Google Books wins -- Fair Use says Judge

[kennyc]

I would also think the management of the copyright depositories would be much easier electronically rather than physically.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

A very good argument for rights reverting to the author if the publisher does not want to publish. The author can then self publish. The author did make a choice if they sold the rights, but perhaps it should be contingent somewhat on actual publication.

Not quite understanding how piracy can help books become available that have never been published though? (referring to the quote in your post which I assume you are addressing).

Helen

No, I wasn't talking about piracy making unpublished books available. I was digressing slightly.

For a lot of the authors I'm thinking of, at the time they sold the rights to their books, the possibility of digital editions didn't even exist. There should be some sort of amendment to the copyright law that reverts at least digital rights back to authors if the technology wasn't in widespread existence a the time of their contract.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

No, I wasn't talking about piracy making unpublished books available. I was digressing slightly.

For a lot of the authors I'm thinking of, at the time they sold the rights to their books, the possibility of digital editions didn't even exist. There should be some sort of amendment to the copyright law that reverts at least digital rights back to authors if the technology wasn't in widespread existence a the time of their contract.

Not too sure about that one. A lot of people get screwed on contracts because things change or they were not aware of all of the implications. If society started amending contracts what use would they be?

Helen

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Does the British Library retain copies of everything that the law requires be sent to them? In the US it's required that publishers submit two copies of a published work to the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress, but the LoC does not retain all of those publications in their collections from what I understand.

Yes, the BL keeps everything.

[Laridae]

Getting back to the OP for a moment, I think this is a good ruling.
I'm not a big fan of Google normally, and I will confess to being more than a little suspicious of their various privacy violations and apparent general megalomania.
Nevertheless, in this case, I think they're doing a good thing for society and, indirectly, even for the authors. Surely it can't hurt sales if obscure passages are brought to light, possibly leading to a new sale of a book. The continued opposition of the authors guild just shows them to be short-sighted and lacking in vision.
As the judge points out; everyone benefits.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Laridae

Getting back to the OP for a moment, I think this is a good ruling.
I'm not a big fan of Google normally, and I will confess to being more than a little suspicious of their various privacy violations and apparent general megalomania.
Nevertheless, in this case, I think they're doing a good thing for society and, indirectly, even for the authors. Surely it can't hurt sales if obscure passages are brought to light, possibly leading to a new sale of a book. The continued opposition of the authors guild just shows them to be short-sighted and lacking in vision.
As the judge points out; everyone benefits.

I am repeating myself somewhat here I know.

Anyone has the right to scan and keep a book AFAIK. Even Google and I think that is a good thing.

Posting that book or a portion thereof against an individual authors express wishes is not right IMO. Even Amazon waits for permission for the peek inside the book feature. That is AFAIK the main issue the authors guild is protesting.

One erosion of a right has historically often led to another as the following quote illustrates.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Helen

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Posting that book or a portion thereof against an individual authors express wishes is not right IMO. Even Amazon waits for permission for the peek inside the book feature. That is AFAIK the main issue the authors guild is protesting.

Helen

Well, I'm sorry, but that's what I don't understand. It seems to me the act of writing and publishing a book means you're putting it out there for all to see. I can see wanting to get paid for your work, but beyond that don't they lose a lot of control over how it's used once it's out there in the public domain? It's a little late to start trying to exert control once the cat is out of the bag.
And what about the notion that it could help sales? Are Google not helping market the book by bringing relevant portions of it to the attention of searchers?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am repeating myself somewhat here I know.

Anyone has the right to scan and keep a book AFAIK. Even Google and I think that is a good thing.

Posting that book or a portion thereof against an individual authors express wishes is not right IMO. Even Amazon waits for permission for the peek inside the book feature. That is AFAIK the main issue the authors guild is protesting.

One erosion of a right has historically often led to another as the following quote illustrates.


Helen

How likely do you think it is that Amazon simply doesn't want to bother with the hassle of dealing with authors getting upset over the peek inside the book feature? What is their incentive to do it without the author's permission?

If Google were to wait for the authors' permission, they might as well scrap the whole project. BEST case scenario, authors don't care and ignore Google altogether. So they do it anyway and deal with arguing it out in court. (It is, after all, a fair use scenario for both Amazon and Google.) Amazon will just wait for the author to agree, just to avoid the bother of a court case, since the authors will eventually agree anyway, since it is their SALESMAN doing it, FOR THEM!

Oh, yes, and one of the numerous things that publishers get very upset about is stupid things like Fair Use of stuff you bought, so legally anyone CAN scan and keep their own book, but if the authors guild could track you down and it was worth their time, they'd be just as upset at you as they are at Google.

http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/p...y-of-scanning/

[Xanthe]

Once an author consents to his/her work being published, they are SOL regarding snippets being posted to either reference it or to entice readers to read it, as far as I am concerned. And when I say snippets, I mean just that - no more than a couple of paragraphs.

If an author doesn't want his/her work to be available, the work shouldn't have been published in the first place. No one forced them to take that money, but once they did, I really have very little sympathy for their post-publication attempts at control.

My sympathy is reserved for those writers who are getting screwed out of being introduced to a new audience by publishers' restrictions and inaction.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Laridae

Well, I'm sorry, but that's what I don't understand. It seems to me the act of writing and publishing a book means you're putting it out there for all to see. I can see wanting to get paid for your work, but beyond that don't they lose a lot of control over how it's used once it's out there in the public domain? It's a little late to start trying to exert control once the cat is out of the bag.
And what about the notion that it could help sales? Are Google not helping market the book by bringing relevant portions of it to the attention of searchers?

Don't be sorry. You are entitled to your opinion.

Public domain books are not the issue in this battle AFAIK. The authors are all dead so the authors guild is not representing them.

As for helping sales, surely it is an authors choice if they want to have their sales helped in this manner? Well it was. Designer clothes might sell better if they were carried by Walmart or Amazon but should everybody have to sell through Walmart or Amazon whether they want to or not?

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Once an author consents to his/her work being published, they are SOL regarding snippets being posted to either reference it or to entice readers to read it, as far as I am concerned. And when I say snippets, I mean just that - no more than a couple of paragraphs.

If an author doesn't want his/her work to be available, the work shouldn't have been published in the first place. No one forced them to take that money, but once they did, I really have very little sympathy for their post-publication attempts at control.

My sympathy is reserved for those writers who are getting screwed out of being introduced to a new audience by publishers' restrictions and inaction.

So you are saying that all information should be made public to everyone once it has been made available to anyone? Can't say I agree, but my former roommate is convinced that the FBI should have access to all communication made by anyone in the world by anyone, anywhere. Don't agree with her either although she is much better educated and has travelled the world at a pretty young age.

Helen

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Don't be sorry. You are entitled to your opinion.

Public domain books are not the issue in this battle AFAIK. The authors are all dead so the authors guild is not representing them.

As for helping sales, surely it is an authors choice if they want to have their sales helped in this manner? Well it was. Designer clothes might sell better if they were carried by Walmart or Amazon but should everybody have to sell through Walmart or Amazon whether they want to or not?

Helen

Is it their choice whether they want me helping sales by recommending books to my friends?

Google is not trying to sell books for authors without permission, they are merely quoting snippets in response to searches.

I'm sure they're even covering themselves legally and protecting the books against rogue Google employees who might seize the opportunity to read a few books for free.

Why can Wikipedia summarize books, critics quote books, etc. but Google can't?

Authors have no rights when it comes to fair use; copyright only protects their right to charge FOR THEIR BOOK. Google is NOT giving ANYONE the BOOK.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Is it their choice whether they want me helping sales by recommending books to my friends?

Google is not trying to sell books for authors without permission, they are merely quoting snippets in response to searches.

I'm sure they're even covering themselves legally and protecting the books against rogue Google employees who might seize the opportunity to read a few books for free.

Why can Wikipedia summarize books, critics quote books, etc. but Google can't?

Authors have no rights when it comes to fair use; copyright only protects their right to charge FOR THEIR BOOK. Google is NOT giving ANYONE the BOOK.

I understand that Google is not giving anyone the book. I am not saying that the Google thing will not help authors. I am saying if the author does not want o be helped in this manner it should be their choice.

AFAIK Wikipedia does not quote authors who have copyright protection if the said authors ask them not to. The Google lawsuit, again AFAIK from threads on mobile read was started because Google refused to do this citing that it would cost them too much money. Wikipedia has no special right or exemptions and doesn't try to take them. It is user contributed so sometimes things get posted that shouldn't be but Wikipedia takes them down.

Lot of people think they know best for me and are not hesitant about telling me, sometimes complete strangers. I may have been guilty of this myself. I prefer they don't have the right to enforce these things 'for my own good', obviously you feel different and are entitled to feel this way even if I don't think it is for your own good

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Is it their choice whether they want me helping sales by recommending books to my friends?

Sorry, I left this part out. I don't see recommending a book as being at all the same unless you recommend it by giving them a copy you have made in whole or in part. I doubt most authors would be offended by you saying great book, you really should read this and giving your reasons why. Just doesn't seem like the same kind of situation.

Helen

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I understand that Google is not giving anyone the book. I am not saying that the Google thing will not help authors. I am saying if the author does not want o be helped in this manner it should be their choice.

AFAIK Wikipedia does not quote authors who have copyright protection if the said authors ask them not to. The Google lawsuit, again AFAIK from threads on mobile read was started because Google refused to do this citing that it would cost them too much money. Wikipedia has no special right or exemptions and doesn't try to take them. It is user contributed so sometimes things get posted that shouldn't be but Wikipedia takes them down.

Lot of people think they know best for me and are not hesitant about telling me, sometimes complete strangers. I may have been guilty of this myself. I prefer they don't have the right to enforce these things 'for my own good', obviously you feel different and are entitled to feel this way even if I don't think it is for your own good

Helen

I am merely pointing out that legally speaking, the only thing that matters is whether they sell the book. Since everyone agrees they aren't, this shouldn't still bother people.

I checked the Wikipedia Fair Use Rationale help page, and it says nothing about authors needing to agree to anything. It does say that authors can submit a DMCA takedown request if they feel Wikipedia is breaking copyright. However, fair use doesn't break copyright, and I don't see anywhere that says they will take down anything with a valid fair use rationale. I would assume they are only offering to evaluate the fair use claim at the rights-holder's request, and say "sorry, this is fair use so shut up" (in a polite way though) if the author is blowing smoke about it being a copyright violation.

They do mention though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...oject_Fair_Use

It should be noted (if not on the tags, then somewhere else) that it is best to use a free alternative if one is available. This is not strictly a requirement of "fair use", but the avoidance of a potential copyright situation is always better for the goals of Wikipedia (both in avoiding lawsuits, as well as creating a "free encyclopedia").

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Sorry, I left this part out. I don't see recommending a book as being at all the same unless you recommend it by giving them a copy you have made in whole or in part. I doubt most authors would be offended by you saying great book, you really should read this and giving your reasons why. Just doesn't seem like the same kind of situation.

Helen

The only difference is a matter of scale. I can quote the book to a friend. Google is doing the same thing, albeit to a stranger. And they make money off of ads by making the Google service more valuable.