Holy Copyright Batman! - Google's Scanning!

[Button]

I just had to share: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_hi_te/google_library_copyrights

Now it says that libraries only gave Google access to copyright free material, but I was appauled to think that Google would dare to do such a thing!

Now, I personally hate to read long lengths of works on a screen, I get a headache just thinking about it. But what good would scanning your books be? If I wanted to do that with my work, wouldn't I make an ebook availble?

Maybe I am not reading this right, but is this excatly what Google wants? To really provide for free my books and they can assume they can do that? Not only that, but they would be making money, I'm sure, by putting their Google Adsense up with it.

What will they think up next?

[Button]

And please pardon my mistakes as I am really irritated to even think about this, I can hardly type properly.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

I'm no expert (we'd need Jaws for that), but I DO work in the legal field and have a limited amount of IP (Intellectual Property) experience. I seriously doubt that this would hold up in court. The moment they post a copyrighted book online without first securing permission the copyright holder could take them to court--and win, I would think. I could be wrong about that, but people aren't allowed to just republish already-published books in print without gaining permission of the copyright holder and/or publisher, so I don't see how this would be any different. Publishing something is publishing it, whether on-line or in print.

[katiemac]

Google wants publishers to notify the company which copyrighted books they don't want scanned, effectively requiring the industry to opt out of the program instead of opting in.

This is the part from the article I find most bizarre. Rather than asking permission from companies, they're just going ahead and scanning. Again, I don't know all the legal terms, or how the scans are going to be accessed, but it certainly doesn't seem legal at all.

There have been books translated into other languages where it's not available, then "published" online (the most recent cases I've heard are all translations the newest Harry Potter), but those are pulled as soon as they're found. The translators is these cases aren't trying to make money, which seems like the ultimate end of Google's campaign.

[Richard]

Now, I personally hate to read long lengths of works on a screen, I get a headache just thinking about it. But what good would scanning your books be? If I wanted to do that with my work, wouldn't I make an ebook availble?

Playing Devil's Advocate, from Google's point of view, it'd be a case of making the basic information available - when they asked a question, they'd get a short snippet of your book showing that it has the information and giving information on where to buy it. They wouldn't be reprinting the whole book by any means, and would undoubtedly make it a genuine pain in the arse to read around it.

(Incidentally, Amazon already has their own version of this called 'Look Inside')

[trumancoyote]

Yes! I'm glad you mentioned Amazon's version of the same thing.

The difference is that Amazon seeks permission from the publisher first.

In any case, though it would be a pain in the *** to read from cover to cover in digital format using Amazon's program, it's sure as Hell handy when you're looking to quote something and you don't have it in front of you.

[Richard]

Yeah, Amazon's scheme is opt-in.

To be honest, I'm less than convinced about how bad and awful this is. I've no idea why this is in 'Writing Novels', since it's only non-fiction that would really benefit from this - but the odds of Google creating a system where you can read a book from start to finish on your screen are basically going to be zero, leading to a way of actually tracking down information you want on the web, and then having a specific book to buy for more (rather than seeing it on a site, moving on because you need the answer now, not in 2-8 weeks, and finding the answer elsewhere on the internet). Done responsibly, it actually has a lot of benefits to publishers and writers.

Of course, keyword spotters shouldn't need reminding which are the important words there.

[Jaws]

Due to my representation of other clients, I can't comment in detail. However, the Copyright Act is an opt-in statute; technological advances don't change that. Period.

Google might be able to claim a limitation of remedies under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512), but not immunity.

[William Haskins]

Google pauses on book search after copyright flap (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-08-12T185012Z_01_EIC267751_RTRIDST_0_NET-GOOGLE-COPYRIGHT-DC.XML)

[astonwest]

It almost sounds like (from William's link) Google is asking people to contact them if they don't want to have it done...which is a little backwards from how it would have to happen, methinks...

[icerose]

This is so not good. You can read the whole book right online. No more worries about other people stealing your work, Google does it for them!

[Tish Davidson]

Google has now said that they will stop scanning books until November to give publishers a chance to contact them and provide a specific list of books they want to opt out of the program. This is not good enough, because it legitimizes the opt out format.

I spent some time today looking around the Google website to see if I could find a place to complain. Nowhere could I find an email address for general contact or complaints. The only general address I could find was a postal address, although there are e-addresses for the help desk, investor information, jobs, and "success stories." I find it particularly offensive that Google, which makes its money from the Internet, appears to be thwarting digital contact. Maybe someone more skilled than I can find the correct place to complain. I WANT TO COMPLAIN!! As a published author and a Google stockholder, I am furious. What is going to happen is that people will search Google and pick up information and diagrams from published in-copyright works and use them without ever buying the book. You can do the same thing from library books, but at least the library has to buy the book. This plan appears to me to be a major erosion of copyright protection. I'm writing books to support myself, not to drive traffic to the Google Web site.

[AnneMarble]

This is so not good. You can read the whole book right online. No more worries about other people stealing your work, Google does it for them!
From what I've seen, you can only see a couple of pages of the book, and then there are links enabling you to order the book. In most cases, all I was able to see was a title page and a copyright page, and sometimes, the table of contents.

There may be exceptions -- with many books, you couldn't see a thing unless you registered. I'm not sure if you got access to more pages if you registered. Also, I'm not sure what the registration involved.

It was still a silly idea, at least the way they implemented it.
:box:

[Tish Davidson]

From what I've seen, you can only see a couple of pages of the book, and then there are links enabling you to order the book. In most cases, all I was able to see was a title page and a copyright page, and sometimes, the table of contents.

There may be exceptions -- with many books, you couldn't see a thing unless you registered. I'm not sure if you got access to more pages if you registered. Also, I'm not sure what the registration involved.

It was still a silly idea, at least the way they implemented it.
:box:

Are we talking about the same thing? Has Google already implemented this on the Web? My impression from the articles was that they were scanning in-copyright books but had not already posted them. Can you provide a link to an example?

[icerose]

They have several books already up.

http://print.google.com/

Says right on the site you can search full text of books. You just need the title, author, ISBN, or a keyword to find them, click on a book, and start reading. I was able to get a few pages.

For now it seems they have only scanned in books that are in public domain because library's have refused to send copywrite protected materials and there is a place for publishers to add their books. Looks like they are also restricting it so you can search for keywords and only read a few pages. If they keep it at this it won't be so bad, but the day they make the entire book available online is going to be a scary one, especially if they get away with the opt-out instead of the opt-in like it should be.

[Hang of Thursdays]

Google Print SEARCHES the full text, it does not display or allow anyone to READ the full text. For instance, I just did a search for "Hidden Prey" -- because it was the last book I'd read. i didn't find the book, but i found a few others -- that were not, it's worth noting, in the public domain -- where the search words could be found. Only a limited range of pages (four, i think) were viewable.

Perhaps there's a way around this -- and I'm sure some enterprising hacker will find one, one day -- but at the moment, there doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

The way I see it, this will increase incidental purchases of your book, not decrease them. On the off chance that someone was looking for YOUR book specifically because they'd heard it was good, they'd probably just find your website and read the sample chapter you'd have posted there. But on the off chance that they WERE searching for your book, it sure would be great to have it there for someone to glance at --just like in a bookstore (and hell, in a bookstore --especially one like Barnes and Noble's what with the comfy chairs and all -- you've got less protection against those people that want to read your book for free.)

[Hang of Thursdays]

They have several books already up.

http://print.google.com/

the day they make the entire book available online is going to be a scary one, especially if they get away with the opt-out instead of the opt-in like it should be.

Is that their plan? I haven't read this anywhere. Where could I find it?

[Tish Davidson]

On the off chance that someone was looking for YOUR book specifically because they'd heard it was good, they'd probably just find your website and read the sample chapter you'd have posted there. But on the off chance that they WERE searching for your book, it sure would be great to have it there for someone to glance at --just like in a bookstore (and hell, in a bookstore --especially one like Barnes and Noble's what with the comfy chairs and all -- you've got less protection against those people that want to read your book for free.)

People looking for your book specifically will go to Amazon and look at the reviews then read the excerpt if it is available. Not all publishers are thrilled with authors posting chapters on personal websites.

I think the danger is greater to nonfiction writers and for reference works where someone is looking for a few facts or statistics, rather than for fiction writers that are being read for pleasure.

And I have no problem with public domain works being scanned. As an author, I do, however, have a problem with my work being by Google to make money by driving traffic to their sites to see their ads.

[Richard]

Not necessarily. Someone looking for a few facts and statistics probably isn't going to buy your book just for those anyway - but if they run into it while searching and it helps them, it puts you firmly on the front-line for books to buy for further information.

[Hang of Thursdays]

I think the danger is greater to nonfiction writers and for reference works where someone is looking for a few facts or statistics, rather than for fiction writers that are being read for pleasure.

And I have no problem with public domain works being scanned. As an author, I do, however, have a problem with my work being by Google to make money by driving traffic to their sites to see their ads.

The thing is, the same people who would look up those random facts online (at google print) can do the same at the library. It's the same principle. Except at the library, you can't search specifically for the thing you want that's hidden deep inside the book.

So if you're a nonfiction writer, people searching for information that you have might not ever find it (in YOUR book, anyway) without google print.

Now, it's arguable (like richard said) that the people looking for just those few random bits of information probably weren't going to buy the book in the first place, and i think that's probably the case, but I think that the cost/benefit ratio is in your favor. More people are probably apt to buy your book to see if there's more info in there that they need.

Google's ads also go to amazon.com, where people can easily purchase your book.

Now, you may still have a problem with all that. And as the copyright holder, you should be able to easily remove your book from the scanning process. Google should make that easier. But I don't think, in the end, it's a wise idea.

[Tish Davidson]

The thing is, the same people who would look up those random facts online (at google print) can do the same at the library. It's the same principle. Except at the library, you can't search specifically for the thing you want that's hidden deep inside the book.

Its the same principle EXCEPT the library had to BUY the book (in multiple copies if it is popular) and I get royalties for that sale, but nothing from Google. Why do I get the feeling that the people on this board who think this is a great idea aren't paying the bills with book royalties?

Is this any different from telling the film industry that they are going to put all movies online and people can search them by scene and then buy them if they like the movie? How many people would simply download their favorite scenes and forget about buying the movie?

Is this any different from telling a band that you are going to use a bit of one of their songs to advertise your product unless they put each song on a list that cannot be copied?

My objection is that copyright has always been an opt-in process where anyone wishing to use copyrighted material had to get permission as opposed to an opt-out process where the copyright holder must find the person who wants to use the material and deny permission. This puts time, financial, and proof of opting out burdens on the copyright holder (or publisher), while allowing a completely unrealted company that contributed NOTHING to the creation or distribution of the original work to make money off of it. I

I find it truly incredible that authors on this board can argue that this is a good thing. I thought we had put to rest the write for free exposure myths a long time ago.

[Richard]

You'll note that all of your objections are based on entertainment mediums, not research ones.

The counter-argument is that by providing the information there, Google Print could conceivably help you make a sale where there wasn't one before, and that if they don't find the information from you, they'll go elsewhere and find it from somewhere else.

You wouldn't get any royalty if I walked into a bookstore with a notepad and pen either, nor if someone on the web quoted the important part I needed to look up on their website (as covered under fair use/fair dealing), or if I called a friend and had them run me up a photocopy of the relevant section or anything else.

find it truly incredible that authors on this board can argue that this is a good thing. I thought we had put to rest the write for free exposure myths a long time ago.

This isn't write-for-free exposure. If done properly, this is advertising for your commercial product - in other words, the book - and the perfect way to tell potential readers that your title is the one that will answer their problems beyond that initial query. They're not making your book available for free, just providing a targeted sample. That's no more than I'd do if in the market for a book in a store - open it up, check a few pages to see if it's what I want, and either pick it up or put it down as a result. No amount of staring at spines or reader reviews can convey that.

That it's opt-out rather than opt-in isn't so defensible - sadly, Google is getting more and more arrogant as time marches on - but you've yet to convince me that this is the Great Satan of the internet age.

[Tish Davidson]

Okay, we can agree to disagree. I don't think Google is the Great Satan. I even own Google stock. But I think they are overreaching. What if the copyrighted code they have developed to run the Google sites were posted on the Net and people could search and sample their propriatory work product in case they wanted to license it for their own site? I bet you'd hear a Google scream all the way from Mountain View to Antarctica.

[Richard]

Yes, yes, Google can be pricks - just look at the CNet thing. The question to ask isn't how they'd react, but whether it's actually good or bad for individual writers.

[Tish Davidson]

I think the issue is broader than this and will eventually extend to all copyrighted material. What they are proposing is a major shift in the way copyright is administered.

[Button]

Okay here is the danger.

Google will print the books in full but only allow four pages to be viewed... at a time during your search. Eventually, people will pick up the right search terms that will allow someone to read the whole darn book without buying. It won't be that hard to figure out. Yes, nonfiction will suffer loads. Why buy the book if you can get the information you want out of it for free?

Fiction is a little different but hey, people are cheap.

Plus, Google is not buying, they get the books from libraries and they don't sell the books. They make money on commissions from sales (probably from Amazon) and I'm sure they will post Adsense on all those pages.

So not only are they posting your info without your permission, they are going to be making money off it, and not giving any to the authors or publishers. Plus with the possability of the hackers setting up link lists and getting complete books out of Google... the whole idea is just wrong.

If they WANTED to do this right, they would post like Amazon plus pages that the publisher and author agree on. Just those pages and no more. Google won't get away with it, publishers will fight this and they'll have to change their minds.

People aren't stupid. If they can hack your credit card, no reason they can't find keyword links that will get the entire book.

[Richard]

People aren't stupid. If they can hack your credit card, no reason they can't find keyword links that will get the entire book.

People are lazy. Look at the success of services like iTunes, or the fact that the music industry really wasn't affected in the slightest by the growth of P2P over the last few years. If the information is there, they'll probably buy it rather than messing around. Yes, a few would break the system and think themselves l33t hax0r types, but most really won't bother. USENET is absolutely stuffed with pirated books; companies like O'Reilly make whole books available online under a subscription service, but sales are still fine.

Yes, nonfiction will suffer loads. Why buy the book if you can get the information you want out of it for free?

You're only thinking about this from one perspective - 'how will people who want to get the information for free get hold of it'? While troublesome, these people almost certainly won't shell out either way - the fact that they've got a bit of information isn't really that relevant. If even dedicated computer guys still go out and buy the books they could be ripping off with absolute impunity, you're safe enough on most other fronts in that respect.

The question to ask is how it affects customers who are simply looking for information - and whether it's better for them to get it in your book, where you're basically getting a free targetted advert right in their face, or from someone else's site, completely cutting you out of the loop. Doing it the way you suggest wouldn't do that - it still only hits people who have already found their way to your book and then probably not anything useful to them except whether or not they consider your writing style impossible to endure.

[icerose]

I think the bigger issue is the way they are going about it. Publishers can contact us if they do not wish their books to be scanned in? Please! We hold the copyrights, they should ask us for permission no if's and's or but's! That is the way current copyright laws work, if they succeed in pulling this off, it could change the protection of copyrights. I mean anyone could start posting pieces of our work and call it fair use and that we would have to seek them out and get it removed. It's going to be a nightmare. I have no problem if they are an opt-in, but if they are allowed to move ahead with the opt-out. Not good.