have no qualms whatsoever of businesses profiting with aftermarket use of the products I develop as long as I and the authors I represent are paid for the use or at least given the option to donate the material to legitimate nonprofit use. Through magazine and book reprints the practice of reformatting text is well-established with licensing fees and usage terms clearly established in contracts signed by both parties PRIOR to the execution of the new product.
My concern is that GOOGLE seeks to sidestep the common business practice of entering into a contract with the copyright holder prior to the execution of depositing it into their product?their database. What gives them the legal certainty that they are able to do this? Not Fair Use. Fair Use is designed for scholarly or journalistically exploiting Portions of material for contextual clarity and critical assessment. Fair Use isn?t scanning and exploiting Entire Works in a database managed by a for-profit entity. It doesn?t matter how much or how little GOOGLE elects to post on their website, the fact is for cross-referencing, they deem it appropriate to scan entire works and use the data to refine their search capabilities. So in essence they are using the entire work for gain by exposing the entire product through relational excerpts.
If any company seeks to scan my products and use them to benefit monetarily without our consent then they are stealing. GOOGLE should be much more transparent about their endeavors. Enlist publishers? support by developing the database with an opting-in approach that offers compensation for usage.
The arguments are recent and familiar. Sampling a phrase or melody from a song requires a contractual agreement between the sampling party and the originator of the copyright. Clearly GOOGLE does not have the right to sample text for their database in whole or in part without the legal agreement of the copyright holder.
- Lay off P2P
-
by youth+100488
October 25, 2005 5:21 PM PDT
- They get away with this then the arguments against the P2p networks will be that much weaker.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (58 Comments)