Publishers sue Google over book search project

TalkBack 36 of 74:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Now you're a fortune teller?

---Any search engine that posts copyright more than the
product's existence should be stopped. If you want to know
more, buy the book. Amazon only posts what the author wants
posted. It is an advertisement. Actually Google wants to go
further than other search engines. They are not the panacea you
think they are. No, GooglePrint is liable. Not the others.---

Wow. Have you ever used a search engine? Let's do a sample
search, for, potatoes are good.
Google gives you copyrighted text directly lifted from the site.
An example:
"Hi, - My brother and I have been arguing over this for a while
now. - He says
there is nothing wrong with grammar in saying their Mashed -
Potatoes is good ...":

Yahoo does the same:
"... Many people eat sweet potatoes only on Thanksgiving, and
that's ... The moist-fleshed potatoes are often called "yams," but
... the term "yams" acceptable when referring to sweet
potatoes ..."

MSN Search does the same:
"... maintain healthy connective tissue and heal wounds. The
many varieties of Washington potatoes are also good sources of
B vitamins, helping the body make healthy red blood cells and
amino acids. So ..."

So you firmly believe that MSN, Yahoo and Google (to name just
3) "need to be stopped"? So much for finding things on the web.

The only difference between this and what Google Print is doing
is that the snippet of copyrighted text is from a book instead of
a website. No difference at all under the law. Ban one, and you
ban them all.

Amazon does lots and lots of things that an author has never
asked for nor authorized. Sorry, you're wrong here, and have
clearly never dealt directly with Amazon. An example: you
know how when you look at a book, Amazon will often group it
with another book and offer you a deal if you buy both of them?
Publishers (and authors) have no control whatsoever over what
books are grouped with theirs. This has annoyed people at my
company frequently, as Amazon tends to group our books
together with our competitor's books. Another example is that
Amazon often has very negative reviews of books posted--is
that something the author wants?

---I am sure they consulted opportunistic lawyers that like a fat
paycheck. As for the EFF, they believe everything should be open
and their attornies are biased that way. So I consider the
source.---

I would assume that Google has lawyers on staff, so their
paychecks are hardly dependent upon what legal opinions they
give. And if you're considering the source, perhaps you should
consider their success in winning cases like this one.

---Google is doing this for megaprofits. That is going to be
weighed in more than anything. They are not doing this to be
archivers or restorers. There is no satire or a play. Just another
over-informative index. Once you become a large corporate
player, they will look at you differently.---

Google's profits are completely irrelevant to fair use. There is no
stipulation in fair use laws that you can't make a profit. They are
clearly being archivers and helping research--their motives
don't matter, nor does their profit--either it's fair use or it isn't.
Neither does their corporate status make any difference. It's
funny how you decry the EFF for having biases, yet you want the
law to be biased against corporations and against those seeking
profit. Perhaps you should look at yourself before declaring
others to be unfair.

---With the author's permission, Tic. Google doesn't do this. All
they have to do is what Amazon does. Google is nothing but
data miners.---

Again, some things the publisher (not the author, by the way)
has to agree to, like the "look inside the book". Other things
Amazon does on their own, with no permission sought and no
permission necessary.

---Copyright is to protect your work so the author has control
over how it is marketed. Without control their is no profit. That
is why copyright exists. Google is not protected under fair use
laws.---

No, no, no and no. Copyright law says nothing about marketing.
Copyright grants a limited monopoly. Limited. It does not
extend any where near as far as you seem to think it extends. A
publisher/author can not control every aspect of marketing.
They have no such right. They can not control which book
Barnes & Noble puts on an end cap or up by the register. They
can't control which book Borders prints the cover up as a big
poster, or features in their flier in the newspaper. I sell books
for a living. Believe me, no such conditions exist.

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
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now