RE: .Google, library books, Usenet, and copyright

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

_______________ Forward Header _______________
Subject:        RE: [IP] .Google, library books, Usenet, and copyright
Author: "Matthew T. Blackmon" <matthew () blackmon org>
Date:           14th December 2004 10:44:33 am

Professor,

I am concerned that Edward has not read Harvard's own comments on Google's
presentation of books as regards copyright...

<quote>
Will this include books still in copyright?
Google will be scanning books that are in as well as out of copyright from
the Harvard collections. Harvard-owned books in the public domain will be
available in the search results. Google may choose to display descriptive
catalog information for books that are still under copyright. We believe
that Google's treatment of in-copyright works is consistent with copyright
law. 
</quote>

<quote>
For books scanned at Harvard, what are the possible results of a Google
search?
The results of a search will vary depending on the copyright status of each
work.

For materials clearly in the public domain, the user will see the context in
which the search term occurs in the book, and will be able to view the
entire work online.

For materials that may be under copyright, Google will not display any text.

Over time, we expect to continue exploring with Google the possibility of
displaying brief snippets from copyrighted works showing the use of the
search term. The functionality of the Google system for book texts is likely
to evolve rapidly over the next several years.
</quote>

> From http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/041213faq.html

> From the above, it appears that point one has no basis. If simply showing a
description of the work, and presenting ads (or any commercial endeavor for
that matter) along side without the explicit copyright holder's permission
is contrary to copyright law, then practically anyone who sells books online
would also be in violation.

Furthermore, unless something has changed in the time I've been out of
college, I was able to fill out an online form and a nice person at my
library would gladly copy up-to 50 pages at a time from (practically) any
book I wanted from the library for a very reasonable $.05/page- debited
against my student ID, thank you very much.

Regards,
Matthew Blackmon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of
David Farber
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:21 AM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] .Google, library books, Usenet, and copyright



_______________ Forward Header _______________
Subject:        Re: [IP] .Google, library books, Usenet, and copyright
Author: Edward Hasbrouck <edward () hasbrouck org>
Date:           14th December 2004 7:43:41 am

Google's unauthorized for-profit electronic re-publication of "cached" 
copies of Web pages has always been copyright infringement.  (The copyright
holder can remove a work from the "cache", but such an "opt-out" 
provision doesn't satisfy the requirements of copyright law, whihc require
explicit "opt in" licensing for anything other than "fair use".)  

Google's new moves, however, greatly expand its copyright infringement:

(1) The New York Times reports that Google will sell ads which it will
display along with copies of library books.  Whatever "fair use" rights a
library may have to loan out a physical copy of a book, they clearly don't
extend to licensing commercial online publication.  Online publication that
generates ad revenue is clearly commercial online use, governed by the terms
of an electronic rights or subsidiary rights license, if any.  
In the absence of an explicit grnat of rights by author, it's copyright
infringement -- online book bootlegging -- for Google's profit.  

The "limitations" on use of this content will, according to the report, be
similar to those on Amazon.com's "Search Inside The Book" and "Google Print"
-- which are completely ineffectual, as I've discussed previously:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000054.html
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/cat_writing_and_publishing.html

(2) Since Usenet is a "store and forward" system, someone posting to Usenet
obviously gave some implict license for reproduction.  (Although what
license was implicit must be considered in the context of the time when the
posting was made, which for much of the content of the archives now held by
google long precedes any widespread knowledge of publicaly accessible or
commerical archives.) But posters to Usenet can't be presumed (either
legally or ethically) to have granted Google the right to publish their work
online for profit, create derivative works from it, or use it in latered
form or without attribution.

Google now displays ads (no portion of the revenue from which is shared with
the author of the Usenet content generating the ad revenue for google), and
denies the author control over how their work will be attributed.  Google is
creating a derivative work from the Usenet archive (a collective work to
which has never owned the copyright or sought a license, and whose authors
haven't been consulted  -- they may be able to opt out but aren't asked if
they want to opt it), posting it online without attribution, and gerating ad
revenue.  

This is copyright theft and for-profit online bootlegging by Google.




----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward () hasbrouck org>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as segoy () firesermon com To manage your subscription, go
to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/