Interesting People mailing list archives
more on An author's dissent on Google Print
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:30:14 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Sid Karin <skarin () ucsd edu> Date: October 30, 2005 1:15:23 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on An author's dissent on Google Print Dave, I believe that this aspect of argument is exactly the basis for the (very similar) MP3.com case. They *bought* an extensive library of CDs and made them available on line only to users who could show that they had legitimate copy of their own. They *lost* in court, and *lost* on appeal in federal circuit court. It's my understanding that the reasoning was that they simply didn't have the right to make the digital copies. I've been surprised to see no reference to this precedent in any of the discussion to date, on IP and elsewhere. But then IANAL.... Cheers, ......Sid
Begin forwarded message: From: Tim O'Reilly <timoreilly () gmail com> Date: October 30, 2005 12:36:47 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on An author's dissent on Google Print Reply-To: tim () oreilly com On 10/30/05, David Pakman <david () dimensionalassociates com> wrote:This cannot be fair use because, among so many other reasons, the copieris a COMMERCIAL entity actually making money by selling advertising around the copied works.Dave, in response to this argument, it should be pointed out that the NewYork Review of Books or the NY Times book review section are also "COMMERCIAL entit[ies] actually making money by selling advertising around the copied works." Next time you read a book review (also intended to help sell books and help people to find them), not the extensive use of quotations from the book, surrounded on all sides by advertising.This argument, in short, is a complete canard. And it's the dirty littlesecret behind both the Author's Guild and AAP suits. I've talked to board members of both organizations, and while the talk is all about copyright principle, before long, a note of envy, which soon swells to an unmistakable whine, creeps in. Google is making so much money. They'll make even more money here. We ought to get a piece of it. And this despite the fact that the works that are causing most of the controversy are those in the "twilight zone" of publishing: the 60-odd percent of works that are neither in the public domain nor in active commercial use. No one's arguing about the public domain works, and many of the commercial works are being opted in -- and do in fact create an opportunity for an author or publisher to profit from Google's use of them. These numbers are based on a recent study by the Online Online Computer Library Center, which analyzed the books in the collections of the five libraries participating in the Google Print for Libraries project. By their figures, only about 20% of the 10.5 million unique titles in the collections of the five libraries working with Google are out of copyright, using the 1923 change in the copyright law as a dividing line before which you can assume books are out of copyright. Meanwhile, another 10-20% are under copyright, in print, and being commercially exploited. This is the realm of titles opted in by publishers to programs like Google Print or Amazon Search Inside the Book. That leaves 60-70% of all titles ever published in the twilight zone, out of print, but still under copyright. For many of these books, no one even knows any longer who owns the rights, and there is no commercial incentive to figure it out, making the publishers' request for "opt in" a fig leaf that will ultimately lead only to continued neglect. Google Print for Libraries brilliantly cuts the Gordian knot that keeps these works in obscurity, creating an economic incentive for publishers and authors to assert their rights in the event that readers rediscover their value. The OCLC study is at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/lavoie/09lavoie.html I've written some more about these numbers athttp://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/ oca_vs_google_print_library_pr.html________________________________________________________ Tim O'Reilly, CEO O'Reilly Media 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472 707-827-7150; fax 707-823-9746http://www.oreilly.com; http://radar.oreilly.com; http:// tim.oreilly.com------------------------------------- You are subscribed as skarin () ucsd edu To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sidney Karin, Ph.D., P.E. 858-534-5075 (voice) 858-822-5443 (fax)skarin () ucsd edu Professor,
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Director Emeritus San Diego Supercomputer Center University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0505 ------------------------------------- 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/
Current thread:
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)
- more on An author's dissent on Google Print David Farber (Oct 30)