Google Print

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Ryan <john () joeinc tv>
Date: October 25, 2005 1:45:16 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, lauren () vortex org
Cc: brewster () archive org
Subject: RE: [IP] Digest 1.820 for ip


I was very pleased to see LW's cogent arguments (whose note to IP  
follows my
signature). It is clear that, within some (hopefully small) number of  
years
many texts in many languages will be available to all who have access  
to the
Internet. A far, far better situation in abstract than we have ever had.

I have been struck that Google's arguments - particularly as Eric  
Schmidt
argued in the WSJ recently - can be reduced in utmost to 'yes, it's  
illegal,
but that's because the law is an ass. Trust us, it'll be good for  
you.' I'm
not at all convinced about the latter.

Let us take two thought experiments:

In the first experiment, we look at the Internet Archive. Here, Brewster
(copied on this note) is hosting both actual out-of-copyright media and,
with more difficulty, orphan media (still in copyright, but where the
copyrights appear to belong to non-existent entities - examples include
publishing companies that are out of business or deceased and perhaps
intestate authors). If we, now, read through Google's press releases and
replace the word Google with the words Internet Archive, and 'all books'
with the restricted set Brewster is (currently) archiving ... we'd  
have had
much less of a tempest, perhaps none at all (except, perhaps, from some
shareholders wondering why Google was messing around in old book shops).
This thought experiment perhaps indicates that current texts, and  
current
copyrights and their attendant revenues are the nexus of the issue.

For our second thought experiment, let us go back through the press  
releases
and replace Google with, o, Microsoft (or, if one prefers: the US  
Federal
Government). And for books, let us replace, say, all print media, or  
perhaps
music. We end up with Microsoft/the US Gov't saying we intend to copy  
all
media, put on our site, we (MSFT/Gov't) get the revenue associated  
with the
critical mass of traffic, but trust us, we'll all be better off.  
This, is
striking in its absurdity, not just because Microsoft has in recent  
years
won our collective mistrust, but because also if (as just one example)
MSN.com becomes the default location for Mother Jones magazine or the  
late,
great New York Times, or Charles Dickens' or Tom Clancy's collected  
works
... then it is MSFT that is getting the vast streams of advertising  
money,
not Ma Jones, or the NYT or various publishers of Dickens or Tom Clancy.
Nothing Google has said trumps publishers' and authors' financial  
interest
in their own media and their own works. Nor, particularly, is the  
issue of
lengthy copyright terms the most germane in this context. If Mother  
Jones,
or novelist Tom Clancy and his publishers, or anyone else invests in
developing a work and a medium, Google should have no claim that it is
acting in a public interest by republishing it, absent an explicit  
agreement
representing all rights.

John Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:ip () v2 listbox com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:03 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] Digest 1.820 for ip


----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Google Print, Satires, Choice, and Ethics
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:48:58 -0400



Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: October 24, 2005 4:46:04 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Google Print, Satires, Choice, and Ethics




Dave,

I apologize in advance for the length of this note, but it appears that
the intensity of rhetoric and reactions regarding Google Print for
Libraries (henceforth GPfL) is escalating rapidly.

I have a few comments on David Reed's (er, I mean "Anonymous'")
satirical "news story" -- then onward to the meat of the issues.
Perhaps there is an opportunity for a bit more clarity at this
juncture from all of us.

I personally avoid mischaracterizing or exaggerating the positions
or affiliations of actual persons in satirical pieces, and I always
label satire clearly as such.  The reasons for this have become
clear in the Internet-connected world.  It's all too easy for satire
to be misunderstood as reality, even when it has been appropriately
labeled, and particularly in excerpted forms.  Putting false quotes
into other people's mouths -- as is done to me in that piece -- is
especially inadvisable.

So, for example, the casual reader may not realize that in reality
I'd be hard-pressed to get the time of day from the American
Association of Publishers, and that I have absolutely no financial
stake in the GPfL controversy -- I've never even written a book, and
I'm certainly not a book publisher.  The overwhelming majority of my
writings, audio, broadcast, and other reports are gratis.  I have no
ongoing institutional support (one reason I've never had the
resources to author a book, though doing so has been not
infrequently suggested), and I live very much hand to mouth, unlike
those who profited greatly from the dot-com boom.  So, I do take a
bit of offense at the mischaracterizations.  I speak my opinions
case by case as I see the issues -- but I don't toe any particular
"party line" -- this is apparently upsetting to some observers.

For example, while I strongly support both open-source software
and fair use -- and have spoken out widely in support of both over
the years, that does not mean that I necessarily agree with every
possible interpretation or business plan associated with these
concepts.  If you buy a DVD you should be able to use that material
flexibly in your own home, and make backup copies as appropriate --
the same goes for digital TV broadcasts -- that's reasonable fair
use.  On the other hand, obtaining copyrighted DVDs off of
file-sharing services without paying for them is simply stealing.

Back to Google Print.  I've received a number of notes from
self-described "small" published authors regarding the GPfL
project.  Listening to the proponents of GPfL, you'd expect these
authors to be among the strongest supporters of the project.  But in
fact, the view I hear over and over again is that they feel that
Google wants to "steal" from them, and is treating them arrogantly.

There are several levels of concern.  One is Google's making
in-house copies of these authors' complete works without paying them
for the copies (which are obviously of value to Google internally
for R&D if nothing else, not to mention the profits from associated
ad displays that we assume will come later).  But there's also a
sense of indignation that Google didn't at least offer to share
those later related profits with the authors, or at a minimum ask
their permission ahead of time.

And there's also a real fear (which was the point of my own piece --
http://www.vortex.com/reality/2005-10-23 ) -- that if Google can make
and keep complete copies in this manner, what's to stop almost
anyone from extending Google's logic to their own situations.  These
authors emphasize that to them every single sale is important.  And
they feel that it should be *their* choice as to whether or not they
wish to avail themselves of the future sales "benefits" promised by
GPfL proponents.  They do not wish to be dragged along without a
choice and under the terms of someone else's schedule.

I believe that choice is at the heart of the matter.  Nobody likes
to feel that they've been "shanghaied" into a project against their
will.  Authors and publishers who wish to participate should of
course be able to -- and to reap those benefits if they appear.  But
authors should not be forced into this modality.

Various other cases and analogies have been brought into play in the
course of arguments about GPfL.  One is a case involving the use of
"thumbnail" photo images gathered from Web sites.  It is also
frequently noted that Web search engine "spiders" operate on an
opt-out basis without getting affirmative permission from sites
before doing their indexing.

I am unconvinced that these situations are truly analogous to the
GPfL issues.  In particular, the noteworthy aspect of Web sites is
that in general they are created with the explicit intention of
placing the associated material online for public access, usually
without payment being required.  It is a considerable leap from this
model to placing large percentages of copyrighted books online for
the first time, even in the form of short excerpts, and even if we
assume for the sake of the argument that it will be impractical to
programmatically "reassemble" much of the books via multiple queries.

Another way in which the analogy breaks down is that it usually is
exceedingly trivial for a Web site to "opt-out" of indexing, through
the simple use of a "robots.txt" file.  A single such file,
containing just a couple of short lines, can indicate that an entire
site wants to opt-out of either specific or even all indexes.  This
is in contrast to the GPfL opt-out requirements -- that appear to be
very labor-intensive with which to comply (the term "jump through
hoops" is frequently heard in this regard).

Having the entire corpus of copyrighted books online for research,
citation, or excerpts, would be an amazing achievement of great
value, both in commercial and noncommercial contexts.  Other
projects are moving in this direction with the affirmative permission
of the rights holders, and they are to be applauded.  However, I
believe that in their understandable enthusiasm for the concept of
getting book excerpts online, some proponents of GPfL are, perhaps
unintentionally, marginalizing what I consider to be some very
important ethical issues.

The "fairness" in "fair use" should cut both ways -- both for society
and for the creators of the works involved.  GPfL, as currently
constituted, has taken a fundamentally exciting and valuable idea,
and skewed it too far in one direction.  If an appropriate balance
can be achieved, with the rights of everyone involved fully and
honestly respected, Google Print for Libraries can yet become a
resource of major benefit -- not just to Google's bottom line, but
also to the world at large.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () eepi org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, EEPI
   - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com








-------------------------------------
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/