“I don’t see much sense in that,” said Rabbit.
“No,” said Pooh humbly, “There isn’t. But there was going to be when I began it. It’s just that something happened to it along the way.”
***
So for some time now mother and I have been carrying on a running debate over copyrights. Fascinating you say? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Now this all started over Google’s intention to create Google Print (which is now Google Books). The goal of the Google Print library was to make available small selections from every book available at large institutions such as Oxford, Harvard and the New York library. In addition, thousands of public domain works like Dante’s Inferno and the Brother’s Grimm, whose copyrights have expired, were to be scanned in their entirety. Google was not going to sell these books in any way shape or form.
(If you’ve ever walked into a gas station and seen the really old movies or classical CD’s for sale for around $4 or $5, that’s because these movies are in the public domain and the video makers don’t have to pay royalties)
So mom (or I suppose more accurately, the American Author’s Guild) cried foul! They cited copyright infringement, with the President of the AAG saying, “Why would people buy the books if they can read it online?”.
***
I hereby share some excepts from a South African computer columnist on this very subject (by the way, I fairly certain that this also is copyright infringement):
In response to the AAG quote,”…this message has been used before in the movie and music piracy debate. In both cases even the highly illegal activity of piracy seems to act as a catalyst for more sales, albeit sales that suit the demands of the audience. While CD sales and box office revenues are declining, digital music and the DVD revealed a whole new trend amongst entertainment consumers. Google is envisioning an online library and regards limited use of authors’ text as fair use (That’s me. Remember how much the Rolling Stones wanted for a single line from a single song, mom?). It also argues that a search service would be a benefit to book sales.
Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, echoed this very sentiment…’How many users will find, and then buy, books that they never could have discovered any other way? How many out-of-print and backlist titles will find new and renewed sales life?’
It appears that he was correct. Traffic analyzer Hitwise noted that the recent launch of Google Books UK sparked surges in traffic towards online resellers such as Amazon, WH Smith and Bookfinder.com. The same pattern was noted by GM Research when Google Print, now Google Books, pushed traffic towards book sites and retailers during the last year. Despite the sentiment and litigious approach (oh no he didn’t!) of book authors and publishers, the numbers speak differently. Amazon.com’s own A9 search engine also allows limited page searches, but Google provides a much larger and more comprehensive alternative that isn’t aimed at a specific retailer’s stock, not to mention the serious amount of traffic it generates.
…the company was accused of rights grabbing, but Google Books goes to a lot of effort to prevent the printing of pages and extensive reading. It also provides links to the publishers and book shops that may stock the title…
Despite the concerns around copyright infringement and loss of sales, data shows that services such as these actually drive traffic towards the right sources.”
***
How about that huh? Having actually gone to the Google Books site, I randomly selected a book about Irish history. There were maybe twenty pages available including the cover, title page and contents. There were only two pages of actual content that were consecutive, with the rest being randomly selected throughout the book. If you try to print it, only the border, which includes title, author and summary will appear. NONE of the content from the book is printable!
I would argue that making small selections available to the public is exactly like browsing through the book at the bookstore. Since you can’t browse online, Google came up with this. This is absolutely fair use! I know I’ve personally sat down in Borders day after day an read an entire series (and so have you mom). That’s should be much more of a concern than the limited content you can get from Google.
I love this soapbox of mine. I’m looking for responses from all you bums. That is all.
My Dear Son: Now we go public with this? Okay then. (THIS from a boy who ate three meals a day, wore all the sweatpants and black sweatshirts he desired, and even went to Space Camp on the strength of his mother’s royalties…). So, in an American world where artists are certainly not supported publicly financially with any more enthusiasm than the schools, museums or orchestras are (this is not the case in other nations)–in an American world where the mega-interests of the huge publishing houses are now the poor stepsisters of the mega-entertainment congloerates treat the isolated, lonely, hardworking creator (e.g. the writer) with contempt and a pittance of the return–my son proposes that Google (who, last I heard, was not a nonprofit, but instead a multimillion dollar industry that sells its service to high dollar advertisers and is one of the most successful for-profit companies in the nation)NOT pay the artist/writer for use of his/her copyrighted book? PLEASE! Sam, as always your case is well presented and strong. Nevertheless, Google sells its product to its advertisers. It is in the business of making money. The Authors Guild (the only representative of the lone creative voice)says: We have no argument for that which is in the public domain. But copyright was intended to protect the writer whose very livlihood depends on receiving maybe $.10 a book. By all means come to some agreement with us. But all we have for our labor is our copyright. If you can violate that without compensation and agreement–then there really is no protection for creative rights at all: Hence, Sam, no three meals a day, no black sweats, no Space Camp…
I love you. By all means, go see the Tigers. I guarantee you’ll regret it if you do not. I love you dearly (and of course I respect you enormously too.) YO’ MAMA
Comment by Mom — October 31, 2006 @ 1:34 am
Pretty quick out of the gate on that one mom! Allow me time to rebut.
And come folks, mom and I are old hands at this. Calling all you “artists” out there! Pipe up!
Comment by sambo1980 — October 31, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Fair Use: a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.
Surely someone who browses through a dozen non-sequential pages of a book is not going to decide they’ve gotten the gist of the the contents, and as such choose not to buy the book.
Google Books would seem to fall quite nicely under the review section of the Fair Use doctrine, since the person is in a sense reviewing the book themselves (like flipping through a book at Borders). Since Google is paying to scan these books and paying for the storage and bandwidth (and yes, they’re making money off advertising), artists should be welcoming the absolutely free advertising of their works.
Where in this scheme would the author’s be losing their $.10 (which is pretty freaking appaling in and of itself)?
The argument that “if we let them get a foot in the door, they’ll run roughshod over us” can’t really be used in this case. Fair Use, while a subjective bit of copyright law, has been held to very clear limits over the years.
Can you honestly say you’d sell less books if people could browse a small bit of them online (well, maybe that Bridges of Madison County book)? Certainly Google wouldn’t launch such an ambitious and costly (perhaps prohibitively so, if they have to pay a copyright to every author whose work they sample) service if they didn’t think they would make money,
But here the interests of the two groups seem to run in the same direction. The more money they make from advertising, the more people are using there service, and the more books will be purchased.
Right? And by the way, thanks for all the meals and sweatshirts mom.
Comment by sambo1980 — November 1, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Sambo: I’ve already answered your private missive privately. I just need to add this one: Do you believe that everyone that purchases books intends to read it in its entirety? There are ALL kinds of books (cookbooks, history books, biographies, textbooks and much more) that people buy with the intention of using the book for its parts not its whole. The Google selections could very well inhibit sales of these books. No need for thanks to your mother for the sweatshirts–but you might offer a nod to the Authors Guild who has been the only collective force to protect those shirts from the corporate forces (both publishing and google) that threaten them. I AM laughing as we write this–and I do hope your friends recognize the love and mutual respect we ooze in our “discourse.” MOM
Comment by Mom — November 1, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…
Comment by pseuttiseek — April 24, 2009 @ 2:59 am