Google Book Search

> Just scanning and storing copyrighted content isn't a violation of copyright.....Their book project is downright Borgesian in the scope of its larceny.

Traditional Logic sure plays into the hands of the lawyers, doesn't it?
Or into the hands of the Conflict Resolution Gurus!

Shall we all just burn our libraries and start again with a Free Public
Commons Licence? Or isn't there a more friendly way to manage life on
earth?

George

At 3:26 PM -0700 4/6/07, james.connolly wrote:
>Just scanning and storing copyrighted content isn't a violation of
>copyright, if it is done by a library that is, and BTW they paid the
>copyright owner for at least one copy of the copyrighted material.
>Google doesn't want to pay publishers anything for their content.
>(See Sam Zell's comments to the Stanford student body re newspapers
>and Google.) Their book project is downright Borgesian in the scope
>of its larceny.

Google Scholar indexes many many books and articles. And yet, it only
displays the contents of SOME of the works for which it returns
results. (I use Google all time, and usually have to use my
university's journal databases to retrieve articles that Google
Scholar marks as hits.) Looking at Google Books, it seems to be the
same. Some books are available in their entirety, some just previews,
and some as little more than references. So, it is NOT the case that
Google in making entire works available online. Rather, it is just
indexing many of them.

So, the question is whether that setup is be a violation of copyright.

First, the libraries do NOT have special rights to scan and store
copyrighted material. It's not a matter of who is doing it. Rather,
it is the purpose for which it is done. Education, art and
scholarship are more likely to be acceptable uses than other. As a
scholar, am not limited in my use of works to those I have borrowed
from libraries. I can use books that I own, that I borrow from
friend. I can even sit a book store, taking notes, and use the book
without anyone every paying for it.

The purposes of this discussion (i.e. Google Books), I don't believe
that Google's ownership of the books is relevant. to that point, I've
never seen any copyright holders criticize Google Books on the
grounds that Google has not purchased a copy of a book.

The question, the ONLY question, is whether making available an index
of copyrighted material without the copyright owners' permission
falls under fair use, or not.

Some copyright holders want money in exchange for allowing Google to
do this. Google does not want to pay them. Google Books (like Google
Scholar) is not a commercial enterprise; Google does not list ads
with the search results. This is part of determining fair use.

Google does not display the whole work, and yet it indexes the whole
work. The "amount and substantiality" of the portion used is also
part of determining fair use. In this case, is the former germane
(display) or the latter (indexing). I can see how to argue each side.
Eventually, the courts would will have to make a definitive judgement
on this sub-question.

Google argues that they are actually increasing the value and/or
potential market of copyrighted works by including them in their
index. I entirely agree with that argument. And that is a big part of
determining fair use.

So, while I understand why copyright holders want more money - not
entirely unlike the music labels wanting more money - that doesn't
make all use of copyrighted work violations of copyright.

************************

Perhaps another example might be useful.

ESPN is cash cow. It is clearly a commercial enterprise. It's
flagship show is called SportsCenter. It's like a new program, but
for sports. It includes human interest and analysis, but the heart of
this program is highlights from recent sports events.

To show these highlights, ESPN does not pay the athletes, the leagues
or copyright holders of the footage.

But ESPN does not violate copyright, because it's use of that footage
is fair use. (The courts have said that a limited amount of footage
of recent events can be fair use.)

************************

Based on my understanding of copyright law and fair use, I'm strongly
inclined to think that Google Books does not violate copyright.
However, I can also imagine the courts saying otherwise., however
unlikely.

It certainly isn't clear that it is "Borgesian in the scope of its
larceny." Certainly no copyright holders have been able even get a
temporary restraining order to keep Google from continuing their work
while the situation is cleared up.

So, why do you think that it IS a violation of copyright?

--

=Alex Hoffman
Leadership Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

Alexander Hoffman wrote:

> But ESPN does not violate copyright, because it's use of that footage
> is fair use. (The courts have said that a limited amount of footage
> of recent events can be fair use.)

Actually for a time there were some "heated" negotiations with the
various sports bodies about this issue. It is now all governed by
agreements detailing how long a clip can be in seconds (and likely
tenths) and how much total from an event and what can be show or even
discussed while an event is in progress or for some period after it is
over. But skirmishes do flare up a times. And Disney owning ABC owning
ESPN tied to Apple/iTMS and .... only makes it more bizarre at times as
to what can be said by who when. When ESPN lost the NASCAR deal to
FOX/NBC back a few years ago there were a few arguments at the gates
over who and what from ESPN could come in to cover what and when and for
how long. :)