Publishers sue Google over book search project

TalkBack 42 of 74:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Really

---The EFF is not winning against the RIAA. That has to tell you
something. Most of the judgements are going against them. Why
should I like them. They are for freedom of speech at all costs.
Some things in life are not for disclosure. They never stick up for
people of ID theft. You can tell about a entity by their track
record. You call it fortune telling, I call it common sense.---

Which cases have they lost against the RIAA? I can count at least
four that they've won:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/JibJab_v_Ludlow/
(technically, the last one is against a music publisher, not the
RIAA, but close enough).

I have never said that you should like them, but I have said that
you shouldn't ignore them, or simply dismiss their compelling
arguments because you don't like them. If you can poke holes
in their legal arguments, go for it, as you have yet to say
anything that disputes the EFF position paper on Google:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003992.php

---If you seek permission and get it in writing, they cannot sue
if you stick to the agreement. What google is doing is suprising
the authors on what is to be disclosed on contents. They have a
legal gripe about this. If Google just gave the title, author and a
synopsis in their own words, then they couldn't be sued. It
would be nice to know what is being disclosed and how much.
The authors would like to know also.---

If what you are doing is indeed fair use, then there is no need to
get any permission whatsoever. You can surprise anyone you
want. Sure, you can get sued, but you are not legally required to
get permission. The authors are not being surprised as to what
is disclosed as far as contents. Google has told them exactly
how things work--the entire text is scanned and in a search,
one or two sentences is shown. That seems pretty clear to me,
and hardly a surprise. Plus they've given authors a chance to opt
out if they don't like it (which they aren't legally required to do).

If Google just gave the title, author and a synopsis in their own
words, then they'd have a pretty piss poor search engine,
wouldn't they? The whole point of the tool is to get deep into
the books and let people know that subjects that might get
glossed over in a 3 sentence synopsis are indeed covered in that
book, so it's worth seeking out and buying. Would you use a
search engine that had only the title, author and a synopsis of
what's on a given web page? How useful would that be?

---There is a difference between what is copied and pasted as a
synopsis and what the reviewer says in their own words. You
cannot quote out of a book word for word without the authors
permission and use it for a business model to rake in ads. This
will be weighed in on the fair use doctrine.---

What is that difference? What's the difference between a
publisher's synopsis, the Amazon review and the Publisher's
Weekly review? They're all the same, at least in the eye of the
consumer.

And of course you can quote out of a book word for word
without the authors permission and use it for a business model
to rake in ads. How do you think the New York Times Book
Review works? They quote tons of material out of books, word
for word, and those reviews are the business model that is used
to sell ads. Should they be sued as well? What about movie
reviews that quote the movie? Newspapers use those to sell ads,
and not a single penny goes to the publisher or the author.

---No I am outlawing the datamining aspects of Google's search
into a copyrighted book. If MSN and Yahoo did it, which they
don't, then they must be told to stop. We don't hear about them
getting sued now do we.---

And you keep ignoring the heart of the matter. What is the
difference between a copyrighted webpage and a copyrighted
book? In the eyes of the law (and in particular, copyright law),
they are the exact same thing. MSN and Yahoo are indeed doing
the exact same thing, they're just not doing books. And
apparently, people who own copyright on websites are smarter
than book publishers, as they know that being found will lead to
more business.

---It is a sh*tty business model for the authors but great for
Google. Guess what, the authors IP rights come first before
Google will be allowed to make money off the ads. Same for P2P.
Great for the freeloaders but sh*tty for the artists or the ones
that did all the work.---

How is it a sh*tty business model for authors? They do nothing,
expend zero effort, and watch their royalties from book sales
increase. That sounds like a pretty damn good deal to me. Who
cares if someone else gets to make money as well, it's no skin
off the author's nose, as they're raking in extra bucks as well for
no effort.

And it's different than p2p in that the content of the book is not
given away. To use the content of the book, you still have to
purchase it. Unless your entire book can be experienced in two
sentences, that is...

Don't take my word for it, here are the latest authors to speak
out against these lawsuits:
http://www.meghannmarco.com/comment.php?comment.news.
349

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
• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now
• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now