Google Books wins -- Fair Use says Judge

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by auspex

Of course you haven't seen that, because it's impossible to prove such a thing. However, "not in existence" is not nearly a good enough condition. The existence, or not, of the Mona Lisa would be irrelevant if it was kept in some private collector's vault.

That's why we have copyright libraries. All books published in the UK are available for reference purposes in the British Library, and virtually all western nations have similar collections. It may not be convenient to get to, but it is there.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

My argument has never been against preserving the books, Google or otherwise. I lean towards the opinion that the copyright holder should make that decision, but as the issue has been decided for the time being by the courts then the books themselves are most likely being preserved. If not we can blame Google

As a basic question, why do you think the copyright holder should decide what is preserved and what is not? A copyright holder may have no interest in preserving a particular book that isn't valuable at the time, but future generations may think it's valuable, even as just a historical example of what was published in some decade in the past.

The issue is really that what benefits society as a whole and what benefits a copyright holder don't necessarily overlap in every instance. And since copyright is a limited set of rights that are designed to benefit society as a whole, I think it makes more sense that copyright owners don't get to pick and choose what should be preserved.

Even more basic though, is how allowing preservation over the objections of a copyright holder hurts that copyright holder. It doesn't. Google, or any other company that decides to do book scanning for preservation, can't suddenly start selling the books (that is a right that the copyright holder has); however, they can make those books available decades in the future when the copyright has expired.

[kennyc]

An additional question is the effort/cost/technology required to preserve/make available books that might never be used.

My inner engineer says there are always trade-offs
(except when my inner scientist reminds me of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

As a basic question, why do you think the copyright holder should decide what is preserved and what is not? A copyright holder may have no interest in preserving a particular book that isn't valuable at the time, but future generations may think it's valuable, even as just a historical example of what was published in some decade in the past.

The copyright holder doesn't have a choice. He or she is legally required in most countries to send the appropriate number of copies of the work to the appropriate legal deposit library in the author's country of residence.

[ApK]

It's an interesting question of principle. It would not be without precedent to give rights that in individual cases may not be in society's interest, but serve to support a system that is.
In practical terms, you can't truly un-publish something any more than you can un-speak a word. The author would have to never publish at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's an interesting question of principle. It would not be without precedent to give rights that in individual cases may not be in society's interest, but serve to support a system that is.
In practical terms, you can't truly un-publish something any more than you can un-speak a word. The author would have to never publish at all.

The right to keep something private is an extremely important element of copyright law that's often overlooked. It's copyright law that allows you to keep personal stuff to yourself, and NOT have it published against your will. ie it grants a right not to publish, as well as protection for works that are published.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

As a basic question, why do you think the copyright holder should decide what is preserved and what is not? A copyright holder may have no interest in preserving a particular book that isn't valuable at the time, but future generations may think it's valuable, even as just a historical example of what was published in some decade in the past.

The issue is really that what benefits society as a whole and what benefits a copyright holder don't necessarily overlap in every instance. And since copyright is a limited set of rights that are designed to benefit society as a whole, I think it makes more sense that copyright owners don't get to pick and choose what should be preserved.

Even more basic though, is how allowing preservation over the objections of a copyright holder hurts that copyright holder. It doesn't. Google, or any other company that decides to do book scanning for preservation, can't suddenly start selling the books (that is a right that the copyright holder has); however, they can make those books available decades in the future when the copyright has expired.

Isn't that basically what I said in the snippet you quoted?

While the copyright holder holds the right I think it is their decision to make.
And that the books are being preserved, in fact they have been preserved or Google could not further preserve them.

And while the Mona Lisa and Shakespeare and others things such as Barbie dolls (I am not saying Barbie Dolls are as important as the Mona Lisa although to me they were at one time and are an IMO as much an indicator of our recent cultural history as romance novels) have been preserved much hasn't and I personally don't feel that everything is worthy of preserving. There are books for example that I wanted to scrub my mind after having read the first page. Not that I am advocating censorship as these books exist because some people want to read them and I am pretty sure if they didn't exist someone would just write more. That again is my personal opinion on specific items and I do not expect anyone to conform to it or even agree.

I have never said or even thought that preserving the books hurts anyone electronically or otherwise. If I did seem to say that I was expressing myself badly.

I feel that the rights of the copyright holder as they stand today (or was that last month?)may be being violated by publishing them even in part on the internet against their express wishes. The courts have decided otherwise and as we know the courts are always right until they change or even in some cases reverse the decision.

I am not against preserving anything.
I am against arbitrarily taking away rights granted to people in almost all cases although there are many notable exceptions.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Again I expressed myself badly

While the copyright holder holds the right I think it is their decision to make.

The decision I was referring to was whether the book should be republished not whether it should be preserved. We have the right to preserve a possession although that may be taken away some day.

Helen

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The right to keep something private is an extremely important element of copyright law that's often overlooked. It's copyright law that allows you to keep personal stuff to yourself, and NOT have it published against your will. ie it grants a right not to publish, as well as protection for works that are published.

Quite. That's why I argue against those who claim that pirates are necessarily doing the creator a favor by distributing the work without permission. It's no favor to undermine the control that copyright is supposed to protect. Though, as I said, once published, the genie is out of the bottle, and the argument is weaker in practical terms.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Again I expressed myself badly

The decision I was referring to was whether the book should be republished not whether it should be preserved. We have the right to preserve a possession although that may be taken away some day.

Helen

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the existence of Legal Deposit libraries has already removed an author's right to choose whether or not to preserve their work. It will be preserved regardless of the author's wishes.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the existence of Legal Deposit libraries has already removed an author's right to choose whether or not to preserve their work. It will be preserved regardless of the author's wishes.

I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact it is a good thing IMO. Plus it is up front and straightforward and not done after the fact for someone else's personal benefit or glorification.

Helen

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by ApK

Quite. That's why I argue against those who claim that pirates are necessarily doing the creator a favor by distributing the work without permission. It's no favor to undermine the control that copyright is supposed to protect. Though, as I said, once published, the genie is out of the bottle, and the argument is weaker in practical terms.

But then what about those instances where the writer might still like their books to be available in print, only the publishers don't think that there will be sufficient profit in doing so? It's not really a copyright issue at all in that case. A writer gets one book published, and then the publisher decides that sales were insufficient to publish more. It can be a good book, an interesting book, but if it the marketing was insufficient it might never be brought to the attention of its target audience.

I don't know how many paperback books that I have in my collection that I found just by combing through bookshelves in bookstores, and the only reason I pulled them out of the shelf to look at was because either the title or the colors caught my eye. I've read the books, enjoyed them, and waited and waited for another book by the same author to turn up but it never does. Granted, some authors only have one book in them or they turn to other things in life, but I've followed authors online who've mentioned having new books in the works but then those books never get published.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the existence of Legal Deposit libraries has already removed an author's right to choose whether or not to preserve their work. It will be preserved regardless of the author's wishes.

It might be preserved, but is it really accessible?

How much access does the average person have to those repositories? Yes, a book I might want to read can be located in the Library of Congress, but that requires a trip to Washington DC and whatever folderol is necessary to request and obtain the book.

If I physically or financially can't make that trip, I'm SOL regarding access to that book.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

But then what about those instances where the writer might still like their books to be available in print, only the publishers don't think that there will be sufficient profit in doing so? It's not really a copyright issue at all in that case. A writer gets one book published, and then the publisher decides that sales were insufficient to publish more. It can be a good book, an interesting book, but if it the marketing was insufficient it might never be brought to the attention of its target audience.


I don't know how many paperback books that I have in my collection that I found just by combing through bookshelves in bookstores, and the only reason I pulled them out of the shelf to look at was because either the title or the colors caught my eye. I've read the books, enjoyed them, and waited and waited for another book by the same author to turn up but it never does. Granted, some authors only have one book in them or they turn to other things in life, but I've followed authors online who've mentioned having new books in the works but then those books never get published.

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

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's why we have copyright libraries. All books published in the UK are available for reference purposes in the British Library, and virtually all western nations have similar collections. It may not be convenient to get to, but it is there.

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.