Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
More interesting to me--something Konrath only alluded to indirectly--is the AG's kneejerk opposition to Fair Use in all its forms, which is at the root of the Google books fight.
Fair Use is, of course, a big sticking point with the multinational-controlled BPHs, mostly because wide-ranging fair use is primarily a US right and their world view doesn't fit with that.
Plenty more legal fights to come over fair use online, with Google and others.
A lot of it stemming from the different roots of copyright across the two sides of the pond:
I recently ran into a comment pointing out, correctly, that in the US copyright is granted by the Contitution to serve the public interest whereas european (and particularly french) laws set up copyright to protect the rights holder. Much like debates over antitrust, which in the US is used to protect consumers and elsewhere it is used to protect competitors, the differences in viewpoints between the multinational execs and the local legal framework is leading to a lot of friction.
Friction that will continue indefinitely so long as the old world multinationals fail to understand what it takes to operate successfully and legally in the new world of digital publishing.
|
Interesting point, and quite valid, IMPO. The question would be does the US signing the copyright treaty change how the US legal system views copyrights, i.e. does the Berne Convention override how the US treats fair use? While I might think that what Google is doing is well worth doing, and ought to be allowed (the idea of having all books digitized and available for purchase greatly appeals to me (and yes, I know that Google Books doesn't make all books available for purchase), whither or not it falls under fair use is very much new ground.