Google Print

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Scott <johnmscott () mindspring com>
Date: November 3, 2005 8:57:25 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Google Print
Reply-To: johnmscott () mindspring com

This is getting out of hand... js

Snip - "Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is  
also crushing
creativity. "

Reining in Google
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20051102-093349-7482r.htm

By Pat Schroeder/Bob Barr
November 3, 2005

You're probably reading the byline above and wondering, "What could  
these two, from
opposite sides of the aisle in Congress, possibly have in common with  
each other?"
    The answer is when it comes to Google's Print Library Project we  
have much in
common: We're both authors and both believe intellectual property  
should actually
mean something.
    And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion  
company bent on
unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit and in turn  
denying publishers
and authors the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.
    Internet behemoth Google, plans to launch their Library project  
in November. It
plans to scan the entire contents of the Stanford, Harvard and  
University of Michigan
libraries and make what it calls "snippets" of the works available  
online, for free.
    The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be  
compensated, nor
has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A  
chapter? A whole book?
Meanwhile Google will gain a huge new revenue stream by selling ad  
space on library
search results. Selling ads on its search engine is how Google makes  
99 percent of
its billions.
    Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is also  
crushing
creativity. If publishers and authors have to spend all their time  
policing Google
for works they have already written, it is hard to create more. Our  
laws say if you
wish to copy someone's work, you must get their permission. Google  
wants to trash
that.
    Google's position essentially amounts to a license to steal, so  
long as it
returns the loot upon a formal request by their victims. This is  
precisely why
Google's argument has no basis in U.S. intellectual property law or  
jurisprudence.
Just because Google is huge, it should not be allowed to change the law.
    Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has argued the "fair  
use" provision
in copyright law allows Google to scan copyrighted books and put them  
on their Web
site without seeking permission. He compares this to someone at home  
taping a
television show and watching it later. Taped TV show are watched in  
millions of
households every night and is quite legal; rebroadcasting that show  
to make a buck is
not.
    Next time Dr. Schmidt watches television, he should keep his  
ears open for the
common disclaimer "rebroadcast of this program without the express  
written consent
of" the broadcaster is "prohibited." Google's plans are tantamount to  
the same thing,
profiting from someone else's work without permission. It isn't up to  
the broadcaster
to track down someone profiting from their work, why should it be up  
to publishers
and authors to do so?
    Authors may be the first targets in Google's drive to make the  
intellectual
property of others a cost-free inventory for delivery of its ad  
content, but we will
hardly be the last. Media companies, engineering firms, software  
designers,
architects, scientists, manufacturers, entertainers and professional  
services firms
all produce products that could easily be considered for "fair use"  
by Google.
    Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of  
course, it controls
the portal through which Internet user's access that content. It  
would completely
devalue everyone else's property and massively increase the value of  
its own.
    The company contends it will allow authors of copyrighted works  
to "opt-out" of
the free online library by notifying Google they don't want their  
works online. Most
authors and publishers do not know who bought their books. And have  
you ever tried to
get a live person on the phone at an Internet company?
    And so, five publishing companies on behalf of the entire  
publishing industry and
the Author's Guild have filed two major lawsuits against Google  
seeking to stop this
plan and deter such conduct in the future.
    Politically, we may not agree on much. But on this, we can both  
agree: These
lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual property. To see it  
any other way
is intellectually dishonest.

    Pat Schroeder is president of the Association of American  
Publishers and a former
member of Congress from Colorado. Bob Barr, a former member of the  
House Judiciary
Committee, is an author, newspaper columnist and analyst for CNN.

------------------------------------------------------------------
John Scott
<     jms3rd () gmail com      >
http://powdermonkey.blogs.com
Washington DC



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

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