Stanford faculty debate the good and bad of e-books

[MaggieScratch]

Well, in my use of Google Books, if a book is under copyright you can't access the whole thing anyway. However, if you just want to use a small piece of the information in the book, you can get the information, get your citation, and move on. You don't even have to leave the house. Nice. And I don't see the difference between accessing a book from Stanford's library online or going to Stanford's library and using the book or getting the book via ILL, other than saving gas and time. You're using the same book.

[Taylor514ce]

The problem is best illustrated by searching Google for an author, title or phrase. At the top of the Search Results page is likely a thumbnail of the book, followed by general search results. To the right, AdWords.

Google has used the content of the book to drive an advertising engine, for which they receive a great deal of money. The content author in most cases may not even be aware that Google has stolen err... "digitized" their book by copying it from a library, and receives nothing in the way of renumeration.

It's also worth noting that the only thing that prevents you from getting the entire copyrighted work is Google's current implementation. They have the entire work, and use every bit of it to drive AdWords. It doesn't matter that they serve a page or two here and there, what matters is that they are profiting from copyrighted works, have complete copies, are profit and shareholder driven, and apparently have enough clout to operate above the law.

[MaggieScratch]

So your objection is not that they are providing the book but that they are making money from it?

[Taylor514ce]

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Even if they were doing it for free, they are still violating copyright. They don't have permission to COPY books unless granted that right by the COPYRIGHT owner. Just because a book is in a library doesn't mean it's legal to copy it, in any form.

The fact that Google monetizes their illegal copies, and applies misdirection by pretending their motives are altruistic, is adding injury to insult.

The entire Google Books effort should be halted pending investigation immediately, and restitution paid to everyone who's copyright has been violated. I really cannot fathom how they get away with what they do.

I seem to remember a funky little startup company that did the same thing with music files... copied them, shared them, without permission from copyright owners. I can't remember who they were... I must need to take a nap.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Even if they were doing it for free, they are still violating copyright. They don't have permission to COPY books unless granted that right by the COPYRIGHT owner. Just because a book is in a library doesn't mean it's legal to copy it, in any form.

Some facts here are a little squed:

"Google says it will scan copyright protected books from libraries unless the publisher or copyright holder expressly opts out. If the book is copyright protected, there is minimal text, only a few sentences, or "snippets," surrounding the keywords searched. There are no ads on Google Library Project pages."

So, they are not showing the whole work... which seems like fair use. Also, contrary to what you said Taylor, there are NO ADS on pages with copyrighted works scanned from a Library.

Also, if you are a publisher partner:

Under the Google Publisher Program, the company is working with book publishers to make titles searchable and easy to purchase. The search result pages include advertisements if publishers want them, and most of the revenue goes to the publishers, Google said.

Also, they have links to be able to buy the books. Most of the ad revenue goes to the publisher. It also makes there books more visible.

Then again, some people just think Google is evil so anything they do is wrong.

BOb

EDIT: These quotes come from this article http://news.cnet.com/Googles-battle-...3-5907506.html

[Taylor514ce]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Some facts here are a little squed:

"Google says it will scan copyright protected books from libraries unless the publisher or copyright holder expressly opts out. If the book is copyright protected, there is minimal text, only a few sentences, or "snippets," surrounding the keywords searched. There are no ads on Google Library Project pages."

So, they are not showing the whole work... which seems like fair use. Also, contrary to what you said Taylor, there are NO ADS on pages with copyrighted works scanned from a Library.

The are not SHOWING the whole work, but they have SCANNED the entire work. That's a copyright violation. Prove it isn't. Copyright is NOT opt out. Copyright is opt in. The copyright holder has legal rights, and doesn't have to "opt out" of every potential violation of those rights.

Case closed.

There are no ads on the "Library Project Pages". Big deal. There ARE ads on Google's search results page, as I explained above, and those ads are keyword driven from illegally obtained content, including the entirety of copied books. That is not fair use.

Re: publishing partner, that's a sop, and doesn't address previously published works which are still under copyright.

I will also fall back on the fact that all of the above are modifications Google made after the fact, which proves that they are perfectly willing to do whatever they want and only make changes if people make enough noise.

[MaggieScratch]

Sorry, as long as the whole book is not available to read, I don't see the difference between using the book in a reference library (it's not even like borrowing the book and taking it home, because then you can read the whole thing) and viewing the bits of it you need to use online.

Seen from a less cynical point of view (which is extremely unusual for me), one might think that if someone really likes the book and finds it useful, he or she might purchase it to keep and read all the way through.

[Taylor514ce]

Google has scanned the entire book, for their own purposes. That's a copyright violation.

If I went to the library, copied an entire book, and then went around the neighborhood handing out handfuls of pages to everyone, with ads on the bottom of the pages, would that be legal? Hey, any one person can only read a little bit of the book, right? What, can't do the ads there? Ok... I'll remove the ads, and umm, put them on a website which lists which books I've copied. Happy now? No? Ok... what if I share some of my ad revenue with the publisher (who, by the way, != the copyright holder)? Cool now? Ok, why don't you just tell me how much money I need to spread around to whom to make you forget that what I'm doing is against the law?

It's the initial act that is illegal - anything that comes after doesn't alter that basic fact, and is mere rationalization.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

Sorry, as long as the whole book is not available to read, I don't see the difference between using the book in a reference library (it's not even like borrowing the book and taking it home, because then you can read the whole thing) and viewing the bits of it you need to use online.

Seen from a less cynical point of view (which is extremely unusual for me), one might think that if someone really likes the book and finds it useful, he or she might purchase it to keep and read all the way through.

Google does not own a copy of the book they are hosting on their server. This is a copyright violation.

Google sells adds based on keywords contained in the book. This is a commercial purpose. There's no way in hell that it can be fair use.


P.S. Google Cache is also a copyright violation.

[Taylor514ce]

Nate: even if they DID own a copy, that doesn't give them the right to MAKE a copy. That's what copyright protects against, unauthorized copying.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Nate: even if they DID own a copy, that doesn't give them the right to MAKE a copy. That's what copyright protects against, unauthorized copying.

Yes and no. It is widely accepted that if you own a CD, you can rip it to MP3s. How is scanning a book different from rippinga CD?

[Taylor514ce]

"You" an individual making a copy for personal use is hardly equal to "you" a giant publicly traded corporation making a copy for financial gain.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

"You" an individual making a copy for personal use is hardly equal to "you" a giant publicly traded corporation making a copy for financial gain.

I think we disagree only in minor nitpicking details.

My original point was that Google doesn't own the original paper copies of the scanned books. Having the electronic one at all, even if they do nothing with it, is a copyright violation.

But if a corporate person owns a paper copy of a reference manual, and scans it in order to use it as a reference manual, this might not be infringement because the person owns the original.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

My original point was that Google doesn't own the original paper copies of the scanned books. Having the electronic one at all, even if they do nothing with it, is a copyright violation.

Are you really sure? Copyright concerns distribution and do not regulates having things. But maybe the laws in the US are strange with respect to that?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tompe

Are you really sure? Copyright concerns distribution and do not regulates having things. But maybe the laws in the US are strange with respect to that?

In that case, it's alright for me to download a MP3 from the darknet because I'm not actually distributing it.