Authors Guild and Google reach settlement: Millions of scanned books to be available.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am not sure that scanning an entire book per say is a copyright violation. Certainly content shifting for personal use is perfectly legal; i.e. if I scanned a paper book and only used it myself, I am certainly engaged in a fair use of the book (in the same way that ripping a CD into mp3 files is fair use).

The trouble is right in the name. If you make a copy without the permission of the copy-right holder, you are violating the law. With the exception of fair use. But Google did not own these books, so I don't see how it could be fair use.

I really like this agreement and wish the authors, publishers and Google had tried to work out a deal first. There may be some merit to the idea that this was the only way, but I am not convinced of that.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

The trouble is right in the name. If you make a copy without the permission of the copy-right holder, you are violating the law. With the exception of fair use. But Google did not own these books, so I don't see how it could be fair use.

Ah, but what are the limits of fair use. That is the ultimate question here. Fair use, is by definition a legally murky area. If making a copy is integral to a fair use activity, then making the copy itself must be fair use. Now most of us seem to believe that the clients of Google who are reading parts of books online are in fact engaging in fair use; likewise, if Google was sharing hard copy versions that they had legally bought, it would also be an example of fair use. Therefore really, the only question is whether sharing parts of soft copy of books violates fair use?

My own personal feeling is that it does not. At the very least, it is hard to argue that sharing part of a work actually hurts the author of said work; at least, it doesn't hurt them any more than the ability to browse through a book in a bookstore does.

I really like this agreement and wish the authors, publishers and Google had tried to work out a deal first. There may be some merit to the idea that this was the only way, but I am not convinced of that.

With respect, the way the media companies have been slow to adapt to the internet (and book publishers most of all), if we waited for them to agree, we wouldn't have seen anything like this in the next ten years. At which point, everyone would be getting their e-books on darknet.

--
Bill

[phenomshel]

Late as usual. But I'm weighing in on the side of greed here. Out of print works are not likely to be converted into ebook format because well, they're out of print, the publishers don't want to go to the trouble, and a myriad of other reasons. For those of us who plan on shifting our entire library collections to ebook format, the Google settlement news is wonderful. Regardless of whether or not you happen to believe that investing in ebooks for a durable personal library is practical, some of us do, and are making efforts to do so. That being said, assuming the Google settlement shakes out as I suspect, and out of print works are made available for sale by download eventually, this is excellent news for a book horder like me. I look at it like this. If I can get the books for my collection by legal means, I don't really care how moral the company is that is supplying that means. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
I also didn't stop listening to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized (then) Pres. Bush.
I didn't agree with them, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of their music.

[Krystian Galaj]

As it's possible that some of those out-of-print books would be completely lost to the world, not many sold, every copy somehow destroyed before the copyright period is over, I'm all for Google's initiative.

[Studio717]

Imo, many of them were already "lost to the world" because there are so few copies they were locked away in a library somewhere. They only way to see them previous to Google Books scanning them was to physically go to the place where the library was and (try to) get permission to see them.

Yes, there are many scholars, researchers, etc., who need physical access to a book - those who are studying a particular person and hope to glean information about that person from his personal library books, for instance, or those who are studying the history of the book itself - but there are many of us who just want the book's content and Google Books has enabled that. Makes this writer very happy.

Some of their restrictions get annoying when I'm so close, though. I recently couldn't access a book published in 1924. I would have thought that would have been in the public domain. I ended up buying it through a used book seller (via used.addall.com).

Frankly, imo, used book sellers are going to be hurt by Google Books and I do regret that. I will add that many of the books I'm so happy to now have access to were books that were either never available on the open market, or if they occasionally appeared were so expensive that few (including me!) could afford them. OOP books will still have a market, I think, though a reduced one. Not everyone will want to purchase a PDF through GB (especially when some scans are unreliable, at best).

[basschick]

this case with google reminds me of something. a few years ago, it was illegal to use others' photographs because they were privately owned. then a case went through that made it perfectly legal to put up thumbs of others' photographs without violating their copyright. i believe the thumb size was not originally specified, but in any event, some might large "thumbs" seem to have fallen within that law. i personally thought that was pretty messed up. i wouldn't want the photos i shoot to be used by anyone, but by this law they are as long as they're not too big.

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Quite the opposite. Please carefully re-read my posts, if you choose. I am very cognizant that Google avoided judgment by means of this settlement. Make of that what you will. My opinion is that, knowing that they faced an adverse judgment, and not wanting to allow a precedent that undermines their entire business model, they chose instead to settle.

i work with a company that makes millions per month. they recently settled a suit from the ftc NOT because they thought they would lose but because they felt it would cost them more and be much more disruptive to their business if they fought the suit for years in court. i'd guess they were right because another company fought it and won - and was on their way to doing so when the other company's settlement was reached - but the second company also ended up going out of business as a result of years in hearings, laywers' offices and court.

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

And, as long as Google can simply buy their way out of legal judgment, arguing the legality of their actions is moot.

google is FAR from the only company to come to a settlement, or "buy" their way out of legal judgement, and while it tends to make people assume that the large companies are the bad guys, that isn't always the case. in fact, in many of those cases, the large company might have won - or at least not lost fully enough to satisfy all.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Ah, but what are the limits of fair use. That is the ultimate question here. Fair use, is by definition a legally murky area. If making a copy is integral to a fair use activity, then making the copy itself must be fair use. Now most of us seem to believe that the clients of Google who are reading parts of books online are in fact engaging in fair use; likewise, if Google was sharing hard copy versions that they had legally bought, it would also be an example of fair use. Therefore really, the only question is whether sharing parts of soft copy of books violates fair use?

I think it's great what Google is doing. And I think you're right when it comes to excerpts of works. They have a long history of being considered fine for fair use. I do, however, doubt that it would be legal to download a book from their service without some kind of licensing in place first. From what I can tell, it wouldn't be covered under fair use.

If Google makes a copyrighted book available for free, without licensing it first (and providing fair compensation to the authors for each download), how is that different from what got The Pirate bay and Napster in hot water?