Supreme Court won’t hear case against Google Books

[ottdmk]

True, but they're using the capability of finding any passage of text in the entire book to drive ad revenue. It's a fantastic service, and I don't really begrudge Google the right to earn some money off of it... but it's only possible because Google's backend has the entire book.

So if I'm an author, I can easily see why they'd be all "This massive company is making money because they've grabbed my book."

I'm not saying they're right. I think Google has found a clever way to extend their search brand while staying within the bounds of fair use. But I can sympathize as to why some authors might feel this doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ottdmk

True, but they're using the capability of finding any passage of text in the entire book to drive ad revenue. It's a fantastic service, and I don't really begrudge Google the right to earn some money off of it... but it's only possible because Google's backend has the entire book.

So if I'm an author, I can easily see why they'd be all "This massive company is making money because they've grabbed my book."

I'm not saying they're right. I think Google has found a clever way to extend their search brand while staying within the bounds of fair use. But I can sympathize as to why some authors might feel this doesn't pass the sniff test.

No,
The authors should pay Google for the free advertising.
If I can search Google and find a cool quote from a book, maybe I will buy the book.

[ottdmk]

Oh, definitely... but it's hard to measure that. It's difficult to say that Author 3 got X amount more sales because Google indexed their book.

Like I said, I don't think they're right... but I can see why some might think the way they do.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

No,
The authors should pay Google for the free advertising.

Only if the authors requested it. I reject that whole "I'm doing you a favor, bro" attitude of thieves and pirates and other selfish rule-breakers trying to delude themselves that their behavior is justifiable.

I may have to take that to the vent and rant thread.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ApK

Only if the authors requested it. I reject that whole "I'm doing you a favor, bro" attitude of thieves and pirates and other selfish rule-breakers trying to delude themselves that their behavior is justifiable.

I may have to take that to the vent and rant thread.

I agree with you with a caveat.
The author should have the option of saying: Google do not show any part of my book.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I agree with you with a caveat.
The author should have the option of saying: Google do not show any part of my book.

I don't see how that is a caveat to what I said*. I don't think it's related. But on the specific topic you bring up:
If what Google has done is legal, not infringing on anyone's copyrights, and within in the bounds of fair use, then there is no reason for them to allow authors to opt out. Doing so would only diminish the project, infringing on the public's fair use of the info. You might as well say people should just be able to "opt" to never have their copyrights or patents expire, ever.

If what they have done in any way REQUIRES giving the authors that choice, something more fundamental is wrong, and should probably be addressed at a higher level.

*unless you mean you think Google is the right only because "Hey, we're doing you a favor by violating your copyright, bro" as long as they then let the author opt out.
In that case I still whole reject the idea that stealing someone's control and making those decisions for them is in any way good or justifiable.
It'd be like a thief saying "I'm going to steal every car on this block, so you can get the insurance money to by a nicer one. I'm doing you a favor, bro, but if you really are going make such a big deal out of it, just leave me a note saying you don't want me to steal your car. You're welcome."

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ottdmk

True, but they're using the capability of finding any passage of text in the entire book to drive ad revenue. It's a fantastic service, and I don't really begrudge Google the right to earn some money off of it... but it's only possible because Google's backend has the entire book.

Presumably, any reviewer who quoted a passage only did so after reading the whole book.
They then scanned their mental database and chose a passage to quote in their review.

As I understand it, Google got the content from libraries. They are perfectly free to read the whole book, just like any other entity with access to the public library is. And just as with any other entity, it's what they DO with the info they got from reading the book that either is an infringement or isn't.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ApK

Presumably, any reviewer who quoted a passage only did so after reading the whole book.
They then scanned their mental database and chose a passage to quote in their review.

As I understand it, Google got the content from libraries. They are perfectly free to read the whole book, just like any other entity with access to the public library is. And just as with any other entity, it's what they DO with the info they got from reading the book that either is an infringement or isn't.

It's functionally the same as if they created an AI that read all the books and could then could quote pasages on demand. Or if a superhuman mental giant could do the same thing.

Read.
Store in memory.
Quote.

Fair use for living beings, fair use when automated.
Automating the process does not magically make it illegal.

Good thinking by the court.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's functionally the same as if they created an AI that read all the books and could then could quote pasages on demand. Or if a superhuman mental giant could do the same thing.

Read.
Store in memory.
Quote.

Fair use for living beings, fair use when automated.
Automating the process does not magically make it illegal.

Yeah, that's what I said. But I used more words, so I win.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yeah, that's what I said. But I used more words, so I win.

What I was thinking is if an author has an objection to any part of his/her book being used/quoted then Google should graciously make sure that book or any part of it is not findable in a Google search. This includes the title and author's name and if the book is on the author's website then Google should make sure not to link it either because it will show the author's book and the author doesn't want anything to do with Google.

But then, there are some that object to the samples on Amazon because people should just buy their books blindly. This is the same bunch that think books should not be able to be returned.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

What I was thinking is if an author has an objection to any part of his/her book being used/quoted then Google should graciously make sure that book or any part of it is not findable in a Google search. This includes the title and author's name and if the book is on the author's website then Google should make sure not to link it either because it will show the author's book and the author doesn't want anything to do with Google.

Yes, I understood that's what you meant. Certainly even if you are doing something legal, good, and within your rights, you might chose to respect someone's wishes and not do that thing, just to be polite or sociable or whatever.

I don't think this should be one of those times.
If what Google is gong is within their rights, if they are NOT infringing on the copyrights of the authors, then it's an important public service in the spirit of why fair use (and copyright itself) exists, and they would be diminishing the value to society if Google acquiesced to an author requesting that Google voluntary curtail their own rights for no good reason.

It would be like a government saying "People desperately need this water supply, and we're properly and responsibly invoking eminent domain to build a pipeline across all your properties and save people's lives. But if you don't like it, just tell us and we'll opt you out, we'll just build around your property, costing millions of dollars extra, years of delay, and costing more lives. You have no legal right to ask us to do that, we just want to be nice."

(Yes, I get that you are suggesting that Google snub them, make them bite off their nose to spite their face, throw the baby out with the bath water, etc, and do it to be mean, not nice, but still...)

[Dopedangel]

Are any of these books current fiction book under copyright. Personally if I was an author with a lot of blacklist titles not being released these days would ask google for the ocr text and release them as ebooks.

[Cinisajoy]

Glad you understood me. I was being a bit facetious. But then I find the lawsuit silly.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yes, I understood that's what you meant. Certainly even if you are doing something legal, good, and within your rights, you might chose to respect someone's wishes and not do that thing, just to be polite or sociable or whatever.

I don't think this should be one of those times.
If what Google is gong is within their rights, if they are NOT infringing on the copyrights of the authors, then it's an important public service in the spirit of why fair use (and copyright itself) exists, and they would be diminishing the value to society if Google acquiesced to an author requesting that Google voluntary curtail their own rights for no good reason.

It would be like a government saying "People desperately need this water supply, and we're properly and responsibly invoking eminent domain to build a pipeline across all your properties and save people's lives. But if you don't like t, just tell us and we'll opt you out, we'll just build around your property, costing millions of dollars extra, years of delay, and costing more lives. you have no right to ask us to do that, we just want to be nice."

Copyright is not a law of nature nor is it absolute.
It is a *limited* boon granted by government to promote the public good. Among those limits is fair use. And the single most basic form of fair use is quotation.

When Google started their effort they were doing questionable things with the so-called "orphan books". Things the AG tried to condone in exchange for cash. That got tossed out.

What remained was fair use.
But the since the AG is against most forms of fair use anyway, they'll still be fighting this right up to the moment the asteroid hits.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Copyright is not a law of nature nor is it absolute.
It is a *limited* boon granted by government to promote the public good. Among those limits is fair use. And the single most basic form of fair use is quotation.

[...]

What remained was fair use.

Yes, and that use is of importance to society so it should not be curtailed on a whim (neither to be nice nor to be vengeful). My point exactly.