more on An author's dissent on Google Print

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Cindy Cohn <cindy () eff org>
Date: October 30, 2005 1:55:01 AM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: [IP] more on An author's dissent on Google Print


Hi Dave,

I find this whole discussion bewildering, but in a different way than  
Julien.

Google isn't getting or giving free copies full of any of the works.   
It's making a copy, true, but only for an intermediate use.  Nobody  
will get to read that copy in full, as book reviewers do.

What Google is doing is figuring out how to update the card catalog  
for the digital age.  Google is making it possible for us to find  
books we want to buy (or borrow from the library, which isn't a crime  
just yet). Google is not letting us read books for free.  Not even  
close. Does anyone really think that someone who wanted to read Angle  
of Repose would instead use GooglePrint and decide that the snippet  
of Stegner was sufficient?

So what are the Authors Guild and the publishers complaining about?   
They're complaining that Google hasn't offered to share the profits  
that might accrue thanks to ads Google may someday display, or that  
are attributable to the marginal increase in general Google traffic.  
But on what basis do they claim entitlement to that brand new revenue  
stream?  The money is not based on the public copying the book --  
which is what copyright protects against -- it's based on the public  
FINDING the book in the first instance.

Now I suppose that the Authors Guild folks want to claim that they  
should get a share of any way of making money related to locating  
their works.  That's an interesting argument, but it's not a  
copyright claim. If copyright owners approached libraries and  
demanded a share of library funds because of the existence of the  
card catalog it would be difficult to stifle the giggles.  Yet isn't  
the same thing going on here? Stealing an analogy from law Prof Tim  
Wu, we have never given real property owners the right to "opt out"  
of any mechanism that helps people find their property -- maps.   
That's just not in the bundle of rights you get when you buy a home  
and preventing location tools is also not in the bundle of rights  
that come with copyright.

So Lauren's talk about "conscription" of authors has me puzzled.  
Copyright has never given authors the power to control the ways that  
people find books. Why should the fact that Google needs to make an  
intermediate copy in order to provide people with a book location  
service suddenly create a new right in authors to control whether and  
how we readers can easily find their works?

Cindy

********************************************************
Cindy Cohn                     ---- Cindy () eff org
Legal Director                     ---- www.eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 436-9333 x108
(415) 436-9993 (fax)



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