File Sharing and Book Scanning

[engine]

Google's book scanning [webmasterworld.com] programs are causing controversy amongst many. I can also see how the concept is a good one, in bringing little known and treasured works to the wider audience.

However, one of the issues i'm wrestling with is the difference between file sharing and sharing scanned books?

As I see it, with file sharing, the problem occurs when there is no permission to distribute the material. With books, the key aspect is getting the permission to scan and share the material.

What's your view?

[mack]

I have always been concerned about Googles views on copyright. The analogy you used is fairly accurate. If you or I rip a song feom a CD and make it available online we are in the wrong, yet scanning a book and presenting it online is somehow different?

In both cases I see a copyright work, being converted into a different format and offered to the public.

In some cases Google do have permission, but I am very angry at how Google have turned the laws upside down. If you don't opt out you're opted in.

Mack.

[tangor]

File sharing does not have advertising attached to it and is generally under the table.

Permission is something else, done by contract/license. Google has changed the landscape SLIGHTLY as to "permission" (by assuming permission unless an author "opts out". Completely different ballgame since the orphan works, look it up, is the vast majority of what's out there where their bread and butter resides...and none of us who legally serve books (in my case all originals or public domain) can compete.

[motornature]

There's no difference between file sharing and sharing scanned books. You can scan all the books you want, but you will need the writer or publisher permission to share the content.

That's where there's a big difference between you, an individuel, and Google. A huge company like Google has more leverage to get permissions...

[Leosghost]

"permissions" normally have to come from the copyright holder ..GOOG has arrogance ..deep pockets ..and no ethics ..and a disregard for the law ..

[Syzygy]

Something like a book is either 'in copyright' or 'in the public domain'.

If Google scans the former without permission what's the problem? Take legal action. If the latter what's the problem? It's public domain.

Surely it's no different with file sharing?

Syzygy

[Leosghost]

If Google scans the former without permission what's the problem? Take legal action.

Copyright lawyers like to be paid up front ..especially against big companies like GOOG who will make cases drag out for years with their in house lawyers whom they pay anyway ..
So if you aren't really really rich ..( and thus cant afford tens or hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in upfront lawyer fees )..and the book is in copyright ..and you are the copyright holder and they scan without permission ..practically you can't do a damn thing ..and the thief wins by default ..

illegal filesharing is rarely if ever practised by huge companies with ranks of lawyers on retainer ..But mostly by individuals ..who when caught ..own up and pay damages ( because it's cheaper than paying a lawyer and still losing in court anyway ) ..Thats the difference ..

[Syzygy]

So if you aren't really really rich ..( and thus cant afford tens or hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in upfront lawyer fees )..and the book is in copyright ..and you are the copyright holder and they scan without permission ..practically you can't do a damn thing ..and the thief wins by default

Difficult for those individuals using self-publishing methods, but in almost any other instance the publishing house would be the one instigating legal action.

Syzygy

[purplecape]

There's a process whereby authors of "orphan works" can identify themselves and get whatever payments may be due to them. They are unlikely to have to litigate. And I don't believe that the "vast majority" of the books that Google scans will be categorized as orphan works--in most cases the copyright holder will be easily identifiable, through the original publisher.

There are aspects of what Google is doing that I don't like, but remember that the terms of their settlement are still being negotiated, and from where they are heading I don't see them coming out of this project with enormous profits.

It's easy to make striking rhetorical claims but from what I've read the reality is somewhat different.

[StoutFiles]

At some point these books will all need to be scanned anyways as we move away from paperbooks and towards cleaner electronic format. If Google makes a profit off this then whatever.

Also, does anyone here have proof that if you want your book removed from Google's database that it would take a court battle to do so? I highly doubt that.

[Leosghost]

Why should any author have to spend the time looking through GOOGS data base ..and then writing to them to prove ownership..

What isn't mine ..I dont take ..even if I dont know who the owner is .. "finders keepers" doesnt work in law ..why should GOOG get a "pass"

Added to which GOOG is trying to do a deal with US publishers ..which they are both trying to use to include by the back door works by non US authors ..and whom the US publishers do not and may have never represented ..

you cant sell or give away what aint yours ..

[purplecape]

leosghost, the point is that very few authors will actually have to do that--and for those who do, the process won't be that onerous.

And I'll say it again: what's going to happen *is not settled.*

Re your comment about non-US authors--that's interesting. Can you point to a source for more info.? I'd like to find out more about that.

[Leosghost]

I'll see tomorrow what I can dig out on that ..It was a while ago ( like 15 days or so at least that I last was looking at the European discussions about it ) ..Hopefully I was reading in English at the time :)) ( sometimes I forget which language I'm speaking in ..and get very blank looks from the other party to the converstaion :)..let alone which one I'm reading in )..if it wasn't in English ..

I'll give you the original text ( abridged ) and the gist ..

However ( in advance of that ) the basis of the discussion was that depending upon the individual laws of each European state ..copyright on certain categories of creative works ..exist for varying numbers of years ..sometimes more ..sometimes less than their equivalent in the USA ..
So for example if a literary work is protected vis a vis copyright for 75 years in country x ( European state ) ..and for 50 years in the USA ..then the USA system cannot give GOOG ( nor can the USA publisher of it give to GOOG ) the rights to claim it as out of copyright ..or orphan ..and thus scan it and slap their ads on it ..because the author or the copyright holder would lose 25 years of rights ( and it's for them to decide the dollar amount ..not GOOG ) and payment ..

simplified ;) yes ..I'll get back to the thread when I've assembled the pertinent articles ..may take awhile ..I read very fast ..and roam all over the place linguistically and otherwise :)

this reply took 3 hours to write ..I took a break ..I cooked dinner since I began it ..question of priorities :)

[purplecape]

Interesting. I can see how different terms of copyright could cause real problems. Thanks--look forward to more info.