Google book project must find a better way

Author M. David Stirling Writes for all of the good delivered to us by Google, with its current book indexing plan it seems the company is attempting to spin its Web too far, diminishing, if not ignoring, fundamental principles of the law, fairness, and even the value of its word.
His issue is one of treating the authors and publishers who create these works legally and fairly.

December 14, 2005 by Uncategorized 2

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Walt says:
    December 14, 2005 at 7:44 am

    His issue is hard-line copyright
    Of the ongoing cannonade of “Google’s stealing our work!” commentaries, with their pretty much uniform failure to note that the only real claim of infringement is for the digital copy nobody will see, this one’s unusual in that it adds another layer of silliness. Yep, all those books prior to 1976 sure do have lots of ISBN numbers, they do. And, of course, publishers never merge or go out of business, and all publishers own copyright in all their books, and “getting permission” will be painless and fast. Just send the flying pigs to do it.

    We don’t know whether Google’s claim of fair use rights is right. Lawyers, legal scholars, and other commentators are badly split on that issue. If it is fair use, Google does not need to and should not ask for permission: The whole point of fair use is to bypass permission.

    We won’t know whether Google’s right until or unless Google defends it in court.

    I do know this: It is about time that someone defended fair use in court; otherwise, this author’s stance–that you always need to ask for permission, period–becomes the de facto law and fair use becomes moribund. The Free Expression Policy Project’s prepared a bang-up special report, Will Fair Use Survive?. I’m halfway through reading it for a commentary in the next C&I. Meanwhile, you can order it or download it from the Free Expression Policy Project.

    Of course, the author is very much a special-interest representative: Look at who he works for and read the organization’s mission with your political word-filters in place.

    Reply
  2. cjovalle says:
    December 14, 2005 at 11:13 pm

    Purpose of copyright

    One statement from the article is a bit misleading:

    Copyright is a fundamental part of American law. Protection for authors and other creators is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and is truly one of the foundations of America’s freedom. It is a vital element in the day-to-day operation of our free enterprise system.

    The Constitutional basis for copyright law is from Article 1, § 8, cl. 8:
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    The purpose of copyright law is ultimately to benefit the public, the means of which is protection for creators. There are legitimate times when you do not need the copyright holders’ permission. That’s what the controversy is about…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LISNews Archives