Publishers sue Google over book search project

TalkBack 45 of 74:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You have some major misconceptions

---It is interesting you didn't mention the losses. How about the
new copyright laws they failed to have overturned.---

Those are harder to find, but if you have a list of cases where
they were specifically active, let me know. Regardless, they do
seem to have had many successes fighting the RIAA.

---The one thing I don't like is their dedication to have
everything shared on the internet. Privacy doesn't seem to be on
their radar.---

That's fine, and there are other groups dedicated to preserving
online privacy. Again, I don't expect you to like them or agree
with them, but ignore them at your own peril.

---And that is the thing. It isn't fair use because Google will
scan in the whole book and show you the highlights that
correspond to your search. The books contents have to be in
Google's cache. You will need permission to copy a whole book
so the cache can deliver the the sentences related to your
phrase. It isn't the one or two sentences delivered to the phrase
in the search.---

Major misconception #1--copyrighted books are somehow
different under the law from copyrighted websites. This is
exactly, exactly what Google does for websites. Why is one fair
use, but the other isn't? I have a personal website that can be
found on Google. At no time did I give Google permission to
spider and cache my website. And when you search for it,
Google will scan in the whole website and show you the
highlights that correspond to your search. How is this in any
way different from doing the same thing for a book? Under the
law, they are identical pieces of copyrighted text. What if you put
up a website, and I copy it, word for word, graphic for graphic
and put up my own version? Isn't this the same things as
bootlegging a book?

---I would buy a book if given a title, author and a synopsis but
I would go to different sources. Then I would check it out at a
bookstore if available. So, yes I would use a synopsis given by
different sources in their own words.---

Then you're going to miss out on a whole lot of books. Let's say
you want a book on widgets. The synopsis of a book says, "it
covers lots of different widgets". But you need a book that
covers widget 3C. How do you know if this book covers that
particular widget? What if the widget market is so small that
your local bookstore doesn't carry any books on widgets for you
to check out in person? The really great thing about Amazon
has been (for us, as publishers) a huge boost to our back
catalog. We do ******** science books, which aren't carried in
bookstores. Occasionally, if they are, they just carry the new
releases. But because of Amazon, people can now find our older
books and order them. If those same people could search the
content of our books for specific topics, sales would go up (and
this has been proven by an increase in sales after we signed up
with Amazon's "search inside the book" program). Google would
only help us sell more books.

---All of those publishing houses are OK. They are allowed to
divulge the contents of a book they are publishing in regard to
the contract that was signed with the author. Google doesn't.
Neither does other publishing houses that didn't sign on with
the author.---

Major misconception #2--Amazon is not a publshing house.
Publisher's Weekly is a magazine, again, not a publishing house.
They have signed no contract whatsoever with the author. They
have signed no contract whatsoever with the publisher. The
publisher sends them free review copies of books in hopes that
they will write an article about it and publicize it. There are no
strings attached, and no conditions.

---Those movie reviews are released by the studios and they are
called trailers. They are allowed to comment on them. But critics
cannot grab any section of movie or any length without
permission.---

Major misconception #3--reviewers have to ask permission to
review. This is completely untrue. Have you ever watched Siskel
and Ebert (or whoever it is now)? They show clips from the
movie, not just the trailers. Do they need permission to do this,
or does a book reviewer need permission to show excerpts from
a book? Let's go to your favorite website and see:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities
that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a
review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment;

Nope, no permission necessary, a reviewer can show whatever
they want, and the author and publisher can't do a damn thing
about it. Here, watch me:
Citizen Kane: Rosebud is his sled.
Can the estate of Orson Welles sue me for saying that?

You seem to think that authors have some mystical power over
their works after they're released. They don't. Most have signed
copyright over to their publisher, by the way.

---A copyright webpage will not sue you because they want to
be viewed. That is their intended design. An author wants to
show you what they want you to see. That is their intended
design and intended design is weighted in fair use.---

Major misconception #4--authors don't want their books to be
viewed. This one is really wacky. Why write a book that you
don't want anyone to read? If you only want to show people a
tiny fraction of your content, why did you include that content in
the first place? Here are some quotes from authors in the
articles I cited in the last posting:

"As a person who spends a large part of her day trying to get
people to read her book, I asked my publisher to include me in
Google Print.
They said no."

"Hell, if I was in charge of auctorial response to Google Print, I
would direct the use of Authors' Guild funds to purchase and
deliver a fruit basket every single day to the Google Print project
office (with a second basket to be delivered to Jeff Bezos for
Amazon's Look Inside the Book) by way of thanks for the
excellent work they are doing to promote books"

"fear of obscurity, not digital indexing, is what keeps most
authors awake at night."

"AUTHORS struggle, mostly in vain, against their fated obscurity.
According to Nielsen Bookscan, which tracks sales from major
booksellers, only 2 percent of the 1.2 million unique titles sold
in 2004 had sales of more than 5,000 copies."

"To the contrary where the last point is concerned, in fact. Many
a frustrated author can tell you that being published is just the
start of the dream of making it as a writer: If your publisher
doesn't back your book, or it doesn't quickly connect with the
reading public, it'll soon fall out of print and very few people will
ever hear of you or your ideas again. That's exactly the
frustration that's driven many writers to the Web, where anyone
can publish and be guaranteed a world-wide audience for his or
her thoughts."

---Has nothing to do with money. It has to do with control on
what is to be revealed to the public. No control, no profits. In
spite of what you say. Control is more important than profits.
Ask any businessman or woman.---

What good is control to a business without profits? I can write a
book and then tell no one about it, let no one read it. There, I
now have perfect control over my book, which is much more
important than profits. Or, I could release the book, lose some
control over it, and actually make some money. Which is more
important to me as an author?

---No but its entire content is in the cache to match the search
phrase. They should just copy Amazon's business model. That
would be legal.---

The Author's Guild has been battling with Amazon as well, so in
their eyes, what Amazon does is not legal. They also have a
serious beef with Amazon selling used books, which they want
to ban.

But this goes back to misconception #1--a search engine must
cache all of the text of a copyrighted website in order to be
useful. How is this any different under the law? And don't go
back to the bogus argument that web writers want to be read
and authors want their books to remain a secret.

Ban Google Print, and you ban Google, Yahoo and MSN Search.

---If they all agree on this it could also mean that all three news
rooms have a vested interest if this goes thru. Just Google up
your next review of a book. Look at this from the author's
perspective. Good authors don't even need Google.---

What is that vested interest, one that can get a liberal rag like
the NY Times, a ******** conservative business paper like the
WSJ, and the mouthpiece for the RIAA/MPAA (LA Times) all in
agreement? Perhaps it's because authors are writing the articles
and authors want to be read, and they know that Google Print
will help their work be found?

As for good authors not needing Google, I'll repeat those stats
from above:
According to Nielsen Bookscan, which tracks sales from major
booksellers, only 2 percent of the 1.2 million unique titles sold
in 2004 had sales of more than 5,000 copies.

So only 2% of authors are any good? Are you sure of that?
Maybe there are some good authors out there you haven't heard
of. Sure would be nice to have a tool that you could use to find
them.

Posted by: tic swayback   Posted on: 10/21/05 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

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now