Should Google be allowed to scan books

Here is another little topic that I think is worth discussing. Googles plans to create an online referance libary have been stalled by the americain authors guild. I think that is a shame and the only reason they sue is to benefit from the innovations of someone else. This piece on the BBC sums up the siitution nicely for me. story

Quote:

---

Defending Google's licence to print
Google's plan to create an index of millions of books has got them into legal trouble, but technology analyst Bill Thompson thinks they should press on despite the lawsuits.
Google's plan would make it a starting point for researchers and students
Google wants to scan around 20 million books from four major libraries and create a searchable database of their contents.
This is so that researchers at universities, schoolchildren in libraries and anyone at home can quickly find titles which might be relevant to their work.
Called Google Print, it is a bit like Amazon's feature that lets you search inside a book. Unlike Amazon, where you can then read a few pages from each book you find, Google will only give you enough detail to let you know that you have found what you are looking for.
It is a great idea, and the resulting catalogue will rapidly become the starting place for researchers around the world.
But it might not happen, because the project is currently stalled after three US authors sued Google for scanning their copyright material.

'Brazen violation'
The authors, with support from the US Authors Guild, call the project "a plain and brazen violation of copyright law" and argue that "it's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied."
I am an author, so I have an interest in this, and even though I have many doubts about Google's operations and ideology, I have to support them in this one.
A few years ago Mp3.com launched MyMp3.com. It was a great service which let you listen to your music collection anywhere.
They ripped tens of thousands of CDs onto their servers. Once you had an account with them, you fed your CD collection into your computer and it flagged which ones you owned. Then you could listen to them from any computer you were using.
They should let any library in the world have a copy of the electronic versions of all the books they hold that are in the catalogue. Not a link to the Google website but a real copy, to be held locally and used by the library under a very relaxed and permissive licence
It was grey enough for the record industry to sue them out of existence.
Google is big enough to stand up to the pressure, and it can afford even more expensive lawyers than the Authors Guild.

---

edit : To add more of the original story in.

If it's not letting you read a whole book or even a significant part of a single chapter I really can't see what the issue is.

A lot of authors make whole chapters available online as a taster to try to encourage buyers.

I would guess the Guild is just trying to justify it's existance and in the process is shooting itself in the foot.

I would wonder what the actual writers think rather than the mouthpiece of the publishers.

Even though it is not the guild sueing I would bet that they went throught their list of members to find three who would be willing to sue. I'd bet these are the types of people who would have been against the printing press when it was invented unless of course they could make money from it. I erckon you are right Aspman that the vast majority of authors would be more than willing to give their ok.

I read this awhile back...and to my understanding it was only recently discovered that Google has been doing this for awhile...

the guild knew that Google was copying parts of books for the purpose of it's search engines...however they were not aware Google was copying whole books...which is a violation of copyright law...

Google claims it means no harm...that the guild should ' Trust ' Google...that it has no intention of publishing or using whole books...

the guild then asks the question if you have no intention of using whole books then why copy whole books...

the guild sees this as an open door...if they let Google copy whole books then what's to prevent Random House from copying whole books from other publishers...it may set a precedent for future copyright infringment lawsuits...

allowing Google to do this unchallenged leaves publishers and authors at a major disadvantage when it comes to people copying their work and breaking copyright law.

Eg ;)

P.S. I don't agree that most authors would support Google...it is not to an authors advantage to give up this aspect of copyright law that protects them from unauthorized use...it could potentially open up a very nasty door that will make it harder for authors to protect their work.

This was not an issue when excepts were being published...that has always been accepted as not a violation of copyright...this only became an issue when it was discovered Google was copying ' whole ' books.

I know what you mean but I don't think Google copying a book is the same as you or I copying a book on a photocopier.

We would be doing it to gain a full copy of the book to use as a substitute for the original.
Google is (lots of assumptions with that 'is') copying for the purpose of indexing with no intention of a whole or large portion of a book being reproduced or made available publically.

Quote:

---

This was not an issue when excepts were being published

---

Only excepts are being published.

Google might well be breaking copyright by copying the books but I think copyright law may need to be brought up-to-date to deal with the technology.

I think in reality a compromise will be reached with Google continuing with it's plan but supplying free links to sites to purchase the books listed by a search.

edit : ASpmann got in before me. :(

Quote:

---

P.S. I don't agree that most authors would support Google...it is not to an authors advantage to give up this aspect of copyright law that protects them from unauthorized use...it could potentially open up a very nasty door that will make it harder for authors to protect their work.

---

I'd have to disagree with you on this. For the minority of authors who write fistion books for the best sellers spot then they would probably have a problem with this. After all money is their main concern. But for the others I'll quote

Quote:

---

Now some authors and their trade association are standing in the way of progress, even though it is clear that the main beneficiaries of the project will be publishers and the authors themselves.
They will sell more books or, if they are academics, see their research read and cited more often. There will be a general increase in the quality of university research simply because vital sources will be overlooked less often.

---

Also I would not be surprise if the author guild knew before hand which book were being scaned and when. They just waited till the right time to sue.
As far as I know Google never hid its intention to scan the whole book. Anything less for a researcher would be usless as you could never tell which line from the book will be looked up.

I understand the reluctance of publishers to the great Google vacuum sucking up a copy of all their books, but if Google wasnt' already doing it, it would be a great move by the publishers to do it themselves.

As long as whats available are only search-relavent snippets, it can only force consumers to seek out an actual copy of the book in question. And you can bet the margins will be filled with links to booksellers.

It brings people to books by the strength of their content. What more could publishers ask for ?

Besides royalties on the ad-sense profits .....................


/edit : Combine this with a sophisticated print on demand service and out of print book sales could be a major source of income, not to mention a huge help to researchers and readers.

I think you are all missing my point...it's not a question about whether or not the publishers and authors will benefit ( do you really expect Google to say anything different? Of course they're going to say that. )...

it's a question of the can of worms this might open if it causes the present copyright laws to be compromised...this is not an improvement on already weak rights...it's a downgrade of rights...

if Google is allowed to do this...why would a University or a library or anyone else buy a book if they have the right to download the whole book for free?

the whole purpose of offering snippets is is publicize the books without giving away the farm in the process...they're teasers to get you to buy the book...like movies offer preveiws to get you to go to the movie.

As far as Google goes...I very much doubt they are doing this for altruistic motives...should publishers and authors trust Google like blind mice...I wouldn't trust Google's motives any more than I trust Microsoft.

Google is a business not a charity...I doubt they are doing this without an ulterior motive.

They are saying we want to download and create a library of whole books...but we'll still offer only snippets like before...so...

why download whole books? You don't see the problem?????


OK...give me the keys to your car...I promise I won't drive it!...then why the frig do I need your keys????


Google has every intention of using this as a way to gain more profit...they have a plan...it may not happen for ten years but trust me this is not an altruistic adventure...once they have a large enough library to suit their purposes they will use it...don't kid yourself into thinking they have no plans to use it......and as usual it's the artist that's going to get shafted.

Now excuse me while I download every song ever written to create a library...but ' trust me ' I have no intention of ever using it ;)

Eg ;)

Google is a busniess, it is useing someone elses work for its own profit...this is a clear violation of copyright laws....if they worked out some way to pay royalties to the authors there would eb no issue but google wants to profit off of others work for free.

We may all be a little uncomfortable with this, but here
is where technology is taking us. Copyright laws will eventually
be repealed. Once you open your mouth, the words are out there
and you no longer own them. Deal with it.

Digital communication makes it possible to copy and distribute
books, songs and movies at a cost approaching zero. The only cost
involved is the cost of writing, producing etc.

All previous media "business models" are based on the assumption
that it is relatively easy to prevent "piracy" by simple law enforcement
methods. This is no longer practical.

Eventually, books will all be readable online, and the publishing "industry"
as we know it will go the way of the proverbial "buggy whip" industry.
Again, Deal with it.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property". If you write something,
people will take it for free and you cannot stop them. This is the primary
fact of the information age. Technology has made information cheaper
to obtain, and harder to prevent others from obtaining

The publishing industry (including music and movie industries) have
historically been like the robber baron who guards a narrow mountain
pass, exacting a "tax" on everyone who wants to pass that way.
But now, people have found another way around.
:cool:

If you write a book, sing a song or make a movie, consumers will read,
listen or watch for free. If you are uncomfortable with this, get a real job.
:cool:

Hi rcgreen,

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me...' get a real job '...' deal with it '...' no such thing as intellectual property '...

I'm glad you don't work for the copyright and patent offices...with the attitude it should all be free to all comers...it doesn't matter if you took 3 years to write that novel...and seven years submitting manuscripts to publishers...anyone should be able to download it for free, maybe even sell it, put their name on it...eh?

if that's the case...why write a book...design software...play music...create a better operating system...if people like you can just come along and steal it?

That is what you're saying...right...or am I wrong?

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

anyone should be able to download it for free, maybe even sell it, put their name on it...eh?

---

I don't know about what they should or should not do, but this is technology.
You can't control something after you've published it. Just ask a programmer
who wrote some nice software, only to discover that Microsoft stole it, put their
name on it, and tries to prohibit you from using it without paying them!

The best compromise is something like the GPL, that recognizes your authorship
but allows people free access. But even that is only an honor system that
depends mostly on people acting in good faith. There is no technological
solution to something that is a moral and ultimately religious issue.
The honoring of rights, personal and property, is supported by some peoples'
basic philosophical outlook, but it looks as though civilization is deeply divided
on this. People will have to police themselves.
:cool:

Hi rcgreen,

I agree it's near impossible to protect your work if you ever take it out of the safe and put it on display...it was the same way 30 years ago when people were stealing my work...

but...not every societal norm has some religious connection...some things are just common politeness...it would be considered impolite if I were to throw garbage on my neighbor's property...take his car for a spin without his permission...get his daughter pregnant...or steal his blueprints for a new software package...we make rules so that we can get along and function in relative peace and harmony...

we accept that for the life of the copyright or patent that the creator or copy/pat holder can financially benefit from his idea/product...when that time expires it becomes public domain...and then anyone can use it for any purpose...

you're right...there is no solution to prevent people from taking advantage before it becomes legally public property...but that's not a new revelation...it's been going on for hundreds of years...it's just easier now and more accessible to a larger group of individuals.

Still...doesn't make it right.

Eg ;)

rcgreen: there is no technoligical solution this is where laws come in...sure some one can violate your propety rights but then you can sue them...see thats why the laws exiist to make up for he short comeings of technology....its like this in busniess, I can not stop you via tech from writeing inappropiate emails, so there si a busniess rule that says that you can't, this is inforced the old fashion way a pink slip.

Sure google can just copy others work, but they better not whine about it when the lawsuites come down the line.

If what they are copying is allready sitting on a shelf in a "Public Library" then Google should be able to copy it. Just think of all of the original manuscripts that would be electronically available for the masses.

If anything, it may induce mass reading, why does everyone think what Google is doing is sinister.

What the authors should be concerned with is the Middle Men (Publishers), if it is their property then yes they should have a say as to whether or not Google can use their writings, up to the point when it ends up in the Library (public then owns it)

All educational material with the exception of say current curriculums, should also be available for free, I mean geez I would love to go online and google for my old grade 4 mathbook (not).

Will this stop those annoying brittanica salesmen from coming to my door. :D

Hi dalek,

Library books are not public property...some books are donated by people and some are purchased...when you take out a library book you do not have the right to copy it in whole...you could do it, but you do not have the right to do it...they are on loan to you to read not copy and/or sell.

Even the library does not have the right to copy whole books and shelve them for the public...or sell them in their shops.

Your point that

Quote:

---

ends up in the Library (public then owns it)

---

is a mistaken falicy.

Eg ;)


OH...by the way...I'm starting a software library...if everyone can send me a copy of all their software I'd appreciate it...and...no...like Google I don't want to pay for it. ;)

dalek: Big diference, the librarey is a public trust that is lending books out for you to read, well within fair use. Note that the library dose not photocopy whole books for you too keep. Google on the other hand is useing other peoples copywritten material for PROFIT. Google is a busniess a for profit busniess and they are trying to profit off of other peoples work... If they want to make this data base they need to pay royalties to the rights owners =, just like any other busniess thatwants to profit off of some one elses work.

Hi Eg

Quote:

---

Library books are not public property...some books are donated by people and some are purchased...when you take out a library book you do not have the right to copy it in whole...you could do it, but you do not have the right to do it...they are on loan to you to read not copy and/or sell.

---

I have to agree with you on this, I think I probably should have worded it so that it came out like Google, could be "The Electronic Library" of the future, just as the "public Libraries" are not for profit organisations.The library is a registered charity under the Canadian Income Tax Act:

Then Google could do the same, I am sure that Google would use this opportunity to offer ad space while following links to books people are looking for, (Our Communities and the 3 levels of Government in Canada subsidise our "Public Libraries" through our Taxes) so it does not really matter where the revenue comes from right!!

This is from http://www.collectionscanada.ca/new-user/index-e.html#f

Legal Deposit

Legal Deposit is the means by which a comprehensive national collection is gathered together as a record of the nation's published heritage and development. Canadian publishers are required to send two copies of all the books, pamphlets, serial publications, microforms, spoken word sound recordings, videorecordings, electronic publications issued in physical formats (CD-ROM,
CD-I, computer diskette, etc.), and one copy of musical sound recordings and multi-media kits they publish, to Library and Archives Canada.http://www.collectionscanada.ca/6/25/index-e.html Not sure about other countries.

So once they are there, they become available to the "public"



Copyright

Many publishers enquire about the relationship copyright has to legal deposit. In Canada, copyright is covered by a separate program or statute from that of legal deposit. Depositing with LAC does not represent copyright protection. For information on copyright in Canada, please contact: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/6/25...html#Copyright

So once these are made available to the Library, then the public has access to the material, to either do research or for pleasure.

All of the writers and authors allready have protection if their country has signed on to the Berne Convention http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Show...what=B&bo_id=7

As to my quote

Quote:

---

ends up in the Library (public then owns it)

---

I should have been more specific.

Public domain material
Some of the material you will find on the Library and Archives Canada website is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission or paying royalties as long as you abide by the reproduction conditions listed above. Public domain material will be clearly indicated as such on our website.(meaning that the copyright term of protection has expired)

There are conditions of course ;)http://www.collectionscanada.ca/notices/016-200-e.html

Audio, video, disco (actually Rock & Roll)
"I hear, I see, I Dance"??? (I Learn)

Dolphin Code 16 (A) ;)

Hi dalek,

Your post confirms my previous statements...

Legal deposit is still bound by copyright law...access to those materials still falls under copyright protection...we do not have the right to copy whole books or manuscripts...and no copyright or patented materials become public domain until after their term has expired.

Good links.

Eg ;)

Copyright protection is basically useless for most artists...for the simple reason you do have to self police your work...that is why agencies were formed and funded by artists to do the policing for them...copyright protection only gives you a date by which you can prove that you made/designed/created it before the other guy...a self-adressed stamped envelope serves the same purpose ( as long as you don't open it until you need to )...the post-mark is your date of proof.

It simply isn't worthwhile to go after every person that steals your stuff...unless you can show substantial damages and the person has an ability to pay.

Which is why there's been a push in the last 20 years toward the creation and enforcement of criminal law regarding copyright infringements.

Authors should stop worrying about unauthorized copying and
worry more about being forgotten. think about how much knowledge has been lost
down through history. At the very least, old and rare books should be scanned
and preserved. Stingy people who do not want their works distributed may get what they want.
A thousand years from now no one will know they even lived.
:cool:

I'd have to agree with Egaladiest and Bballad on this issue entirely.

~One: If they are only providing snippets, they do not need the entire book. You might as well provide the hungry Google with a loaded gun and a farm animal then not expect them to eat meat for dinner.

~Two: It's clear violation of copyright law. Sure copyright laws are not quite up-to-date, but that is immaterial for this situation. They are taking a full protected and completed product for free without consent. Let's reverse the situation. People would laugh at me if I walked into MS and thought I could just walk out with 100% of the coding for their new OS, Games, and Software--I'm not even a profit business. Google is a profit business; so how is the situation different?

~Three: As stated, this is a Pandora's Box for copyright infringment. If Google gets away with this, technically, I could steal every file, song, movie, data, etc. and hoard it to myself so long as I did not share it. If everyone can do this without consequence, then nobody will even need to share anymore. Peg-legs and eye-patches for everyone!

The whole question of why google is scanning the whole book is fairly obvious. Normally if you are trying to look up a subject you have a quote or line to work from. There is no way to know which line in the book will be looked up. As long as Google doesnt allow the down load of the full text then it is no different that what Amazon does when it allows you to read a couple of pages from the book.

Quote:

---

Called Google Print, it is a bit like Amazon's feature that lets you search inside a book. Unlike Amazon, where you can then read a few pages from each book you find, Google will only give you enough detail to let you know that you have found what you are looking for.

---

If you can search inside the book then it is scanned. Funnily enought nobody is sueing amazon for scanning books. I wonder what influence they have with the Americain author Guild.
How much of the really important research material is still covered by copyright. The major works of littrature are already out of copywrite. Most acedemics would have no problem in my opinion with haveing their works on line. If anything it would increase their prestige and job prospects.
I agree someone who writes a book deserves to be paid for their efforts as long as the book is readable. I just dont see how google is going to affect this. The big mistake they made was not asking permission from each author before scaning their works.