Ruling May Impact Google Book Search Case 172
jsherman256 wrote to mention an NYT article discussing another possible problem on Google's legal front. A court decision in another case may spell trouble for their 'book search' technology. "In the recent case, Judge A. Howard Matz of United States District Court for the Central District of California, said Google's use of thumbnail-sized reproductions in its image search program violated the copyright of Perfect 10, a publisher of X-rated magazines and Web sites, because it undermined that company's ability to license those images for sale to mobile phone users ... 'I think it takes the wind out of their sails,' Jan Constantine, the general counsel for the Authors Guild, said of the Perfect 10 decision. The guild and the Association of American Publishers brought copyright infringement lawsuits against Google over its Book Search program."
So what they're saying... (Score:2)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re:So what they're saying... (Score:3, Funny)
At just 10 cents a sentence, reading books on your mobile phone is going to be even more popular than getting the latest ringtones!
not sure this makes a difference for book search (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how a book search that only shows excerpts causes any economic harm. If anything, it will increase sales.
IANAL.
If I were Google, I would just drop perfect 10 from their search results entirely. I bet this would lose them more sales than thumbnails ever would.
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
- Not exactly. Fair use criteria are defined out in USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 [cornell.edu]. There's no real hard and fast rule for how to apply those criteria. Courts tend to make judgement calls on a per-case basis. (Which is why lawyers make a fortune on this kind of litigation) Or, to put it another way, "None of these factors alone is sufficient to make a use fair or not fair - all of them must be considered and weighed. It
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
Sounds like Perfect 10 was able to show economic harm (lost sales to cellphone users)
I don't really see how this can be the case unless we're talking about people who accessed images.google.com via their cellphone. Otherwise they would have been using a PC anyway and hence would have had access to the images on the Internet, and would not have formed part of the (really odd or desperate or stupid) market who want to look at tiny little low-res porno images on their cellphone for exorbitant prices.
I thoug
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2, Informative)
I believe one of the criteria for fair use is that it doesn't cause economic harm.
The impact on the market is considered as a factor, but it is by no means the only factor, and other factors can easily outweigh it.
Consider a book review that uses a few quotes from the book to show that it is utterly factually incorrect. That review could clearly cause significant economic harm, and yet it is still fair use because the other factors [stanford.edu] outweigh the impact on the market.
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah sure, that would work. I'm sure Google going, "you mess with us, you're off the grid" is just the news that the ever-increasing number of people wary of Google's growing clout are just waiting for.
What next? Google removing Reporters without Borders from their index because they complained about their China policies?
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
Considering how easy it is to prevent your site from being indexed, with this precedent I'm sure there are already people planning to "forget" to copy/paste "User-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: /" into a robots.txt file with the intention of suing Google over the included images.
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:4, Insightful)
I somehow doubt that the original conceivers of copyright law intended for most of the world's works to be locked up in 'corporate vaults' never to see the light of day again because the estimated potential profits off of those works were considered too small to be worth it. But publishers, especially bigger ones, only seem to care about the most profitable mass-market stuff. Why don't they team up with Google to sell electronic versions of those books that are OOP? They could surely make a killing ... but perhaps those companies tend to be too conservative and risk-averse.
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
I somehow doubt that the original conceivers of copyright law intended for most of the world's works to be locked up in 'corporate vaults' never to see the light of day again
The publication rights of OOP books revert to the author. The OOP books aren't sitting in publishers' vaults; they are sitting in the hands of the authors, unexploited. If the authors want to resell the publication rights, they can do that. If they want to self-publish, they can do that. If they want to make the arrangement with
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
The publication rights of OOP books revert to the author. The OOP books aren't sitting in publishers' vaults; they are sitting in the hands of the authors, unexploited.
Hvae you actually seen the contracts that authors typically have to sign with publishers?
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
Yes. Seen them, negotiated them, even. Reversion of rights is pretty much industry standard in trade publishing. It wouldn't pertain in work-for-hire situations, but that's not the norm.
Publishing industry=!music industry. Authors ordinarily retain their copyrights.
MichaelRe:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
I've dealt with and signed publishing contracts too and the contracts I've seen are incredibly one-sided towards the publisher, where publishers sign over not only rights to the work but to future related works too. Note that it was a very large publisher with a very strong brand and that hence carries a lot of sway. We had to specifically bargain to retain copyright.
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
Here's more info on the problems with publishing contracts [adlerbooks.com]. Don't know if this is accurate but here [umt.edu]'s a statistic stating "99 percent of all the books ever printed are out-of-print".
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
that is an obvious statistic. it is impossible to keep pringing every, most , or even many of all books ever published. out of print doens't mean impossible to get it just means they aren't shipping it anymore. there are still loads floating around in used bookstores and new unsold stock that stores think they will be able to sell
Re:not sure this makes a difference for book searc (Score:2)
Quite honestly I'm just waiting for search engines to be outlawed all together.
Not Precedent for Google Books Search (Score:2, Insightful)
Both the Author's Guild [pcworld.com] and the American Association of Publishers [pcworld.com] lawsuits were filed in New York Federal Courts, while this was in California.
Re:Precedent for District Court Cases (Score:2, Informative)
In theory -- precedent for district courts doesn't exist except as it applies to the case at hand.
In reality, it can make a difference. A well reasoned, well thought out district court case which is on point will carry weight with other districts. For instance, the facts and legal ruling in Arkansas v. Jones has been cited and used 100's of times -- including by the Supreme Court, although it was never actually appealed. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District carries a similar type of weight.
Althoug
Overturned by wiser heads (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether the images were pirated or not is not Google's problem. They should inform Google (who would doubtless take down the images) and go after the pirates. Google has no way of knowing who in the slimy world of online porn is the copyright owner, who is licensed, who is using stuff under fair use, and who is a "pirate".
The judge made a mistake. Google's thumbnails were not the same thumbnails. They were a different expression of the same idea. Sleazy, but not illegal.
Re:Overturned by wiser heads (Score:2)
This would allow people to view a thumbnail while still requiring someone to visit a site to get the picture.
Or a norobots text or something like the broadcast flag embedded in the header of the image file.
Sure it's removable but then it's placing the blame squarely on the site modifying the image.
More worrying is the concept of Adsense being used to decide guilt upon the part of google. If
Re:Overturned by wiser heads (Score:2)
Turned around, does this mean we can go after the advertisers for hijacking our computers with adware and spyware?
Re:Overturned by wiser heads (Score:2)
~sigh~. In a perfect world, yes, we could.
Re:Overturned by wiser heads (Score:2)
Judges don't make mistakes. The law is as the judges decree. The Constitution, too. Just ask the USSC, the US Attorney General, and a whole bunch of other people.
Re:Overturned by wiser heads (Score:2)
You've got that all wrong, I'm afraid. An idea, in the copyright sense is something like 'Boy Meets Girl' or 'The Butler Did It.' It's a very broad thing. An expression is a specific implementation of that idea, like Romeo and Juliet or some specific mystery novel. A slight variation on an expression, such as changing a few words, or making a slightly different thumbnail of the same image, is going to be infr
That'd be... (Score:2)
I think "jist" may be that stuff ZZ Top was singing about in "Pearl Necklace."
Re:That'd be... (Score:2)
Super-impose "Copyrighted" on the image? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Super-impose "Copyrighted" on the image? (Score:2)
Re:Super-impose "Copyrighted" on the image? (Score:2)
robots.txt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Informative)
It's in the disclaimer, which almost all books I know have somewhere on the first few pages. Relevnt part of it reads (approximately):
"No part of this publication may be reproduced, either in part or in full, either photographically, electronically, or by any other means, without express permission of the publisher."
There you have it, the dead-tree equivalent of 'robots.t
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
It is yet another example of how out of control things are since it hasn't yet been made difficult or impossible to sue becau
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Google was indexing these images from third party sites which had no right to show the images in the first place, not from perfect 10's servers. Please read the relevant articles before commenting again. Thanks!
(...smacks Spazmania with clue stick...)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
erm.. (Score:2)
Seems just an excuse to have a go at Google and get your name in the press.
Re:erm.. (Score:2)
Re:erm.. (Score:2)
Well, I dont know either who is crazy enough to pay for this, but I sure have seen a lot of ads for them on european late night TV.
Probably the same people who paid 3$ for a 8kbps ring tone 6 years ago and who are now old enough to buy porn. (Seriously, why are people ready to pay insane amounts of money for incredible bad quality, just because it's on a cell-phone?)
Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
This is the way it's supposed to be:
1. Create content
2. Get indexed by Google
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
But these numbskulls put "sue" in step number three and basically will never get to step four. Sounds like it's time for a class-action suit from their members against this so called "guild".
Obligatory (Score:2)
Constantine ... Jan Constantine ... a$$hole.
Missing pieces of information (Score:5, Informative)
Perfect 10 blocked Google from indexing the site.
Third party copied the content and put it on their own site.
Google indexed that third parties site (not perfect 10's) compounding a existing copyright violation.
Whereas the book publishers can simply tell Google which books they don't want scanned and so they've given implicit permission by refusing to list those books.
Since fair use is a value judgement made by a judge interpreting a vague law, he sided with Perfect 10, but the same situation doesn't with the book publishers.
Re:Missing pieces of information (Score:2)
Do you actually own any books? Here's a typical line from the copyright page of one of mine:
Seems to me the publishers already have told Google which books they don't want scanned, in no uncertain terms.
Michael
Yet some publishers are happy (Score:2)
Yes, you bought it, tacked on terms are irrelevant. (IANAL)
"Seems to me the publishers already have told Google which books they don't want scanned"
* Yet that clause was put in those books prior to Google Book search existing, so it couldn't have been written with Google in mind.
* It fails the 'is this contract fair' test too, since the courts have repeatedly rules that you can reproduce portions of the books and it's fair use.
* The book publishers tolerate extracts in book r
Re:Yet some publishers are happy (Score:2)
Google isn't reproducing portions of the book, they are merely presenting portions of the book at any given time during a search. It is highly likely that the search engine itself could be considered a violation of copyright on this point alone.
* Yet that clause was put in those books prior to Google Book search existing, so it couldn't have been written wit
Not clear if.... (Score:2)
"Copyright awners are welcome to enforce their copyrights as they see fit."
If that was the case, MPAA would have successfully killed Betamax, it isn't, they don't have a free hand.
You should re-read the last sentence in my comment since it doesn't say what you think it does. The point being if we had to get permission for every use of copyrighted material (which is all material since copyright doesn't need to be declared) the world would grind to a halt, you wouldn
Re:Not clear if.... (Score:2)
As for the metamax comment you made, well, I'm not even sure why you made it. Betamax is technology and the courts ruled that the technology itself wasn't enough to prove infringement or even contributory infringement. The MPAA could still sue people who used betamax tapes to infrige copyrights, or not if t
Re:Yet some publishers are happy (Score:2)
Copyright is not a "tacked on" term. It's law. Copyright is not a license, shrink-wrap or otherwise. Copyright gives the copyright holder the right to determine who can make a copy. Anyone the copyright holder does not designate as authorized to copy is, by default, not authorized to make a copy. The only exception to this is copying that falls under fair use.
* Yet that clause was put in those books prior to Google Book search existing, so
Re:Yet some publishers are happy (Score:2)
That comment in the book isn't the definition of copyright law. Copyright law permits reproduction of the book or portions thereof if it comes within fair use and other provisions, so that clause goes beyond copyright to restrict the rights further.
"Like I said, anyone not expressly authorized to copy is not authorized to copy."
See above. You can copy portions (even the whole thing in some cases) if its fair use. Under that circumstance you don't need permis
Sounds like rationalization to me (Score:2)
Whereas the people can simply tell advertisers which phone numbers they don't want called and so they've given implicit permission by refusing to list those numbers.
Yes? No?
Personally, I fucking hate things that are Opt-Out. As one post pointed out, books already have their own version of robots.txt [slashdot.org]
Don't forget that "Fair Use" is an affirmative defen
GBS is promotion (Score:2)
See my comment above:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178558&thr eshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14804026#14 804075 [slashdot.org]
"Just because you like Google, doesn't mean you should invent rationalizations for their behavior."
See my comment above, I think Google are *wrong* in the Perfect 10 case and *right* in the Google Book Search case and that the two situations are not comparable for the reasons I outlined in
Re:GBS is promotion (Score:2)
So Google can also check the timestamp of every robots.txt file it downloads and ignore any dated prior to 1998? Can I ask the local Wal-Mart when they posted the No Shoplifting signs in their dressing rooms, and ignore any that were there before I was?
It fails the 'is this contract fair' test too, since the courts have repeatedly rules that you can reproduce portions of the boo
Re:GBS is promotion (Score:2)
Under fair use, they don't need to ask permission, if the copyright holder disagrees they can sue and a judge decides if it is or isn't.
Google offer an additional PRE-opt out. This is BEYOND what they have to do if their indexing is fair use.
A request unde
Re:GBS is promotion (Score:2)
Imagine you are with a friend, and he drags you into a room of a fair number of other people you have never seen before, that you did not expect to be in, and...
Re:GBS is promotion (Score:2)
Re:Missing pieces of information (Score:2)
Google just has deeper pockets, so they were hit instead due to the "I want free money!" attitude so prevalent in the US today.
I'm waiting for Go
I think you should read this (Score:2)
Read this:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi
From what I read about the case Perfect 10 served a DMCA request, Google ignored it, Perfect 10 sued, Google lost.
Is this not what happened?
Re:I think you should read this (Score:2)
It's the people who stole the images that need to be served with the complaints. Not the search engine that is merely recording what it finds as long as it's been given permission (Google does obey robots.txt).
The search engine isn't playing a part in this beyond doing what it's designed to do. It's like claiming, if I worked as a checkout clerk at a grocery store, for allowing someone to purchase some good that wasn't authorized for sale at that st
I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
I think Google were in the wrong with Perfect 10, because the search engines right to index the work is covered by fair use, fair use includes such factors as benefit/loss to the copyright holder.
When Google indexes a site that has the copyright, there is a benefit to the copyright holder. When it indexes a site that is a pirate, there isn't, the pirate benefits instead and the copyright holder, so Google loses their fair
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
This is not Google's fault. I know
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
But, as I have said in other posts, the search engine doesn't know what's supposed to be there and what isn't. That's not its job.
But they were specifically informed of these images, and chose not to remove them anyway.
The copyright holder needs to complain to the infringer.
Why must there only be one infringer? If Person B copies something from Person A without permission, and then Person C copies it from Person B, there are two copyright infringers (barring a defense such as fair use), not one.
Th
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
Another analogy is that it'd be like prosecutin
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
But Google, because the site hosting the images did not declare via robots.txt that it was forbidden to enter, DID have permission to index the site in its database.
They had permission from some random criminal, not from the copyright holder.
The owner of a given site has to be the one to ask Google not to index; I can't tell them not to index your site if I for some reason don't like what you've got on it.
You can tell them not to copy and distribute my site if you own the copyright on my site!
Anoth
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
No, I can tell your ISP to pull your site under the law. THAT is the remedy that has been specifically made available to you in cases like this. It's called the DMCA -- surely, you have heard of it?
And no, you can't order Google to remove someone else's site from the index. From their documentation:
Note: If you believe your request is urgent and cannot wait until the next time Google crawls your site, use our automatic
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
No, I can tell your ISP to pull your site under the law. THAT is the remedy that has been specifically made available to you in cases like this. It's called the DMCA -- surely, you have heard of it?
And surely you don't understand what it says. The DMCA provides protection from a copyright infringement lawsuit if your ISP takes down that site after receiving a takedown notice. It certainly doesn't provide protection from a copyright lawsuit for the person who intentionally violates copyright law in the
Re:I think Google were in the wrong with P10 (Score:2)
Re:Missing pieces of information (Score:2)
Of course Google infringed on Perfect 10's copyright by showing these images.
So was it that
A) Perfect 10 complained to Google about it and Google just said : "fair use, so get lost" and Perfect 10 had to sue Google to enforce his copyright?
or
B) Perfect 10 saw these images and decided to sue Google because Google has money but the guys who really infringed his copyright (the sites which published to images) had none?
In case A, Google is at fault for not removing co
Google were told (Score:2)
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=1328 [chillingeffects.org]
"Sent via: fax
Re: Customer Support DMCA Complaints
We have discovered a massive misappropriation of Perfect 10 images and images belonging to third parties on websites that appear in Google indexed listings. This situation is very serious as consumers can view essentially the entirety of the Perfect 10 library over and over without paying anything by utilizing Google search. Consume
I don't think that's important (Score:2)
Put it this way, is there a benefit to the copyright holder from Google indexing that data?
In the case of books, yes because it [arguably] promotion and aids in researching of books.
In the case of Perfect 10, no because the site being indexed isn't the copyright holder, its a pir
I don't really understand this... (Score:2)
You get text fragments of copyrighted content as part of textual searches.
You get reduced-size images as part of image searches.
If the former falls under fair use, and reduced images generally do as well, why wouldn't it this time?
Note to the authors... (Score:3, Insightful)
What google ought to do is *not* index these authors; these guys really are so goofy they don't understand what a boon this will be to them for people to get to their book, read a few sentences and then jump over to an online bookstore and buy it. Instead, they'll have to be content with a few sales here and there. Then they can go to their guild meetings and bitch about how the country is becoming illiterate.
Its like they're so greedy for a nickel here that they can't see the 10 dollars that is coming tomorrow if they're just patient.
Idiotic comparison (Score:2)
In the case of Perfect 10, Google was taking full size images and scaling them down to miniture size, which Perfect 10 argues was what they are doing by selling their images for use on mobile phones. First of all, Perfect 10's arguement is utter baloney. What is this sec
Intellectual Garbage (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Intellectual Garbage (Score:2)
To those of us who live in the real world and know a bit about basic economics, we can show you unequivocally and without question, and beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that history has shown us time and time and time and time and time again (so much so that you are basically arguing the intellectual property version of creationism while I'm duly reciting the basic tenets of evolution here) that countr
Re:Intellectual Garbage (Score:2)
You *do* realize that we're talking about *porn thumnails* here? Is society so fragile that it will crumble if someone displays a tiny preview of the porn on your site?
And you don't think that the benefits of having a vast index of all the image content on the Web makes that tradeoff worthwhile? I'm amazed, I really am.
To those of us who live in the real world and know a bit about basic economics, we can show
Re:Intellectual Garbage (Score:2)
Sigh. No, we're talking about a general and important cornerstone principle of the economy. Stop trying to marginalize on the central issue being debated by focusing on the relative trivialiy of one particular piece of covered subject matter.
And you don't think that the benefits of having a vast index of all the image content on the Web
So Where Are The Images? (Score:2)
And I wouldn't ask Google to remove the term "Perfect 10" from all searches because that term was in general use long before this magazine came along and tried to own it.
Perfect 10 should be using the DMCA takedown provisions against web-sites that they feel violate their copyrights. Google is just too useful to t
One question: (Score:2)
Google's indexing seems a double-edged sword: it doesn't just let prospective users find illegal material, it also lets those with an interest (copyright/patent/trademark holders, law enforcement) find it too. So you might consider it an impartial, disinterested* process. Maybe on those grounds alone, we should consider linking to illegal material qualitatively different from providing/hosting it.
(* Though not necessar
The problem... (Score:2)
Imagine Googling "Star Wars" and the results are:
Leia is Lukes Sister
Darth Vader is Lukes Father
Lando turns them in
Mitochoridians cause the force
Snape kills Dumbledore
Re:Still fair use (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no question that Google will benefit financially from Google Book Search. Google's program is commercial; it will make money selling ads on its search pages. There's no question that Google Book Search will infringe copyright. The question is whether Google's infringement is fair use. Part of the determination of whether copyright infringement is fair use goes to the potential of that infringement to cause economic harm to the copyright holder. If Google can index the complete text of a book without paying the author, the author can't sell that right to another party.
In the Perfect 10 case, Perfect 10 claimed Google's thumbnails interfere with its ability to sell its own thumbnails to cellphone companies. It's not clear to me that the Authors' Guild will be able to point to so specific an instance of economic harm. OTOH, the courts are generally reluctant to try to anticipate the market. Who's to say book search indexes that will pay authors for the right to include their texts won't spring up? I think the AG can probably make a compelling argument that Google's infringement chokes off the potential for authors to make money directly from selling this right, even if no one is putting money on the table right now. But that argument might not be compelling enough for things to go the authors' way.
Michael
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
Google isn't putting entire books online in the same way. They are only telling you which books contain the terms your searching on and show some (hopefully) fair use sized examples.
The idea that someone is going to a porn site is so they can become sexually excited. I have no doubt that a thumbnail might cause some excite
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
This is a lower court ruling that runs counter to higher court precedent in the same circuit on basically the same issue. The only reason Perfect 10 even won the lower court ruling was because they sell those thumbnails commercially.
Now it's up to a higher court to realize that if the creators of fair use c
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
Google is copying the entire book. It has to, in order to make a complete index. Book Search wouldn't work if Google only copied a chapter.
I see a lot of people, especially here on /., hung up on the issue that Google's not displaying the whole book. I don't think that's such a big deal. Google still has to make use of the entire work, or its book search won't work.
A reasonable analogy might be a book review. A reviewer can quote excerpts
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
A reasonable analogy might be a book review.
If the reviewer went to the libary, took out the book, scanned in the entire thing, returned it to the library, then used limited quotes from the scan in his review.
Otherwise, another analogy would be plain old Google. They take entire websites, copy them, and provide the end user with small portions of those copies. There is a major problem with this analogy, though. Websites are intentionally published for anyone on the internet to use for free (at least,
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
In this analogy, Google's "copying" of the work is like the reviewer reading the book. A "copy" of the b
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
>reading the book.
So after the indexing, you claim that Google doesn't keep the copy of the book?
>Google goes to great lengths to prevent users from accessing more than a
>few lines of a book they don't have explicit permission to feature
Sure, but are they keeping the whole book to be able to shop relevant parts of it? The main problem is not what they show to a user, they only show part it, the problem would be that they make c
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
A copy of the book? No. Data derived from the book, yes.
If google internally can use the book for whatever they do, then it seems I could too. Seems anyone can download at will and even use what they download as long as they don't make the entire work available to others.
Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be unequivocally breaking copyright. And infringement for a book is usually taken as a f
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
So how do one present small sentences from the book to show as a result of a search if you don't keep a copy of the book?
>Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be
>unequivocally breaking copyright.
Perhaps, but that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
>But that's a whole other can of worms, Google isn't responsible for that,
>each case has to be argued on its own merits.
My ex
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
So how do one present small sentences from the book to show as a result of a search if you don't keep a copy of the book?
A "book" is an object made of paper, ink and glue. Google does not have a "copy of a book", it doesn't have "a book" at all. That may not be what you were thinking of when you used the word, but that's what it means.
>Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be unequivocally breaking copyright.
Pe
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
They might not copy the spacing, images, fount, cover, backing, copy write notice ect. To understand why this is a significant degradation try to read a long excerpt where they don't differentiate between paragraphs and tell me how easy it is to read.
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
But marketable value.
Though I wonder about some of the issues arising from displaying porn on a cell phone. With the cases against people watching porn on the DVD players in their cars where it could be visible to others, I wonder if it won't soon be illegal to look at pornography in public on a cell phone. Or even to possess an unsealed adult magazine in public just like with open alcoholic beverage containers in cars.
Anyway, back to the real
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
Ummm, if something is considered fair use, then it isn't copyright infringement. Copyright infringement that is fair use is not only not legal or legal, it doesn't even exist. It's either copyright infringement or fair use, not both.
If Google can index the complete text of a book without paying the author, the author can't sell that right to another party.
And Google takes th
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
>books they are indexing and as it's fair use they don't even need to ask anyone. I'm not sure how this
>case affects their book effort?
Lets see, so according to you, it would be OK for me to connect to every p2p network I find, dowload and keep a copy of everything for indexing and then making all those copies searchable and linking to were I find them and also provide small snipets from the files, f
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
So? Why would they matter? Or are you saying that if google start to do it with other media they are suddenly in the wrong? Besides, I might just stick with music or movies.
>Secondly google are working in close company with some very esteemed universities on this project
So if you work with a University it is suddenly less copyright infringement?
>At no time are google going to give people access to books they don't own the copyright to, so your
>comparison is innaprop
Re:Still fair use (Score:2)
Re:Don't be distracted (Score:2)
Re:Don't be distracted (Score:2)
I don't agree with your opinions about taking away my rights to the content I've created. Please let me do what I wish with my creations.
You don't have rights to controll content you've created and more than you have a right to controll the ocenways because you peed in the ocean with your piss. You might have privacy rights if you never releases content you created to the world, you might have contract rights if you made a 2 way binding agreement with everyone who came across content you created, you mi
Re:Google's twin evils - Copyright and Privacy (Score:2)
Google can't "publish" anything that isn't already freely and openly available on the web.
Re:Letter From Perfect 10 To Google (Score:2)
So from the letter, Perfect 10 basicly wants Google to enforce their copyright for them and block every page that has a disclaimer that they dont own the copyright on every image it contains
First, most non-commercial pages on the web have such a disclaimer it.
Second, you need some text-understanding to know whether or not a page claims ownership over it's images.
Third, a lot of pages that have nothing to do with