homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.62.132
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Publishers Protest Google Library Project
systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale
sun818




msg:768370
 7:24 am on May 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Publishers Protest Google Library Project

[washingtonpost.com...]

The Association of American University Presses said in a letter that was to be sent to Google on Monday that the online search engine's library project "appears to involve systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale."

 

HRoth




msg:768400
 9:27 am on May 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Works in the public domain can indeed be copyrighted. Dover is an example. I have a copy of John Gerard's The Herbal, first published in 1629, copyright 1975 by Dover Publications. Dover did not provide any footnotes, any interpretive essays, any illustrations, an index, a new font, modernization of spelling, or anything else. As far as I can see, they copied this book in its entirety from the original publication without changing one jot or tittle. So it is indeed possible to copyright a work in the public domain. At least a Penguin edition gives you explanatory footnotes for your money.

According to the AAUP letter, Google is proposing that it copy in its entirety all of the books - these include primarily books still under copyright - in the libraries of Harvard, University of Michigan, and Stanford, so this is NOT about works in the public domain in any case. The AAUP is objecting to the fact that Google, in order to provide the snippets in results of searches of copyrighted books, says it has to copy the entire book and that it has a right to do so under Fair Use - according to Google, it doesn't even have to ask permission to copy the entire book. But the AAUP is objecting that this is not Fair Use, and from my perspective, they are right. A parallel example: you want to use bits of a book in an academic paper as examples for a discussion, which is allowed under Fair Use, so you decide it's okay to photocopy the entire work for yourself so you can look for those bits. That's not allowed under Fair Use. It's copyright infringement.

Google is further claiming it got permission for this copying of the libraries project from the publishers when in fact it got permission from the publishers to use excerpts of specific works, not to copy all their published works in their entirety. The publishers are saying that Google is not giving them any real opportunity to opt out, despite its claims.

Google also is giving the libraries digital copies of the books, which is plainly copyright infringement, because they don't have permission to give anyone a copy of a copyrighted work, not even a library that owns a hard copy of the book.

I have a book published with a university press (and I even have one of those PhDs that a poster believes causes a person to be unable to think). It makes me angry that Google is going to get to copy my book and do whatever it wants with it, including use it to sell things like ads or a search service, without my permission.

bird




msg:768401
 10:42 am on May 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Works in the public domain can indeed be copyrighted. Dover is an example. I have a copy of John Gerard's The Herbal, first published in 1629, copyright 1975 by Dover Publications. Dover did not provide any footnotes, any interpretive essays, any illustrations, an index, a new font, modernization of spelling, or anything else. As far as I can see, they copied this book in its entirety from the original publication without changing one jot or tittle. So it is indeed possible to copyright a work in the public domain.

It is indeed possible to write "copyright 1975 by Dover Publications" on a reprint of a public domain work. That doesn't mean that they can keep you from copying the content. The underlying text obviously and necessarily remains public domain. At best, their copyright extends to the typography they used (although even that seems to be limited, according to a recent discussion around here).

In discussions like this, we need to be very careful not to confuse the claims of the publishers with the actual legal situation. What the publishers claim may or may not be correct. They're not a neutral third party, after all. They have a vested interest to grab as much as they can get away with.

andye




msg:768402
 10:46 am on May 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Works in the public domain can indeed be copyrighted.

I don't know as much about the US position, but in the UK there is a particular class of copyright for

published editions of works, i.e. the typographical arrangement of a publication

and this is distinct from the right which attaches to

original literary works, e.g. novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, lyrics for songs, articles in newspapers, some types of databases

(these quotes are from the UK patent office website).

A newly written book that's just been published would of course have both rights. A public domain work that's been republished would only have the 'published edition' right, and not the 'original literary works' right.

The full legislative wording is:

8 Published editions
(1) In this Part "published edition", in the context of copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published edition, means a published edition of the whole or any part of one or more literary, dramatic or musical works.
(2) Copyright does not subsist in the typographical arrangement of a published edition if, or to the extent that, it reproduces the typographical arrangement of a previous edition.

My source is the primary legislation: "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended" - AKA "Copyright, Rights in Performances, Publication Right, Database Right: UNOFFICIAL CONSOLIDATED TEXT OF UK LEGISLATION TO 31ST DECEMBER 2003" (UK Patent Office)

Interestingly, the duration of this 'typographical arrangement of a published edition' copyright is different - it's 25 years from the publication date, as opposed to 70 years from the authors death (as in the case of the more well-known 'literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works' right). Paras 12 and 15 of the amended Act.

Best wishes, a.

kaled




msg:768403
 1:52 pm on May 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Essentially this comes down to the same argument as caching web pages.

Google provides the <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="noarchive"> option for html but Google also caches pdf files, etc. and provides no means to prevent such caching.

If Google push their luck, eventually, enough people will get together to launch a class action and, almost certainly, Google will loose. I would imagine the figure for punitive damages could set a record for a non-health case.

Kaled.

2by4




msg:768404
 9:29 pm on May 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

hroth, andye, nice clarifications. Google has stepped way out of bounds on this one, and will soon learn the joys of legal actions caused by corporate arrogance, like their big brother MS has for years.

Further note to google: use your brains, apply common sense, just because you are collecting phds it doesn't mean you have thus aquired common sense, as this case very clearly shows. I would suggest to these bright boys that they download the pdf of the dmca [copyright.gov] and take a very close read of it, that document is what killed what was left of the dream google is trying to revive here in terms of trying to 'organize the world's information'.

And keep this one in mind too, I can't remember the exact thing google did last year, but it involved delivering single pages of some type of content, there was supposed to be a restriction on it, 1 page or something, it took a guy a day or two to crack that restriction, and he was able to download the full work. This failure on google's part is exactly what the publishing industry has every right to not only fear, but to expect.

And this is not to even get into how difficult it is to digitize books, I talked to a woman in a major university whose job it was to do just that, and it's not trivial, it's extremely labor intensive.

mickeymart




msg:768405
 9:52 pm on May 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

People are getting confused what public domain is. Content may be public domain, but the MEDIUM is subject to copyright when it is created.

Something may have been written in 1640, but if it was printed in 1991, that physical book is subject to copyright, and can't be digitally reproduced as is.

Another example... a composition may be hundreds of years old, but if someone creates a MIDI file based on the composition, that MIDI file is subject to copyright protection.

Scarecrow




msg:768406
 12:37 am on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google required the libraries to sign nondisclosure agreements. This means that important details of these agreements are still secret. Such details could reveal Google's intentions about monetization of their investment. For example, if the University of Michigan decided, after getting their copies of Google's files for millions of books, to make a donation of the whole pile to Yahoo, would they, under the agreement, have the freedom to do this?

Of the four U.S. libraries involved, only the University of Michigan, as far as I know, is affected by a state freedom of information requirement. They have a freedom of information office [umich.edu]. Anyone can send an email request. I expect it will be denied because of the confidentiality agreement, but then you can appeal to the UM president. At least it will encourage discussion of the issues.

BigDave




msg:768407
 4:58 am on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has stepped way out of bounds on this one, and will soon learn the joys of legal actions caused by corporate arrogance, like their big brother MS has for years.

Really? You have seen their end product and know this for a fact?

I have been reading for years about how this feature or that feature is copyright infringement. But I haven't seen any suits from serious litigants.

I'm not saying that they are not stepping over the line. What I am saying is that I absolutely convinced that you have no way of knowing this.

I would suggest to these bright boys that they download the pdf of the dmca and take a very close read of it, that document is what killed what was left of the dream google is trying to revive here in terms of trying to 'organize the world's information'.

I suspect that they know it very well. It is the piece of legislation that actually gives them many of the rights that they have.

And don't just read the DMCA, read all of title 17. It all applies. Pay special attention to anyplace that mentions archive or library.

And keep this one in mind too, I can't remember the exact thing google did last year, but it involved delivering single pages of some type of content, there was supposed to be a restriction on it, 1 page or something, it took a guy a day or two to crack that restriction, and he was able to download the full work. This failure on google's part is exactly what the publishing industry has every right to not only fear, but to expect.

Not only did you not remember the right incedent, you didn't remember the right company. Try Amazon.

Anyway, what *might* happen is not the same as it will happen.

Something may have been written in 1640, but if it was printed in 1991, that physical book is subject to copyright, and can't be digitally reproduced as is.

Absolutely incorrect in the United States. There is NOT typographic copyright in the US.

PeterD




msg:768408
 5:23 am on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

And keep this one in mind too, I can't remember the exact thing google did last year, but it involved delivering single pages of some type of content, there was supposed to be a restriction on it, 1 page or something, it took a guy a day or two to crack that restriction, and he was able to download the full work. This failure on google's part is exactly what the publishing industry has every right to not only fear, but to expect.

Not only did you not remember the right incedent, you didn't remember the right company. Try Amazon.

It may have happened with Amazon, but it definitely happened with Google Print. Specifically, it was the Publisher Program (the part of Google Print where G cooperates with publishers). There was an article on a "well-known discussion site" in which the guy gave a pretty detailed description on how he defeated G's cookie/URL scheme, which allowed him to download complete in-copyright works.

This is part of the reason that some British publishers were warning about the "napsterization" of book publishing.

vincevincevince




msg:768409
 9:49 am on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

We see this time and time again.

Making money and being good cannot coexist on any large scale.

If Google were aiming to make books available to those who couldn't get hold of them, and so they scanned them and served their content for non-commerical use, that would be absolutely fine with me and I suspect most people.

But Google want to serve adverts on them, from which Google gets a cut. That makes it infringing copyright with an aim of making personal profit. Perhaps if 100% of the income less costs from ads on the program went to the publisher / author, that would be a nice gesture.

Copyright infringement on a massive scale is something which is here to stay. I just hope it is a cause which can be taken up by a goverment department who give themselves some form of special exemption to do the work. SOmeone who doesn't have to make a profit.

andye




msg:768410
 12:25 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

it definitely happened with Google Print

Full details are in the article by Greg Duffy, "Hacking Google Print" (8th March 2005) on Kuro5hin.

It's an automated attack based on fiddling about with the cookies that G uses to track how many pages you've seen and when you've seen them. Google sent the guy a t-shirt, a pen, and a legal letter (he'd been hoping for a job).

Best, a.

Tapolyai




msg:768411
 2:14 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmmm....

As an old boss of mine said as he was letting me go...

I care. I really do. Just not that much.

Fine. Google is the Big Bertha of copyright violations.

What would be the cost-to-benefit ratio for me to attack Google? What is the % change I would profit?

What would be the cost-to-benefit ration for me to take a ride on the tail of this and somehow profit? What is the % chance I would profit?

And don't give me the "it's my right. Justice for all" blah blah blah horse dung.

TypicalSurfer




msg:768412
 3:22 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I remember Napster being thought of as unstoppable, the tech was thought to override rights and laws, and the always flawed logic of "everybody is doing it" and the even more laughable "its good for the user".

If G$ is stepping on toes they will get a slap, in time.

HRoth




msg:768413
 9:19 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"And don't give me the "it's my right. Justice for all" blah blah blah horse dung."

Theft as a way of doing business encourages all businesses to become scofflaws, and that means no protection for *your* business either. So if you lack ethics, have the sense to be pragmatic.

2by4




msg:768414
 10:16 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Not only did you not remember the right incedent, you didn't remember the right company. Try Amazon."

BigDave, you were on a roll, going strong, problem is as others noted I did remember the right company, and the right incident, just didn't feel like looking up that factoid. If you could have just restrained your typing fingers a bit on this your other points would have seemed more convincing.

I looked at the hack, tried it, read about it quite a bit, and it worked fine, totally defeated google's system. Since you don't seem to be very up on google [otherwise you would, like other posters, have known what I was referring to, and that it referred to google] I guess I won't need to pay that much attention to other points you might make, good as they may be.

Google issued some spin about how it wasn't really a hack etc. All vaguely familiar, like desktop search being 'secure', a point strongly disagreed with by corporate security admins.

Make sure you know what's in my head before you make statements like that, it discredits what would otherwise have been some decent points made by you. We all choose what fantasies to believe, if you like to believe in the infalibility of google, don't let me stop you.

BigDave




msg:768415
 11:01 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you could have just restrained your typing fingers a bit on this your other points would have seemed more convincing.

My, that is special logic. While it is true that I was unaware of that flaw in google print, I don't see how that diminishes my other points.

As for the crack, does it still work?

If someone runs that crack, who is violating the publisher's copyright? You might want to reference the DMCA that you yourself brought up earlier.

Did the publishers sue? Did they win? Who did they sue? did they even send a DMCA takedown notice?

Contrary to what you might think, I am not defending Google here. If you actually took the time to read and understand my posts, you might realize that. I do not think that they are on extremely firm legal footing here.

What they are doing is definitely walking the line, and they certainly might even be stepping over that line. The same goes for serving up cached pages, and even offering framed content in google images. I think it is quite conceivably possible for someone to take them to court and win a pretty significant judgement against them.

But all too often I read here about how blatant Google's copyright infringement is, by webmasters that have never read title 17, nor have they read even the most significant copyright decisions. Hell, most of them scoff as reading the plain english faq at copyright.gov. If they are so sure, why don't they sue. It's a sure thing, isn't it?

Quite simply stated, Google knows they are walking a fine line, they have done their legal homework, and they are taking a calculated risk.

When you can get a reputable IP attorney to take a copyright case on a contingency basis against Google, then I will start to believe that the outcome is a slam-dunk.

2by4




msg:768416
 1:10 am on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"As for the crack, does it still work?"

No idea, it was just an interesting event in the web sphere that showed Google's lack of skill in protecting their methods, and a certain sloppiness in how they created that particular method. Not interesting enough to follow though. But reminiscent of MS's security problems, they also like to assume that they are so good, with such a good legal department, that they can't possibly get caught, I mean, can't possibly do something that trancends the boundaries of the law. Seems to me the fine line you are mentioning is nothing more than another example of another big company with a similar attitude about their position in the market, and what they can do just because they are who they are.

Make it simpler to grasp. Let's pick a library, then walk in and ask if we can digitize all the books in their stacks. We will promise on our mother's graves that we will never do anything with those copies that might violate their rights. First problem of course is that the library doesn't own any of the rights. Second problem is they'd kick us out. Now substitute 'us' for 'google' and you can see the problem, well, maybe you can see it, maybe you can't.

Those rights, last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong here, are held by the publishers. Oddly enough, the very same group of publishers whose lawyers seem to be somewhat uncomfortable with this idea. I would suggest you get in touch with them and let them know their fears are unfounded, that should make them feel better, no?

Personally, I don't have nearly the faith you do in Google's ability to create seamless legal situations in terms of creating copies of copywrited works and distributing them, in any shape or form.

I don't care about the caching issue, mainly because that involves content that was put on the web at some point, and anyone should know that when you put anything on the web, in any form, it will get snagged at some point by someone or some company, or that company's spiders. I see slurp accessing areas blocked by robots.txt even today, probably an error, but an error is all it takes. It is just a matter of time, however, for material that was put online in violation of copywrite, just takes someone focusing on that issue, a lawyer maybe tired of doing big class actions, with a nice bankroll, lots of time, MS was able to escape legal scrutiny for years.

For example, remember napster? If it hadn't been so darned successful, it might still be around today in that same form. It took the publishers a few years to start evolving methods to try to stop this particular form of copywrite violation, they're still working on it.

This is pretty much common sense, it's the same common sense I'm applying to the idea of digitizing copywrited work and assuming/hoping/praying/guessing that it never gets out to the wilds. Once a digitized book is out, it's out, like an mp3 released online.

BigDave




msg:768417
 7:46 am on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

You seem to have avoided the question about who infringed the copyrights by implementing the crack.

Where they got Napster was on contributory infringment. They built their network to help infringe. Google took steps to stop infringment, and someone went to the effort to get past their blocks.

So it is actually much more comparable to the maker of a photocopier with no automatic feed, than it is to Napster.

Make it simpler to grasp. Let's pick a library, then walk in and ask if we can digitize all the books in their stacks.

Cool. Most every library would love to have that happen, given their rights under Title 17 Chapter 1 section 108. Digital archiving of their collections is one of their biggest issues, and they are all fighting to get grants to do exactly that.

They are certainly within their rights to work with a company that will act as their agent in making and administering that digital archive.

I hear about it all the time when my fiance (a college reference librarian) comes home from work.

We will promise on our mother's graves that we will never do anything with those copies that might violate their rights.

It is actually not an issue for them what we do with our personal copies. Their concern is what they do with the official archival copies.

First problem of course is that the library doesn't own any of the rights.

Oh, you are very mistaken there. The copyright holder is the one with limited rights. Any of the rights not granted to the copyright holder, or specifically excluded from that copyright holder reside with the public, or in the case of the library and archive exclusions, those rights reside with the library or archive.

Second problem is they'd kick us out.

Really? Have you offered to digitize a library's collection for them? Hell, have you tried to get kicked out of a library by doing anything short of making an ass out of yourself? They are very welcoming places.

Now substitute 'us' for 'google' and you can see the problem, well, maybe you can see it, maybe you can't.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what you suggested. On the other hand, as I have said before, but you obviously missed, what google is doing *might* cross over that line.

Those rights, last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong here, are held by the publishers.

Okay, you are wrong.

As I suggested before, read ALL of title 17. The publishers do not have the right to stop legitimate archival copying.

Personally, I don't have nearly the faith you do in Google's ability to create seamless legal situations in terms of creating copies of copywrited works and distributing them, in any shape or form.

And where did I say that I had faith in their being able to create seamless legal situations.

I just have faith that they did their legal homework. What I do not have faith in is all the people that have never read Title 17, nor read any decisions in copyright cases, to declare without a shadow of a doubt that what google is doing is blatant infringement.

I'll tell you a secret. I have read most of the important copyright case decisions. There aren't any that compare to this. It has to be taken to court, and then it has to run tha gamut of the appeals process before we know if something like this is legal.

This is pretty much common sense,

I would suggest education instead. Most people seem to have seriously mistaken impressions about what copyright is.

Try reading some Lyman Patterson or at least the Stove v. Thomas or Suntrust Houghton-Mifflin (especially the History of Copyright sections) to get a better idea.

it's the same common sense I'm applying to the idea of digitizing copywrited work and assuming/hoping/praying/guessing that it never gets out to the wilds. Once a digitized book is out, it's out, like an mp3 released online.

In one way the same and in others totally different. Most people have no interest in reading a book online, so it just isn't going to spread like wildfire. And printing it out yourself will usually cost you almost as much or more than buying a dead tree copy.

The way that it is the sae is that the online copy will almost always increase the sales of good works while negatively impacting bad works.

I'm not saying that it is right to illegally distribute the works of others, but coming from the software industry, there is a 30 year history of companies making it to the top of their market because they are pirated the most. And I know an awful lot of musicians that will tell you the same thing if you are not on clear channel's approved playlist.

The access to snippets from the books in the search results will lead to far more sales than will be lost to those that are willing to go to the effort to download the whole thing.

kaled




msg:768418
 11:07 am on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I could mistaken, but I believe that the act of copying is a breach of copyright irrespective of whether any use is made of the material or not.

For instance, if I copy a DVD and lock it away in a cupboard and never watch it, I have still breached copyright by copying it.

If Google copy material wholesale without permission, they are breaching copyright, irrespective of the reasons. However, the punishment would be dependant on the use, as would be the likelihood of someone initiating legal action.

Kaled.

PeterD




msg:768419
 5:39 pm on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I could mistaken, but I believe that the act of copying is a breach of copyright irrespective of whether any use is made of the material or not.

It seems to me this is what it all hinges on. Is this true? Under what circumstances?

BigDave




msg:768420
 6:33 pm on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I could mistaken, but I believe that the act of copying is a breach of copyright irrespective of whether any use is made of the material or not.

Yes, you are wrong.

The grant of copyright does not allow you absolute control over any and all copying. It only allows you limited control over certain copying.

And the final use is a very important determining factor in whether or not it is an infringing use.

Please go read copyright.gov, 17 USC, or whatever the copyright laws are in your country.

I could swear I am pounding my head on a wall here, but I truely wish that everyone would go read the "A. History and Development of the Copyright Clause" section of the Suntrust v. Houghton-Miffin decision by the 11th Circuit Court. It is wonderfully and clearly written.

You can find that decision at [law.howard.edu...]

Remember, instead of being webmasters commenting about what their biased "common sense" tells them, this is judges that have been educated in the relevant laws and the purposes behind them.

Here are some key quotes:
To that end, copyright laws have been enacted achieve the three main goals: the promotion of learning, the protection of the public domain, and the granting of an exclusive right to the author.

Notice, the granting of the exclusive right is but one of the three goals. And generally considered by the courts the least important. It is the method that is used to support the first two reasons.

As supported by this statement:
Without the limited monopoly, authors would have little economic incentive to create and publish their work. Therefore, by providing this incentive, the copyright law promotes the public access to new ideas and concepts.

You might note that they go to great trouble to refer to limited monopoly in their writings. The reason is that copyright law only grants the holder limite rights.

And here is the part where they point out that most people don't have much of a grasp of what copyright really is:
This has an important impact on modern interpretation of copyright, as it emphasizes the distinction between ownership of the work, which an author does not possess, and ownership of the copyright, which an author enjoys for a limited time. In a society oriented toward property ownership, it is not surprising to find many that erroneously equate the work with the copyright in the work and conclude that if one owns the copyright, they must also own the work. However, the fallacy of that understanding is exposed by the simple fact that the work
continues to exist after the term of copyright associated with the work has expired. "The copyright is not a natural right inherent in authorship. If it were, the impact on market values would be irrelevant; any unauthorized taking would be obnoxious." Pierre Leval, Towards a Fair Use Standard, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1105,
1124 (1990).

And then they go on to cover the reasons for the fair use doctrine. Basically that without fair use, as created by the courts, and over 100 years late codified by congress, there would be no legal way for the copyright laws as writen to coexist with the first amendment.

Now, in addition to fair use rights, there are additional rights that are granted to libraries, archives and educationsl institutions.

In addition to that, the courts have recognised significant personal use rights, such as the first sale doctrine, the right to make backup copies of your software, etc.

Scarecrow




msg:768421
 8:45 pm on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

BigDave, your interpretation of the copyright law is curiously simplistic, to put it politely.

Section 107 of title 17, United States Code:

"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 education 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."

That's for copyrighted material and fair use. Several issues stand out: Does the copying threaten the commercial interests of the copyright holder? What is the scale of the copying? Is the copying being done by a nonprofit and for noncommercial purposes?

A library making digital copies of every copyrighted book in their collection for use only by their walk-in or card-holding patrons might be allowed by some judges.

A library making digital copies of every copyrighted book in their collection to put it on a high-bandwidth website, with machine translation available in two dozen languages, for use by everyone in the world, would not be allowed, even if the library isn't making a penny off of it.

Google making digital copies of every copyrighted book in someone's library, for the use by the whole world, would definitely not be excused because Google is not nonprofit.

Google making digital copies of public domain material, where every page of Shakespeare has the Google watermark on it, with ads for anti-depression pills running down the side of Hamlet's soliloquy, would not be excused. It might be allowed by courts in the U.S., but various countries, as well as libraries, would start blocking Google on the grounds that Google is a cultural blight, and a perverse representation of reality. So while it might be legal, it won't happen because it is objectionable.

BigDave, your interpretation is extremely narrow. Only someone who spends all day in the Googleplex, spinning out new approaches to, and justifications for megalomania, could compete with your views.

BigDave




msg:768422
 10:21 pm on May 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

BigDave, your interpretation of the copyright law is curiously simplistic, to put it politely.

You could go fertilize your garden with that statement.

Section 107 of title 17, United States Code:

So, I am talking about all of title 17, not just fair use, and you refer just to section 107, and my interpretation is simplistic?

As it was, I was responding to specific points made that were incorrect. Can you show me where I was wrong?

Can you show me where my reply to "the act of copying is a breach of copyright irrespective of whether any use is made of the material or not" was incorrect. The point that was made had nothing to do with google, it had to do with "the act of copying" always being infringement.

Your reply did not deal with any of my specific points. It just generalized that my view was simplistic.

That's for copyrighted material and fair use. Several issues stand out: Does the copying threaten the commercial interests of the copyright holder? What is the scale of the copying? Is the copying being done by a nonprofit and for noncommercial purposes?

Why, oh why, do publishers spend so much time on that commercial/non-profit part of the equation?

It is certainly important, but it it is not overriding. And it certainly does not override secion 108, because section 108 is not about fair use. Section 108 is about libraries and archives.

It was also totally brushed aside in the Supreme court ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. Granted that was a parody case, not an archiving case.

A library making digital copies of every copyrighted book in their collection for use only by their walk-in or card-holding patrons might be allowed by some judges.

And even more circuit judges, and the supremes tend to be very up to date on all of title 17, and they take protecting fair use and the other rights granted very seriously. I highly recommend that you read these decisions.

And section 108 makes it very clear that the libraries have many of these rights.

A library making digital copies of every copyrighted book in their collection to put it on a high-bandwidth website, with machine translation available in two dozen languages, for use by everyone in the world, would not be allowed, even if the library isn't making a penny off of it.

Read section 108. Read what they can do. It actually sounds like what Google is trying to do is legal for the libraries to do. The question is whether it is legal for Google to do.

Now it is important to remember that Google is NOT attempting to make entire copyrighted works available to every individual. The library and archives section allow some uses of complete works, but not to the public for copying. They allow copying of limited sections (i.e. snippets)

Mind you, section 108 is not about fair use. Fair use is section 107, which is a different matter. Though there are definitely fair use aspects to what google is doing as well, there is amost no way that what they are doing would be permitted under just section 107.

The thing is that google will get to present EVERY defense under title 17, and if ANY of them is good enough, then what they are doing is legal.

Google making digital copies of every copyrighted book in someone's library, for the use by the whole world, would definitely not be excused because Google is not nonprofit.

Now this bit has been made fairly clear in copyright cases. Being nonprofit educational institution is a huge advantage in these cases. Being a commercial enterprise on the other hand is not a huge disadvantage, as long as the use is not directly commercial.

If you go and look at Google's "cached" copies of pages, you will notice that they serve no adds, provide attribution, and very much limit any credit to themselves.

They do that so that they are greatly limiting their own exposure under the first test. I'm still not convinced that it is completely legal, but I understand their position.

BigDave, your interpretation is extremely narrow. Only someone who spends all day in the Googleplex, spinning out new approaches to, and justifications for megalomania, could compete with your views.

Answer a couple of questions for me.

Have you read all of title 17? I have.

Have you read the decisions on any of the landmark copyright cases? Which ones? I've read just about all of them.

Have you read any of the scholarly works on copyright? Especially those used in the classes used to teach the current crop of lawyers and judges? I'm still working my way through them.

To finish this off, I want to point out, yet again, that I am not saying that what google is doing is legal. Is quite possibly does infringe copyrights. Would you all stop saying that I am defending it.

What I am saying is that declaring it a slam-dunk is not as clear cut as a bunch of uninformed webmansters seem to think.

If you are going declare my position narrow, or state that I have actually been supporting google's position, I invite you to go back through my posts, and pay particular attention to what I have said. I think you will find that there is only one place where I support their position with a "I don't see a problem with this" statement and that was with regards to what they say in their FAQ.

So please don't argue with a version of my opinion that you have made up in your mind, and instead argue the specific points.

kaled




msg:768423
 11:07 am on May 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dave, you obviously know your stuff with respect to US copyright law (but there is a world outside the US). What would be the legal position (in your opinion) in the following situation?

1) I've written a maths paper on how one might make local folds in space to facilitate short-range teleportation.
2) The paper is available for download at a cost of $100.00
3) Six months later, Google caches the paper without seeking consent.
4) Google makes copies available from its cache, free of charge. I discover this six months later.
5) Because people think I must be mad or a con-artist, no one has bought a copy, therefore Google has not, apparently, harmed me financially.
6) Google has only served one copy of the whole paper - to a student in China.
7) I live in the UK.

Has Google broken copyright law?
What penalty might be applied if it were proven?

On reading the paper, the student realises he should have paid for it but decides not to bother.

Has the Chinese student broken copyright law?
If yes, how might it be proven and what what penalty is likely to apply?

Though Google has only served one whole copy of the paper, it has served snippets with adverts thousands of times and received, in total, $1000.00 in revenue.

Has Google broken copyright law?
What penalty might be applied if it were proven?

I decide to sue Google, and it transpires in court that my ex-wife hacked my website allowing Googlebot access to the paper.

Has my ex-wife broken copyright law?
What penalty might be applied if it were proven?

The student builds a teleport and sells the design for $10,000,000,000. If he had downloaded the paper legitimately, he would have had to agree to split this in half with me but since he downloaded it from Google he was not obliged to make such an agreement.

Now, we can see that Google has harmed me financially. Does this change your legal opinions above?

Kaled.

HRoth




msg:768424
 3:46 pm on May 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

"The copyright holder is the one with limited rights. Any of the rights not granted to the copyright holder, or specifically excluded from that copyright holder reside with the public, or in the case of the library and archive exclusions, those rights reside with the library or archive."

I don't believe this is quite correct. The copyright holder has a right to a limited monopoly, not a limited right. And if we are going to include fair use and libraries/archives in the discussion, then everyone has a limited right, but the author's right is least limited as long as s/he holds the copyright.

Also, I believe it is not correct to say that the publisher has the copyright. It is usually the author who holds the copyright and sells the publisher permission to publish the work X number of times in X venues.

BigDave




msg:768425
 4:29 pm on May 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't believe this is quite correct. The copyright holder has a right to a limited monopoly, not a limited right. And if we are going to include fair use and libraries/archives in the discussion, then everyone has a limited right, but the author's right is least limited as long as s/he holds the copyright.

You are of course correct that the copyright holder also has all the rights available to anyone else in that situation, but they do not gain those rights by the virtue of their copyright, they gain those by virtue of being part of the public that grants them the copyright.

But I will site with the justices and judges that almost always refer to copyright as a "limited right". Other terms might apply as well, but "limited right" is not incorrect.

Also, I believe it is not correct to say that the publisher has the copyright. It is usually the author who holds the copyright and sells the publisher permission to publish the work X number of times in X venues.

I'm not sure if you were directing this to me or to the list in general. I believe I mostly only used that term when responding to someone else's use of that term.

But as it is, this thread is about a group of publishers protesting copyright violations, so it is rather natural to be using that term.

Aside from that, while you would be correct for the common use of the word "publisher", technically the author is also a publisher.

From the OED:
1. One who publishes or makes something public; one who declares, announces, or proclaims publicly. Now rare.
2. One who publishes a book or literary work: a. One who as author, or esp. as editor, gives it to the public; ‘one who puts out a book into the world’

Acually the correct term would be "rights holder" since they can be transferred.

BigDave




msg:768426
 5:08 pm on May 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dave, you obviously know your stuff with respect to US copyright law (but there is a world outside the US). What would be the legal position (in your opinion) in the following situation?

Kaled, there might be a world outside the US, what does that have to do with the situation under discussion, which is strictly an issue of what is going on in the US?

A group of US libraries, working with a US corporation, copy materials grom mostly US publishers and authors, and a US group of publishers with a US based lawyer contacts the US corporation.

It sure aounds like it is the relevant law to at least start with.

As for that "following situation", you should have hired an IP lawyer who would have told you to get a patent which would have been much more important.

But on to your questions

Has Google broken copyright law?
What penalty might be applied if it were proven?

That depends. First there would be a battle over venue, and which country's copyright law will apply. Where You live has nothing to do with the appropriate venue, it is where the alleged infringement occurred.

As I have said earlier in this thread, I am not totally convinced by the legal arguments on either side on the cached content issue. And neither are any lawers that I have ever heard comment on it.

It would have to be brought to court and actually tried. The thing is, that no one seems to be willing to risk their own money to bring this to court, even though lots of people talk tough. It might be because their lawyers talk them out of it.

Has the Chinese student broken copyright law?
If yes, how might it be proven and what what penalty is likely to apply?

Almost certainly not, unless he redistributes it. And even if he did, it would be almost impossible to prosecute. You would have to figure out which country is the correct location to prosecute from, and somehow force that student to that country and keep them there for that civil trial.

Though Google has only served one whole copy of the paper, it has served snippets with adverts thousands of times and received, in total, $1000.00 in revenue.

Has Google broken copyright law?
What penalty might be applied if it were proven?

In the United States? Almost certainly not. I would also suspect not in the UK either.

I decide to sue Google, and it transpires in court that my ex-wife hacked my website allowing Googlebot access to the paper.

Has my ex-wife broken copyright law?
What penalty might be applied if it were proven?

Probably not, other than for any DMCA type anti-circumvention laws your country might have.

You should talk to whatever your UK version of a DA is about bringing her up on criminal charges for cracking your website, and sue her for damages of her actions.

But that isn't a copyright violation.

The student builds a teleport and sells the design for $10,000,000,000. If he had downloaded the paper legitimately, he would have had to agree to split this in half with me but since he downloaded it from Google he was not obliged to make such an agreement.

That "agreement" would have no weight in any law that I am aware of. The way you protect ideas is with patents. If you don't patent it, no click through license in the world will protect you.

Now, we can see that Google has harmed me financially. Does this change your legal opinions above?

What "legal opinions" is it supposed to change?

Since we are talking about the cached pages, here is what I said:

What they are doing is definitely walking the line, and they certainly might even be stepping over that line. The same goes for serving up cached pages, and even offering framed content in google images. I think it is quite conceivably possible for someone to take them to court and win a pretty significant judgement against them.

and

If you go and look at Google's "cached" copies of pages, you will notice that they serve no adds, provide attribution, and very much limit any credit to themselves.

They do that so that they are greatly limiting their own exposure under the first test. I'm still not convinced that it is completely legal, but I understand their position.

Was your little story supposed to convince me that cached pages are absolutely legal? Or that they are absolutely illegal?

My opinion is that someone will have to risk their own money to take google to court to decide the issue. That is what it was before, and what it still is.

Or were you attributing a opinion to me that I never voiced? That seems to be quite common in these copyright discussions when I point out the law and flaws in people's arguments.

If there is a statement of mine that you have problems with, please quote it to me and tell me why. Also look at what else I wrote to put it into context and actually think about it a little with an open mind first.

aleksl




msg:768427
 6:22 pm on Jun 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

BigDave: there might be a world outside the US, what does that have to do with the situation under discussion, which is strictly an issue of what is going on in the US?

A group of US libraries, working with a US corporation, copy materials grom mostly US publishers and authors

allow me to humbly disagree - it has EVERYTHING to do with the world, and in NO WAY this is "just a US issue". There are millions of books of non-US authors in the libraries, Shakespeare including

More discussion here:
[forums.searchenginewatch.com...]

whoisgregg




msg:768428
 8:33 pm on Jun 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

because Google is not nonprofit

Just to clarify, being organized as a non-profit corporation does NOT give you additional rights over a for-profit corporation.

If non-profits have been more successful in court cases, it's because of the nature of their activities -- not because they are 501(c)3.

Scarecrow




msg:768429
 2:56 am on Jun 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

The University of Michigan has posted their confidential agreement with Google. It's a 1.7 meg PDF image file [lib.umich.edu].

The University can only use its copies on its own website. Google can monetize its copies, but not impose a direct cost on access through their search services. They are free to license or sell their copies to their partners.

BigDave




msg:768430
 3:51 am on Jun 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gosh, how shocking! It seems after reading the contract, that they are taking copyrights far more seriously than lots of people seemed to assume.

Check sections 4.1 to 4.4.

Section 4.5.2 deals with how google will restrict how it serves content protected by copyright.

The only real question in my mind, is whether Google has a right to make complete copies of copyrighted works so that they can serve up the snippets.

It will be interesting to see if anyone takes them to court, and what the outcome might be.

This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved