NYT: Writers Sue Google, Accusing It of Copyright Violation

[DeepModem Mom]

Writers Sue Google, Accusing It of Copyright Violation
By EDWARD WYATT
Published: September 21, 2005


Three authors filed suit against Google yesterday contending that the company's program to create searchable digital copies of the contents of several university libraries constituted "massive copyright infringement."

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, is the first to arise from the Google Print Library program, the fledgling effort aimed at a searchable library of all the world's printed books.

Google intends to make money from the project by selling advertising on its search pages, much as it does on its popular online search-engine site.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action status, also include the Authors Guild, a trade group that says it represents more than 8,000 published authors. Listed as plaintiffs in the suit are Daniel Hoffman, a former consultant in residence at the Library of Congress and the author of many volumes of poetry, translation and literary criticism; Betty Miles, an author of children's and young adult fiction; and Herbert Mitgang, the author of a biography of Abraham Lincoln as well as novels and plays. Mr. Mitgang is a former cultural correspondent and editorial writer for The New York Times.

Each of the plaintiffs claim copyright to at least one literary work that is in the library of the University of Michigan, according to the suit. Michigan is one of three universities, along with Harvard and Stanford, that agreed last year to let Google create searchable databases of their entire collections. The New York Public Library and Oxford University also entered into agreements with Google, but only for the works in their collections that are no longer covered by copyright....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/technology/21book.html

[SmokingJacket]

1. I think Google is trying to alter copyright law.

It's incredibly ballsy of them to think they can take works that are still under copyright and put free searchable copies of them on the internet.

I can only imagine that they think they're rich enough and powerful enough to change the way copyright works in this country.

As a member of the Author's Guild, I hope we win.

[Tesha]

2. But they aren't going to serve up the text!

But they aren't going to serve up the text, just a "fair use" extract
from it that contains the quote, so what aspect of copyright law do
you think they are infringing?

Essentially, they are simply going to perform electronically the same
service that a librarian performs when you ask them:

"So, do you know where the quote 'to be, or not to be...' comes from?"

Tesha

[SmokingJacket]

6. A digital copy of the full text is not the same as a librarian.

I have no problem with this once copyright has expired.

But for living authors who depend on sales of their books, this is disastrous. The digital copy makes it unnecessary for libraries to purchase the book. It renders the book superfluous. GOOGLE will get money every time the work is accessed, through advertising! But the author won't get one thin dime.

And once authors stop being paid for their work -- particularly non-fiction writers -- the work is going to stop being done.

[rman]

8. But it's NOT the full text - there's no copyright on 'fair use' excerpts

So google isn't trying to change anything about the copyright law.

[DrDebug]

25. Fair use is for non-commercial activities

So it violates fair use since google wants to make money out of it, but forcing commissions and pay per click.

[northzax]

37. what about criticism

in a newspaper or journal? that's a for-profit making enterprise, is criticism not fair-use?

[Occulus]

55. As I understand it, advertising makes the money

not the original work. Therefore, there is no monetary gain from the search itself. The only way I can see your argument being acceptable is if Google were selling whole copies of the book based upon the user's search, and was doing so without an agreement from the copyright holder. The ads, however, are coming from parties presumably properly licensed to sell the copyright work in question; thus, Google is merely a conduit to a legal sale.

Since Google is going out of their way to ensure that the whole work is not presented to the end user, I think they will successfully defend against any and all complaints. It's a no-brainer, really.

[illumn8d]

58. Google is sharing ad revenue

See the related CNN article I posted below.

[pop goes the weasel]

78. oh, that's silly

Non-fiction writers won't be any worse off than they are today. Non-fiction will continue to be written. They may even be better off.

The notion that googling up a reference in a book is going to deprive anyone of a sale betrays a lack of understanding of how most academic libraries are used. If I need to check a particular book for a citation, I'm sure not going to go out and buy it. If it isn't already on my shelves, I'll check the library. If it isn't there, I'll do interlibrary loan, if I have the luxury of time. But I'm not buying the book, because that book has likely been out of print for 5 years, and I don't have the luxury of waiting forever.

I can listen to a lot of music on the internet, even download single songs from albums. This is the equivalent of what Google wants to do, only making it easy to find the sources for download to begin with. Is that a bad thing, like you think? Why no. It has taken me over a month to find music from a narrow genre that I want. If I could have googled it up and listened to some selections a month ago, I'd have those CD sitting in my reference library right now. I would similarly pay for the right to download the aformentioned out-of-print book, if I had the chance to preview it.

Really, you have a chance at new ways of making money, and your greed and fear is getting in the way.

[Centered]

79. fine with me... save the trees

[Book Lover]

9. They are engaging in a preemptive taking

by scanning the entire work (do you think they're only going to scan a "fair use" extract out of each volume? I don't, and if I were managing the project, I wouldn't as it would be a waste of time) sans permission, even if only a fair use extract is put online. It is good law and better practice to request permission first. There are authors who will want to be part and those who won't - Google is omitting the permissions editor's job for their own convenience. Which is not only wrong, it's wrong in the eyes of the law.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. I love the AG

I've been a member for a long time now, and they've always taken on the best fights.

What google's done is just unbelievable. Where do they get their nerve, I wonder?

[northzax]

23. it's nothing more than what Amazon has done

go there and you can search for a phrase and get a list of every book it appears in, along with a short snippet of text as a teaser. Of course, that only works with books in print and those on amazon.

I see nothing different here than a music store allowing you to listen to a CD before you buy it, or an RSS aggregator.

Basically, if I want to research something, I go to my university library's website and search for a phrase, I get m every journal currently subscribed to, and many we don't. That's how I find things, otherwise I'd never find that article from the NEJM in 1992. I read the paragraph it comes in to see if it's a coincidental phrase or something I'm actually interested in. why not do the same thing for books? I almost never cite books, instead of journals, unless I find them in citations for a journal article, because they are too hard to search. Sometimes, the snippet I find in an article is a fair-use quotation from a book, so I go get the book. Is that a fair-use, or a copyright violation? it's what the google search will do for me, without the middleman.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. The term "fair use" is a slippery one,

and, as you indicate, not easily defined.

There's a world of difference between trying to sell books - amazon - and exploiting the work of an author - google.

Doing library research is fine, because the library's bought the book, the author's gotten compensated.

Google's just stealing, and that's hardly my definition of "fair use."

[northzax]

32. There is no difference between

here, Google is playing the role of both the seller (including links to places to purchase the book) and the library, since the copies being used are already purchased, as you point out. Anything that provodes MORE access to information will lead to increased sales for more obscure books, if it's something I'm not going to find on my own, making a snippet relevant to my search will make me more likely to discover the book. Thus leading to more sales, if the work is any good.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

46. Your post is confusing

But the difference is that bookstores sell books. google is hardly selling books; it's just ripping off authors and publishers.

For you to compare google's purchase of a book to what libraries provide is specious. Consider the numbers involved. And if you think people are going to rush to buy books when they can get what they need from google, you're sadly mistaken.

I saw a man the other day, in Borders, copying from an Ann Coulter(!) book, right out there, no shame, no hiding, no nothing. Just standing there, copying out her book into a notebook while listening to his iPod. When I told him that it was a bookstore and not a library, he tried to get into my face, which really wasn't a good idea, because I have a way of raising my voice in public places and making sure thieves are caught.

That's what google is doing, and I'm doing my share of shouting about it by sending a check to the Authors Guild to support this litigation.

[Occulus]

59. You were very, very wrong in that.

He may have simply been doing research, and had tried the library, which didn't have the book he needed to research.

You made the (blatantly odious) assumption that he was intending to violate copyright for whatever reason- with a notebook, no less!

You were wrong. Period. His was a fair use.

It's one very short step between what you did, and bookstores not allowing patrons to read any of the books at all prior to purchase.

Would you buy a car without being allowed to test drive it?
Would you buy a house without being allowed a tour?

No, no, a thousand times, no. Yet you seem to feel that his limited note taking was a violation of copyright. Thank God we have reasonable people here who know better than that; else, high school students would not be allowed to take notes from their texts because they may violate the copyright on the textbook!

Silly. Utterly silly. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but as a copyrightist, you aren't. And that's a sad loss for the public domain.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. Oh, dear.

Next time you find yourself in a grocery store, and you want to check out the new pretzels, tear open a bag and start tasting them.

See how well that works.

Did you know that bookstores aren't libraries?

Didn't anyone ever tell you that stealing is wrong?

And I said nothing about "violation of copyright". Where did you come up with that?

I said he was stealing. I'm sure you know what stealing is, since you're having a tough time with the "copyright" concept.

Did you really write "copyrightist"? Because that's the funniest thing I've seen all day.

[Occulus]

67. Your analogy isn't even CLOSE to accurate.

It doesn't work because it's not an accurate analogy. Taking notes from a book is not the same as tasting a sealed bag of pretzels (but it DOES support my contention that, if allowed to do so, people who hold views like yours would charge high school students with copyright violations for taking notes from their texts. Oh, and- MY analogy is a lot closer to the argument than YOURS is.). You know this. Why even try to make that argument?

Each and every bookstore in my area- including the privately-owned ones, not just Barnes & Noble and B. Dalton and Waldenbooks- allow patrons to read, unrestricted, and take notes. Barnes & Noble even has a reading area set up, and I've never seen anyone ejected- even people with laptops who are taking notes.

Your argument is wrong, you are wrong, and the fact that you continue to pretend you are right really raises my ire.

By the way: unless he walked out of the door of the bookstore with the book, without paying, he wasn't stealing. Even if he left with his notes. Being as anti-fair-use as you are, you won't accept that, but reasonable people will, and it is to them this post is directed- not to you, because you are obviously not reasonable regarding this topic.

You're the kind of person who would advocate memory erasure for bookstore patrons "because they're stealing the memory of the book they read in the store" were it possible for us to erase people's memories of such. I've often said the RIAA would do the same thing for music if they could, and I've been laughed at for it- and here you are, advocating exactly that!!

You sound as though you'd like to punish that guy for taking notes on a book he didn't buy in a bookstore. That's insanity.

Unbelievable. Do you even understand what copyright is for- or do you think it's only there to guarantee you a profit for a time? BEcause, if the latter, you are wrong, and you don't even know it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. Congratulations

Your assessment of whatever you think is going on here is absolutely riveting, I am certain, and your conclusions are, no doubt, valid for you within the areas you occupy, insofar as you have command of those areas. I hope you do, and I am certain you're having a grand old time.

[Occulus]

76. I'm well aware of the issue at hand, thank you.

The ancillary issues are indeed riviting, because they address freedoms previous generations have taken for granted, and which current generations believe are "too free". I condemn this.

The only point I have to make is this: copyright holders are currently "entitled" to far, far more than they deserve. The Constitution demands a "limited" copyright, and life +whatever is no limit at all.

We NEED far, far more stringent limits to be put in place, an inviolate copyright limit beyond which copyright is not possible. Such a limit needs to be short enough to allow our children to freely enjoy that which we paid to enjoy. Anything less is simpoly unacceptable and, to my mind, a violation of the very concepts of fair use and the public domain- after all, keeping a copyright forever is nothing close to a fair use.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. As a member of the human race

I hope Google wins.

;-)

[SmokingJacket]

29. What, do you own stock?

Because that's who's going to be profiting from the work of these writers, not the writers themselves.

[ender]

31. it spreads knowledge.

it adds to the general overall human condition by spreading knowledge.

information wants to be free, even if the authors don't share this same ideal.

also, i'm confident that google will offer the author's a slice of the compensation pie, just as it does with its adsense program.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. The commons enriches the general intellect

The current copyright regime needs to be pushed.

[pop goes the weasel]

3. Good luck, Google

The vast majority of books, even ones under copyright, are out of print. Banning the duplication of books that are never going to be reprinted is a loss to the general welfare. Copyright law needs to be changed.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. So if I haven't driven my car for a while

Anyone has the right to grab it?

If my car isn't currently driveable, anyone has the right to fix it and drive it away?

The copyright is the author's property. There's always a chance that the book will be republished and make him or his heirs some more money.

[Kagemusha]

5. No one's going to mistake your car for intellectual property.

And ultimately, intellectual property belongs to mankind. In America authors aren't allowed to make money off books after a certain period of time, usually after the author is long dead. The Wizard of Oz is an excellent example. And why? Because it's unfair to civilization.

But granted, I am referring to an extreme case that doesn't apply to all books. I'm just saying, at some point, they and cars cease to be the same thing under the law, and for a perfectly justifiable reason.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Your first line,

"And, ultimately, intellectual property belongs to mankind" is easily one of the daffiest I've read in a long time.

Ultimately, you're dirt, and so am I, but, while I'm not dirt, I'm rather enjoying this body of mine. Am I entitled to have you work for me for free?

As a novelist and essayist and proud member of the Authors Guild, I hope they put this nonsense out of business.

[stickdog]

38. Why? On what basis do you contend that this isn't "fair use"?

Google would be providing the general public of the entire world with an invaluable resource which would seemingly help rather than hinder the sale of copyrighted books.

So who is being wronged here? How does this wronging compare to the global benefit of such a plan? Just asking out of curiosity as I'm becoming a bit of a googlephobe recently.

[illumn8d]

41. Wrong Thread NT

[OldLeftieLawyer]

44. If you want to look through books,

go to a library that's purchased them, and do your homework there.

google is stealing.

As for the definition of fair use, and I've noted elsewhere, it's quite a slippery one that has no fixed definition, so I'd caution you against thinking that's any kind of valid reason for ripping off authors.

[stickdog]

48. Don't libraries "rip off" authors in terms of sales?

Don't online CD store snippets of songs "rip off" musical artists?

I'd suggest that the definition of stealing is quite a slippery one that has no fixed meaning as well.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

63. Libraries buy books,

as I already mentioned. Didn't you know that?

Do you know how many libraries there are in this world? Do you know how important it is to get a good review for your book in Library Journal?

Naw, I guess you don't.

When someone checks out one of my books from a library in the UK, I get a royalty. Pity it's not the same here in the US, but that's all right.

As for the music snippets, well, now you're just being silly.

[Occulus]

69. The RIAA wanted to charge royalties to USED music stores.

I'm sure you're okay with that. I'm NOT, at all.

If I have a private library in my home (on the order of several hundred books), and I allow a friend to do research and take notes, are they "stealing" according to you?

I will for the record submit your definition of theft is faulty, and too loose to be workable. I will further submit your interpretation of copyright is antithetical to the Constitutionally mandated limits upon the same.

Content producers do not deserve unending profits for a single work. Moreover, the public domain does deserve those works, in total, after a set time period.

The Great Fear seems to be that without copyright, profit is not possible. This is a logical fallacy, and one inherently dangerous to the very concept of the public domain.

I'm sure you are smart enough to understand the concept of 'backlash', and I would submit that that is what we are very justifiably seeing today. I would advise you that you cannot stop it, alter it, or impede it, and that it would be best for you to redefine your understanding of the meaning of copyright, because as it stands, you quite clearly do not understand why it exists in the first place.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. No, I'm not OK with that

Your little library sounds really neat. Congratulations!

[Occulus]

74. You still didn't answer the primary question

which was whether I'm guilty of copyright violation, or whether my friend is.

Where is the difference between my private library and a privately-owned bookstore? How is it different, that my friend should go to B. Dalton instead of my library, if we both posses the same text?

There's NO difference, that's what, and therefore the patron of the bookstore taking notes is not liable for copyright violation. I know you know this, because you didn't address it.

Getting back to the OP: Google is NOT violating copyright because they are not presenting the whole of the copyrighted work. At no point in the process is the whole work visible to any human, and is in fact not presented as a whole work. It is intentionally presented as a quote- no different than a book segment published in a newspaper when being used as part of a review.

If Google is breaking copyright law, then librarians are also doing the same. After all, many librarians can quote segments of books. You're lucky if you pick one they know well, but they can do so. So where's the difference?

To ask the question a different way, if I sing a song- say, Madonna's "Ray of Light"- on the street for a few friends and some strangers, do I owe a royalty for a public performance? I hope you answer "no"- because that is a fair use.

You seem to wish to restrict fair use to the most restrictive interpretation possible, a constructionist interpretation which leaves no room for timely admission into the public domain. I have a serious problem with that; my interpretation is that the Constitution intended for works to be included in the public domain while they were still popular works- you know, so the public domain actually means something to the people alive at the time the work is created and initially sold.

As a content creator, I am passionately invested in the public domain first and my own profits (if any) second. I can do nothing else; without my direct and willing input, the public domain could well become totally irrelevant in my lifetime, instead of mostly so.

Why do you insist upon advocating the death of the public domain? By standing up for copyright law as it is currently interpreted, you do exactly that.

[stickdog]

80. Yes, libraries buy books, then lend them at no charge to people

who would otherwise have to buy them in order to read them. Didn't you know that?

It's kind of like buying a DVD, and then screening it for a public audience on a weekly basis. Stealing or not?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

82. Again

Do you know how many libraries there are in this world? I've had tremendous good luck with Library Journal loving the books I've written, and that has given my work great sales numbers.

In the UK, authors are paid royalties whenever their works are checked out. Same in Australia.

See, there's a whole world out there that embraces all sorts of acknowledgement of what an artist does.

If you screen a movie for a "public audience" on a weekly basis, you're breaking the law. Didn't you know that?

I wonder what it is that makes people think they're entitled to the workproduct of artists when they'd never expect their doctors or dentists or other professionals to work for them for free.

Next time you get sick, tell your doctor you're entitled to his/her services for free, because it's only a "private audience." See how well that works.

[stickdog]

83. I'm glad the USA library system works well for you.

But compared to the systems of the UK and Australia which you laud, isn't lending your book in perpetuity without granting you any further royalties a form of stealing in your black and white copyright world?

If not, why not?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. My "black and white" copyright world?

How come people keep inserting the concept of "copyright" into discussions where it's not applicable?

I wasn't talking about copyright law, a complicated and specialized area of the law.

I was talking about sales.

It would be lovely if the American library system were as civilized as the Brits and Ozzies, yes. How brilliant of you to come up with that notion.

[Occulus]

62. And *I* hope legislation is enacted which limits your copyright to

thirty years.

You do NOT deserve lifetime profits for what you do today. Sorry. That's not how I want my world to work.

You should be unceremoniously forced- kicking, screaming, pleading, and crying, if need be- to release your works to the public domain after a reasonable time period, and that damn well ought to be within your lifetime and mine. otherwise, practically speaking, there is no application of the public domain to your work; therefore, in my lifetime, your works are immune to the public domain.

Unacceptable.

Let me say this as clearly as possible: I do NOT care that you make a "popular" work. I do care that you expect to make money off it for the rest of your life. You do not deserve to do so because none of us deserve to do so. You aren't that special.

Hubris, arrogance, and greed are the cores of the arguments supporting the current copyright regime. They are diametrically opposed to the very concept of the public domain, period. As such, they deserve to be stamped out of the equation like so many pestilential bugs, and severe and restrictive limits upon copyright life will do just that.

The public should be able to appropriate your works after a specified time period. That time period should be rigid and non-negotiable, reagrdless of the work's financial success. In other words, you had your chance, now get the HELL out of the way!!

[Occulus]

64. and here's a report by a student, ca. 2036

"Microsoft Windows was arguably one of the single most influential software products during the initial development of that industry. Installed on tens of millions of PCs, Windows enabled a level of user interaction which was at the time unsurpassed.

"Today, we still have no idea precisely how that operating system functioned. This is because, despite its currently relative obscurity, the Microsoft Windows source code is still protected under US copyright law. Many analysts point to those restrictions when speaking of the primary reason advancement of operating systems in the early 2000's ground to a halt.

"As Microsoft's OS became more and more complex, supporting more and more pieces of hardware, it became unwieldy due to the many disparate code packages under development beneath the Windows umbrella. Open-source advocates correctly point out that, had Microsoft opened its source code to the rest of the development world, its operating system would likely have continued as a source of innovation and development, as users worldwide would have had the opportunity to contribute to the code base.

"This did not occur, and Microsoft Windows is now relegated to the putrid, festering, abandoned codeheap which also contains such gems as the Commodore 64, the Amiga, and the Tandy of yesteryear."

Your insistence upon profits you have not yet made will be the death of both your own works and the public domain.

[kamtsa]

17. Google response ...

From Google blog 9/20/05 (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/)

"Let's be clear: Google doesn’t show even a single page to users who find copyrighted books through this program (unless the copyright holder gives us permission to show more). At most we show only a brief snippet of text where their search term appears, along with basic bibliographic information and several links to online booksellers and libraries."

Since the Google search is open to all, it will be easy to show a case (if there is any) where Google publishes copyrighted material without permission.

I hope this case will end up with a good balance between the authors copyright and the public's ability to search and locate (but not copy) desired content. Personally, if I would be a book author, I would love to have my book being included in search results of potential customers.

[Occulus]

18. To answer your initial question,

yes, if you go and leave it on the side of the road. I believe that the law here in MI allows for abandoned vehicles to be removed by anyone at all, and then claimed by them.

This would only apply after an orange sticker is placed on the window and the car remains there for (I think) more than three days. Once it becomes abandoned property it becomes fair game.

No copyright owner should be allowed under law to simply renew and renew and renew and not actually do anything with it. To my mind, the copyright ought to have to be actively exercised in order to be held.

My two biggest problems with copyright law are the length of time a copyright can be held/extended and the ability to extend a copyright into (practically speaking) infinity. Virtually none of the copyrighted works we enjoy for a fee today will be freely and publicly available sans copyright in any of our lifetimes, and I find that just a damn shame.

As with so many things in our society, too many copyright owners feel they deserve to be paid forever for what they do today. Taking pride in one's work is one thing, but extending copyrights for sixty, seventy, eighty years or more can, has, and will continue to cause the so-called "public domain" to slowly wither if nothing is done; it will cease to be a vibrant pool from which to draw creative ideas and instead become an unrenewed muck-filled trench of decaying and dead ideas from generations past.

It's not there yet, but if the copyrightists have their way, the public domain will die out, and the only question is when.

[DavidDvorkin]

22. An out-of-print book is not an abandoned book

Any more than a book that has not yet found a publisher is an abandoned book.

[Occulus]

49. An out-of-print book is arguably an abandoned copyright

and as such should not deserve to hold a copyright.

edited to add: no published book is ever abandoned even if the copyright "runs out" (which appears to longer happen anyway). People will still read it, in print or not.

A book that has not yet found a publisher is like an unsold car sitting in a factory. It is not possible to 'abandon' an unpublished book unless one intends for it to not be published- for example, a diary that has not been written in or read for years.

And I'd point out that if you leave even a brand-new car on the side of the highway for the described length of time, it becomes abandoned property, regardless of its age.

If a book is out-of-print and the publisher is unwilling to print on request, the book should be digitized and inserted into the public domain. And please please PLEASE note that placing a book or other media into the public domain does not forbid its being sold later for profit.

Copyright is a guarantee of legal protection from unauthorized copying, NOT a guarantee of profit- nor is the lack of copyright an inherent impediment to profit. My overall point, however, is that copyrights extend for far too long a period to fulfill the call for a public domain of created works. They should not be eligible for extension after a certain point, and that point should be rigid and guarantee to the members of one generation that the works created by them will be free to the rest of the world in their lifetimes.

Insisting upon generating a profit for created works into infinity in the end utterly cheapens those works. Eventually (as we have seen with music on broadcast radio and series on television) "what sells" becomes the main goal, rather than the work itself as an end. A vibrant and continually renewed public domain would at least guarantee the existence of derivitive works, but that cannot happen unless there is a clearly recent body of work to draw upon.

The story of Snow White may well be a known work to the public, but try to retell that story without having Disney somehow involved. That's the sort of deficiency I'd like to see addressed in copyright law, and quite clearly, simply extending the renewal period and length of the copyright has done more harm than good. I think it's time we tried movig in the other direction, and put in place serious restrictions on copyrights- how long they can be renewed, and how many times they can be renewed, thus instituting a mandatory point at which created works- digital (including and perhaps especially software, with the attendant source code), musical, print, and video- enter into the public domain and become free for public use.

It needs to be mandatory, or our popular culture will wither. That, if this problem remains unaddressed, is only a matter of time.

[DavidDvorkin]

68. Rubbish

I have a fair number of books go out of print, and they are now being reissued by a small press.

They are my intellectual property.

[Occulus]

70. YOU are still using the copyright, and my argument does not apply to you.

MY argument here specifically concerns books and other materials which are NOT rereleased, but instead sit in the inventory, simply because they are part of the inventory. Also, under what I would *like* to see regarding copyright law, you STILL would not be affected unless you initially wrote, copyrighted, and sold your work more than thirty years ago.

MY plan for copyright givfes you ample time to make your buck. I'm talking about copyrights which are renewed for years and years and years and never exercised, which you obviously did do.

The argument I'm putting forth would not apply to you UNLESS you let your copyright lapse, renewed but unused. After a set time, the copyright laws I would *like* to see in place would indeed mandate that the intellectual property no longer belongs to you, but not until that set time, and it sounds as if, as things stand today, you would not have done so even under my plan for copyright law.

Basically, I thought is, after a single generation, your copyright should run out and be impossible to renew. I feel that is more than enough time for you as a content creator to realize the full financial potential of your creation. After that, the law should mandate that you get the hell out of the way and let the public enjoy it, free.

Sorry if that bothers you. Too damn bad. The public domain must posess your works eventually- whether you like it or not.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

73. "abandoned copyright"

Where DO you come up with these terms?

How utterly absurd.

[Occulus]

77. It's something which should exist. edit: SHOULD. Not DOES.

In too many things, we either use it or lose it. Copyright ought to be the same: Once you register a copyright, you ought to have to renew within a set time period, or have it considered "abandoned" and therefore inapplicable.

Stop using your legal mind and concentrate on what's RIGHT for a change. That would, by the way, be my very greatest complain about lawyers when they are not practicing law. They use their legal minds, rather than their conscionces, to determine what is right. You ought to know: simply because a law is a law does not make it the right course of action to take.

I've seen you, personally, OLL, take the stance of what is lawful over what is right here on DU more times than I can count. I'm asking you to step outside the box for a moment and consider what OBEYING these laws means to the future of the public domain. I think you will agree, if we continue in this direction, the public domain's future is a bleak one indeed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Copyright was always meant to be limited

And to balance the author's rights to recompense with the society's right to advance in knowledge.

Their is no absolute permanent copyright. It simply doesn't exist under the law, though the constant encroachment on the commons of human knowledge by private enterprise may have fooled you into belieiving it does.

[Ratty]

47. Thank you Sonny Bono (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act)

The constant extension of copyrights to cover Disney's ass, in complete disregard of the intent of section 8 of the constitution has always pissed me off royally. 50 years after the death of the author should be good enough for anybody.

Copyright Term Extension Act (Wikipedia)

"Think of what literary criticism would become if every essay or review that quoted a work were conditioned on the author's knowledge and approval!" Mike Godwin, law.com

[Occulus]

50. What would you call a copyright that gets renewed for 80, 90, 100 years?

I'd call that pretty permenant on a human scale. If it's copyrighted when you're born, and remains so until your death, that's permenant.

I would advocate for three copyright 'terms' of seven to ten years, MAXIMUM. That's one generation to make your fortune. MORE than enough time if the work is worth the fortune.

NO extensions, and NO exceptions. Period.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. Oh, I agree with you

The original copyright was 13 years, if I remember my copyright history correctly. It's constant extension in this century is a disaster for innovation, as Professor Lessig argues.

I'm just amazed by the posters on this thread who seem to believe that copyright is an absolute property right. It is not and has never been.

[Occulus]

61. As I pointed out somewhere here, they're just idiots

who don't fully understand the meaning of copyright. It doesn't mean you get protected profit for the rest of your life- and it should never mean that.

They're taking a mine-mine-mine mentality that's better suited to children than it is to copyrighted works. They seem to believe that they're entitled to profit forever. Not so.

Attention, holders of copyrights:

You do not deserve to hold your copyright forever, nor do you deserve to hold your copyright for more than half my lifetime. Your works are just. Not. That. Good. None are. Furthermore, We, the People, *will* appropriate your works after a given time perios- preferably sooner, than later- and you can't do a damn. Thing. About. It.

If you are willing to still complain, I would suggest to you a different line of work not involved with authoring content, since you obviously cannot handle the responsibility that comes with that.

(that's not a flame upon you, alcibiades_mystery; I'm talking to those who would disagree in the name of greed)

[Mizmoon]

7. As an author of non-fiction I say

that this is par for the course. Like musicians, authors are expected not just to starve, but to like it.

[rman]

10. Starving musicians? Name a few please...

[Mizmoon]

11. Are you kidding?

Do you think all musicians are Maddonna with billions of dollars?

How many copies of "Because I got high" did Afroman actually sell and how many were downloaded on Kazaa? How much would he have made if all the people who liked their song had bought it instead of stealing it?

[kostya]

14. Good point, though I doubt that most of those that "steal" songs

would have paid for them otherwise anyway. - K

[ender]

33. plus, to "steal" something, you need to...

deprive someone of its use.

they are copyright violations, and not "theft".

printing books is very out of date, anyway... why should you have to limit your distribution like that?

theres a better business model to be realized here, and google is going to start it.

what do you want, something like RMS' dystopia in the right to read? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

I'm a software engineer. I work on Open-Source software, and make much more money than I ever have working on closed, copyrighted software.

There is a better way to make money, and add to the human condition than locking up information with archaic copyright restrictions. Especially those copyright restrictions that greatly favor old-line distribution networks.

[Occulus]

54. these idiots equate moeny they never had to stolen property

And I DO mean IDIOTS!

Hey, stoopid peeple, I have three (3) things to say about this:

+ If someone digitally copies a work, they didn't steal it.
+ If someone digitally copies a work, they didn't steal it.
+ If someone digitally copies a work, they didn't steal it.

Why? Because you still have the original content they copied and you are still legally allowed to sell it. If they would never have bought it, you cannot claim a "lost profit". To do so is a lie, and out-and-out, boldfaced lie.

Money you did not earn was never, is not, and will never be "lost" to you. Get over it.

[rman]

19. Some artists would have it the RIAA is more of a problem

then the downloaders.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[Occulus]

51. I'm more getting the impression

that content creators have lost their way somewhat. More and more, that segment of society is behaving as if it deserves to be paid forever for what they did once.

Copyright is intended to be limited, and for good reason. I advocate an extreme strengthening of those limits.

In a society where "what sells" changes from moment to moment, our public domain deserves to have additions to it made at the same pace. That is not happening, and it isn't happening because of sheer greed. As a composer, I say- with final authority- that my works do not deserve to be paid royalties half a century from now unless that is the very first time it is presented to the public. Certainly, if I make money off it now, it does not follow that I deserve to make money off it forever.

My copyright notice is actually a copyleft- "this music is intended to be free for private and public performance" is what appears at the bottom of my pages. There is no copyright on any of my works; this is because I want as many people as possible to enjoy what I can do, and because the finished product- and the performance- is payment in and of itself.

Unlike the apparent behavior of many authors, composers, and filmmakers, I don't need a dollar value to ascribe value to what I create. It has inherent value to the public, and that's something I wish to promote, and something copyright law cannot touch. I find I'm a lot happier that way.

[kamtsa]

15. More information ...

Google Print FAQ is available here

http://print.google.com/googleprint/help.html

[sendero]

16. From the FAQ....

....

"Why can't I read the entire book?

We respect copyright law and the tremendous creative effort authors put into their work. So you'll only be able to see a limited portion – in some cases only a few sentences – of books that we treat as under copyright. If the book is not under copyright, then you can browse the entire book. In general, Google Print aims to help you discover books, not read them from start to finish. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing – only with a Google twist. "

So, these folks basically have no case IMHO. Searching the text is not the same as publishing it.

I wish them luck, because IMHO Google is doing nothing wrong and Google has INFINITE MONEY.

[illumn8d]

34. Google will win

Authors and IP holders should work with them, it will be in their interest.

EDIT: I do see both sides on this one, but I think it makes more sense to play ball. If Google has to stick only to works in the public domain, so be it.

[anotherdrew]

20. IDIOTS all they are doing is making their books search-able

google's work will actually increase the chance of authors selling books, as it will make their writing accessible to people who would otherwise likely never encounter or find the book. This will greatly assist research. How else can you find the book you need out of hundreds of possibilities, without reading all of each one?

They will not win this lawsuit. What google is doing simply DOES NOT violate copyright, unless the libraries are also a violation (is that the next thing these authors will claim?).

[starroute]

21. The Google project should make authors more money

By getting a snippet of a book, plus publishing information, you are more likely to go look for it. More copies will be sold, old books for which there is demand may come back into print, authors may get more attention paid to their new books.

I don't see how this can not be a good thing.

It might also bring more left-wing material from the last 50 years back into the public discourse. In doing online research, I've been struck by how everything the right has published since 1950 seems to be available in some form, while left-wing books from the same period exist only as forgotten references in footnotes and bibliographies. Wouldn't it be great to have the works of someone like George Seldes available for online search?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Redstone]

30. Good. It's about time someone stood up for intellectual-property rights.

I've gotten really sick of the "everything should be free" attitude.

Yes, I've lost royalty payments because of Napster and the like.

No, you don't have a right to use my work without paying for it. ("You" in the sense of "anyone.")

In anticipation of flames: 1) Do you work for free? 2) If you make something, can I take it from you without paying for it? If you can answere yes to both of those questions, then you can argue. Otherwise, I won't respond.

Redstone

[ender]

35. ok... fine.

I'm a software engineer. For the last five years, I have worked on projects that use only Open Source.

1) Do i "work" for free?

no. my company pays me, very well. we also sell our product at over 40% gross profit margin. The software that I write is based on open source, that means if someone asks my company for the source to XXX, I must give it to them. Even our competitors.

And yet, my product has the highest gross profit, net profit and highest number of units sold. All higher than our closed-source versions of this product.

And yet, I am contributing back to the human condition by contributing my work back into the community. No one has to reinvent this wheel.

2) You want my work? Sure. I have and will produce this source code on demand.

I'm doubtful that you will be able to do anything useful with it, though.

And yet myself and my company are able to sell this product, and make money doing it.

-------

So, what did musicians do for money before mass-produced media? Oh thats right, they got paid to perform; just like I am.

[Occulus]

53. Do you work on Fedora or some other linux distro?

It really sounds like it. Redhat/Fedora and others have proved that it can be a viable business model. They've proven, beyond any doubt, that a copyright is not not not necessary to generate a profit.

Copyrightists- such as some on this thread- would have us believe a registered and avidly protected copyright is the only thing that can generate profit for created media content. They are wrong, and they are trying to lie to us about it.

Copyright is necessary, but not so much so as apologists here would have us believe. Thanks for pointing out that essential fact.

[ender]

56. no, i dont work for redhat...

redhat is *still* not profitable, we are. :-)

sorry, no names....

[Occulus]

60. No problem. You're still proving that copyright isn't absolutely necessary

n/t

[northzax]

36. actually, there are times when I do have that right

(to use your work without paying) say I am writing a book on music, can I not use a portion of your lyrics in a criticism capacity? Do you charge newspapers for reviewing your CDs? If I wrote a review of your CD on my blog, and posted a 5 second sample of your song to make a point about it? isn't that fair use? or would you rather have me not do that, and remove the possibility that someone new discovers your songs?

I'm not talking about a whole song, that's beyond the pale, no doubt, and I am one of the strongest attackers of illegal file sharers on this site, but I will defend fair use just as strongly.

[stickdog]

39. People use my software for free every day.

I "stole" other programmers' work and they "steal" from me.

I have a hard time losing sleep over it since all of us are constantly forced to adapt to whatever market model currently exists.

[Occulus]

66. They have a primitive understanding of "theft". n/t

[ender]

42. and another thing...

if someone has bought your CD, then sold it to a used-cd store, are you still entitled to the second transfer?

[Occulus]

52. You sound as if you believe the public domain has no right to exist.

Your copyright should be available to you for no more than thirty years. That's more than enough time for you to make your money- if your work is financially viable. I would wager you will not be able to call anything you create a financial "success" when applied to a scale of thirty years.

Again, you sound as though you feel you deserve to be paid forever for what you do today. I can't expect that from my boss; I get paid for what I did two weeks ago. I get paid once and one time only for what I do. You get paid again, and again, and again.

Your argument is therefore fallacious. If you make something popular, you get paid for years. If I do something necessary (which I do), I get paid once, and two weeks later, at that.

Copyright law needs strict limits which are mandatory, and those limits need to allow the following generation the ability to freely enjoy what are today your copyrighted works. To claim otherwise is simply unadulterated greed, and has no place in the creative process. The end work ought to be an end unto itself, and money forever should not be the object. To presume otherwise cheapens the creative process and the results for all- as we can see from the quality of broadcast radio music, beginning in the early '90s.

That's what happens when we value what sells over what's good. My argument is that a vibrant and modern public domain pool would allow derivative works which themselves would enrich our culture.

The public domain is the antithesis to the copyright, and rightly so. It needs to exist, and (judging from the filesharing going on today) a modern public domain wants to exist. Our legislation ought to reflect that reality.

[illumn8d]

43. Another article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/09/19/google.copyright.ap/index.html

Apparently Google is willing to share revenue from the ad sales.

[NYC Liberal]

45. I hope Google wins this.

While they are scanning in entire texts, YOU cannot read the entire text. All you can see is the phrase you searched for and some surrounded text. That's it. You can't download the entire book; rather, Google provides a list of places where you can BUY the book.

Libraries allow you more freedom: I can sit in a library and read a book through. I can even do this in some bookstores as well.

http://print.google.com <----- check it out for yourself.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

75. I'm of two minds on this one.

Such a searchable database would be of incalculable value worldwide, and is at its core a worthy project. This is the kind of thing the internets were built for.

Yet on the other hand, each author is deserving of full copyright protection and of the income derived from their intellectual works.

It would be nice to find a happy medium, but I doubt it exists.

More's the pity.

[hippywife]

81. What Google is doing

IS the happy medium. They are allowing a preview and only a preview of the text and then providing links to where the entire text can be purchased. Who loses in this? No one. It is a net gain for everyone involved.

[aion]

84. Opt in / Opt out -- Google permits opt-out, as I understand it

http://www.robotcop.org/