US publishers sue Google
p2p news / p2pnet: The Association of American Publishers has followed in the footsteps of the Author’s Guild, suing Google for copyright infringement.
In papers filed today in New York, “the publishers association sought a ruling that would support an injunction against illegal scanning and cited the "continuing, irreparable and imminent harm publishers are suffering … due to Google’s willful (copyright) infringement to further its own commercial purposes," says the Associated Press.
“The suit named five publishers as plaintiffs: McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, Penguin Group USA, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons. The suit seeks recovery of legal costs, but no additional damages.”
ABC says Google called the legal action "short-sighted”.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Author’s Guild – 8,000 authors sue Google, September 21, 2005
Associated Press – Publishers Sue Google Over Scanning Plans, October 19, 2005
October 19th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
“continuing, irreparable and imminent harm publishers are suffering”
I wish that the law required that the copyright holders prove suffering. This is one of the problems with American and Canadian copyright law — the concept of “statutory damages” and the ability of copyright holders to get fines levied against an infringer even when no damage occurred. This is why the music cartels are able to scare P2P users into settling out of court, and how they are able to launch this frivolous lawsuit against Google at all.
If Google is just indexing the books and allowing people to find them, but not read them online, I can’t see how this is anything other than a $free$ advertising vehicle for book publishers. Google is trying to keep these antiquated book publishers relevant in the new media world. In a sane world the book publishers would be paying large fees to Google, not suing them.
It is getting harder and harder every day to have any sympathy for the interests of old-economy copyright holders and their intermediaries.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
I’m not sure about the “large fees” part but I agree with what you’re saying. If Google is going to provide a “buy me” link then the large fees may come into play…
“ABC says Google called the legal action “short-sightedâ.”
I’d say “blind” is more like it.
October 20th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Just another stupid group of people sueing google for no reason…
October 20th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Poor Google…I think they should be added to P2Pnet’s list of victims…
when will the madness end????
October 20th, 2005 at 2:26 am
(Broken record alert
When we, the people, start to better inform our government about our wishes (writing letters, making phone calls, setting up meetings, etc) — that is when it will end.
*grins*
October 21st, 2005 at 6:06 am
Google never said they were giving away the total book. All I have ever read was that they would allow excerts to be read. What size I have never heard but excerts aren’t usually more than a passage. Book publishers should be working with them in open arms to aid, rather than hinder the development of this style of new search. Not having to pay to get almost every work an author or catagory falls under to find what author does what book should be high priority to them. It would allow millions of searches and resulting sales by those searches.
Instead we find the entrenched established corporations are fighting tooth and nail to prevent what should be a god send to them. Again the lack of flexibility and the giving up any little bit of control raises its ugly head to prevent a very beneficial advantage to both them and the public. Copyright is used once again as a club to keep things were they are instead of progressing using newer technology and the benefits that could be derived from it.
As long as we have these insane copyright laws on the books, it will be a steady battle to progress anywhere with newer techologies. Again what was predicted in misuse of such laws has shown up. So far I don’t see anything lately going into public domain. There is no sense in having a copyright law if nothing is going to make it there.