Authors Guild alleges Google's Library Project violates copyrights

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Copyright was created to give AUTHORS control over the copying of their the works for a LIMITED time. Not to give faceless corporations who create nothing exclusive control over those works for all eternity.

You don't have to explain to me how copyright works. I have read considerably on the topic.

Today Copyright laws under the Berne convention allow companies to own works. Whether you like it or not, that is what the law currently is.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Look at Disney. Take their best works: Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Peter Pan, etc. Nearly everything was taken from the Public Domain. Now, in the last 20 years, count the number of "classics" Disney made. (Also count the number of "reruns" that Disney has made - Treasure Planet, The Absent-Minded Professor, etc. - because they have no Public Domain to dip into to create new works.)

A wonderful example of how the REFUSAL of copyright holders (not authors) to share is killing the creative ability of our country.

The Disney example actually has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with trying to produce creative work by committee, the refusal to allow their creative teams to actually do any creative work, and their constant pursuit of branding opportunities at the expense of the craft.

I hold up Pixar as a clear counter-example. Name me one Pixar story derived from a public-domain work, then name me one Pixar movie that has been a dismal failure. Why aren't there any? Because they get the story right before they make the movie, and they refuse to release crap.

Copyright restrictions haven't seem to hurt Pixar one bit, and they aren't the source of Disney's inability to make a decent movie anymore.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Google handled it right. The Author's Guild and the publisher have handled it wrong.

Google is creating something that will help them all. However, it will demonstrate how long copyrights are hurting our society and that's something that the copyright holders need to keep quiet.

No, copyright LAW says Google handled it wrong. They have to ask permission first. It is a legal requirement. It doesn't matter if you think the law is right or wrong; that doesn't change the fact that it is what is is.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by tenebrae

No, copyright LAW says Google handled it wrong. They have to ask permission first. It is a legal requirement. It doesn't matter if you think the law is right or wrong; that doesn't change the fact that it is what is is.

The law is not absolute. That's why we have courts and trial by jury.

The law is not kept by law enforcement groups, but rather by the majority of the people believing the law is just. When a law is unjust, people ignore it - and there's no amount of law enforcement in the world that can make people believe it's just.

Copyright holders (again, not authors) are finding this hard to understand.

They will have to understand or fail. A work that isn't published is a work that makes no money - which means that the work is worthless to the copyright holder. A work that is published under an unjust law with restrictive DRM will be pirated - since that's the only choice they leave to the public.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

They will have to understand or fail. A work that isn't published is a work that makes no money - which means that the work is worthless to the copyright holder. A work that is published under an unjust law with restrictive DRM will be pirated - since that's the only choice they leave to the public.

This is pure garbage. People will pirate whether works are protected by DRM or not.

Eden Studios released an e-book of one of their recent games with only a watermark. Someone took the time to remove the watermark from 250+ pages and posted it on a P2P network. It was downloaded over 5 times as frequently as it was purchased.

The original PDF had NO DRM WHATSOEVER. Only the purchaser's name in the bottom margin of the page.

But, in spite of the fact that you could copy the file as many times as you wanted, view it on any computer capable of displaying a pdf file, print as many copies as you like...you'd still call that restrictive.

To say that restrictive DRM FORCES people to pirate because they are left no other choice is just plain wrong, and a sad attempt to rationalize the behavior. There are two other choices:

1: Don't buy, and tell the publisher why.

2: By a print edition.

Pirating is just a way of gratifying the self. It does not change the world for the better.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by tenebrae

This is pure garbage. People will pirate whether works are protected by DRM or not.

Some people steal cars - yet car companies are still in business.

Some people pirate music - yet CDs are still selling well.

Some people pirate books - yet publishers are still printing them.

Some people will always do the wrong thing. But when most people are doing the "wrong" thing, we need to sit up and look at what is actually wrong.

Originally Posted by tenebrae

But, in spite of the fact that you could copy the file as many times as you wanted, view it on any computer capable of displaying a pdf file, print as many copies as you like...you'd still call that restrictive.

Actually, I wouldn't.

The watermark was nothing more than a technological puzzle for someone to solve - and demonstrate how worthless it is.

Originally Posted by tenebrae

To say that restrictive DRM FORCES people to pirate because they are left no other choice is just plain wrong, and a sad attempt to rationalize the behavior. There are two other choices:

1: Don't buy, and tell the publisher why.

2: By a print edition.

1. Pirates did. By pirating the work they didn't buy and sent a very strong message why.

2. First rule of business: The customer is always right.
As a customer, I tell the producer what I want, how I want it and at what price. If one producer doesn't want to do that, some other producer will. Producers exist to fill demand - not to create demand or dictate demand.

Your argument sounds similar to the RIAAs which allows them to justify treating all their customers as criminals.

And we all know how well that's working for the RIAA.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by tenebrae

Pirating is just a way of gratifying the self. It does not change the world for the better.

Edgar Rice Burroughs has been dead for over 50 years. Yet the vast majority of his works are still under copyright because of the current length of copyright.

How does this change the world for the better?

The works are not currently in print and haven't been in print for quite some time. If you want to read these works, you need to seek out your local used book store and hope that they still have a copy (doubtful since most of these seem to be very cheaply made paperbacks).

Over time, these physical copies will be destroyed - after all, nothing lasts forever.

People want to read these books and they want to continue reading them, so they do the only thing left: pirate them. They take their physical copies and OCR them and proofread them, and share them with others who want to read these works.

Who got hurt by this?

Burroughs didn't. He's dead.
The copyright holder was hurt, but since he's not publishing the works, he obviously thinks that the copyrights aren't worth anything (or doesn't even know he has the copyright), so he wasn't hurt much.

How does this change the world for the better?

Because millions of people get to experience Burroughs work.

Had these books been fitted with some sort of DRM, they might be lost completely. And that definately wouldn't change the world for the better.

But the whole purpose for copyright was to let authors share their works with the world. If copyright didn't exist, authors wouldn't share for fear of having their works stolen.

Today copyright has been turned into a means of hording - not sharing. It's an unjust law and copyright holders (again, not authors) should not be surprised when people don't respect it.