Publishers sue Google over book search project

TalkBack 30 of 74:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Did you read that page yourself?

As I read it, Google falls perfectly under fair use, and here's a
good explanation of how so:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003992.php
As many have reported, the Authors Guild has filed a class-
action copyright infringement lawsuit [PDF] against Google in
the Southern District of New York. The dispute, as we've
mentioned before, involves Google Print.

I believe Google has a strong fair use defense here. Because a
fair use defense turns on a case-by-case analysis of the facts, it
is important to understand exactly what Google intends to do. In
the words of Jonathan Band:

Under the Print Library Project, Google plans to scan into its
search database materials from the libraries of Harvard,
Stanford, and Oxford Universities, the University of Michigan,
and the New York Public Library. In response to search queries,
users will be able to browse the full text of public domain
materials, but only a few sentences of text around the search
term in books still covered by copyright. This is a critical fact
that bears repeating: for books still under copyright users will be
able to see only a few sentences on either side of the search
term. Users will not see a few pages, as under the Publisher
Program, nor the full text, as for public domain works. Indeed, a
full page of the book is never seen for an in-copyright book
scanned as part of the Library Project unless a publisher decides
to transfer their book into their Publisher Program account, in
which case it would be under the agreement between Google
and the copyright holder.

Turning now to the traditional four fair use factors:
Nature of the Use: Favors Google. Although Google's use is
commercial, it is highly transformative. Google is effectively
scanning the books and turning them into the world's most
advanced card catalog. That makes Google a whole lot more like
Arriba Soft than MP3.com.

Nature of the Works: Favors Neither Side. The books will be a
mix of creative and factual, comprised of published works. The
works cited in the complaint include "The Fiery Trial: A Life of
Lincoln" (largely factual history) and "Just Think" (described
elsewhere as: "pictures, poems, words, and sayings for the
reader to ponder").

Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: Favors Google.
Google appears to be copying only as much as necessary (if you
are enabling full-text searching, you need the full text), and only
tiny snippets are made publicly accessible. Once again, Google
looks a lot more like Arriba Soft than MP3.com.

Effect of the Use on the Market: Favors Google. It is easy to see
how Google Print can stimulate demand for books that otherwise
would lay undiscovered in library stacks. On the other hand, it is
hard to imagine how it could hurt the market for the books --
getting a couple sentences surrounding a search term is unlikely
to serve as a replacement for the book. Copyright owners may
argue that they would prefer Google and other search engines
pay them for the privilege of creating a search mechanism for
their books. In other words, you've hurt my "licensing market"
because I could have charged you. Let's hope the court
recognizes that for the circular reasoning it is.

For a full analysis of the fair use issues here, read Jonathan
Band's excellent paper, The Google Print Library Project: A
Copyright Analysis [PDF].

---According to your definition, Google is farthest from fair use
as you can get. Since it isn't a parody and they didn't get
permission and they are for-profit and they are coping a lot of
the book, this is clearly not fair use. With Google around, no one
will have control over how their product is marketed. Copyright
gives you that control. Face it, they are caching the lion's share
of the book or the whole book.---

If you really feel this way, you must also think that all search
engines are in violation of the law. According to your definition,
Google/Yahoo/MSN Search are the farthest from fair use as you
can get. Since they aren't a parody and they didn't get
permission and they are for-profit and they are copying a lot of
the copyrighted website, this is clearly not fair use. With Google/
Yahoo/MSN Search around, no one will have control over how
their web product is marketed. Face it, they are caching the
lion's share of the copyrighted website or the wholewebsite.

So are you calling for a ban on search engines?

Posted by: tic swayback   Posted on: 10/20/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Server Consolidation and Containment With Virtual Infrastructure VMware To meet the constant demand to deploy, maintain and grow a broad array of ... Download Now