| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1 2  ) || |
|Publishers Protest Google Library Project|
systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale
Publishers Protest Google Library Project
|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." |
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.
|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. |
If they've bought the books, etc. from a legit retail/wholesale source then this is debatable. If they simply copy a book from a library I cannot see much room for debate.
"The Last Days of Socrates"(Critias author: Plato)
<strong>Excuse me<strong> :is not free for sale to moneymakers ,this is a Greek Heritage free for non profit organisations and learning.
Do i have the right to publish a copy ebook of all works of Aristofanes or Thoukidides or the Bible and the New Testament and put adsense on it or any kind of marketing? if yes ,then unfortunately we are runing out of low ,morality and ethics on the www.
"The Last Days of Socrates"(Critias author: Plato) is not free for sale to moneymakers
Who are you to decide that for the rest of humanity?
I'm sure Plato would get a chuckle out of your attempt to restrict access to his works to people that you deem worthy... ;)
this is a Greek Heritage
This is world cultural heritage. It is available in exactly the same way for you, me, and everybody else.
Yes, the publishers vs. Google and the libraries will be interesting.
But the public domain material that Google is scanning won't make it into court because copyright law doesn't apply (as far as publishers are concerned).
But what if Google becomes a publisher? When you read the contract, it is clear that Google is claiming a copyright on its digitized files for the public domain material it scans. The copies that the University of Michigan gets are severely restricted in terms of what U of M is allowed to do with them. They can only use them on their website, they have to lock out bots, they have to take measures to prevent redistribution by third parties, and they have to work with Google to keep the files from the too much access by the public.
Google, on the other hand, is free to monetize these files if they don't impose a "direct cost," and they are free to license or sell their copies to partners.
This is a perpetual agreement that even applies to any successor of Google.
I don't dispute that Google can guard their digital files of public domain material, given that they went to the trouble and expense of digitizing them. What I'm saying is that by agreeing to these severe restrictions, the University, a public institution with a public mission, was not acting in the public interest. No, they cannot afford to digitize their own library. But acquiring all that out-of-print public domain material is more difficult than scanning it, which means U of M was in a fairly good bargaining position. They had a winning hand and they lost the poker game to Google.
I also think Google was bluffing about the mysterious technical innovation that was rumored back in December. This supposedly made the digitization project feasible, whereas before it was not feasible. John Wilkin at the U of M was spreading this stuff around in the press. I don't buy it. What Google is doing at the U of M may be about as innovative as PageRank was in 1998, but in retrospect that wasn't worth all the hype either.
|If they simply copy a book from a library I cannot see much room for debate. |
I see lots of room for debate. Again, you have to look past Fair Use and look at all the provisions of the copyright law and all the provisions of the contract.
Does Google, acting as an agent of the library, pick up some of that library's rights?
Can google itself qualify as a for-profit library?
Google can almost certainly count as an archive. As an archive, do they have the right to act as an archiving agent for the works in the university's library?
Do they have a right to take copyrighted works and keep them in a dark archive until such time as they enter the public domain?
|Do i have the right to publish a copy ebook of all works of Aristofanes or Thoukidides or the Bible and the New Testament and put adsense on it or any kind of marketing? if yes ,then unfortunately we are runing out of low ,morality and ethics on the www. |
The original works? Certainly you do. It is doing exactly the same thing as every dead tree publisher that prints and sells out of copyright works.
Recent translations on the other hand, receive copyright in their translation.Go ahead and put up the King James verion of the bible, but don't put up the RSV.
|I don't dispute that Google can guard their digital files of public domain material, given that they went to the trouble and expense of digitizing them. What I'm saying is that by agreeing to these severe restrictions, the University, a public institution with a public mission, was not acting in the public interest. No, they cannot afford to digitize their own library. But acquiring all that out-of-print public domain material is more difficult than scanning it, which means U of M was in a fairly good bargaining position. They had a winning hand and they lost the poker game to Google. |
I agree that they could have made a better deal for themselves, but it may not be as restricting as you are suggesting.
They are able, at some future point, to redigitize any part of their collection. In fact, as near as I can tell, they can print out what is in the google collection, rescan it, and be free of the restrictions.
I suspect that the university would have gone for much better terms if they were actually paying for the service. But as it is, even with the restrictions, they now have something of high value for minimum cost.
I can see why they signed.
|they can print out what is in the google collection, rescan it, and be free of the restrictions |
I think it would be easier to wait for a smarter library to cut a better deal with a more public-spirited corporation, and get new public-domain files by asking for them.
One problem that seems big, that I think was originally raised in the AAUP letter, is that Google is making scans of works under copyright, then trading those scans to the library in return for access and assistance. In legal terms, they're using scans as consideration in their contract with the uni libraries. And that would seem to severly undermine claims to fair use.
Fair use is important, but I think the publishers are also taking a hard look at Section 108. They're interested in stopping the libraries from providing material to Google for the purpose of making two copies -- one for Google and one for the library.
108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if-
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if-
(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if-
(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
And it goes on to elaborate the circumstances under which the library is not liable for the "unsupervised" use of reproduction equipment located on its premesis, and so on. I've quoted only about 20 percent of section 108.
The "fair use" comes into play once Google acquires the files. Right now the question is whether Google is legally acquiring the files. Either Google, or the library, or both, are violating section 108 in the opinion of some intellectual property experts.
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1 2  ) |