U.S. Government blasts Google

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Kali, I'm not trolling, just discussing...

No problem, didn't think you were. Although now that you mention it...

Originally Posted by RSE

We ended our equivalent of apartheid via the courts. Abortion was legalized by the courts. Pornography laws were overturned by the courts. Busing of school children for forced integration was order by the courts. All of these had strong backing against changing these laws, and the courts overrode those constituencies. Google is trying to do the same thing.

Many of those rulings either built off of existing laws or existing Constitutional principles and rights. I.e. Brown vs Board, which may be interpreted as a work of judicial activism, had to ground its legal reasoning in the 14th Amendment.

Plus, those rulings do not alter the fact that a civil suit between private parties does not have the legal standing to overturn existing copyright laws, as long as those laws are consistent with the Constitution (which they are). Hence Marybeth Peters' objections.

Originally Posted by RSE

To my view, the main effect, whether deliberate or accidental, will be to disrupt the "stockpiling" stranglehold on copyrighted works. And that's a good thing, IMHO.

How, by moving the stockpile into Google's vaults?

More to the point, I really do not see why just being the first person to convert these works into a new format suddenly ought to give you the rights to use it as you please. That isn't the case with music recordings, for example, which was able to pull tremendous amounts of recordings back into circulation -- while obeying existing copyright laws. I don't see why books should be any different or why Google (or anyone else) should receive some sort of special dispensation.

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

I don't get why people are acting as if this settlement is a law or court ruling. It isn't!

It's overturning major aspects of existing copyright laws, in that it grants Google all sorts of abilities without express permission of the true rights-holder. I.e. it acts like a new law, which is why it should be rejected and legislated instead.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

1) This line of logic does not explain why many nations, which afaik were not lobbied by Hollywood, have similarly long copyright terms (e.g. life + 50 or 70 years).

Who do you think pressured them? They were "lobbied" by the US, who in turn was lobbied by Hollywood.

2) Although life + 70 is fairly long, a truly indefinite term is a clear violation of the US Constitution; and the most recent extensions were reviewed with this in mind. I.e. I seriously doubt another extension to life + 90 would be considered viable, unless life expectancy increases from 70 to 100.

Life plus anything is already ridiculous. However, you can't seriously believe they won't try to extend it again. Of course they will.

3) Many of the books Google has scanned would not fall into PD any time soon. Lots of the authors are still alive and kicking.

Whether the authors are still alive and kicking should have nothing to do with it. Before the perversion of copyright, the life of the author had nothing to do with when they would enter PD. That's the point.

4) The result of Google's actions will not be even remotely equivalent to putting a book into PD.

Of course not. But without the corporate sponsored extensions to copyright, many of those books would be in the PD, so Google, Project Gutenberg, etc... would have been allowed to do what they like with them.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yes, I would sign up for a Google heathcare plan. It would probably be in beta for 4 or 5 years though.

BOb

it would still be better than any other healthcare plan at launch, though over the years they would add things like free vacations. free massages, and free healthy food. and eventually extend the human life span of anybody who promises to have only 1 child per couple.

all endorsed by catchy little text ads that are unobtusive

such as, Buy Apples! on a bottle of Drugs. and Free Range Chickens on sale! on the side of airplanes.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Life plus anything is already ridiculous. However, you can't seriously believe they won't try to extend it again. Of course they will.

Thank You For saying this.

Copyright should Expire Life+5 years, (that way to help the wife/husban out) or in the case if if the author has a child, Life+ until Youngest child Graduates college.

trust fund babies are a plague on society for the most part.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

Copyright should Expire Life+5 years, (that way to help the wife/husban out) or in the case if if the author has a child, Life+ until Youngest child Graduates college.

Copyright duration should be based on the date of the individual book (as it was originally), not the life of the author. The amount of time should be what is required in order for the average work to turn a profit for the creator. That is all that is needed to "encourage the arts". If works are profitable, then artists will continue to produce, and thereby enrich the public domain. The whole "life +" BS is just greed/control on the part of the content industry, it has nothing to do with the original intent of copyright.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's overturning major aspects of existing copyright laws, in that it grants Google all sorts of abilities without express permission of the true rights-holder. I.e. it acts like a new law, which is why it should be rejected and legislated instead.

Now, I'm not a laywer but...

It is not overturning law, this is just a settlement. It does give Google a lot of rights and legal protection, but it does not give me the right (for instance) to go copying and distributing copyrighted books.

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

More to the point, I really do not see why just being the first person to convert these works into a new format suddenly ought to give you the rights to use it as you please. That isn't the case with music recordings, for example, which was able to pull tremendous amounts of recordings back into circulation -- while obeying existing copyright laws. I don't see why books should be any different or why Google (or anyone else) should receive some sort of special dispensation.

Maybe. But I remember explanations in the 90s when TV shows started to be re-released on DVD - there were (and are?) shows which could NOT be released, because they couldn't contact and/or negotiate with the music rights-holders, for music that accompanied the show as "background sound". Their existing contracts covered new syndication, so the show could always be broadcast again, but release in a new format hadn't been covered.

Now, I never really *liked* "WKRP in Cincinnati", but the show played so much then-current music that I've never seen in on DVD. Current shows already account for this in their current contracts, just as current books *probably* account for electronic rights.

On another point, how would this settlement handle something like the Wild Cards series of sf anthologies? Multiple authors, many still writing but others not. I recently read one of the principle editors say that they couldn't even re-issue it in paper due to conflicting rights for the individual stories.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Authorization to distribute should be opt-in, not opt-out. In other words, Google should not be authorized by default. It's supposed to be the other way around, unless somebody wants to change the law such that out-of-print books are automatically authorized unless the copyright holder says otherwise. But, that's not what the law currently says.

This settlement, if allowed to go forward, would give Google a different standing on distribution rights than anyone else (unless other companies reach the same settlement).

Personally, I think the settlement goes too far (based on current copyright law). The actual plaintiffs were represented by 5 authors. Those 5 authors have basically settled with Google on behalf of every author who has ever had a book published in the US, and is giving away a default authorization. I think the membership of the class is way too broad and the settlement should not be allowed to give away those rights on an opt-out basis. That's just my opinion though. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of current copyright either.

I tend to agree with everything Shaggy said here.

Personally, I'd like to see copyrighted books that have gone out of print have a mechanism to become available through something like Google is proposing. However, from a legal standpoint I think this needs to be addressed through legislation and not put in place by the courts. If the courts circumvent copyright law to allow Google's proposal then I'm afraid we'll end up with something like RIAA with strange side effects like businesses not allowed to play radios. Furthermore, with courts setting the rules there will be no way to change those rules if the public doesn't like them.