Google Books wins -- Fair Use says Judge

[HarryT]

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.

Talking about the public domain is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about copyrighted material, not works which are in the public domain.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Talking about the public domain is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about copyrighted material, not works which are in the public domain.

It sounds like Laridae MEANT to say, once it's out there in the public.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It sounds like Laridae MEANT to say, once it's out there in the public.

Still a little hard to understand, because the primary purpose of copyright is to exercise the sort of control we're talking about. It's a bit odd to think "how can any one have any control once anyone else see it..." because that's what copyright is about by definition: Laws controlling what other people can do with the work of other people that they have access to. The post reads like the concept of copyright has never been thought of.
The very simple (haha) issue here is: is what Google is doing crossing some spirit-of-the-law/letter-of-the-law line or not?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

Still a little hard to understand, because the primary purpose of copyright is to excessive the sort of control we're talking about. It's a bit odd to think that any one could have any control once any else see it..." because that's what copyright is about by definition: Laws controlling what other people can do with the work of other people that they have access to. The post reads like the concept of copyright has never been thought of.
The very simple (haha) issue here is simply: is what Google is doing crossing some spirit-of-the-law/letter-of-the-law line or not?

Precisely. Copyright is about exactly what it sounds like - control of the right to copy. Saying that someone doesn't have the right to control who can copy a work once it's been published is ignoring the fundamental purpose of copyright protection.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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. .

Wikipedia is quoting Copyright Law of the United States of America
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Which also says

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Apparently none of these factors have been clearly defined. The general consensus seems to be that a lawyer is needed for each case.

I could as well quote other snippets from the same document that would seem contradictory. It isn't as cut and dried as you seem to feel.

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

From what I understand Google will not honor takedown notices because it would be very expensive for them to do this. (my interpretation of what I have read only)

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.

You can read an entire book to your children and violate no laws or let anyone read your own copy as well. Whether you can quote it in writing is not so cut and dried. Probably no one is going to take you to court over an email to Aunt Mary, but depending on various indeterminate factors it may be a violation of copyright law.

Are you saying that Google making money makes it right? I am pretty sure Google is not paying each author money of the ads, although I could be wrong. Even if they are this does not make it right.

Lots of ways to make money by exploiting others, the use of a registered trade name comes to mind. Profiting off of others against their will even if you are sure it will not hurt them is not good thing IMO.

Helen

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Are you saying that Google making money makes it right? I am pretty sure Google is not paying each author money of the ads, although I could be wrong. Even if they are this does not make it right.

They don't run ads on the Google Books site.


Here's a link to a book which will also show just how much of a snippet they show...
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Fk...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

If you just go to the books page instead of searching for something you don't even get the snippets, you get an info page for the book...
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Fk...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

They don't run ads on the Google Books site.


Here's a link to a book which will also show just how much of a snippet they show...
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Fk...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

If you just go to the books page instead of searching for something you don't even get the snippets, you get an info page for the book...
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Fk...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

Ahh I was quoting eschwartz on the Ad thing. Don't actually want to use the Google book site at the moment.

Helen

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Wikipedia is quoting Copyright Law of the United States of America
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Which also says

Apparently none of these factors have been clearly defined. The general consensus seems to be that a lawyer is needed for each case.

I could as well quote other snippets from the same document that would seem contradictory. It isn't as cut and dried as you seem to feel.


From what I understand Google will not honor takedown notices because it would be very expensive for them to do this. (my interpretation of what I have read only)

In other words, they are basically doing the same thing as Google. They will honor valid claims of fair use infringement, and try to avoid the problem preemptively purely for the sake of avoiding a court case.

You can read an entire book to your children and violate no laws or let anyone read your own copy as well. Whether you can quote it in writing is not so cut and dried. Probably no one is going to take you to court over an email to Aunt Mary, but depending on various indeterminate factors it may be a violation of copyright law.

Yes, well the publishers certainly think so. They think everything is a violation of copyright law, because as far as they are concerned, copyright is a way of protecting their right to exploit every aspect of their work for money. Not heaven forbid to promote innovation and creation.

They would love a world in which even the books you own, you don't own. The First Sale Doctrine is the publishers' worst nightmare (something they have destroyed within the ebook market -- yay publishers) and want to use copyright as a justification to charge you for anything they can get away with. That is the REAL issue here. Publishers believe fair use is an excuse made up by people who just don't want to pay money to publishers for no reason.

Are you saying that Google making money makes it right? I am pretty sure Google is not paying each author money of the ads, although I could be wrong. Even if they are this does not make it right.

Lots of ways to make money by exploiting others, the use of a registered trade name comes to mind. Profiting off of others against their will even if you are sure it will not hurt them is not good thing IMO.

Helen

I never said it's all right if Google makes money. In fact it is quite the opposite.

I was pointing out

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And they make money off of ads by making the Google service more valuable.

In other words, THAT is their only motivation for the whole thing. They don't make money off selling books, stealing from authors. They make money by selling ads. More searches means more ads. Therefore it is in Google's best interest to make their search engine more valuable in peoples' eyes. Hence the book snippets, which makes Google Search more useful, which makes Google your favorite search engine, which makes you use Google more often, which means you see more ads and Google makes more money.

Google is NOT exploiting authors' work in any way. They are merely making their search engine more useful, by helping you find books more easily. Whether authors want that help or not is inconsequential, since Google is doing nothing illegal and thus authors have NO rights in this matter (any more than they can stop me from quoting the same quotes, from MY copy, to my friend).

The fact that Google makes money off book snippets does not have any bearing on, well, ANYTHING, since the ONLY money they make is the money from all your future searches that you make since the book snippets makes Google stand out as a better search engine.

[Ninjalawyer]

The discussion of fair use above is getting a little off the wall. A lawyer isn't necessary to interpret fair use every single time someone wants to make use of that right; as with anything, there are some instances where a use clearly falls within the ambit of fair use, and then there are edge cases where it's far less clear.

speakingtohe, what you consider to be "right" and what is actually a right under copyright law don't entirely match up. At a fundamental level, you seem (feel free to correct me) to think an author should have absolute control over the uses that are made of their work; however, copyright provides only limited rights, and it is clear copyright is not a property right. Copyright is not a fundamental or moral right, it is a right completely created by statute and the common law.

Here's a quote to illustrate:

The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors forr limited periods the exclusive right to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policty is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.

In enacting a copyright law, Congress must consider two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights under the proper terms and conditions, cofers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
- H.R. Rep. No. 60-2222

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

In other words, they are basically doing the same thing as Google. They will honor valid claims of fair use infringement, and try to avoid the problem preemptively purely for the sake of avoiding a court case.



Yes, well the publishers certainly think so. They think everything is a violation of copyright law, because as far as they are concerned, copyright is a way of protecting their right to exploit every aspect of their work for money. Not heaven forbid to promote innovation and creation.

They would love a world in which even the books you own, you don't own. The First Sale Doctrine is the publishers' worst nightmare (something they have destroyed within the ebook market -- yay publishers) and want to use copyright as a justification to charge you for anything they can get away with. That is the REAL issue here. Publishers believe fair use is an excuse made up by people who just don't want to pay money to publishers for no reason.



I never said it's all right if Google makes money. In fact it is quite the opposite.

I was pointing out In other words, THAT is their only motivation for the whole thing. They don't make money off selling books, stealing from authors. They make money by selling ads. More searches means more ads. Therefore it is in Google's best interest to make their search engine more valuable in peoples' eyes. Hence the book snippets, which makes Google Search more useful, which makes Google your favorite search engine, which makes you use Google more often, which means you see more ads and Google makes more money.

Google is NOT exploiting authors' work in any way. They are merely making their search engine more useful, by helping you find books more easily. Whether authors want that help or not is inconsequential, since Google is doing nothing illegal and thus authors have NO rights in this matter (any more than they can stop me from quoting the same quotes, from MY copy, to my friend).

The fact that Google makes money off book snippets does not have any bearing on, well, ANYTHING, since the ONLY money they make is the money from all your future searches that you make since the book snippets makes Google stand out as a better search engine.

I was quoting you on Google making money as it appeared to be your closing argument. Perhaps you meant it differently. I think it has a bearing on their intent and in fact making money is not a bad thing.

My personal interest in Google being a better search engine does not seem that important in the grand scheme of life. Sometimes I have to use another engine.

Google does honor takedown notices in regards to other website's content as I am sure you are aware, but seem to feel they themselves should be exempt because it would cost them money. What's up with that do you think?

Helen

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I was quoting you on Google making money as it appeared to be your closing argument. Perhaps you meant it differently. I think it has a bearing on their intent and in fact making money is not a bad thing.

My personal interest in Google being a better search engine does not seem that important in the grand scheme of life. Sometimes I have to use another engine.

Google does honor takedown notices in regards to other website's content as I am sure you are aware, but seem to feel they themselves should be exempt because it would cost them money. What's up with that do you think?

Helen

I meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Making money isn't bad at all, it's HOW they make money that's a problem. It seems to me that Google is not making money through exploitation of copyright, so it's all good.

GOOGLE feels it is important to be the best, which is all that matters -- for them. It is their motivation to be what they are.

What takedown notices have they refused on the grounds it is too expensive?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

The discussion of fair use above is getting a little off the wall. A lawyer isn't necessary to interpret fair use every single time someone wants to make use of that right; as with anything, there are some instances where a use clearly falls within the ambit of fair use, and then there are edge cases where it's far less clear.

speakingtohe, what you consider to be "right" and what is actually a right under copyright law don't entirely match up. At a fundamental level, you seem (feel free to correct me) to think an author should have absolute control over the uses that are made of their work; however, copyright provides only limited rights, and it is clear copyright is not a property right. Copyright is not a fundamental or moral right, it is a right completely created by statute and the common law.

Here's a quote to illustrate:

I was all set to answer a post from you that said basically that what I said wasn't what I thought I'd said and it seems to have disappeared? Oh well.

I am well aware that what I consider to be a right or even what I consider to be right is not the ruling factor in the universe. It is merely my idea based on my standards of ethics and fairness etc. I often fall far short of these standards myself much to my dismay.

Still I would rather have these standards and fall short of them then rely solely on the precise lettering of the law in to govern my behavior or that of others. Most places I could take my dog or canary and simply shoot it because it was a nuisance and the law wouldn't care unless I tortured it first. Lots of bizarre or unjust laws in the world IMO although you may disagree.

On a moral note, Google does piously post takedown notices that it complies with so why exactly do you feel that they are entitled to a moral exemption, or do you?

I would be most interested to know what a fundamental or a moral right actually is and if it is an unchanging concept passed down through the ages. For centuries people could beat other people simply because in the eyes of the law they were chattels and this was considered by the chattel owners as a fundamental right. Still that way in some places and in the eyes of many people.

Not saying my standards are the 'right' standards, but I do feel that just because it is legal it is not always right.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Making money isn't bad at all, it's HOW they make money that's a problem. It seems to me that Google is not making money through exploitation of copyright, so it's all good.

GOOGLE feels it is important to be the best, which is all that matters -- for them. It is their motivation to be what they are.

What takedown notices have they refused on the grounds it is too expensive?

Those from members of the authors guild. I believe that was their main argument for continuing to post snippets from the vast number of books that were being protested. It would cost too much to address each issue individually as there were so many. I did read this as a statement from a Google spokesman IIRC and will try to remember exactly where. If I can't find it I will humbly beg your pardon.

And possibly the financial motivation factor is not that strong. After all what is a few hundred million to a company who paid out 125 million in 2008 on a very similar issue in 2008 and another 30 million to their lawyers and continued blithely on their way despite being aware that according to the court decision at that time it was not quite the right thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ct_with_Google

Perhaps those that say all information should be free for the benefit of humanity are right, and in a perfect world it would be. But in this world all information being free could lead to most information being worth exactly what is paid for it. In other words nothing. I sometimes find that to be the case already

Helen

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Those from members of the authors guild. I believe that was their main argument for continuing to post snippets from the vast number of books that were being protested. It would cost too much to address each issue individually as there were so many. I did read this as a statement from a Google spokesman IIRC and will try to remember exactly where. If I can't find it I will humbly beg your pardon.

And possibly the financial motivation factor is not that strong. After all what is a few hundred million to a company who paid out 125 million in 2008 on a very similar issue in 2008 and another 30 million to their lawyers and continued blithely on their way despite being aware that according to the court decision at that time it was not quite the right thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ct_with_Google

Perhaps those that say all information should be free for the benefit of humanity are right, and in a perfect world it would be. But in this world all information being free could lead to most information being worth exactly what is paid for it. In other words nothing. I sometimes find that to be the case already

Helen

Why would Google bother complying with takedown notices where there is no violation of copyright?

Also...I believe that $125 million was a settlement agreement that Guild and Google arrived at to make the litigation go away, not a court decision. Also, that settlement agreement was ultimately rejected by the court, and that's why the litigation between Google and the Guild continued and why Google now has this latest court victory under their belt.

I don't know if all information should be free, but I have no problem with Google providing information which they are (according to this latest court decision) legally able to provide, temper tantrums by the Guild notwithstanding.

[Anna Drake]

This!