Whingeing Author’s Guild !
p2p news / p2pnet:- “F*cking whingeing Author’s Guild. If I remember correctly, they came down against public libraries when the US government wanted to start funding them – ‘If people can read for free, nobody will buy books! Authors will be devastated!’ "
That’s p2pnet’s Alex H on the US Author’s Guild decision to sue Google for alleged copyright infrinment, as the MPAA terms it.
Says the EFF’s Fred von Lohmann, "Just as libraries don’t need to pay publishers when they create a card catalog, neither should Google or other search engines be required to when they create an improved digital equivalent.”
Google is relying on the copyright principle of fair use which allows the public to copy works without having to ask permission or pay licensing fees to copyright holders, says the EFF, going on that it believes Google will probably prevail.
A key point is that Google Print is a transformative use of these books, says the foundation.
The company is creating a virtual card catalog to help people to finding books, rather than creating replacements for the books themselves, says the EFF. “In addition, it is almost certain that Google Print will boost, rather than hurt, the market for the copyrighted books.”
If you’re interested in this, the EFF and Alex both suggest the Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis from DC copyright attorney Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth is worth a look.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
September 22nd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
The proper spelling is “whining” (as in to whine like I’m doing now lol), not whingeing. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be a spelling nazi, and usually I don’t care at all about incorrect spelling on the internet. But that one word always bothers me for some reason. Please don’t take it personally. Otherwise, good point about the libraries.
I think Google Print is an absolutely brilliant idea. Too bad copyright holders can opt-out. I’m 99% sure Google will win this case and maybe even set a nice precedent to boot when all is said and done. Even if the books were readable from cover to cover in electronic form, I highly doubt anyone would want to. It’s just not a very comfortable way to read something that’s really long, like a novel. Plus you’re shackled to your PC. I much prefer reading a good book in bed for example. Anyways, once folks start seeing what a great idea this is and how it’s benefiting everyone, those that opt-out will come around and this will eventually become a very desirable thing. Plus you have to be careful of pissing Google off, because as they’ve shown in the past, they can and will blacklist you.
Someone said something on /. that got my attention about copyright. Part of the terms of copyright, by law, includes fair use. You can’t have one without the other, and you can’t pick and choose. By copyrighting something, you agree to allow people to use your material, or at least parts of your material, in things such as reviews and what not. When we look at the works of the recording industry, they are all copyrighted. Yet they do not allow fair use at all. I’m wondering what interesting consequences this little revelation could lead to. For example, the only time I download songs off of p2p is so I can preview it before buying. I have no interest in keeping the material I download simply because it is so low quality. I much prefer buying a CD if it’s good enough, and ripping that to a lossless format such as FLAC or Monkey’s Audio. I’ve tried using the previews at Amazon.com for example, but I always have trouble getting them to play properly, plus the snippets are too short and too low a quality to make any kind of sound judgement. Also, not every CD is on there, nor does every CD that is on there have a preview available. So, could downloading MP3’s off of p2p networks be considered fair use? In my case I would say so.
September 22nd, 2005 at 7:36 pm
I agree with your opinion (& the /. post…) about copyright. The big music and movie robber barrons and the US gvmnt would appear not to. The DMCA totally subverts legal fair use of any and all “copy protected” digital media. It does not say directly that the public cannot make copies according to fair use doctrine, it says if you make any attempt to circumvent the various media copy protection scams it is illegal. Where music and movies are concerned (perhaps e-books too), for the average consumer fair use is effectively dead.
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 pm
I agree with nearly all your points, with the exception of one.
whinge (hwĭnj, wĭnj)
intr.v. Chiefly British., whinged, whing·ing, whing·es.
To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.
If you are going to be a spelling nazi, you have to take into account that some words are spelled differently in other nations.:P
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Quite right, carpefile. Where would we be if we couldn’t winj? heh
Cheers!