Google Subpoenas Microsoft & Yahoo 164
eldavojohn writes "Mercury News is running a story reporting that Google has filed subpoenas with Microsoft and Yahoo, in relation to their legal battles with publishers and authors. Google faces charges of massive copyright infringement surrounding its online book project. The company claims that Microsoft and Yahoo have taken the exact same steps in acquiring print-related rights. Google therefore wants to show that 'everyone is doing it.'" From the article: "McGraw-Hill Cos. and the Authors Guild, along with other publishers and authors, contend that a Google project to digitize the libraries of four major U.S. universities, as well as portions of the New York Public Library and Oxford University's libraries, ignores the rights of copyright holders in favor of Google's economic self-interest ... Is the library of the future going to be open? Or will it be controlled by a couple of big corporate players?"
man what a pain (Score:2, Funny)
Que: Your parents. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I guess that makes it OK. If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?
Re:Que: Your parents. (Score:5, Funny)
Only if google told me to
Re:Que: Your parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Common practice can become a part of law through judicial rulings, and in this case there is arguably a good reason for this database (seeing as how a database suh as this does not exist in the public realm, nor is there any real impetus to create one). Google would like the law to be interpreted for its intent, not necessarily the letter, and the believe they might have some footing.
Really, it's a non-issue, except there's gazillions of dollars of corporations involved, and those gazillions of dollars are usually fighting with one another.
Re:Que: Your parents. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Que: Your parents. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) is tenuous, but you could say that people who really care about the music will buy a legal copy instead of downloading it from some random server, which is likely to have a poorly-digitized version of it.
2) For every song I share, you can already find it on the Internet. If it takes you a couple more seconds of searching, that's irrelevant to the case.
3) Some studies have shown that people are more likely to buy an entire CD or whatever after listening to the song online. The a
Re:Que: Your parents. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if they get a pass with 'everyone else is doing it', do I get the same if I want do download some songs or MP3s? Can I just tell the **AA that 'everyone else is doing it', and that everyone is a lot higher number than the folks google is talking about.
Well, there is a lot wrong with your post. First, to my knowledge no one in the US has yet been sued for downloading songs, only uploading. Somehow, however, the MPAA has managed to get the term "downloading" into the public consciousness. I always look at these articles that say "downloading" and every time they then mention uploading in the actual case.
Next, "everyone doing something" speaks to part of one of the four fair use criteria for legal copying and republishing of works without a copyright holder's permission (effect upon the market). If you meet all these criteria (as Google seems to) then by all means you can tell the RIAA to shove it, although you may have to go to court to prove it. For example, if you download a song and burn part of it to CD and hand them out to your students as part of their homework on modern culture, you probably have met all the criteria for fair use. and whether the copyright holder likes it or not, they're going to lose if they take you to court.
Re: (Score:3)
Market effect is one of four nature of use factors that 17 USC 701 says are to be considered in determining fair use, but you don't have to "meet" all four. The l
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to simplify a bit, perhaps a bit too much. If you "meet all four" (your use is favorable in regard to them) then you're almost certainly in the clear. But yes, you're certainly right. The court could make up anything and declare a use to be unfair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Que: Your parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, actually there is a another legal angle that makes the "everybody else is doing it to" argument useful. If they can show something like selective enforcement (I don't know what the civil equivalent of this is, but I'm pretty sure that their is one) Then the suit would either need to be dropped or expanded to include MS, Yahoo and all the rest.
This would be to google's advantage because of the additional legal and political weight that the other players could bring to bear, and because it would make their opposition's case seem that much more absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
How? You're going to force copyright holders to sue more than one infringing party at once? Surely going after one case to get the precedent is the oldest one in the book?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good point. I'm not even going to pretend to know, much less understand the law concerning this. The truth is that IP law is a big complicated hairy mess. I do know that in a criminal trial selective enforcement is a valid defense, and the state would be forced to either drop the charges or bring them against everyone.
Even if
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The example I know of happens in the United States. It goes like this: A man owns a piece of land including a private beach. He does not fence, sign or otherwise make public the fact that it is private. His neighbours use the beach to bathe and launch boats off of regularly for several years. The man one day fences of
Re: (Score:2)
The term you're looking for is adverse possession [freeadvice.com], and the example
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think in the case of the beach access, where you aren't claiming to have acquired title to the land but merely a right to use the land that the holder of the title cannot prevent you from exercising, its actually easement by prescription [findlaw.com], not adverse possession, though the two are very similar.
Though, in any case, you are correct that there is no direct analog to the applicable real property law in copyright, so the analogy doesn't really work legally,
3 words: sixty million fileswappers (Score:2)
You'd think... and yet the RIAA gets away with this same tactic. Further, the judges help them along by allowing them to accuse 500 people with one subpoena filing.
I say this is the latest iteration of old people not keeping with the times, pissing off the younger generation until something gives.
wwI
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand how Google is somehow following the intent of the law. Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to the work's owner to control distribution (hence "copy" "right"). The idea is that they presumably may want to sell this work, thus making it profitable to produce more such works (which, presumably, is to the benefit of their fell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This behaviour boils down to three businesses wanting to make more money, ignoring decades or centuries of background to the copyright principle that is even recognised explicitly in the Constitution of the US, in statute law in many other jurisdictions, and under international treaties. I don't think "everyone's doing it" is going to hold a whole lot of weight with any sane court here, no matter how expensive the legal teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been able to use that line on my kid ever since the Turkish sheep incident [usatoday.com]. She just replies, "If the bodies are piled high enough to cushion my fall, then sure!"
Microsoft and Yahoo: soft, fluffy bodies?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that Turkish sheep had seen the South Park Cow Days [wikipedia.org] episode. Good for them!
Necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course.
Because if I didn't, "everyone" wouldn't have jumped off the cliff - violating the premise.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have your analogy wrong.
Here's the (rather strange) result of combining cliff-jumping with the current situation:
"If there were an established sort of cliff jumping that had been ruled legal in many long-standing rulings, and everyone else interpreted a new kind of cliff jumping as legally identical to that previous sort, would it be legal to engage in?"
The answer is: maybe. Caselaw is tricky, and there's always litigation risk, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
If my buddy and I violate someone's copyright, and the copyright holder sues me and not him, guess what? That's his or her decision. Their copyright does not somehow become "less valid" because of whom they take legal action against, or do not take such action against.
Now, for _trademarks_, it's a different story. But, clearly, scanning in entire books has far more to do with copyrights than trademarks, at least in this case.
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Informative)
All google wants is a fair chance at being able to scan those books that Yahoo and Microsoft have already gotten permission for. We are not talking about violating Copyrights.
Who knows. This may turn into a new form of discrimination where publishers can say "we dont like you so No you cant use my books....but we like this guy" Personally, I say if you make it open to one....you must make it open to all.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you have legal rights to property that you have paid/bartered/negotiated for or otherwise obtained, does not mean that I nor anyone else have a legal right to the same property.
This may turn into a new form of discrimination where publishers can say "we dont like you so No you cant use my books....but we like this guy" Personally, I say if you make it open to one..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is basically enough to give you an idea as to the contents style and potential usefulness of a particular book.
if you find something useful, then you can order it or perhaps request it from your local library maybe eventually some enterprising companys will let you download a pdf of the book letting you get on with reading it while waiti
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Informative)
I must have missed the bill where the "everyone is doing it" defense was made valid.
For copyright it does make a difference because the laws are based upon the effect of an action. Fair use allows people to copy works without the copyright holder's permission in certain instances. So far, the legal precedent pretty much is all in Google's favor, but because the effect of their action on the market is one of the four things considered for fair use, showing that the market in general is already doing this is an important legal point to shut down any arguments about that provision.
If my buddy and I violate someone's copyright, and the copyright holder sues me and not him, guess what? That's his or her decision.
You've got this all wrong. This is to determine if they are violating the copyright. An analogy is firing a gun. Sometimes it is target practice and legal and sometimes it is murder. Google copied works. Now the law is determining if that copying is illegal.
But, clearly, scanning in entire books has far more to do with copyrights than trademarks, at least in this case.
Yes, this is a copyright case, but not all copying is illegal and some is specifically designated as legal. For example, the courts have ruled that it is perfectly legal to copy every image you can find on the internet, and store those images, for the purpose of providing a thumbnail image of those images for profit. That is because what is being sold is meta-data about where you can find an image, not the images themselves. The courts have also ruled that making low quality copies of porn images and making them available is illegal, because the intent was for people to just look at the images and the effect upon the market was to deprive the copyright holders of business.
What Google is doing in almost every way is similar to the former. They copy an entire work, but only for the purpose of providing an excerpt and "selling" information about what books will be helpful. Now, if they were to image and post certain works, like dictionaries or recipe books, with excerpts that are all a person wants, they might be in trouble, except for the fact that in order to claim damages a copyright holder has to have notified the violator of the infringement, and Google already removes any book at the request of the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, you made a compelling argument that made sense to me. Before reading your post I was kind of on the "why the heck would google do something like this" side of the fence myself.
+1 Insightful...
Re: (Score:2)
So the RIAA would have to send out a notice "Stop sharing our songs" before they can sure someone for damages?
Not in all cases, but in many, cases especially when the copyright is in question, as in the case of really old books. The truth is, since Google provides a means by which anyone can opt out of their service, the burden of proof then shifts to the copyright holder to prove that they lost money. Since this is really hard to do, especially from a republished excerpt, there is no way any judge in hi
Re: (Score:2)
I think that telling other people that you are going to infringe and if it's to be stopped, the violated must "OPT OUT" is inane and insane. I am going to hit everyone, and if you want me not to, please opt out, otherwise I claim I have implicit consent to hit you? That's just crazy talk.
Except punching is not copyright infringement. A better analogy is another government enforced right, property ownership. If you go on someone else's land without permission, you may be trespassing. But if they don't opt
Re: (Score:2)
Danish copyright law allows quoting "according to good practice". Very vague. Maybe US law has something similar.
US law considers four criteria for fair use of a copyrighted work, without permission. One of them is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." This basically means you can republish quotes so long as they don't comprise a significant portion of the whole work. It is a bit more complex than that, but the upshot is Google is probably in
Seems to me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I still can't figure out why the publishers are so upset. Don't they understand that Google's actually doing them a favor?? T
slogan change (Score:3, Funny)
Oh good (Score:3)
Sweet.
Buy old media to shut it up (Score:5, Insightful)
The optical fiber cos bought the phone cos.
The dot.coms bought the networks.
Rockefeller bought his competitors.
Culture should be free (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The public has also the right to digitized, freely accesible publications. And since these books are already freely available in public libraries, why shouldn't they be on the Internet?
Re:Culture should be free (Score:4, Interesting)
This kind of thing really isn't even unprecedented. There are similar dead tree references of this sort for other types of dead tree works. The book industry is just trying to be control freak pricks and trying to extract more revenue where they deserve none.
The federal judges should see this and just say: Piracy? What Piracy? Get the H*LL out of my courtroom and stop wasting my time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll accept your argument, as long as you get Google to agree that should any digitized copy of a work in their system leak so that more than small excerpts are available on-line, Google will immediately (a) compensate the copyright holder of that work at the same high rate of punitive damages that other copyright violations such as through P2P fall under in the US, and (b) shut down their system, since any argument about being fair use because is does no harm to copyright holders will have been completely
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll accept your argument, as long as you get Google to agree that should any digitized copy of a work in their system leak so that more than small excerpts are available on-line, Google will immediately
...not Google's problem. The very same argument was proposed when Xerox machines came into use. The maker of a tool is not responsible for misuse of that tool. Sorry, but Google already goes well beyond their required duties in this regard.
On the other hand, should you be able to prove that Google Books
Re: (Score:2)
That's not always true, either morally or legally. Technology is neutral by default, but building and supplying a tool that you can reasonably know will be used to commit illegal acts is dodgy. In my hypothetical scenario, where the condition is that a work has leaked, then Google would be in exactly that position.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Napster try that argument and lose?
Napster lost a case of "contributory copyright infringement." In order for there to be a contributory copyright case, there has to be a clear cut case of regular copyright infringement, which they are facilitating. They were found to have provided tools, and been aware of specific instances of infringement, and to have the technology to stop them, but did not because the infringement benefitted them. Further, the courts agreed that their use would negatively impa
Re: (Score:2)
The data Google sends out is potentially infringing and if their service could be "convinced" to give the user a copy of the entire book Google has created an illegal copy.
In that case Google has built a tool and someone else used it to create a complete copy of the work, from their database. In which case, Google's copy, in their database would probably no longer enjoy fair use protection and they'd have to remove it upon request of the copyright holder (which they do anyway).
Xerox didn't make the cop
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, copying a work is an exclusive right that is part of copyright (the first of the listed exclusive rights, see 17 USC 106), hence the name "copyright". Making a copy of a copyrighted work without permission is often illegal, though (as it usually is not a direct source of harm), it rarely, by itself, provides grounds for imposing any substantial remedy. The harms, and thus most of the available remedies which justify the hassle of filing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they are avialable for free in the public library.
Probably te same thing that makes him think they are available for free at Google books. They republish excerpts in response to a search, not entire works.
Library of Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather see the Library of Congress do something like this instead of having it controlled by the publishers or Google or Yahoo or Microsoft. One would be very foolish to have anyone entity control this, and I'd rather it be free to all and not plastered by Adsense everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Libraries are already closed. Try selling an item - book/DVD/video - to any public library in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
Just becasue the LOC is part of the government doesn't give it the right to ignore the law.
Actually, the law grants exceptions specifically to the Library of Congress. Before the 70's, in fact, they were required by law to be provided with 2 free, perfect copies of all works to be copyrighted. Sadly, that was before the laws were critically mangled by lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the deposit requirement was still in the law.
I believe it changed the same time the law switched to an automatic opt-in. I'm almost certain no copies of my books were sent, but the copyright is still enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Which corporations would those be? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, this experiment with copyright is getting out of control. It's difficult for modern works to achieve classic status. Just last week I was reading that many anthology creators pick and choose their contents based more and more on what rights they can afford. Some modern authors might make a splash, but they're pricing their work out of range for posterity.
You could say that the market will sort this out -- but it's a tragedy what happens in the mean time. Good works will moulder and die as publishers and author's families try to pimp them for the final dollar. All I can think is, doesn't it make more sense to SHORTEN copyright periods as technology improves rather than to extend them? A book can be published, shipped, promoted, bought, and read the world over in a few years now rather than a decade.
Unintended benefit (Score:2)
>last week I was reading that many anthology creators pick and
>choose their contents based more and more on what rights they can
>afford.
Oh no! We won't be able to replace $TIME_HONORED_CLASSIC with
$MODERN_TRIPE?
I'm ordering some more genuine Mickey Mouse stuff right now, along
with a nice thank you note
Rich get richer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So how is it that laws, continued by rich, enforced by order of the rich, and that benifit mostly the rich get so much support on /. ?
Partly I suspect because those promoting the current copyright regimes pay a lot of astroturfers. Also, in general, I think support is the result of propaganda that tricks people into thinking that copyright is a natural right and because the topic is somewhat complex and most people don't care to take the time to understand it, so they believe what they hear.
Yes and No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only people copyright benefits are the creators of content.
You're mistaken. Copyright often benefits the distributors of content more than the creators. This is especially true in industries like the music business where a cartel controls distribution. Most artists lose money on copyrights. They actually have to pay to be distributed, more than their copyright makes, and make up the difference doing live shows and selling trademarked goods. And in general, the creators of copyright are dead long befo
You are mistaken... (Score:2)
In the short term, you are correct; but lawmakers consider both the short- and long-term.
In the long-term, copyright provides an incentive for people to create new things, and that benefits everyone in society.
Arguably, without copyright we would have many fewer interesting works as part of our culture.
Re:You are mistaken... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the short term, you are correct; but lawmakers consider both the short- and long-term.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Whew! That's a good one. You did not notice the perpetual copyright we now endure, and the ongoing disintegration of works created over the last 30 years? Lawmakers consider lobbying dollars and have happily sold out our future so certain companies can make tiny percentage more money with less competition.
In the long-term, copyright provides an incentive for people to create new things, and that benefits everyone in society.
Interestingly, even the US supreme court disagrees with you and states that in their opinion the current copyright laws are obviously not benefitting society. Only through a technicality of the wording have they not been struck down (Congress claims they are merely incompetent not being malicious and the supreme court does not have the authority to judge that they are lying).
Arguably, without copyright we would have many fewer interesting works as part of our culture.
Arguably with copyright we would have a lot more interesting works as part our culture. Have you heard the story of the movie "It's a Wonderful Life?" Sit down and take a load off and I'll spin you a tale. It was crap. It was a huge box office flop. It was tossed in a warehouse and left to rot. It was thoroughly unprofitable. There it sat until the copyright expired, many years later. PBS, strapped for cash, aired it near the holidays and it became a classic overnight. Like most great works, it was not immediately recognized as such. Under our current laws, that would never happen. No one would have ever heard of the movie because no one would have though it might make money for them.
No work has entered the public domain in 30 years and it seems unlikely that many ever will. In 130 years or so they'll probably extend copyrights again and if they don't most works will have been lost entirely or DRM will prevent them from playing. Under our current system the criteria for being available to the public is some executive's guess about profitability and that usually means anything unusual is out. Almost every one of the most popular TV shows of all time was either cancelled in its first season or saved by some weird chance.
So you're sitting here and telling me you really think the fact that 99% of the works for the last 30 years being unavailable to the public benefits society? I'm sorry, but you're nuts. Motivation is great and all but a 2 year copyright will work fine as motivation as 99% of works make most of their money in the first 2 years. And money is not even the biggest motivator for most artists. And finally, there are plenty of ways to make money without copyright, especially in this day and age of technology. Half the money made by Disney, or more comes from trademarks, not copyright. Do you really think if copyright went away entirely or was limited to 2 years, they'd just close up shop and go home, leaving those billions for someone else? Not a chance.
The damage to society our current laws are doing is more severe than the benefits it is bringing. We need to fix it. If we can't fix it, abolishing it entirely is better than what we have now. I say this as someone who makes most of my living writing and selling copyrighted works.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of copyright -- as it was originally envisioned and implemented, was fine. Copyright would expire after some reasonable time. Things have gone downhill from there because corporations in the US are in bed with the government. And that sucks.
But the fact that the system is broken doesn't mean it's bad in the first place. Copyright is not the problem -- lobbying of the US gove
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is not the problem -- lobbying of the US government is the problem.
I never said copyright was the problem, only the current implementation of it.
To answer your question: if copyright went away entirely, I do think that the number of works created would decrease. Simple economics would tell you that.
That is immaterial because the number of works created is not a goal by itself. For example, if we could pass a law that would double the number of works created, but half of them would be buried
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me one thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Google uses the digitized books for self economic interest is not ok, I wonder what you guys think about peer-to-peer swapping of digitized books? No more 'economic benefits', is that ok?
You're probably thinking about the fact that non-commercial copyright infringement was legal up until the 70's and many people think it still is. Legally, it is not nearly as simple as you seem to think. It is not whether or not Google is making any money that is under consideration, but whether their way of making mo
Dawn of the Information Age (Score:5, Interesting)
If you could, what would you do to fix copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point? Nothing.
I'm sorry but I disagree with your idea here. Copyright gives an artist a right to determine how (and if) his/her work will be distributed. Calling up a flat fee and telling an artist that they do not have rights to the distribution of their work is nonsense. And ultimately who's to decide who gets what fee for what work?
It seems that one of your problems is that government currently has say in copyright and that eliminating current
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of "Mine" fades off into the distance I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point? Nothing.
Are you saying you're unaware of the massive problems caused by our current copyright system, including the massive destruction of works and the government enforced prevention of old works from being revived?
Copyright gives an artist a right to determine how (and if) his/her work will be distributed. Calling up a flat fee and telling an artist that they do not have rights to the distribution of their work is nonsense. And ultimately who's to decide who gets what fee for what work
Re: (Score:2)
And how does your right to free speech apply? No one is taking away your right to free speech. Or do you consider the inability of an artist to regulate their own work, regardless of your desire to rip off their creations, as free speech?
I love how so many at slashdot don't give a crap to the rights of the artist and only consider their own rights. Rights work both ways. You may not consider it a "natural right" but I'm sure the creator of these works feel ot
Re: (Score:2)
And how does your right to free speech apply? No one is taking away your right to free speech. Or do you consider the inability of an artist to regulate their own work, regardless of your desire to rip off their creations, as free speech?
You sing a new song. I hear it and like it. I sing it too. The government grants you some of my money in compensation, taken at gunpoint if necessary. That is a restriction on my freedom of speech.
Copyright is a limited restriction (government sponsored) on free speec
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I always here stories like this. I'm calling you out! PROVE to me that this is true. You can make up any crap you want and get away with it. PROVE IT.
And if you have such faith in this why are your (supposed) works under the protection of copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
One more thing, I noticed your sig:
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Maybe for an example of the problems with copyright you might read up on the problems regarding HP Lovecraft's works and copyright disputes after his death, with legal battles stopping or delaying the publishing/republishing of many of his stories and letters. In fact, if not for the generosity of distant descendants of his aunt, his works would still be languishing, many unpublished and copyright would not begin to expire on any
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Lovecraft's works had more to do w
What would *I* do? (Score:2)
Well, for one thing, I sure as hell wouldn't turn the "media" industry into a government regulated industry, like you suggest, where some un-elected body gets to dole out the compulsary licensing money to the "copyright holders". $25 would VERY quickly turn to $30...and on and on it would go. Before you know it, we'd have big wankfest's here on
No, compulsary
Re: (Score:2)
As we reeling into the new age people still trying to hang on to bits of old one, and they stand to loose. Information flow is like a light if you stop it from flowing, it disappears like a light. I suppose there should be a new term, on mutablility of the infomration and how successful the original bit is, in speed and amount of mutation on
Re: (Score:2)
Point of view (Score:2)
I think the person who said this has missed the boat. The library is already controlled by corporate players, they are called publishers. Hence the reason it costs $250 for a text book on network security, but only $40 for a book on network security.
The question now is WHICH corporate players will control the library? Will print publishers continue to hold sway, or will the digital revolution move th
The Future of Libraries IS open (Score:2)
Could the government do it? (Score:2)
Someone could write a program that the user downloads that would allow them to preview a certain page for a limited time. maybe each person would get library credits. Or maybe
Re: (Score:2)
What if the government took over the project and said they would digitize all books and make an online national library. Would they be able to?
Yes, and this just what other countries have been doing.
Or maybe the database of books could only be accessed at librarys.
Technically, I think schools can legally do this right now, if they are so inclined. In the UK I think there are 4 or 5 libraries each of which gets a copy of every copyrighted work. The library of congress got these copies too, until they
Google doesn't use paper (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
An Unintended Consequence (Score:2)
What's to stop Yahoo! from simply scraping all the book images and running their own library? Google can't claim copyright foul, has already supported fair use of Internet pages made publicly available, and in general has forwarded a philosophy of "what is presented to the public is free for the taking, repackaging, and sel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking a couple pounds of cheese off the store shelf is illegal. Taking a couple of the sample cubes is not.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, since I had been on MarketWatch's page and saw the announcement come across the wire, I can't imagine someone else submitting the story first.
Then again, Zonk is on duty and he rejects a majority of my stories so maybe it's just a grudge thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So if they can show everyone is doing it, and thus get away with it, then all I have to do is show "everyone" is downloading mp3's and I can get away with it.
No, if you can show you meet the balance of the fair use criteria for UPLOADING mp3's, including that you're not negatively affecting the market, then you can "get away with it." As far as I know, it is still in limbo if downloading copyrighted mp3's is illegal at all and I've yet to see a court case challenging it.