posted
I admit, I'm having mixed feelings about this article I read in the August 13, 2005 New York Times:
quote:Google said yesterday that it would temporarily halt its program to make searchable, digital copies of the vast contents of three university libraries to give publishers and other copyright holders the chance to opt out of having their protected works copied.
...The libraries agreed to let Google copy their entire collections, of both public domain and copyrighted works, to allow searching. When a search request produces a result in a protected work, Google displays only a snippet of text, plus bibliographic information and, if the book is still in print, links to sites where it might be available for purchase.
As a reader, I'd be thrilled to truly have electronic access to even one entire university's library, much less three. As a writer, I'm not so enthusiasic about a company (not my publisher) who was scanning my manuscript and publishing it electronically. Without my permission, and without my knowledge. There's just a whole lot wrong with that scenario.
Essentially, the libraries have negotiated the agreement to publish electronically with Google. It's not their right! (And do you suppose they are making any money off this project?)
I can see,with links to where to purchase the entire text, that book sales WILL potentially increase, and goodness knows the publishing industry can use a boost. But this process completely bypasses the author. AND the original publisher.
It will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved in the courts. The Google Library Database project has been suspended while the lawyers mull over the copyright law.
posted
I'm torn between wanting to make some money off my intellectual properties before I die...and thinking that copyright is a scam, perpetrated by fat cat corporations, that stifles competition and keeps things out of the public eye by charging more than the market will bear for it.
I wouldn't mind seeing the contents of some libraries available on line. There are books that are hopelessly out of print, but still in copyright, that I'd like to read again, and / or use for research.
quote: The agreements with the three university libraries have proved more problematic. The libraries agreed to let Google copy their entire collections, of both public domain and copyrighted works, to allow searching. When a search request produces a result in a protected work, Google displays only a snippet of text, plus bibliographic information and, if the book is still in print, links to sites where it might be available for purchase. Publishers have objected to the program, however, saying that even if only snippets of a protected work are displayed in the search results, Google has still violated the copyright by making a wholesale copy and keeping it on the company's computers.
On the plus side I see:
Public domain books all on line and accessible by many for free. Knowledge (even links to purchase said works ) of copyrighted works instantly made available.
On the negative side I see:
Google or other companies deciding that it is their choice, not an authors, to do with the works as it desires. How many full copies of books are lost to on-line theft etc...
#
Seems as though this evolution, or some mutation of it, will be inevitable. I am unsure if this is a true violation of a copyright but I very much dislike the opt out of things mentality. I'm rather disappointed in goggles handling of this issue. Does anyone have insight as to the actual legal implications? Has google violated the copyright by making a wholesale copy and keeping it on a computer? I would image that every author would be interested in knowing how this pans out.
posted
Well, I don't know if you guys have used the google search functionality, but having the text fully searchable is very different form having the text fully readable.
I tried pulling up Ender's Game the day they put that feature online. Sure enough, I just started reading . . . 'til I got to page seven. Then it wouldn't let me go any further.
I think having the full searchable text of books online is wonderful, and I really don't see any copyright problems with it whatsoever . . . so long as the text isn't available for reading for free.
posted
Although I believe this will be a very small number of people and therefore may not matter, you can be sure that anyone working on the project will have access to the works in their entirety, and many won't think twice to giving access to their family and friends. And some of those people may not think it's that big of a deal to give it to some of their friends etc...
I agree Falken/Corin searching and reading the entire text are different, however if you have a work that you have published wouldn't you want to be able to say weather or not it's used in that manner? After all it's your work.
posted
There is also the question of Fair Use to consider. But it is clear that Google is not intending to publish the material, it is only making it possible to search it.
I think that it would take a heck of a lot of work to snag the whole text through Google's search engine even as it was. They will no doubt settle on a scheme where it would be nigh impossible, probably involving at least some scrambling of the actual text as well as probably cutting it down so that the entire text isn't stored anywhere, only those portions that contain important search tags. Google would probably want to do that anyway eventually, just to save on space and improve search times. Eventually each book will be reduced to a search index that contains a list of important terms and how many times each occurs in the text, including certain phrases, and a blurb that will be displayed for that book regardless of the search terms that generated the hit.
However, they probably do want to work with the entire texts for now so that they can generate practical data on which terms/phrases to index. They also want to make the functionality as similar to the target engine as possible, and that means preventing a search from generating much more information than the target engine would eventually provide.
I think that it should be possible for people to find published works by using search engines. Certainly, I would want all my published works to be so available More generally, I think that making something available rather than keeping it unavailable is the entire point of publication. It is possible to copyright something and then keep it unpublished, after all.
posted
I for one am all for it. I don't usually buy a music cd unless I have heard one or more tracks from it or already know I like the artist. CD stores that let me listen to an entire album before I buy it are more likely to make a sale from me. Similarly, if I can read the first few pages of a book online and get hooked, then be directed to a site where I can purchase said book, perhaps I would be more likely to buy it. And I'm with Survivor. I don't mind at all if people can get my book to come up on a search, that creates more exposure of my work to the world, which in my mind is a good thing.
Posts: 818 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
More generally, I think that making something available rather than keeping it unavailable is the entire point of publication. It is possible to copyright something and then keep it unpublished, after all.
