Publishers sue Google over book search project

TalkBack 38 of 74:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Copyright is copyright: ---People want their website indexed, not authors. But you are
grasping at straws. This will be also weighed in the decision.---

There's absolutely no difference under the law. Copyrighted text
is copyrighted text, whether it appears on the web or in a book.
How do you know that all website authors want their sites
indexed? How do you know that no authors want their books
indexed? And of course, it's irrelevant, because their permission
is not required. You don't need the copyright holder's
permission to make a card catalog in a library. You don't need
the copyright holder's permission to do a parody. You don't
need the copyright holder's permission to excerpt text for a
scholarly publication. Fair use grants these things and says
permission is not necessary.

---The Amazon is more out of context arguing. The synopsis
the author wants is on Amazon. Not whatever is datamined in
the book. They do not want the ending disclosed.---

You said, " Amazon only posts what the author wants posted." I
thoroughly disproved that, so it's not out of context. The
publisher does provide a synopsis, yet, if you actually look at an
Amazon page, you'll find lots and lots of information not
provided by the publisher. You'll find things like "Amazon
Reviews", which are written by Amazon. You'll find reviews from
Publisher's Weekly. You'll find reviews written by customers. All
of these things can contain whatever plot points or content
Amazon chooses. Once again, proving you wrong.

---They will not win this one.---

More fortune telling. What else does your crystal ball say? And
if they don't win this one, expect to see search engines banned.

---I see you still didn't read my link to the copyright office. Do
not read EFF's interpretation of it. They weigh in everything
when it comes to fair use. Maybe you should ask a copyright
attorney that wins cases.---

I read your link, and had seen that page before. Why can't I read
the EFF's interpretation? Why is it completely without merit--
and don't just "shoot the messenger" again, this time actually
put some thought into it and give actual reason why you think it
won't hold up.

And a copyright attorney that wins cases? How about these
guys:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/JibJab_v_Ludlow/

---Actually I am pro business. Anti-profits are the domain of
open source advocates such as yourself. I am against
corporations profitting from a free ride. They must earn their
money within the rules of the law with no gray areas.---

You are not pro-business, you are pro-restrictions. You don't
seem to want to let anybody do anything at all if it might upset
someone else. If you were pro-business, you'd be on Google's
side as it will result in a lot of business for Google, and a huge
windfall in profits from booksales for the publishers.

---Wrong. Amazon gets the authors synopsis and then offers
their own. Looking inside the book is with permission. They do
not do it on all books. I wonder why.---

Oops, looks like you've contradicted yourself. If Amazon is
writing their own synopsis, that's done without the permission
of the author or the publisher. We sell a large percentage of our
total sales through Amazon. Never once have they asked us if
they could write a synopsis. You also left off the Publisher's
Weekly review, which is again done without the author's
permission and you left out the reader reviews, again, all without
ever asking the author for permission. If you actually had
worked with Amazon, or even spent some time looking at what
information they display, you wouldn't even bother trying to
make this argument.

---Limited control is copyright. Once it is in the public domain,
then there is no control. What you are suggesting is inane.
Copyright gives the author control of what is disclosed in the
book. But you knew that is what I was arguing about. Size of the
for sale sign or the position on the shelf was a lot of
reaching.---

Copyright does not give the author any control whatsoever over
what is disclosed. What about movie critics who gave away the
surprise endings of "The Crying Game" or "The Sixth Sense". Did
copyright give the author of those movies the control to stop
movie reviewers from quoting dialogue or discussing scenes in
great depth? No, of course not. You seem to think of copyright
as some magical concept, something that gives ironclad control
over every single aspect of how the world interacts with your
content. That's not the way it works.

As for the placement in a store, those are huge factors in the
marketing of a book. If you don't understand that, then you
don't understand book marketing. And, since those things are
not under the control of authors, it is clear that authors do not
control every aspect of how their books are marketed.; Posted by: tic swayback Posted on: 10/20/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use