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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.