Once Again, US DoJ Opposes Google Book Search 218
angry tapir and several other readers passed along the news that the US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers. This is a major blow to Google's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library. From the DoJ filing (PDF): "...the [Amended Settlement Agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation. As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright. Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity — Google."
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
The inevitable future where most if not all major (and likely minor) written works are available digitally.
The book industry is acting just like the music industry was in the early 2000's. Publishers should try to work with google instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Opt out is evil. It's evil when spammers do it and it's evil when google does it.
If I create a work and hold the copyright on that work, google has no right to provide copies of that work without my permission, and they cannot say, "you can opt out!". That's backwards according to long established law.
This applies to much of what google does - online books, news stories copied from the organizations which create them, and providing cached versions of web pages.
Copyright law does not magically no longer matter if you add "on the internet" to it.
Re:Opposes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with Google's aim: Prevent orphaned works from disappearing.
I disagree with the way they are trying to do it because it tramples all over the law to do so, -and- guarantees a monopoly while it's doing it. I think the DOJ is saying the same.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The right solution is to fix the brokenness of copyright law, not to write in a special exemption for a particular company.
For starters, we should have an orphan works provision, and the duration of copyright should be cut back down to reasonable levels.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no need for intellectual property anymore. Information is moving and changing to fast. If you lock something up in a patent or have it copyrighted derivative works are set back half a generation or more. Intellectual property laws need a full overhaul to address the change in technology and how information is spread. Personally I don't believe we need any intellectual property restrictions at all; I believe they do more harm than good. I believe that people could fully share all knowledge with each other and that there would still be a market for using that knowledge as a service or to produce a good. I think we should still cite the original creators of the knowledge, but that it should be free to all. We should give credit to the authors of knowledge, but at the same time they shouldn't be able to horde and monopolize knowledge.
I agree with the DOJ (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the government's position on this one. What started out as a lawsuit over the scanning of books (to make them searchable, which I consider fair use) has now become an attempt by Google to gain rights they wouldn't have enjoyed without a contract with copyright holders. The idea of a class action lawsuit is to compensate plaintiffs for an alleged wrong, not to grant defendants new rights that could otherwise only be obtained through contract or legislation. In my opinion, the Author's Guild has sold out the class and acted against its best interests. Indeed, the proposed settlement affects even those authors who aren't members of the Author's Guild and does so in a way that is not in their best interests.
If Google wants access to people's copyrighted works beyond what's allowed by the fair use doctrine, let them negotiate with authors or else let them petition the government for sensible laws on orphaned works. The courts are not the way to secure such broad rights as Google has attempted to do through its settlement with the Author's Guild.
Slashdot hypocrites (Score:0, Insightful)
This is Slashdot, IP is "phony" property - unless it's someone violating the GPL, then IP is a good thing.
Re:Opposes? (Score:2, Insightful)
If an author could opt-in for orphaned works, it would not be an orphaned work. I fail to see how requiring orphaned works to sit in the dark until copyright expires benefits anybody. The problem people have with this is that Google is attempting to use what is essentially an unused, untapped resource.
A work lost versus a work preserved... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that the copyright maximalists always have to resort to LYING to make a point?
Companies engage in this nonsense all the time. All anyone ever asks of them is that they
comply with the license as soon as someone steps up and tells them to. These companies
don't just use "orphan" works, they use works very well knowning that they are actively
maintained and "belong to someone else".
Yet the all the community at large ever asks of them is to come into compliance.
So from the GPL compliance point of view, there's nothing out of the ordinary with what Google's doing.
Even from the point of view of "orphaned" works, the only entity that ever has standing to persue a
GPL enforcement suit is the "actual owner" or author of the work. This is why the GPL asks for
assignment over to them. Otherwise, they may be no one around that can legally complain when a GPL
work is violated.
On the one hand, Google could end up stealing a few pennies from someone that
can't be bothered to keep their work available. On the other hand, Google is
ensuring that the relevant work is kept around.
What do friends and defenders of literature value more: a few pennies or the actual work?
You must change both sides of the equation (Score:5, Insightful)
> copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright
Which would be much more reasonable if copyright wasn't permanent (by any reasonable measure) now.
Copyright has been changed. As such, the rules governing it need to adjust to maintain the benefit of having it for society.
Re:google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:2, Insightful)
How would you feel if a library had to get permission from copyright holders before offering books? It seems to me that there are some circumstances where an opt-out makes more sense than an opt-in.
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
So the inevitable future is that Google gets certain rights which no one else has?
Say someone (be it Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, or some startup company) wants to become a competitor to Google books. He can't. He doesn't have the special rights Google would be given by this agreement. He would still have to hunt down every single copyright owner and get his permission for every single book, while Google can just publish it unless the copyright owner explicitly told them not to. That's a huge competitive advantage for Google, and it's an unfair and anti-competitive one.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do no evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Google is just abiding by it's Golden Rule:
Make all of the world's data publicly available and searchable.
Most people still haven't fully considered the implications of this; or just how single minded Google is going to be about this goal.
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is The Big Dance (Score:4, Insightful)
Substitute "Napster" for "Google" in your statement to see how wrong it is.
OK. Here it is.
The music industry should try to work with Napster instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
...you do realize that the music industry did everything in their power to get Napster shut down, and now sells music THROUGH Napster, yes?
So, if anything, substituting "Napster" for "Google" just makes my statement more right.
This the same DoJ (Score:4, Insightful)
These fuckers are not only corrupt, but shamelessly corrupt.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Orphaned works are most certainly not a fiction. As someone who regularly works with libraries, archives, & museums, I can say with some certainty that orphan works are huge problems for such entities, and copyright law as it's currently instantiated ensures that these works may disappear forever. Orphaned works are the majority of works in existence.
See the Copyright Office comments (and the US Copyright Office favors strong copyright laws) ...and so on.
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
See the Association of Research Libraries comments to the Copyright Office
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/lcacomment0305.pdf
See the Society of American Archivists Best Practices
http://www.archivists.org/standards/OWBP-V4.pdf
See some of Peter Hirtle's comments.
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/09/orphan-works-and-the-google-book-settlement.html
Orphaned works is a huge issue, and will become more of an issue as we attempt to work with and preserve digital works.
Re:who fucking cares about author's rights (Score:4, Insightful)
copyright law is BLOCKING the long tail and therefore blocking profit making for authors via ancillary means
So your argument boils down to this: There is money to be made, so fuck the rights of everyone involved and hand that gigantic wad of cash as an exclusive deal to one of the richest corporations in the world?
Here's one for you: Just because you want something, even if you want it badly, doesn't give you a right to it.
it gets to a point where copyright law is simply gets in the way of technological, social, and cultural progress
Bold words coming from a guy who hasn't figured out punctuation or capitalization. How's that cultural progress working for you?
Re:This is The Big Dance (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all the Napster of now and the Napster of old have nothing to do with each other other than the name. Secondly, why should Google be rewarded with exclusive rights to books, which the authors has to opt-out of Google getting, after blatantly ignoring other people's copyrights? This isn't even getting into the fact that not even all the authors that Google will be making money off of will get anything out of this.
Re:google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:2, Insightful)
How would you feel if a library had to get permission from copyright holders before offering books?
It would be ridiculous. But I don't see how this has any bearing on the matter at hand. Libraries aren't out there scanning copyrighted works and trying to sell ads to make profit off of them.
Re:google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop with the idiotic library analogies.
Libraries are not producing new copies of a work. They're purchasing a work and loaning out that work.
It is not remotely similar to what Google is doing. So please stop using library analogies in copyright arguments, it makes everyone just a little bit more stupid.
Re:Opposes? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your problem is orphaned works then there are two fair solutions I can see to fix the problems:
And he was actually serious, it seems (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty funny that the only reason why you could post that here, and the only reason I was able to read it, and check what was the context by searching in Google, is because, well, the copyright on it expired?
Re:A work lost versus a work preserved... (Score:3, Insightful)
It most certainly is yours. What isn't yours are the experiences of that people who listen to it, what importance the culture attaches to it, etc.
What's the difference between a chair that I build in my workshop, a photograph that I take or an essay that I write? (assuming that I build good chairs, take good pictures and write good essays) There is no difference. I created them, I own them. I may choose to sell them, give them away, lock them in my home unused or run them through a wood chipper. I fail to see what the huge debate over copyright is. If someone creates something, it should be up to them what to do with it. Period. What people want or what is good for society should have no bearing on it. If my neighbor has a bad back and only my chair is will help him, should I be forced to sell it to them or even give it to them after an arbitrary period of time of sitting in my living room unused? I think not. Should I want to help and be a good neighbor? Yes. Should the law enable him to just come take it because his need is greater? No.
I'm becoming increasingly concerned that individual's rights are being eroded. If I want to lock my works away I should be able to. I should have the right to be a douch bag.
Re:google content needs to be opt IN not opt OUT (Score:3, Insightful)
"No Copyright is Evil. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the ones and zeros on my computer in my house."
This is just rights according to you. The only reason I can't come in and take over your house (other than your weapons or fighting skills), is because there are laws that protect you.
I could always say that nobody has the right to tell me where I can live and property rights are EVIL, but wouldn't you be glad that the police wouldn't give a shit about my personal philosophy, and would just haul my ass to jail?
Re:A work lost versus a work preserved... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
a copyright holder shouldn't have to make themselves known to anyone, regardless of the reason.
Then why should I support laws that grant them a copyright at all, permit a copyright to continue existing, or allow the copyright holder to enjoy legal remedies such as money damages and injunctions?
Copyright is meant to serve the public interest, by incentivizing the creation and publication of works that otherwise would not be created and published, while encumbering the public with minimal (preferably no) restrictions as to those works, as measured in both the scope of the restrictions and their duration.
The public doesn't benefit by granting copyrights to authors who didn't require them, or by granting copyrights which are broader or last longer than are absolutely necessary, or where the benefit to the public of having a work created and published is less than the harm caused by the restrictions imposed on the public as to that work, even if the work would not have been created and published but for those restrictions.
It's impossible to read the mind of authors to determine whether a copyright would be necessary, but of anyone, authors are in the best position to make this judgment. If an author doesn't care about a copyright for a work, it probably isn't necessary to grant a copyright for that work. If an author does care about a copyright for a work, there's some chance it was necessary. Registration is how we have authors identify themselves so that we know who to grant copyrights to, and who not to. Frequently requiring renewals for short periods of time are also necessary so that as soon as an author loses interest in maintaining a copyright, the work can enter the public domain.
Registration and renewal are also useful for allowing third parties to know whether the work is copyrighted, if so, who to contact in order to license or purchase rights, and whether or not a person claiming to be the copyright holder actually is.
Re:Opposes? (Score:3, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.