Posted on 04/18/2016 3:10:27 PM PDT by dware
By the way, if there is a method of “copying a book” in ten minutes, by Google or anyone else, I am unaware of it. No matter how magical modern technology is...
2 problems with your argument- the article mentioned nothing abotu out of print or out of copywrite except to say the books are ‘frequently’ out of copywrite- not ‘always’ second- the article didn’t mention anything about google only doing excerpts- it talked about putting the books on line
[[First, Google allows for you to find results that reference the book,]]
You’re talking about something different- their refences search engine, not their actual google books scanned site- you’ll see the list below to the google books scanned site-
[[ Almost all of the vast library of scanned books are written by people who have passed on.]]
Where do you get that info from? I see lots of books scanned there from recent years- and i see full books as well=- not excerpts
https://archive.org/details/googlebooks?&sort=-date&and[]=subject%3A%22American%20literature%22
[[So, yeah, what basically happened was an author wrote a book, the publisher stopped printing anymore, the author died, the book has been sitting on a musty shelf for going on 3 generations and then Google came through and gave the work new life by scanning it.]]
That’s not all that is going on and why the writers guild tried to stop google from doing this-
[[By the way, if there is a method of “copying a book” in ten minutes, by Google or anyone else, I am unaware of it. No matter how magical modern technology is...]]
50 scanners and the pages removed it wouldn’t take long to copy at all-
Also the article states that scanning and presenting a book online “doesn’t provide a “substitute” for the original work,” Not sure how they can clam that as i can simply read the book free instead of paying for a physical copy- Heck i can even take the digital content and print it out myself if wanted to-
don’t taze me bro
I do not think so as one who has frequently read and sometimes quoted some of such, for Google is only providing a small portion of such works, too often simply in little text boxes, which i think is for cases in which the publisher has not given some sort of permission for the work. This is not consistent so i am only surmising that Google has some lilited permission for some books. But which text you cannot copy, unless you transcribe it or do a screen shot and use OCR software.
Moreover, there is nothing said about Google charging to read these portions, and instead they actually foster sales by pointing readers to sites where they can buy the book (by which advertising is how Google gets some money). Amazon also enables readers to read some portions of books. Thus it is perhaps like giving customers samples of a cake, and then pointing them to where they can purchase the whole thing.
And as such, like letting customers read books in a brick and mortar store, Google books or the like is more likely to advertise and sell books rather than to hinder it, especially since the books are more likely to be cited, such as by Wikipedia.
And SCOTUS has ruled before that a small portion of copyrighted works can be used for reviews etc. FR itself depends on this, and could likely win against sites which forbid any copy/paste of their articles. Therefore, unless Google books is providing very substantial portions of books without permission to do so, and charging to read them, then it can hardly be charged with doing something illegal, esp when they make it hard to copy the text.
But YouTube likely abounds with illegal posting of videos, a few of which I likely have watched ("Thief in the night," etc), though i do want to be legal. Yet i suspect some authors implicitly sanction it as it is also likely to increase sales. It is the downloading of such that Google states it does does not sanction or enable, and takes down vids when notified of CR violations.
like i said in my previous post- whoel books are posted online at the site i linked to- and they aren’t just portions of books- and google is profitting by advertising etc-
[[And SCOTUS has ruled before that a small portion of copyrighted works can be used for reviews etc.]]
I think though in this case they are saying whole books can be scanned- not just portions-
[[unless Google books is providing very substantial portions of books without permission to do so,]]
I believe that is what they were doing because htis is why the writer’s guild was trying to stop them
But which are not Google books, and from what i have seen those in https://archive.org/ are in the public domain, usually being very old.
I think though in this case they are saying whole books can be scanned- not just portions-
But scanning such is one thing; making only a small portion of it is another. And there is much more to this than what either of us knew. Excerpts f rom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books
Books are provided either by publishers and authors, through the Google Books Partner Program, or by Google's library partners, through the Library Project.[2] Additionally, Google has partnered with a number of magazine publishers to digitize their archives.
By the end of 2008, Google had reportedly digitized over seven million books, of which only about one million were works in the public domain. Of the rest, one million were in copyright and in print, and five million were in copyright but out of print. In 2005, a group of authors and publishers brought a major class-action lawsuit against Google for infringement on the copyrighted works.
Other lawsuits followed the Authors Guild's lead. In 2006 a German lawsuit, previously filed, was withdrawn.[104] In June 2006, Hervé de la Martinière,[105] a French publisher known as La Martinière and Éditions du Seuil,[106] announced its intention to sue Google France.[107] In 2009, the Paris Civil Court awarded 300,000 EUR (approximately 430,000 USD) in damages and interest and ordered Google to pay 10,000 EUR a day until it removes the publisher's books from its database.[106][108] The court wrote, "Google violated author copyright laws by fully reproducing and making accessible" books that Seuil owns without its permission[106] and that Google "committed acts of breach of copyright, which are of harm to the publishers".[105] Google said it will appeal.[106] Syndicat National de l'Edition, which joined the lawsuit, said Google has scanned about 100,000 French works under copyright.[106]
The four access levels used on Google Books are:[13]
In response to criticism from groups such as the American Association of Publishers and the Authors Guild, Google announced an opt-out policy in August 2005, through which copyright owners could provide a list of titles that it did not want scanned, and Google would respect the request. Google also stated that it would not scan any in-copyright books between August and 1 November 2005, to provide the owners with the opportunity to decide which books to exclude from the Project. Thus, Google provides a copyright owner with three choices with respect to any work:[15]
October 2008: A settlement was reached between the publishing industry and Google after two years of negotiation. Google agreed to compensate authors and publishers in exchange for the right to make millions of books available to the public.[8][52]
March 2011: A federal judge rejects the settlement reached between the publishing industry and Google.[63]
November 2013: Ruling in Authors Guild v. Google, US District Judge Denny Chin sides with Google, citing fair use.[68] The authors said they would appeal.[69]
October 2015: The appeals court sided with Google, in declaring that Google did not violate copyright law.[70] According to the New York Times, Google has scanned more than 25 million books.[9]
April 2016: The US Supreme Court declined to hear the Authors Guild's appeal that means the lower court's decision stands, which means Google is allowed to scan library books and display snippets in search results without violating the law.[71]
Read the original filing by the Writer's Guild as well as the announcement by the Writer's Guild of a deal worked between Google and the Writer's Guild. Specifically in the lawsuit, the guild conceded the only full text works were ones outside of copyright protection, that the case was about what Google might do in the future, and that they themselves violated copyright by making full copies in their servers which could then be searched.
It was a lawsuit designed to lose, as both parties simply wanted the lawsuit there to have a court approved settlement which would force all authors to participate in the Writer's Guild settlement and act as their sole future agent for any and all monies derived from the works, especially after a considerable amount was taken for their own operations.
Unfortunately, since it included publishing rights in both electronic and physical format, it also violated three other agreements that the Guild had already made, and of course the other parties objected (as well as a number of authors who wanted nothing to do with the Writer's Guild) and the agreement was not approved and the case rolled on.
Everything Google has done is well within existing case law, none of the rulings changed any existing case law, and hence why SCOTUS simply upheld previous rulings. Next stop is Europe where the party begins again.
“Now the tthere suddenly is no such thing as a copyright?”
Sir, you are now living in a lawless, whorehouse country. Let us see how SCOTUS handles legalizing criminal trespassers this summer for proof of same)
Now be a dutiful little serf. Shut up, and pay your taxes....like GE does : )
thank you for explaining that more fully- I didn’t realize they ruled based on case law already on the books- It looks like perhaps the writers were screwed over by the writers guild by forcing all writers to participate in the action/suit-
But i don’t understand how existing case law made it ok to post full works online in the first place- against the wishes of the authors if they should object-
If this is truly the case, then websites really have no right objecting to people copying and pasting whole articles online
[[The 2013 decision found that the scanning of books (provided for that purpose by libraries) was not a violation of copyright, owing to its being “transformative” — in a technical sense. The books were not simply being resold or the like,]]
From the case article:
One could say that copying website material and posting elsewhere is ‘transformative’ - in a technical sense’ it would seem- if a link is provided to the original website, then one could say it is not ‘providing a substitute for the original work’ technically speaking (however, obviously, copying and pasting another’s work, and not giving credit, or claiming it as one’s own would violate the copyrite, and be guilty of plagiarism)
Meh- My not being a lawyer it’s hard to comment not knowing all the facts- It just seemed odd that case law would allow something like that- I understand that works no longer protected under copyrite could technically be posted (although I think there’s even some guidelines/restrictions htere too if I’m not mistaken) but actual copyrite material seems a bit odd-
They never published full works of any material covered by copyright. They did and do publish excerpts, which every court has said is well within fair use.
Full text works where the copyright has expired (and the formerly protected work became publicly owned) has been published, and will continue to be published by a wide variety of publishers.
If this is truly the case, then websites really have no right objecting to people copying and pasting whole articles online
Since those articles are protected by copyright for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years, they can not be reproduced for commercial purposes. The Internet Wayback machine, on archive.org, is a legal case waiting to happen as they do republish entire articles without excerpting - their best defense is they don't monetize it. But they are without a doubt the largest publisher of copyrighted works in the world (followed by Google through page caching.)
As for transformative - going from print to digital can be seen as a derivative work as it has transformed it into a new media. But that doesn't work for commercial use of publishing the entire text. (Lexus-Nexus pays quite a bit for the rights to republish full text work.) Scanning it and placing it into a referential database is transformative and of course the courts approved it.
If you read the article at the link i provided you will see the article states ‘frequently out of print and out of copywrite-” Indicating ‘not always’ out of print or copywrite- and like i said in earlier post- there is no mention about exerts, and there are indications that the issue is about whole books being published- I don’t see writers being upset over having an excerpt being published to showcase their writing style and writing abilities- but i do see them upset if their books are being copied word for word in whole-
The link was to public domain books, in fact, every document on that page is also part of the Internet Free Library project as well, and also published by individuals on Amazon’s Kindle and other platforms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.