Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

383 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Copyright Law (0)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616591)

...which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.

Are they going to have reviews? Otherwise their use doesn't seem to fall under that.

Re:Copyright Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616607)

Better tell them, then. They could save a lot of money and time with that advice.

Re:Copyright Law (4, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616615)

The use of from...to implies it's a range. So while it's possible that it's similar to saying "integers from 1 to 2", it could also be from 1 to 100 and they're glossing over the 2 to 99 part.
 

Re:Copyright Law (1)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616638)

Wow- before you quickly jump to Google's defense- Consider this: Wouldn't you feel awful if other people were able to read all of our informative and insightful posts without compensating us?
Which begs the question- has anyone ever trademarked the penisbird?

Re:Copyright Law (2, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616692)

My +5 Insightful, Interesting, Informative and Funny post are free.

Now the -1 Troll and -1 Flamebait stuff...that I want money for.

Re:Copyright Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616656)

Are they going to have reviews? Otherwise their use doesn't seem to fall under that.

Your logic astounds.

Re:Copyright Law (4, Informative)

spuke4000 (587845) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616670)

TFA says that in-copyright works will only have snippets of text associated with search terms, so only a small fraction of a book (or a small fraction of a few pages) will be shown by Google. This is similar to a snippet for a review.

What TFA does mention, but kind of glosses over, is that copyright holders have to opt-out of having their works marked as 'not copyrighted'. It seems that Google is being a little disingenuous. They know that not all copyright holders will opt out. It's kind of like saying 'If Tom Clancy does tell me otherwise, he won't mind if I photocopy his new book from the library.' IANAL, but I think it should be an opt-in system, no?

Re:Copyright Law (1)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616741)

Opt-out is correct, and generous. Libraries have special privileges under copyright; Google is providing an archival service to the libraries for the libraries' own lawfully-held books. Authors cannot opt-out of the lending library system.

Re:Copyright Law (1)

spuke4000 (587845) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616796)

Perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about here, but my understanding was there were limits on what one could do with library books. For instance, I didn't think you could photocopy the entire thing. Likewise, my understanding is that a private citizen couldn't scan a copyrighted book and put it on the internet without the author's express permission. That's exactly what Google is doing. They are assuming permission to put scanned copyrighted material online, and only applying the normal copyright protections (like only showing short passages) if the author/copyright holder opts-in.

Re:Copyright Law (5, Informative)

deego (587575) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616763)

I think you, or at least you post is confusing 2 issues.

See this page:
http://print.google.com/googleprint/screenshots.ht ml#excerp [google.com]

[a] Non-copyrighted works: displayed in full.

[b] You submit your book: few pages shown.

[c] Default: very small snippet shown.

[d] you opt out: nothing shown.

If you are an author, you are in [c] by default, which lies under fair use. NO ACTION ON YOUR PART IS NEEDED.

ONLY IF YOU WANT TO GO To [D] DO YOU NEED TO OPT OUT.

(Or. to go from [c] to [b], you would have to opt in.)

Re:Copyright Law (1)

spuke4000 (587845) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616807)

Interesting. I interpreted the article differntly, but I stand corrected.

Re:Copyright Law (4, Informative)

DaoudaW (533025) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616780)

What TFA does mention, but kind of glosses over, is that copyright holders have to opt-out of having their works marked as 'not copyrighted'. It seems that Google is being a little disingenuous.

IANAL, but have done some research into copyright law. Copyright exists not only to protect the author/publisher, but also to provide legal access to information. By copyrighting a book, the publisher has agreed to allow fair use of the material. Google is allowing opt-out as a courtesy to publishers, not through any legal obligation.

Re:Copyright Law (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616703)

...which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.

Are they going to have reviews? Otherwise their use doesn't seem to fall under that.


No. They're going to be verbatim parodies of the original.

Re:Copyright Law (5, Insightful)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616719)

Until you've used the Google tool, please don't post on its merits or dangers. From what I've seen using the tool it really looks to be useful for researchers and students. Claiming this is stealing from authors it completely wrong headed. If anything this is a giant electronic library card catalog tool.

Corporate America of course won't be happy until you pay a per-word usage fee for reading a library book.

Re:Copyright Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616727)

wow, you're retarded.

Re:Copyright Law (5, Informative)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616737)

Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."

This is from copyright.gov:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

            1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
            2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
            3. 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.

I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.

Re:Copyright Law (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616886)

Copyright is not absolute. If I write a story and publish it with a banner that says "You may not copy any of this at all", you can ignore that. The fair use doctrine says, essentially, that as long as my use of the material doesn't negatively impact the copyright owner's use in a commercially significant way, I don't infringe.

In general, as long as your use of the material is different from the copyright owner's, you are free to use it. Making a parody, making a sculpture from AOL CDs, etc., are fair use because the new work is different from the original.

You can take excerpts of otherwise restricted material, as long as the excerpt is small in relation to the overall original.

Whether someone qualifies as a "library" or an "archive" or not depends on their use of the material. Libraries and archives get a pass to use things because they serve the public good, rather than their own. If Google's archive depresses sales of the works in question, they
are guilty of copyright infringement.

Reviewers and news reporters (and bloggers) can use restricted material with more latitude than others.

You have more latitude if you are using the work non-commercially, less if you use it commercially.

You can *always* use a work to compare its copyright status with other works. In other words, you can't claim copyright on something similar to other stuff and expect no challenges.

You have more latitude if your use of the work isn't a "spoiler" for the original. For instance, publishing the most interesting chapter of a Harry Potter book would probably infringe, but publishing the table of contents for something hardly ever would.

Finally, if your use of the work precludes the original author from making a similar use of it, you probably are out of bounds. Those cases are rare, like making a movie out of a book or a computer game from a movie. Usually there is another flaw in the use. The main thing here is you can't be in direct competition with the copyright holder.

But each copyright case is considered unique, which can make case law difficult to use in arguing a case or knowing how a judge will decide. There are a few important cases, but mostly it's the statutes and common law.

This is no different... (4, Insightful)

gr0kCalvin (750832) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616593)

No different that cataloging the internet...which they also did without the copyright owners consent.

This is different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616635)

Except that documents indexed when "cataloging the internet" were (presumably) put on the internet by the copyright owners.

In this case, Google is scanning books, then adding this content to the internet. The copyright owner has no involvement putting their content on the internet.

Re:This is different (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616733)

In this case, Google is scanning books, then adding this content to the internet.

Not exactly. Their scanning them in full but adding them to a searchable database. What a search reveals is a small excerpt containing the search string (or portions thereof). The only way the entire content would be made available this way is if the author repeated the search string in every sentence.

Re:This is no different... (3, Informative)

TedCheshireAcad (311748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616636)

This is the fundamental purpose of robots.txt, which Google respects.

Re:This is no different... (2, Informative)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616659)

Correct me if I'm wrong- but wouldn't cataloging the internet be more akin to google telling you, if you are looking for a book on "x", which library has books on "x." Google isn't hosting every page in the internet.... When you click on a link from a google search, they send you to the actual site....

Re:This is no different... (4, Insightful)

gunpowda (825571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616794)

Yes, but Google also caches [google.com] the pages.

Google doesn't search the internet in realtime (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616861)

They have a monstrous database. Guess what that database contains? Almost all the data from every site they have indexed. You could probably make a pretty rough approximation of a website with access to google's database.

But, you're wrong anyway. They cache pages, and they also store enough of every page they index to return an appropriate excerpt of the page in your search results.

The Internet is free (4, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616686)

But books are not.

Also, to be honest, times change. Because Web search engines existed before today's copyright madness, they've been effectively grandfathered in. Libraries are the same way; if they were invented today the Author's Guild would probably be lobbying against them.

Re:The Internet is free (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616906)

Because Web search engines existed before today's copyright madness, they've been effectively grandfathered in.

LoL! Today's "copyright madness" began long before the web even existed. The public has been gradually losing its rights in the area for centuries.

Re:This is no different... (1)

jeffvoigt (866600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616740)

This is no different than cataloging the internet...which they also did without the copyright owners consent.

I disagree.

It is my belief that Google won the internet copyright lawsuits because none of the people they infringed on could demonstrate monetary damages resulting from the use. If anything, it seems like courts deem duplications as "fair use" if no harm comes to the copyright holder.

However, I believe publishers could easily demonstrate that this practice "harms" their company by infringing on its copyrights. Sampling excerpts from books is one thing, but my understanding is that Google is siphoning entire books to be searched. I believe it will be difficult for Google to prove that this will not harm the publishing industry. As such, I believe the publishers will win this fight.

google are thieves (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616597)

THIEVES.

TELL IT HOW IT IS BROTHER!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616664)

yeah

new product (5, Funny)

TedCheshireAcad (311748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616602)

I'm just waiting for Google to release Suegle.

Enter the name of the person/company you want to sue and click "Sue". We'll e-mail the court date to you, along with relevant precedent to your GMail account!

Funnier: (1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616641)

I uploaded ONE dvd on DC++ and Paramount Pictures sent me a legal-style letter.

"I don't even know what a DC is... my computer hardly ever works, I turn it on and I get all these pop windows and then everything is really slow."

End of problem.

Re:new product (2, Funny)

borawjm (747876) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616700)

Suegle results for "Google":

Sorry, nothing for you to see here.

Re:new product (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616814)

You forgot to include the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button which along with your credit card details automatically either credits or debits your account.

Its like gambling, only much less evil!

So, what's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616603)

Would someone please explain why Google Print isn't a good thing?

omg... (3, Insightful)

msh104 (620136) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616608)

3rd google article in two days...
a well, if you ask me there is nothing wrong with the way google does this. they do not make the entire book availible, only very small parts of it. and if I remember right, amazon has been doing the same thing too for quite some time.. they just didn't have a search engine to search through ALL the books.. you could only search in one.

amazon has permission; google does not (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616667)

> amazon has been doing the same thing too for quite some time.

Amazon does this with the participation of the publisher, and there are no excepts printed if the publisher objects.

Google turns this on its head and says publishers must opt out.

It's totally different.

Amazon _does_ search in all books (1)

jtatum (164201) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616778)

Books that have "Search Inside!"(tm) have the full text searched when you do a regular Amazon books search. From Amazon [amazon.com] :

...with Search Inside!, search results will include titles based on every word inside the book. Search Inside! results are displayed interspersed with the standard results.

Re:omg... (1)

zaphod_es (613312) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616863)

if I remember right, amazon has been doing the same thing too for quite some time.

And I guess that Amazon will be next on their hit list. Lawsuits nowadays seem to be less about righting an injustice than harrassing a target with deep pockets. Settling for a few tens of millions is an attractive proposition compared with spending years fighting and winning a suit.
They would never bother to sue me!

The daily insight (5, Funny)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616609)

If slashdot can make money off posting dupes, why can't dupes make money off posting on slashdot? ;}

Re:The daily insight (2, Funny)

elbenito69 (868244) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616626)

If slashdot can make money off posting dupes, why can't dupes make money off posting on slashdot? ;}

Simple. Because this isn't Soviet Russia.

Re:The daily insight (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616640)

If slashdot can make money off posting dupes, why can't dupes make money off posting on slashdot? ;}

That's what happens on slashdot.ru
 

Re:The daily insight (1)

msh104 (620136) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616653)

technically this is not a dupe, it's a follow up. that is it is the third in a very short time doesn't make it a dupe... but you might say it is annoying non the less.

my.mp3.com (4, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616612)

Does this relate to the my.mp3.com case at all?

If I remember correctly, mp3.com was found to be guilty of making internal copies of all the CD's they touched. Isn't Google doing the same thing, eg. making a massive amount of copies of the books they touch? Insofar as it isn't legal for other corporations to put entire books through the photocopy machine, or use a single copy of software across all computers (without a corporate license)?

Re:my.mp3.com (2, Informative)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616731)

They are copying the text into a database, and running a query against the database. The result is that they do not disperse any copies to users. They don't create another copy when you perform a search against that database.

In the case of mp3.com, they were supplying a copy of music that wasn't taken from your purchased copy. In effect, they were giving you a copy of different music than what you purchased. That would be disallowed as copyright infringement.

Re:my.mp3.com (1)

maxxdogg (138149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616816)

I posted about this later on in the thread....But I believe MP3.com was found to violate copyright not because it had given out MP3's....it was because of the original ripping of the CD into their own database. Just that act is a violation of copyright. Google may be having some serious issues if this precedent is applied to them.

Re:my.mp3.com (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616847)

Take apart that mp3.com system into steps, and you'll see differences.

mp3.com: Put CD in drive, rip CD, transmit music to third party, 3rd party stores music, and retransmits music.

Google: Put book through scan/OCR, store content in own database, perform query against database.

The differences are the third party storage, and the retransmission of content. It's actually quite a large set of differences between mp3.com and Google.

Re:my.mp3.com (2, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616821)

Okay, time to dig into the case more I guess. UMG RECORDINGS, INC. v. MP3.COM, INC [uh.edu] .

It's language like this in the opinion that makes me think the problem was more with internal copying than with external copying:

To make good on this offer, defendant purchased tens of thousands of popular CDs in which plaintiffs held the copyrights, and, without authorization, copied their recordings onto its computer servers so as to be able to replay the [*3] recordings for its subscribers.

In the case of mp3.com, they were supplying a copy of music that wasn't taken from your purchased copy.

Right, but even the initial internal copy, I think, was ruled to not fall within the rights of fair use. (though the external copies were also a problem too)

Especially regarding the arguments, I think more focus was on the total number of CD's ripped, not on the total number of mp3's sent to individuals.

Re:my.mp3.com (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616869)

However, Google isn't retransmitting the content, nor are they storing someone else's copy of the content. They are creating a copy of their own content in their database, or aiding a party to copy the content that party owns into the 3rd party's database. Then they are setting up so that they can transmit a search query to that database. In the case of the library data, they aren't in possession of the content.

Re:my.mp3.com (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616865)

You don't get it do you.

mp3.com did A+B+C+D
google is doing A+E+F+G

"A" was found to be illegal. Don't discuss the difference between B,C,D and E,F,G, it's irrelevent. Google is in trouble because of "A".

Re:my.mp3.com (1)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616738)

I doubt this will really go like that. A rather key difference IMO is that Google is only showing small excerpts of text, not the entire work.

Re:my.mp3.com (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616837)

That's what Google is doing externally. Internally, is it possible that the courts will see the initial act of copying the books into their computers as the same as running thousands of books through Google's photocopiers (which would be obviously illegal, if done to books in their entirety).

I really don't understand (3, Insightful)

Dragon Rojo (843344) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616613)

They will get more exposure of their books and the service probably lift their sales, cant their greedy minds understand it?.

Re:I really don't understand (2, Insightful)

Kaihaku (663794) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616730)

It's not necessarily a reaction based on greed, I suspect that it is more one of fear. It takes the control out of their hands and into the hands of a third party, imagine if a google started releasing its own demos of Sierra's games. How about if google started releasing its own trailers for Pixar's movies? Personally, I think its a brillant idea and a good move but I still do understand the view of the other side.

Re:I really don't understand (1)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616827)

Fear is the wrong reaction. I just ordered a book from ABE based on what I found using this feature.

The deciding factor between the three books I was considering (they are non-fiction reference books) was the content and layout. Using Google Print I was able to see how the books were layed out in the sample excerpts and I bought the best of the three. I suppose if you were a publisher releasing crap you would have reason for concern...

Evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616630)

Looks like their "don't be evil" motto finally expired.

Re:Evil (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616774)

If this were "evil" you might have a point.

From the article linked from the blog (5, Informative)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616642)

The article Google's response points to a case that they are claiming set the precedent for search engine use of copyrighted material, including for commercial purposes:

The leading decision that considered the fair use issues relating to search engine operations is Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003). Arriba Soft operated a search engine for Internet images. Arriba compiled a database of images by copying pictures from websites, without the express authorization of the website operators. Arriba reduced the full size images into thumbnails, which it stored in its database. In response to a user query, the Arriba search engine displayed responsive thumbnails. If a user clicked on one of the thumbnails, she was linked to the full size image on the original website from which the image had been copied. Kelly, a photographer, discovered that some of the photographs from his website were in the Arriba search database, and he sued for copyright infringement. The lower court found that Arriba's reproduction of the photographs was a fair use, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. With respect to the first factor, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature," 17 U.S.C. 107(1), the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Arriba operated its site for commercial purposes. However, Arriba's use of Kelly's images was more incidental and less exploitative in nature than more traditional types of commercial use. Arriba was neither using Kelly's images to directly promote its web site nor trying to profit by selling Kelly's images. Instead, Kelly's images were among thousands of images in Arriba's search engine database. Because the use of Kelly's images was not highly exploitative, the commercial nature of the use weighs only slightly against a finding of fair use.

Industry groups are stupid (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616647)

This is just another indication of stupid industry groups. It's not limited to commercial media, folks.

It seems like very time someone comes up with some cool thing that makes the consumer's life easier, the affected industry panicks and attempts to get the technology quashed. In this case I'd think that authors would want their material easily referenced in part, because they might actually sell copies if people need the information. Without something like this available, authors have more chance of remaining in obscurity or never having the chance to share their work with a larger audience.

Industry groups are just dumb.

Re:Industry groups are stupid (1)

Karma_fucker_sucker (898393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616690)

From TFA..especially since any copyright holder can exclude their books from the program

n this case I'd think that authors would want their material easily referenced in part, because they might actually sell copies if people need the information.

If I were Google, I would make it "Opt-In". Maybe even charge those guys. How's that for poetic justice.

Re:Industry groups are stupid (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616790)

It would be poetic justice, but unfortunately, I doubt these groups would opt-in, be it for free or otherwise. The only way to get this off the ground is to already have a massive database of content indexed.

With only opt-in, you would probably end up with only a small number of authors. Specifically, the ones that are contracted with small publishers, or that just publish online through ebooks. It would be like what mp3.com, and similar, looked like: no big names, but sometimes good content that you'd never heard of.

The publishers and authors would certainly make additional sales, considering Google is also placing links to various online retailers. You would go directly to the purchase page for that particular book!

Re:Industry groups are stupid (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616835)

in part perhaps it's fair use but google indexes the books in full.

that means google makes full copies of the books into their own database for commercial use and as the excerpts are shown around the search results what does it take to read the entire book by crafting search queries? not much I'd think.

if it's ok for google to copy the books why is not ok for _everyone_ else to go to the library and just plain copy the books? or request a copy through mail or whatever?

google says through a proxy that **Under the Print Library Project, Google plans to scan into its search database
materials from the libraries of Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford Universities, the University
of Michigan, and the New York Public Library. In response to search queries, users will
be able to browse the full text of public domain materials, but only a few sentences of
text around the search term in books still covered by copyright. This is a critical fact that
bears repeating: for books still under copyright users will be able to see only a few
sentences on either side of the search term. Users will not see a few pages, as under the
Publisher Program, nor the full text, as for public domain works. Indeed, a full page of
the book is never seen for an in-copyright book scanned as part of the Library Project
unless a publisher decides to transfer their book into their Publisher Program account, in
which case it would be under the agreement between Google and the copyright holder.
*****

why do you think google didn't start with harry potter or a similar best seller? because they would have been slaughtered in court, and for them to be able to do it legitly on all other books they should have been able to have done the scan-and-put-on-the-net for everyone else. if you can read a few senteces(in the stuff currently on google print it's more like 4 pages) forward you know what you need your next search term to be to get a little further(or automate the whole process).

obiviously google intends to pretend that you can't access the whole book through google print but then again you can just make a new search and access an another bit. i wonder if a newspaper could run harry potter 1 page at a time through the year and get away with it being "fair use" without paying anything for it, indeed not even buying the book?

Should be Opt-In procedure (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616677)

This is something that, in my opinion, should clearly be opt-in, not opt-out. Google makes you jump through some hoops to stop them from slurping your material. Why is the burden placed on the copyright holder? If Google wants the information, Google should do the work. Of course, the minor fiasco with opt-in with Google Video proves that Google isn't up to the task. They recognized their failing and instead of trying to correct it, they decided to reverse the direction to the disadvantage of copyright holders. I know you want to automate everything Google, but sometimes hiring a staff to do real work is necessary.

From Google, re: removing your book.
"If you're not a Google Print partner and want us to avoid your books, you'll need to provide us with a small amount of information about yourself as well as a list of the books you don't want in Google Print. Unless you specify otherwise, we'll use your information only to verify that you are indeed the copyright holder of that particular book."

Re:Should be Opt-In procedure (1)

xnderxnder (626189) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616717)

I'm not familiar with the Google Video bit, but the rest definitely has merit. People slam the idea of opt-out in most every other arena - this is no different.. except that it's for the owners of copyrighted material.. those evil bastards. (snark)

Google, how about asking publishers for a list of books to scan?

Re:Should be Opt-In procedure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616791)

They don't need to. When you publish a book under copyright protection you have already given you permission for anyone to make "fair use" of the material (and google's use of the material appears to qualify as fair use).

If you want to use more restrictive licensing, print and sell the thing yourself requiring the purchaser to sign an NDA or contract.

Re:Should be Opt-In procedure (1)

user317 (656027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616840)

how about forcing libraries to ask each publisher/author if they can buy their book and lend it to people. as i recall my unversity library had a pretty extensive search system. although it mostly searched abstracts of papers/journals.

Opt-In doesn't work for out-of-print books (4, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616736)

If a book is out of print it is unlikely that the publisher will opt-in. In particular, if the publisher is out of business there may be no way to opt-in at all, ensuring that those works will be lost forever.

And as a practical matter, Amazon/A9 already took care of indexing the books whose publishers are willing to opt-in.

Opt-In makes sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616833)

While I can understand some of the angst people are directing at Google, here's the real issue:

How the hell do you practically determine (let alone contact) the current copyright holder for books that have long been out of print?

Amazon hasn't faced this problem because they actually sell books. Amazon is only scanning and making searchable those books that it can obtain and sell -- and hence can contact the publisher. It's not an issue of Amazon being "honorable" and Google not.

Google is going to be rendering searchable books that you can't find on Google, or in Barnes & Noble, but only in your library, or maybe a distant university library. If they had the burden of tracking down who, if anyone, still cares about the book, it would remain lost to you. What Google is doing is simply saying, "if you care about your book, just let us know."

And then when you contact Google, proving you're actually the copyright holder isn't an onerous "hoop" you have to jump through. Frankly, I'm surprised you're complaining about it. Even the DMCA requires copyright holders to prove they hold the copyright when they issue a takedown notice.

Re:Should be Opt-In procedure (2, Insightful)

ao_coder (898070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616864)

I can see your point, but I think the product resulting from opt-ins would be dramatically inferior to opt-outs. I'm afraid that we'd end up with the text equivalent of Itunes (which is completely unsatisfactory if you like 20th century music, old jazz, classical or world music). I agree that opt-in would be more comfortable to authors, but I think the social benefit from opt-out justifies that route. Especially in light of the proposed model which limits its' utility to being a research tool.

Re:Should be Opt-In procedure (1)

DaoudaW (533025) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616866)

If Google wants the information, Google should do the work.

Google _is_ doing the work. Hello! In the article yesterday, one publisher complained that publishers don't even necessarily know what books they've published, but Google is going through large collections, finding and notifying publishers, and scanning millions of books. Tell me again who's not doing the work.

This is what I want to know (2, Interesting)

Nuttles1 (578165) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616689)

In order to have an opinion on this whole copyright thing between google and authors/publishers I would like to know the following. How is google going to keep people/organizations from creating or otherwise attaining large server farms or some method to fool googles methods of detecting unique visitors. I mean if such a server farm or something like it can be created/obtained, couldn't one theroretically compile whole texts. In essense getting digital copies of whole libraries? If so, publishers and authors should be very concerned and either should be working with google to solve this issue or sueing them. If not, and this very well may be the case because google as a company is just smart then these publishers/authors are just greedy jerks and should be publically flogged. Does anyone know how google combats the problem of people/organisations compiling whole works?

Re:This is what I want to know (2, Interesting)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616825)

How is google going to keep people/organizations from creating or otherwise attaining large server farms or some method to fool googles methods of detecting unique visitors. I mean if such a server farm or something like it can be created/obtained, couldn't one theroretically compile whole texts.

Sure they could. All they have to do is submit multiple search strings with the text of the book they want to replicate. In order to do this they would have to very nearly replicate a good percentage of the work in their search strings which would yield a jumble of excerpts from various parts of the book that would then need to be reassembled in the correct order. They'd have to have a photographic memory or a copy of the text on hand to enter their search strings and it would just be simpler to either scan it yourself or retype it by hand.

no shit (5, Interesting)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616707)

Who cares if it falls under those specific examples of "fair use."

This is from copyright.gov:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

      1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
      2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
      3. 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.

I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes. Giving the reader brief snippets of the written work along with bibliographical information so they can find a copy of the work themselves certainly satisfies (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work and (4) by, quite possibly, increasing the demand for the work when users desire to seek out a copy to actually read/study.

Re:no shit (1)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616784)

This was actually supposed to be a response to " Copyright Law (Score:4, Insightful)
by op12 (830015) Alter Relationship on Wednesday September 21, @03:25PM (#13616591) ", but I tarded out and didn't put it in the proper place

Re:no shit (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616787)

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

            1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;


Ahhh yes, but is the *main* reason Google is doing this indexing because they are looking out for research interests or for their own bottom line in advertising revenue?

If we ignore their other intent and instead concentrate on their true reason for doing this, then the picture is a different one.

Re:no shit (1)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616802)

...or continually strive to "organize the world's information"?

Re:no shit (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616810)

...or continually strive to "organize the world's information"?

They can claim whatever they like -- the bottom line here is that they are still a money making organization and their primary function is not to aid research. It's to make their investors rich.

Re:no shit (1)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616853)

I'm actually going to digress slightly and use the example in the main topic.
A newspaper's primary concern is making money. Suppose they have a column wherein they review books and have quotes. This is considered "fair use" based on precident. If the review is negative, it clearly hurts the marketability of the book, so it violates (4). A use need not satisfy all conditions to be considered "fair use."

Re:no shit (3, Insightful)

danormsby (529805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616799)

> (3) by not reproducing a substantial portion of the work

The Google index of the book must contain the entire text. This means they have reproduced a substantial portion of the work (all of it) internally.

Re:no shit (1)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616815)

If they own a copy of the book or have permission from the authors, then this is entirely a moot point. And don't forget, authors can opt out of this project.

Re:no shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616849)

Actually you conveniently are missing ONE important fact (as are so many on here).

Regardless of the end result:
GOOGLE IS COPYING THE WORK IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND STORING IT ON THEIR SERVERS.

Regardless of what they are displaying to their users, they are making an ILLEGAL copy that they did not purchase.

It would be the same if someone borrowed a ton of music CD's they did not own, converted them all to mp3 and made a business off of only allowing users to play 'snippets' of the songs, and claiming their initial infringment of copying the ENTIRE song was ok, since they were sending new sales to the industry.

Load of crap.

so if you dont' want your book.. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616708)

to be copied into googles database(which is what they really mean with 'indexing) you can tell them that you don't want your book in it. basically googles stance is that they can do whatever they want with the librarys books unless you specificially tell them to not do it - which is a bit strange, like stealing candy and then saying there wasnt a specific sign saying that you can't steal candy when someone says wtf you're doing...

oh and if authors don't do anything?

****
5. What happens if I do nothing?

If your book is scanned from a library, we'll help users discover it through Google Print and Google. When they click through to view the book, they will be able to see only the limited excerpt view. This view includes links to purchase the book, but will not include a link directly to your website or any additional branding. There will be no advertisements on these pages.
******

which actually sounds a bit funny as they seem to be searchable in full and basically readable in full as well(they wanted a login to view all pages though from some quick stuff I searched through. they do add "copyrighted material" text to the side of the page but that's kind of "no shit sherlock". bottom line being that they did in fact copy the entire books to their database without asking the authors at all.

now if that's OK how about i make a record library and let everyone walk in and copy("index") every record i got there for flat fee of 3$. the library did basically just that anyways so it must be ok if i do it too, right?

making indexes that contain the copyrighted material in full is copying - or else we would have a very convinient loophole to destroy all copyrights...

What About MP3.com (2, Informative)

maxxdogg (138149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616723)

Isn't this exactly what MP3.com did years ago with CDs. Behind the scenes they copied every CD they could get there hands on. Then they were able to copy these mp3's into the accounts of users that actually had the physical cd.
When they were sued out of existence, they basically lost not because they were giving users mp3's...but because they had created copies of copyright works into their database.
Just the act of making the original copy into their own database is where they broke the copyright. I think this is where Google might run into some serious problems.

If MP3.com could not do this years ago with CDs, why should Google be allowed to do this now with books?

I'm not saying what is right or wrong. These are just examples of how copyright is hurting the public interest rather than helping...as is the purpose of copyrights.

Re:What About MP3.com (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616891)

because MP3.com gave out whole songs

We gotta stop this approach now. (4, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616743)

Google is attempting to provide an experience which enhances the ability to search within books -- thereby increasing one's ability to discover and purchase books. It is a subset of the functionality that you would get by purchasing or borrowing from a library the entire book (or even browsing one in a bookstore) because the service limits the number of pages you can fetch and intentionally leaves a number of pages out.

No doubt there are two problems with this: the first seems to be that authors (to the best of my knowledge) haven't been asked either piecemeal or via organizations like the Authors' Guild for permission. The second is that Google will no doubt be making money as a result of providing this service and everybody else wants a cut.

However, we have reached an unfortunate point with copyright and fair use where we'd rather halt innovation than admit that copyright holders' expectations have reached a point of making it cost- and time-prohibitive to meet their demands and are to the point of stagnating not only the public domain but technologies and services that deliver or even touch upon copyrighted content. In this sense, creating a scenario that is not unlike the movie industry's dire predictions about the VCR in the early 80s.

It would be best, of course, for Google to attempt to work out an amiable solution with authors without crippling their service to an unreasonable extent, but I feel that the intent of fair use (if not its prevailing interpretation) falls in their favor... as does the bottom-line for both Google and the membership of the Authors' Guild.

Google Fanboism (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616766)

I don't see why this is a hard concept for all you Google fanbois. You are freely available to BORROW from the Library (yes you could photocopy it completely, but that is illegal). Plus a physical book was bought or donated to the Libraries at one point in time, where as Google would basically taking physical data which *DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM*, ignoring that fact and converting it to electronic and displaying sections of it.

What Google is doing is copyright infringement and illegal!!

Think if it were commercial software instead of books:

Installing a copy that someone else gave them without paying (and without authorization) for it so they can "advertise it for the software company" and claiming it's ok because they are only letting people have access to certain sections of it. So I guess if the software companies don't like it, they can just opt out of the program!!! They shouldn't sue a company for ILLEGALY taking copying their software without paying for it and turning a profit off of it?

Sorry, where I come from that's called software piracy and is definately illegal.

This blind "Google can do no wrong" crap has got to go.

Re:Google Fanboism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616838)

"physical data"? Are you drunk?

Re:Google Fanboism (3, Insightful)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616873)

Sorry, where I come from that's called software piracy and is definately illegal.

Not if it's the functional equivalent of a screen shot.

Re:Google Fanboism (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616890)

I should point out that I'm talking about what is made available rather than what is scanned.

two separate programs (4, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616768)

Google Print is really two separate programs: an opt-in program for publishers who want to get publicity for their books, and an opt-our program where google is digitizing books from libraries. I'm participating in the opt-in program as a publisher, and so far it's pretty useless. The only way you would find my books is if you do a search via print.google.com, rather than plain old google.com. For example, this search [google.com] will turn up one of my books, but a similar search on google.com will only turn up stuff that google would have indexed anyway, even without the Google Print service. (My situation is a little unusual, because my books are free online in digital form. If I was a normal, non-free-information publisher, the google print search would be the only method that would turn up anything.) If you try this search, you'll see that it will give you options for buying the printed book, which is the purpose of the program, from the publisher's point of view; but the problem is that people don't actually search on print.google.com.

I e-mailed Google to ask if I could get my search results to show up on regular google searches, and they said they were studying the possibility. I think what that really means is, they got sued, and they're looking around for a life preserver because they don't know what to do. IIRC, there actually was a period where my books would show up on a regular google search, but now they don't, which is probably google's way of reducing their liability.

It's too bad that the opt-in publishers' program and the opt-out library-based program seem to be joined together in this way, since the former could have been a really good program, but the legal problems with the latter are dragging it down.

for it to be fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616792)

wouldn't google have to buy all of the books?

Mod parent up (3, Informative)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616888)

I work in a university library which is trying to go as digital as possible. The publishers are bending us over a barrel and fucking us in the arse with fees, fees which when not paid result in all future access being cut off. Google is a for-profit corporation selling branded advertising which believes it has more fair use rights than us, an actual "scholarly" institution? Jesus fucking christ. I was working in a copy shop when the SCOTUS dropped the hammer on Kinko's as to the line between "fair use" and duplication for profit. It hasn't moved much since then, and it'll be damned interesting to see SCOTUS reverse itself on this.

The two risks I see (1)

ao_coder (898070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616813)

1) For publishers, this could eventually really change things if google print ever endorsed one particular publisher for one-offs of out of print material. 2) For Authors, google print could become large enough that it would essentially be its own marketing channel. As it would be owned by google, authors would then have to accept whatever monopolistic terms google dictated to fulfill what might be perceived as a business necessity. I think that google print is the coolest thing since sliced bread, but I can understand a little bit why the other side might be concerned. My personal view is that the social value of google print is worth the potential cost to authors and publishers- but then again I don't put food on the table by writing or publishing books.

wrong litigants (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616841)

Why aren't the libraries being sued?

Aren't they the ones supplying the data to Google?

Are libraries explicitly permitted by the copyright holders to give that information to Google?

Sparknotes, meet your doom! (2, Interesting)

Umuri (897961) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616850)

Here's an interesting light that i don't think anyone has bothered addressing. Yes we know the authors might or might not be up in arms about this, but what about the teachers? IF the service really works as they say, then students would be able to quickly search out phrases or texts from books, something a lot of current "educators" use as homework questions since it's pretty impossible to know where they are unless you've read the book. But hey, now we have google? Pretty soon you'll see all schools banning google just because it's getting too useful!

Undermining (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616867)

fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself

After extensive undermining of copyright law it was determined that there are no underlying principles anymore.

Author's Guild (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616877)

The Author's Guild also was the organization that attacked Amazon [guardian.co.uk] for selling used books. (Previously reported by /. [slashdot.org] .)

I know a couple of best-selling authors personally, and none of them have a high opinion of the Author's Guild.

More Google? Wake me up when there's real news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616879)

It's amusing that not a day goes by almost where there isn't a "Google is wonderful" story floating around here. It goes beyond fanboyism.

Don't get me wrong, Google is my search engine of choice, but come on... Is loving Google so much, and refusing to believe they can doing wrong part of some attempt to be excellent vicariously through them?

Raving and ranting about open source, Linux and the GPL is all good fun. But Google?

Does anyone here actually WORK for Google? Have they done anything for you, besides giving shit away? Oooh, free email.... oooh, maps and satellite photos... That's all very nice, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't make them saints.

Didn't they fire some kid for blogging about his first month of employment? Still think their shit don't stink?

When are people going to wake up and realize that they're a for-profit corporation with a very good P.R. department?

Google rock, blah blah MS suck, blah blah.

(no, there's no point to this flame bait)

Similar to mp3.com lawsuit (1)

usurper_ii (306966) | more than 8 years ago | (#13616882)

I would agree with Google and say that they have an open and shut case, but I thought that about mp3.com, too. Remember in that case, even though it is 100% legal to format shift, and that is what mp3.com was doing (you had to have access to a legit CD before mp3.com would give you access to the same songs in mp3 format), they got the crap beat out of them when it actually went to trial.

Our courts are behind the times and are consistently siding with the entrenched industry, it seems.

Anyway, I seem to remember mp3.com sued their lawfirm, which told them what they were doing would hold up in court. Does anyone know how that turned out?

Usurper_ii

The truth is known (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13616896)

Information wants to be free
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>