[MW Forums]

A lawsuit filed by a group of authors alleging copyright infringement on Google Print is just a part of doing business, Google's CEO said in Tokyo. more

[RudolphRed]

I side with the publishers. Google is copying the works electronically and making the material available on its own web pages in some shape or form. There is nothing more black and white than this.

[mikeharpe]

How about that subtle slap at the American legal system?
Google is drunk on its market cap. Things will shake out. Remember when Amazon cost this much?

[Moof_in_Charge]

I think I debated you on this before... The courts will side with Google. I'll just let it go at that /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Moof_in_Charge]

In reply to:

---

Google is drunk on its market cap.

---

Sounds like a guy who listened to all the wall street ANALysts and missed the boat at $100 a share /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif It's amazing how they all hated Google at $100 a share but love it at $350 /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
the most valuable commodity in today's world is not gold, it is information and how you get information is the second most important part of this deal. Google is well justified its stock price and as it heads north of $500 a share you will scratch your head yet again and utter the same words..

[pdrayton]

In reply to:

---

Google is copying the works electronically and making the material available on its own web pages in some shape or form. There is nothing more black and white than this.

---

And doing that is perfectly legal according to current copyright law.
And, as Moot has stated, I've debated this before. Nothing left to say.
Google will win. Pat Schroeder, head of the group filing this latest lawsuit, is a notorious whiner.

[j_drake]

While it is legal to copy, or refer to, parts of print for reviews, reference etc. there are limits to the amount of text that can be used without the written consent of the author, or their assignees. How then is it legal to reproduce copyrighted material in its entirety? Which is exactly what Google is proposing. Now if they have a fail-safe way of not allowing someone to download, or read, an entire book, manuscript etc on-line, that is different. Copyright laws do need to be updated, but Google is acting as if they can do as they wish because they are serving the public good. I do applaud their intent to make printed matter available to the masses in an easier to access format, but then they need to follow the rules as they are written, not as they wished they were. Im sure they are not doing this project out of the goodness of their heart; along the way they want to make a lot of money, just not share it with the folks that created the material.

[wiretrip]

I wonder what would stop me from going to the library or Barnes & Noble and reading an entire book without purchasing it. That is exaclty what is occuring. I can copy what I check out of the library. Hmm. OMG the AAP and the AG need to sue them as well!
What is so wrong about Google offering the same services as a library would?

[kennethfcooper]

I wish the publishers would make their concerns more plain ( or the press would convey them, if they have been made clear.) I can imagine their fears being the same as most of us would have, if a group of scientists informed us that they were creating a mutation of the bird flu than could spread over the internet, "But don't worry. We have safeguards in place to prevent it from actually happening. Trust us."
Of course, my scenerio would be much more serious and there are mitigating factors in the first scenerio. Reading a book on line can be done, of course, but it is problably the least enjoyable way of reading a long text. Printing out the book is also possible, but the printing costs are much greater than the cost of the book. So, it is more like being able to catch the bird flu by licking the screen for an hour.
Still, I tend to lean toward the owners of the property making the decision to put their works at risk. Barring that, I hope Google has considered the scope of the lawsuit they would face, if thier database was breeched.

[mwalker]

What is so wrong about Google offering the same services as a library would?
Um, because the library isn't the one making the copy?
At least at my local library, their stated policy is that you may only copy portions under fair use, not the entire book or whatever. Because that's what the law says.
If people want to work to change the law, fine. Go ahead; more power to ya. Google can certainly afford some lobbyists, can't they? How much would it cost to get a congresscritter to propose a bill that would make "copying of entire published works for the sole purpose of providing excerpts in a search engine format" legal? Do you think it would be more or less than the cost of the lawsuits?
If Google had gone to the publishers and tried to work out a good-faith arrangement and failed, that would be one thing. But, they decided that what they wanted was right, and to heck with everyone else.

[Moof_in_Charge]

In reply to:

---

How then is it legal to reproduce copyrighted material in its entirety?

---

Peter, no disrespect but you dont have a clue as to what you are talking about...the law is about Fair use.. not about how much you can or can not copy...Under Fair use you can present part of the material as millions of students and thousands of magazines, news papers and other media outlet do on a daily basis. What Google is doing is nothing different. they only show you what amounts to what you need to go about FINDING content in a book. If you think you can read a book that's not considered in public domain on Google than you have not been using the service therefore you should not chime in with your 2 cents /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif...

[pdrayton]

In reply to:

---

How then is it legal to reproduce copyrighted material in its entirety? Which is exactly what Google is proposing.

---

There is a great misunderstanding on the part of those supporting the publishers regarding copyright law.
And this comment above shows a great misunderstanding of what Google's product will be.
Legal experts are divided on this issue. Yet, as one can see from this recent Macworld thread those siding with Google are able to give clear explanations of copyright law, provide sources for that material, and also provide sources of expert legal opinions that favor Google.
Those siding with the publishers are noticeably bereft of facts.

[RudolphRed]

Greetings.
I wish you were in London, we could sink a few beers on this one!
And I would make sure that my esteemed Lawyer is present. He is 75 years now but very experienced in all matters of Copyright.

[RudolphRed]

The amount of text Google shows at any one time is immaterial.
The fact is that they have scanned stuff that does not belong to them and scanned and retained it it in its entirety
Google then goes on to use it (stuff) for its own commercial practices and makes portions of the material available to others. This constitute re-distribution of copyright material that is black and white wrong.
Public good and all of that are immaterial.
The extent to which Google assumes it has a right to behave this way sickens me. I am truly glad that the French Courts have seen fit to remind Google what it can not do.
Google is pig headed on this and similar