[MW Forums]

A Microsoft attorney will attack Google's book search service in a speech Tuesday to the Association of American Publishers (AAP). more

[tomtom]

Once in a lifetime!
I agree with MS position.

[tomtom]

..but I am not so sure about MS tactics?

[Uncommon]

Yes, the phrase "self-serving" comes to mind.

[seanmcg]

I have to consider Microsoft's position here with a Salt Lake amount of salt. I looked at the article's example on the Google site, and I actually think both parties are correct. As the law currently stands, based only on what was quoted in the article, including the examples, Google appears to have exceeded the definition of fair use. (I am not a lawyer, and I certainly wouldn't want to play one on TV, even if I were an actor. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif )
By the same token, given the advances in technology and the ways people use that technology, "fair use" needs to be redefined to allow indexing. The example used in the article by Google hardly exceeds the amount of copyrighted material used by the other examples listed under fair use.

[giulio]

I also agree with MS, though they are only thinking of themselves here. Google's good idea is to simply make your work public to the world for free. Without even asking? Aside from maybe being illegal, it's egotistical and obnoxious. Yeah Google, we get it, you're so powerful and can index stuff.
To me it's like spam. The authors have to OPT-OUT, but are automatically OPT-Ined simply because they have a published book?? Doesn't sound right to me.

[daneb]

Fact is, even if MS wasn't right they would still go after Google. I think the only reason they have yet to sue Apple is because they are one of the big shareholders.

[Nobody]

The $150M in non-voting Apple stock that MS bought in 1997 was a settlement for a lawsuit concerning MS stealing QT technologies. Even at the time, $150M was not a "major position" in Apple. But that really does not matter, because MS sold all of that Apple stock shortly thereafter for a nice profit -- at least double.

[nmpike]

I side with Google... if I am an author, I want them to catalog my stuff... amd if I don't wasnt them too, they remove it if I ask.... so Google is being fair..
Microsoft is just fighting google because google is kicking their ass in a market MS is trying to dominate, so by turning the government against Google, MS wins...
News for ya MS... Google will be the new you within 5 years... only I think Google will continue to do the right thing.

[argonaut]

Quote:

---

Once in a lifetime!
I agree with MS position.

---

Too bad, because you're both wrong.

[tomtom]

If you are an author?
What about your publisher?
The issue is about Copyright and Copyright Law, not whims of would be writers present and legacies of those past.
There simply is no case for Google to systematically ignore Copyright by caching (copying) the entire work and disseminating to all and sundry and saying "if you do not like it, contact us and we MAY be able to do something about it" Google does not have this right, yet uses it across many forms of Copyright content.
Many of Google's business practices are fundamentally flawed when it comes to respect of Copyright. Google need understand that it is not provided with some God given right to ignore Copyright.
Much as we like using Google services, we need to keep in mind that Google is not stretching the limits but is beyond the limits of legality in many jurisdictions.

[seanmcg]

When I first repeated the search as described in the article, I got the front cover, the first page, the last two pages and the back cover. Then there were links to where I could buy the book. There was very little of the work that Google presented that was useful in and of itself. If they had stopped there, I would disagree with TomTom. However, I noticed the little radio button that says "full view." When I saw what that brought up, that changed my mind. If they had left it at a full text search, or like the example above, I would say they were performing a service. But showing the full scanned book, if it is not in the public domain, appears to violate copyright.
I still doubt that Microsoft was being altruistic, and I still stand by my first assertion that fair use needs to be adjusted to include search engines.

[Luis_Alejandro]

As far as I understand, Google index the book and then cites a small part of it.
It is like me telling some quote that I remember from my readings.
If Google defines a cite as, by example, 50 or 100 words, that's OK for me, not --maybe-- the four pages cited.
Then, the cite has a referal to the book. Will Amazon pay to link to it?
In this case, the author/publisher has a "potential" sale, a.k.a. profit.
It would be interesting to have all the books indexed. Then, when they're up in a search result, the non-authorized ones are took-out of the list BUT a message is sent to the publisher "Missed Potential Sale"...

[tomtom]

This in part may be.
There is a need to be objective.
The issue is however Copyright and Copyright Law. Google is abusing this in many jurisdictions.