Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm

from the fair-use-fight dept

Tue, Aug 7th 2012 7:48am — Mike Masnick

As the Authors Guild and Google fight for summary judgment in the case over the legality of its book scanning, the authors have asked for $750 per book. As I write this, their actual filing is not available yet, though I imagine it will be soon and I'll add it here. On the face of it, $750 per book is insanity. I doubt anyone at all thinks that $750 per book scanned is a "reasonable" number. However, in some ways, the Authors Guild is probably thinking that it's being generous in suggesting such a deal. After all, $750 is the minimum statutory damage amount for infringement. Thus, it can rationalize this as saying it's actually asking for the minimum under the law, when it could seek as much as $150,000 per work.

But, really, all this is doing is highlighting the insanity of statutory damages in copyright law, which have no connection to reality. Even at this "low end" of the scale, the amounts would clearly make it cost prohibitive for Google to scan any more books, and that would be a shame.

In fact, on its side of the legal fight, Google is arguing that the authors have completely failed to prove any harm, while making the argument that the scanning project is fair use. Basically, Google points out that it's creating an index of everything in the books, not acting as a substitute for the books. Thus, the purpose serves to make useful information more widely available (which likely can increase the demand for the books, by helping users find new books). Not surprisingly, I find the arguments in favor of fair use compelling (and have been saying so for many years -- so much so that I was disappointed when Google first tried to settle this case, rather than standing behind its fair use claims).

While, in the end, it's likely that the case will depend on the fair use ruling, it should also be seen as a case that highlights the insanity of statutory licenses in copyright law. There is no doubt that Google's book search is a useful tool that helps expand access to knowledge. The idea that such a thing could only be created with an additional $750 per book scanned being sent back to the copyright holder, seems ridiculous -- but it's a factor of a broken copyright system that has such out of touch and out of proportion statutory damages.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, harm, statutory damages
Companies: authors guild, google

190 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:52am

How much of that $750 would the actual author see? Or, like the IFPI with any money they might extract from Piratebay (not likely), would it go back into a warchest for fighting other infringement cases?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:53am

"$750 per book scanned being sent back to the copyright holder"

To the copyright holder or to their useless trade organization?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:53am

"asically, Google points out that it's creating an index of everything in the books, not acting as a substitute for the books."

As always, when it comes to these sorts of things, Google is being somewhat disingenuous about their intentions. Google's goal on everything they do is to increase traffic to their branded sites, while driving people to see more ads. This is even if the product itself is free of advertising, they are trying to drive people to their work.

Moreover, Google is also famous for "getting in the middle" of things. Google isn't working to index the content of the books for fun, they are doing it to be the look up central for these things - and then, very likely, either driving people to buy the book, or more likely to drive the people to download the scanned copy. After all, if the scanned copy is fair use to display online, why would it not be fair use to let people download the full scan?

Google's goals here just don't appear to be anywhere near as noble as you think they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:55am

Authors are constantly being deprived of money by big search, $7.50 is only fair for what google has done to further destroy this industry. This will go toward buying pens and paper that they are in desperate need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:58am

Re:
" and then, very likely, either driving people to buy the book"

GASP!!! How dare Google.

"After all, if the scanned copy is fair use to display online, why would it not be fair use to let people download the full scan?"
Are you serious with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:58am

Re:
boB?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:02am

Re:
Um, you've inserted a decimal where none belongs....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:03am

;D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:06am

Re: Re:
Sadly, he probably is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:06am

Re:
Google's goals here just don't appear to be anywhere near as noble as you think they are.

I doubt that Mike has any illusions that Google is a commercial organisation that is ultimately concerned to make money. However they have usually taken the sensible route of providing things people actually want - as opposed to the typical IP middleman who is simply trying to extract as much "tribute" out of every transaction as he possibly can.

You should also have no illusions about the authors' guild. They would not react any differently to Google if it was a crowdfunded charity that aimed ultimately to give all its output away for free. Their attitude to the Hathi Press proves this point.

or more likely to drive the people to download the scanned copy. After all, if the scanned copy is fair use to display online, why would it not be fair use to let people download the full scan?

Obviously not under present law - and you are an idiot to even suggest such a thing. If people did download "in copyright" works from Google then it is inevitable that the copyright holder would get a royalty payment and be better off than if Google had never scanned the work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:07am

All instances of "the authors" should be replaced with "the guild."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:08am

Re:
they are doing it to be the look up central for these things

Considering search is part of Google's core business, I don't see why indexing physical works is any different than indexing digital works.

either driving people to buy the book

Are you serious in implying that acting as a free advertising tool for books is a negative?

or more likely to drive the people to download the scanned copy. After all, if the scanned copy is fair use to display online, why would it not be fair use to let people download the full scan?

Google is not arguing that letting people download a full copy of the book is fair use. They are arguing that indexing a book and pointing people to digital text from the book is fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim K (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:09am

Re:
Google isn't working to index the content of the books for fun
Oh Noes, Google is trying to make money while providing a useful service, those bastards! Seriously though, I didn't realize they were trying to hide the fact that everything they do is of some benefit to them, whether directly or indirectly. This gets people to view part of the book, which is fair use, whereas downloading the full scan would obviously not be fair use and no one, other than you is even trying to say that. Google will however let you buy the book, which in case you were wondering, is a good thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:10am

Re:
"Moreover, Google is also famous for "getting in the middle" of things."

Yes, they are famous for the way their entire business model operates, and the fact they they've been largely (if not consistently) successful at expanding it into new areas. This is not a secret, nor is it a problem.

Unless you think that Google taking ad revenue in order to pay for the service that they're providing is some kind of global conspiracy (which many of you people do), I fail to see what the issue is. Unless, of course, it's just whining about loss of perceived control again, win which case you're several decades behind reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:11am

i wonder how many books would be sold if they were all priced at a minimum of $750? i wonder what sort of comments would be made to the authors guild and to the authors themselves if they tried to charge these amounts? i can guess, however and at the number of books that would be sold. but then, just like all the entertainment industries, what they are after is the maximum amount of money in for the least amount of outbound effort. even then, the money taken will stay with the gatekeepers, the authors getting the smallest amount possible, if anything at all!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:11am

Re:
You're right. At the end of the day, Google profits from these scans. That profit would not exist were it not for the underlying content- which, of course, they don't want to pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:14am

Re:
i wonder how many books would be sold if they were all priced at a minimum of $750?

that makes no sense. It's not $750 each time the book is accessed by an individual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:19am

Re:
"Moreover, Google is also famous for "getting in the middle" of things."

No, that's what IP extremists and govt. established monopolists (ie: big media cartels that benefit from govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies) and middlemen (the RIAA/MPAA) are famous for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:23am

Re: Re:
I was doing research for an English paper and Google search was useful for helping me find the information I needed. I ended up buying the books since they had lots of information I could use. Google may have profitted from the adds but I don't know how they profitted from me buying the books off of Amazon. With out Google I wouldn't have even purchased those books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:29am

Re: Re:
The content owner also benefits from Google search results, which of course they don't want to pay for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Plotkin, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:31am

pivot case
I agree with the author in that statutory damages in this case would turn out to be insanity.I also agree that the current framework of the American copyright law is not cognizant of the type of copying the Internet makes possible.

Setting aside the fair use argument for a moment, the Google Books project has to be the single largest instance of copyright infringement in history. Simply put, it's a game changer.

It's pivot cases like these that have the capacity to change the law so as to bring it into line with current social propositions and norms. I don't think that anyone would argue (other than the plaintiffs) that what Google has done by digitizing and rendering searchable this catalog is "morally wrong". It is legally wrong (again, setting aside the possibility of fair use), but it isn't morally wrong. In fact, I think that the cataloging and making available of so much culture can only be seen as a good thing-again, independent of the contravention of the law.

If we, as a society don't see anything inherently wrong with what Google has done, then we should lobby for a change in the underlying law.

Let's remember that they aren't offering the entire book for works that are still in print and haven't entered the public domain. In many cases they link to places where the book may be purchased.

I don't think it'll happen, but this case should fundamentally change the way Americans view "massive copyright infringement". Is it really that bad...for anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:32am

Re:
More importantly, I wonder how much money would go to the actual authors, rather than their Guild? Or would this be like the IFPI/PirateBey result, where nothing went to the artists?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griffdog (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:33am

scanning
Web pages are copyrighted, and yet it's completely legal for Google and many other search engines, as well as various other applications, to scan those pages and make use of the data in certain ways. A copyright is a copyright, and books are not (should not be...?) treated any differently than other forms of textual representation.

The critical piece of logic here is that Fair Use depends on what you do with the information you've copied from someone else's work. Scanning and indexing copyrighted text (e.g., web pages) has clear precedent for being declared Fair Use. I think we can all agree that Google would violate copyright law if it made large sections of scanned text available or put it up for sale. But it should be completely legal for Google (or anyone...) to reap advertising revenue while you use its search machine or to earn commissions for referring customers to purchase the books through any site selling them, even including sites selling items related to the books (e.g., audio books, movies, posters, dolls, lunchboxes, etc.).

Go for it, Google, and be damn sure to take this all the way through the courts to get the obvious decision declared.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:35am

Re:
Where Did mike say or imply that google was being noble in doing this?

Oh right, you're going by the Mike in your head instead of the one posting here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griffdog (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:36am

Re: scanning
And, according to recent court decisions, one can even legally make money by providing links to purveyors of illegal copies of the books. Not allowed to shoot the messenger! :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:36am

Re: Re:
You're right. At the end of the day, Google profits from these scans. That profit would not exist were it not for the underlying content- which, of course, they don't want to pay for.

They have paid for their copy of the book. Your attitude just demonstrates the kind of warped "dog in a manger" greedy thinking that infects you when you become obsessed with rights ownership. For your own sake - let it go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:37am

Re:
wont matter, still wont go to the authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griffdog (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:39am

Re: pivot case
Copying anything (except DVDs) is legal. Period.

It's what you do with it that can be declared legal or infringing.

If the Guild wants to sue Google for "copying", they haven't a leg to stand on. They need to show that the actions Google is taking with the copied data constitutes infringement, and indexing/searching prettly clearly is not infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:40am

Re:
And just how have they been deprived of money? By my count that have the same amount they always had + whatever they're getting from book sales.

Of course, you're probably going by the insanely flawed "a download is a lost sale" logic and the "money I haven't even earned yet is mine" logic. In which case you'd still be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:40am

Hey, that $750 a book is important. Ewan Morrison needs it to pay for his weekly goatee waxing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:41am

If copy protection didn't last so long then maybe these laws can serve their official purpose, to serve a public interest and expand the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:42am

Re: Re:
You're right, they don't want to pay for something that they shouldn't have to pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:42am

Seriously
Ok so Google tells the court it is going to be scanning every book in existence that is well over a trillion books, so what is the fine they are going to have to pay again!!!!! something like all of the money in the world multiplied a few times. Seriously they need to change the law to reflect true losses if there are any at all.

And if not then Google can just admit defeat and close down totally.

I am not saying the authors of any books must not get compensation if there are any sales but just to fine them for scanning is crazy.

Google has a lot of power these days , they can virtually bring the country to a standstill if they so desired, and yes they could be sued or fined or whatever but that would be on hold as the country ground to a halt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:48am

Re: Re:
So what? Companies profit from fair use and parady all the time, doesn't mean they owe anything for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:52am

Re: Re:
You're right. At the end of the day, Google profits from these scans. That profit would not exist were it not for the underlying content- which, of course, they don't want to pay for

And of course, Google has no costs. They don't have to pay for the book. They don't have to pay for servers. They don't have to pay for bandwidth. Must be nice to be google to have no costs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:54am

Re: Re: Re:
And again, so what? It's not costing the guild for google to do this either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am

Re: pivot case
the Google Books project has to be the single largest instance of copyright infringement in history.

Well, in some sense, it is. At least it's a one-stop-shop showcase of rampant Copyfraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud Thousands of books in the public domain which are marked as "copyrighted" by rogue Publishers like Pearson, Elsevier, Hachette, McGraw-Hill, Random House etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:58am

$750 is a bit to steep in my opinion.I can bet that not one penny will go to the actual Author as whatever money there is will go to the Author's Guild and the Corporation.
Author will see no benefit from this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am

Re:
I just read your entire comment twice and cannot find a single thing in it that argues why Google should not be allowed to index physical books.

The closest you can get to that is wildly wide of the mark: google is not allowing people to download the scanned books, has done nothing to indicate they intend to do so, and has never even hinted that they think doing so would qualify as "fair use" -- and everyone would agree that it wouldn't.

You do, however, acknowledge that Google doing this provides a benefit to authors.

So what's your objection?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:04am

Re:
Please explain what Google has done to destroy the publishing industry, with evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:05am

Rights holders & government accountable of cultural preservation
It should be mandatory for all rightsholders in the world of music, movie, books, (insert ... to provide a digitized copy of any content they claim rights to their national public office.

Those national public office should be made responsible and accountable of preserving these work for the future of humanity and ensure perpetual access to it.

That would prevent the loss of human patrimony, and the legally risky and prevent the waste of energy of millions of people taking on themselves to do the digitizing, archiving and sharing of works at zero cost for the said rightsholders.

Let's reinvent the national library and extend it to all intellectual works. How revolutionary...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamF (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:06am

Idea
So the Authors' Guild gets a ton of money which they get to keep unless an author claims it within a certain period? How is that fair?

Wouldn't it be more common sense if Google was ordered to pay $750 (or a more reasonable amount) to any author whose books it scanned and who feels that their rights have been infringed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:06am

Re: Re: pivot case
Copying anything (except DVDs) is legal. Period.

Copying DVDs is legal as well. Breaking CSS is not, because of the DMCA, but copying is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am

Re: pivot case
Setting aside the fair use argument for a moment, the Google Books project has to be the single largest instance of copyright infringement in history.

Please explain this -- you seem to be arguing that if you ignore the aspect of the law that makes this use legal, then this use is illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Paul, that's not supported by the evidence in play here.

We can see direct benefit for Google (more content that they control, indexed by them and given preferential treatment in search results) - thus driving page views and income.

For the content owner, we see, well - widespread free access, free copies, and a digital version that can easily be shared and distributed without any apparent cost or comeback to the content owner / author

I can find the benefit to Google. The benefits to the creators is less obvious - and completely unproven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the content owner, we see, well - widespread free access, free copies, and a digital version that can easily be shared and distributed without any apparent cost or comeback to the content owner / author

Where do we see Google doing this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:16am

It saves the digitizing cost
Publishers should pay Google for the free digitizing. They should pay for any added routed sales too. Publishers are such a bunch of freetards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:18am

Who's job is it to sell content
Publishers have content and google offers a service. There should be no conflict. The publishers logic is backwards.

It seems to me that both have a common interest here. Google is offering a service to publishers by making their books more relevant. I believe the publishers have the right to determine if their content is published in the index. But neither is Google obliged to index these books.

The logic around the "theft" argument makes no sense here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am

Re:
I think it's $750. The lawyers get a separate check.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:26am

Re:
^_^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:27am

Re: Re:
The problem is that they forgot to share any of this money with the folks who did most of the work and made the project possible-- the authors. So if you don't want to condemn Google for making money, you shouldn't condemn the authors for asking for a share. Without them it wouldn't have been possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am

the value of books
Way back when, Marissa Mayer made a major boo-boo when she announced that Google News was worth $100m even though it generated no ad revenue or any obvious revenue what-so-ever. Why? Because it sucked people into the platform.

Naturally they stopped talking about this once the newspaper publishers noticed this and started asking for their share of the $100m.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/22/whats-google-news-worth-100-million/

It must be nice to make $100m without paying for any research, any health care, any editing, or any of the costs that drive newspapers into bankruptcy.

I'm guessing they were counting on the cash windfall when they started indexing the books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am

Google's ace card
They should just start publishing studies showing which authors have copied entire phrases, sentences, or concepts from other authors using their indexed data...

Then watch as the authors start going after each other instead...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:39am

big mistake on Google's part
This was Google's big mistake. If they ran this as an opt-in project and let the book authors request to be part of the index, they would have had authors stampeding. But they said, "Who cares about those stinking content people." And they stormed ahead without asking permission. It was very, very foolish on their part.

But that's the kind of arrogance that you see at Big Search where the billionaires could care less about the authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:41am

Re: Re:
Hah. Very funny.

But Big Search is good and pays for all of this astroturfing. Big Content is bad. Get it straight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:46am

Re:
Wrong. I bet that many authors will get $750 and, perhaps, share it with their agent. In the settlement, the authors were going to get $60.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am

Re: Re: Re:
And? That still doesn't mean the authors should get any money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, so you're just making stuff up now. I guess that's all you can do when your argument is so poor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am

Re: the value of books
Naturally they stopped talking about this once the newspaper publishers noticed this and started asking for their share of the $100m.

Yet when Google removed the newspaper excerpts and links from their service, the newspapers screamed bloody murder.

That proves exactly that the worth was in the service that Google built, not the content the newspapers wrote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

Re: the value of books
Only in Bobworld would anyone complain about getting free promotion from a company with enormous reach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

Re: big mistake on Google's part
Fair use isn't opt-in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
The $750 is just an estimate.

The amazing thing is that the author's guild hasn't latched onto the fact that Google has a complete record of how many pages it circulated. Their log files show how many pages of which books were "shared".

I think the Author's Guild should give Google the choice of paying, say, 10 cents a page. I'm sure that many people read more than 7500 pages from some books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:01am

Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Giving away big blocks of a book isn't fair use.

Fair use is intended to help people create new works that build upon others, not just profit without contributing anything. Did Google add any commentary? Did Google add any new insights? Did Google add anything extra that contributed to the world's knowledge?

No. They were just into to make big bucks. It's all about the billions for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:01am

Re: Re: Re:
Well then, I suppose you have some sort of proof we're on the google payroll?

Oh right, you're just making shit up. Moving along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: the value of books
Uh, the free promotion isn't good if it cannibalizes your business. And as we've seen by the failure of all of the newspapers, the wonderful free promotion for the web hasn't produced the results that one normally associates with the word "promotion."

In any case, they should ask permission and work with the content creator not to drive them into the ground. Google ruined the web by keeping all the money and driving the content creators into either bankruptcy or the clutches of the paywall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am

Re: the value of books
Newspapers benefit from google news pointing to their stuff.

I benefit from the service by being able to search different news sites for stories.

Google absolutely has earned what it makes doing this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just another creator hater who will look for any excuse to avoid giving the hardest working person in this equation anything. Authors often work on books for years. Google scans and indexes them in minutes.

If we want to have a working information ecology where authors continue to invest in new books and new knowledge, we have to reward the hardest workers. We can't let the leeches take all of the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
And where is the connection between newspaper failure and google linking to these sites?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: the value of books
Yes, and the traditional economy, people ask first before taking. You can't steal a car, fiddle with the fuel injectors and then, when you're caught, say you were just performing a service.

If Google asked first, they would have no trouble. But they took first. It's the difference between rape and making love.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am

Re: Re:
So bob...you're saying that the Author's Guild would extract $750 dollars, give it to the authors, and then somehow write a separate check for the lawyers? With what monies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:10am

Re: Re: Re:
Actually, They do make an effort to get the authors money. I took a browse around and there were numerous links to places to buy the book. So if I find the book useful/entertaining, I have an opportunity to buy it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Authors write the book once, and then they're done. Once the book is finished, their labour is complete. They're not doing anything extra here to warrant Google having to pay them.
Google, on the other hand, plans to store and serve that data at a cost to themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
surfer (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
jfc you are sickening, in what reality does the hammer maker get paid for every swing, or cabinet maker for every drawer opened? Oh, that's right, your bs applies to imaginary property, where hammers and cabinets actually exist.

And before you whine freetard, I make content, I write software for a living, and yet I don't get paid for every login. Normal people have to make more hammers, cabinets and software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:13am

Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
not just profit without contributing anything.

Google is making a HUGE contribution, and one that the authors and publishers are not doing. They are making a giant index of all the books it can. This giant index of books is a very useful service, not just for the public, but also for authors who's books would have gone unnoticed in a physical library search.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:14am

Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Giving away big blocks of a book

Where was Google doing that?

It's already been asked for dozens of times in the comments here and no one has shown any evidence of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:16am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
That's a terrible anology.

If you could just instantly make a perfect copy of my car while leaving me the original I'd have no problem with you doing that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but we have very strong evidence, as provided by the good people at Torrentfreak, that bob is more than likely one of the stooges who does get paid to slander Richard O'Dwyer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:17am

Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
The $750 is just an estimate.

bob, how do you get by in life for being so stupid? The $750 is the minimum allowed under law for an instance of copyright infringement. There is no estimate in that number, just a "pick a big number out of a hat" method.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:20am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Great rebuttal there, bob. Not replying to anything Josh said, ya know, how the newspapers screamed murder when they got what they wanted and got delisted off of Google. Instead you just completely ignore him, and vomit forth "You can't steal a car! Google is raping!"

Seriously? Why do you keep saying theft? You know, I know, the dog that is currently taking a dump outside my window knows (don't ask) that we have debunked the theft line you love. Plus great comparison there, with rape. I can actually see you saying that in court.
"But, but but Your Honour! Google....touched me...*sniff* in the danger ZONE!!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Failure of all the newspapers?

Really? I went to a store yesterday. Guess what they had?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Schools don't need to ask permission from a publisher when they use a book to teach.

Libraries don't need to ask permission to put a book into their collection, index it, and then lend it out. Lend the entire book out for free!

Why should Google need permission to scan a book, index it, put it in a searchable database, when they do not give out the copies? And they even point to where someone can buy the book!

Google isn't taking anything away from the authors or publishers. They are adding a tremendously useful service, giving it to the authors and publishers for free, and directing people to where they can buy the books.

Only in a seriously fucked up permission culture is this not considered a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: Re:
Didn't you say a similar thing when the Piratebay trial was still on-going? And then, just recently, we heard the news that if there was any money to taken from TPB, the IFPI plans, not to give it to artists, but to themselves! As funds for yet more anti-piracy litigation!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Clearly those are replicas for people who like historic items.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Mexico Mark, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:26am

Re: big mistake on Google's part
I doubt that would even be possible. IANAL (nor a published author), but I think authors routinely sign away rights like that to the publisher?

As for "could care less about the authors", I'm pretty sure they could care less... by ignoring the works authors are creating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:26am

Re: Idea
Judges decide infringement, not authors' feelings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:27am

Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
" I'm sure that many people read more than 7500 pages from some books."

And how many 7,500 page books have you run across lately? As a bibliophile, I've never seen one. Closest was that one time I got a 4,000 page PDF and read it during my summer holidays from school about...bfffft....10 years ago?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
"using this doll, show us where he touched your content"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:28am

So, now we know
So, now we know that bob is an author of some kind, as he has totally taken the bit in his teeth on this topic and is driving it into the ground with his "big search" ranting. Big Search? Seriously? Given that Google is really the only search engine of any significant size, what you really mean is "I hate Google and only Google." So maybe start being honest and just say so. Also you can admit you are a failed author so we can understand your whining better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
But that's the problem with bob. He *wants* that permission culture. Where you have to ask permission for fucking everything.
As a content creator, that would be hell on earth. Imagine being a content creator mega star, waking up every morning and having to answer a trillion permission emails. It would act as a DIS-INCENTIVE to create art!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:32am

Re: Re:
Not only that, but I don't understand why you have so much blind faith in collection societies. Time and time again, they have been shown to be massively corrupt. That is why I and others here don't believe that any significant portion of the $750 will go to the authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:34am

Re: So, now we know
No, bob isn't an author. He's done similar rants on music articles and movie articles. You must be new here if you're only noticing Big Search now. He calls every company that, Big Search, Big Tech, Big Piracy etc. He's got a hardon for the word Big.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
"Did Google add anything extra that contributed to the world's knowledge? "

Yes, they fucking did! By making this Big Index accessible to the world's population! It's not enough to write something great, you have to have it accessible to your audience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am

Re: Re:
I want what you're smoking... If and individual author gets more than a nickel out of this I'd eat my hat... The "authors guild" exists only to enrich themselves (not the authors within the guild).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
I don't think the anti-google crowd will understand the value of indexing until we remove indexes from everything.

They're just that dense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
"all things in moderation" is a concept bob does not understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your problem here is mistaking writing the book for indexing it and presenting it in a format that's easy for consumers to search. Writing a book doesn't magically do any of those things.. Without Google doing the indexing, in this case, there is no indexing. So who's really the hardest worker? Explain using your theory of people doing work and getting money for it how, in a situation where none of the authors lifted a finger to do work beyond what they had already done and Google did work indexing the books, that the authors should be due any money at all? Who's the real leech in that scenario, who is really doing nothing while someone else does the heavy lifting then showing up after the fact expecting to get paid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re:
The previous book settlement that failed allowed the copyright holders to claim a check for $60. The lawyers got paid separately for doing this.

Class action lawsuits do this kind of thing all of the time. When they talk about giving $x to the members of the class, there are no deductions from that number. The lawyers get a separate amount-- an amount that's often too big but that's a different debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Is that contribution financial or cultural?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:49am

Re: Re:
And if 'copyrights' were actually 'profitrights' you might have a point. But they're not, so you don't.

At the end of the day if Google does nothing nothing happens. That profit would not exist were it not for the underlying indexing- which, of course, the author's guild doesn't want to pay for. In fact not only do they not want to pay for it they want Google to pay them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: So, now we know
To be fair, lots of guys get a hard on when they see a hot chick with big boobs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly you don't understand the concept of renting and capitalizing an investment.

When someone builds a hotel, they can rent out that room as long as the market will pay for it. The travellers don't come up and say, "Builders create the hotel once and then they're done. Once the hotel is finished, their labour is complete."

That's true with all forms of improved property. In all cases, no one would pay the huge upfront development costs if they weren't able to rent out the goods afterwards.

That's what the authors want. It's perfectly okay to expect to profit from an investment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:50am

I demand $750 for every braincell the copyright cartels kill with their stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indexing takes seconds. Scanning takes a few minutes. Writing the book often takes years.

Indexing isn't that great a contribution. There were search engines before and they didn't violate copyright to get more material to drive the others out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:52am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
I didn't realise Google ate itself out.

My world view....is ruined!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next time just open with "I have no fucking idea what's going on here and I don't have time to figure it out but I really don't like Google." The honesty would be a refreshing change from watching you attempt to camouflage yourself in verbal toilet paper and blow out the window.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:52am

Re: Re: Re:
Monies from their ass, obviously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The room is a single, fixed, physical property, that can only be rented out to one person (assuming it has only the one single bed) at a time.
When will you learn bob that conflating physical objects with digital objects JUST DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.
I can understand and support the buying of physical paper books, because they're scarce objects. Not so with something that once scanned, is digital.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
I myself saw dozens of books and read hundreds of pages before Google shut off the spigot. At the beginning, they were giving away as much as they could imagine that they could get away with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: pivot case
...Why is there a Random House in there? Last I checked, Houses didn't publish books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Re: So, now we know
& alots of girls get a hard ...in. when they see a hot guy with a big cock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:54am

Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
"Did Google add anything extra that contributed to the world's knowledge? "

Obviously yes: indexed searching for the scanned books. That they added this feature which contributes to the world's knowledge for profit is absolutely irrelevant no matter how often you harp on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it does work rather well. We have movie theaters, book stores and other content venues because the law treats digital property like physical property.

If you don't like it, why don't you move to Somalia where they don't have a government at all. Then you can pirate away. How many movie theaters, book stores and other venues do they have?

Digital objects still take time to create. Don't pretend that copying is the only cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: Idea
But if Google just said, "Here's $750 for your book, we'll archive it for no cost to you, so long as you allow people to searcxh it for passages" and authoprs agreed, would that be Google being evil? Or would that be Google paying the authors for their works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scanning takes more than a few minutes, unless the only books Google wants to index are 10 pages long.
The index, once everything is scanned, will be a constant economic drain for Google. They will have to store the data on servers, employ staff to look after those servers, pay electricity costs etc.
What is the author doing? They've already written the book and ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE. This is what I and others hate about copyright: you do the work once, then expect to sit on your ass and get paid for it over and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Why would Google ever 'shut off the spigot' if they're just in it to 'make billions' 'giving away books?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
oh really, where is this big index? Oh wait. It's pretty much locked up because Google is being sued. They just steamed ahead full of arrogance and now the grand vision is locked up in the courts.

If they only asked the writers for permission, if they only treated them with respect, if they only went out of their way to obey the law.

Some contribution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can't let the leeches take all of the money.

Yup, that's why we can't let your silly little Authors Guild have a dime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
And how many 7,500 page books have you run across lately? As a bibliophile, I've never seen one.

Well, I'm a bibliophile and I've read the Encyclopaedia Britannica backwards whilst juggling chainsaws on a quad bike driven by a trained chimp on acid. But that cost more than $750 dollars, so the authors owe me $1qrn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC is being facetious. Google obviously has costs. That it's not costing the guild for Google to do this either really strengthens the argument that Google doesn't owe them anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Except that's not what Google did. They were giving out copies left and right. If they just made an index and helped the libraries, you might have a point. But that's not what they did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If we want to have a working information ecology where authors continue to invest in new books and new knowledge, we have to reward the hardest workers. We can't let the leeches take all of the money."

Yeah, because there were no authors, or science, or anyone spreading knowledge before The Great Gift of Copyright (a natural right, by the way) was codified in THE LAW (which is immutable and NEVER wrong) for all mankind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what I and others hate about copyright: you do the work once, then expect to sit on your ass and get paid for it over and over again.

Ssssshhh, creator haters don't like to be called out for not wanting to create just be handed monopoly tax for something they did sometime or another. Ruins their 'special snowflake' image.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re:
This isn't a collection society. It's a class action law suit. I've gotten at least five checks from different class action lawsuits over the last few years. The money does show up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Respect is a two-way street, or did you never learn that lesson bob while growing up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bobb, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heck, the EFF is practically a lobbying arm of Big Search now. They brag about the money they get from the billionaires at Google. It's all part of the game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do know that YET AGAIN, you've just argued against yourself here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
Uh, popular books are probably read by more than one person. I think that there were plenty of books where Google served up 10 pages to more than 750 people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
If only copyright supporters asked the public for permission to lock up our culture, if they only treated us with respect, if they only went out of their way to obey the basic rights of human nature.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
That's true, you can't "steal a car, fiddle with the fuel injectors and then blah blah bad car analogy blah balh." You know why you can't do that? Because the car's owner has a right to exclusive use of the car. You know what the property rights that the car owner has don't have? A fair use exception.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Movie theatres: finite number of seats, finite number of showings for a finite number of movies.
Book stores: Finite amount of paper books.

Yep, they can totally be compared to infinite, non-scarce, non-physical objects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Citation very much still needed. You can't keep covering your ears and insisting that's what they were doing without providing some evidence and no, before you bring it up again, your own anecdotal memory of what they were doing is not evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
So the logic goes something like this:

Newspapers existed and made money
The web started
Newspapers make less money
Therefore Google is infringing by indexing books.

Absolutely bullet-proof stuff there paywallpermisionculturebob...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
bob never connects anything with anything without asking for permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
No...what you said was and I quote "'m sure that many people read more than 7500 pages from some books."

Again, where are these books that are 7,500 pages long?
That, or you're now arguing that Google should pay the authors every time someone searches this index.
Why? What work is the author doing that needs to be compensated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Nope. We the public are just 'those dirty pirate savages with no rights', why the hell should we have respect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Evidence.

Even a citation from a credible source.

I'm not asking for much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:13am

Re:
You know, it quite literally is a guild of calamitous intent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
If it was that widespread, then why can't you supply a link to a credible source that shows they were doing so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh...Author's GUILD? According to Wikipedia, been around since 1912.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you fucking kidding me?

> Scanning takes a few minutes.
What the fuck, more like a few minutes PER PAGE!

> Indexing takes seconds.
Aaahgeuayevtrpaegta, the scanning part results in unsearchable IMAGES, indexing implies translating those images into text. As you can tell computers SUCK pretty bad at it. Humans are costly. Yay for ReCaptcha.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting any money at all is a far cry from getting the $750/book you're quoting elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:20am

Re: Re:
IFPI/PirateBay result, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
rikuo i am not usually on the maximalist (not really the right term atm) side but bob does make half a point. both of you guys are really not even discussing the issue. i have wrote a few short stories over the years and even got a few published in a book of short stories. if google wants to catalogue the book, then sell it, more copies of my work gets seen. so not only do i get a bit more cash from the copies getting sold (because lets face it google will probably end up paying royalties to the authors if they sell the books) but it also gives more attention to my stories and people might remember my stuff and pay more attention to a sci-fi novel i am currently writing.(which will have part one of 6 out on the internet about a month before i plan to release it. just enough to get people wanting to finish it.) so how is google indexing and selling novels a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you're just not reading this right (what else is new). They're not asking for $750 per member of the class. They're asking for $750 per book. The money each member of the class would get would be substantially less than that since all the money to everyone, including the lawyers and the guild, comes out of that pool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except the law doesn't treat digital property or imaginary property like physical property. Physical property doesn't have a fair use exception, imaginary property does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RyanNerd (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:26am

Re: big mistake on Google's part
When Yahoo and Google first began indexing web pages neither entity asked for permission to do this and this aspect of indexing even copyrighted web pages has over and over again been judged as fair use. It was not until much later that web site designers could through HTTP headers REQUEST that search engines not catalog certain information and even then Google or other search provider is not under any legal obligation to honor the request.

Google did the same approach with the printed page. Just because content is originally on a printed page and not in digital form to begin with does not (should not) exclude it from the "fair use" of being indexed and cataloged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't answer the question. To remind you, the question was: "why should the author get more money when Google does work and they don't using your theory of 'the person don't the work gets the money?'" Because the book took longer to write than it does to index doesn't answer that question. The Author is still contributing no work.

Indexing is way more useful than you're apparently capable of grasping, what else is new...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, you may have misunderstood me. Google indexing is not a bad thing. Nor is selling novels. Congratulations and best of luck to you with your work.
What I'm arguing against is that the author writes the book once, that's it. They're done. Then Google comes along, offers to spend time and money to scan the book to build an index. What exactly does the author expect to be compensated for? You've done your work. Even if we could both agree on some sort of payment system, how would it work? How long should Google expect to pay? 5 years? 10? At what point is it moral and legal for Google to just keep the index of your book without having to pay you? Why is that point moral and legal? What makes it different from before?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Le gasp! Bob...you HYPOCRITE! If you are so dead set against this indexing project, then why did you read "hundreds of pages" and see "dozens of books"?
See bob? Why you constantly fail, time after time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? So the index is valuable, the guild is locking it up in this lawsuit, and you somehow twist that into Google's doing?

Fair use is legal, it's in the fucking law. Just explain how you can index a website, which is copyrighted, but doing the same thing to a book is illegal? Oh wait, you're one of those reality denying morons that actually thinks indexing websites is illegal even though the courts keep telling you you're wrong over and over and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
they can keep it indexed as long as they want no charge. least that is my opinion. i just feel that they should give the others a percentage of each sale. indexing is just free advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
I honestly wasn't joking up above. It was a PDF of the Wheel of Time series (calm down bob, I've bought all the books) and I did sit down one summer holiday and read it straight through.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
If Google is really allowing people to read multiple entire pages of books, then THAT probably is a copyright violation. But if it's like the Internet search and allows you to see a couple of sentences, it's probably fair use.

I really think the amount is key - it is, after all, one of the 4 factors used to legally determine fair use. In the case of an index, short excerpts can be used for answering "what book was it that had this phrase?" and not much else. Since the person probably didn't know what book they were even looking for, it won't hurt sales and would probably even help. But the longer the excerpts, the greater the chance that somebody could use it more for "I want to read the climax of this book" and could possibly replace buying the book.

And before you make the argument - I think that even if the entire book is indexed, that shouldn't count the same as providing a complete copy under the fair use factor. The excerpts should be considered seperately unless the user has some way of stringing them together. You could combine a dictionary and a list of names and probably see all the words used in a book, but it's the arrangement of the words which is important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Giving away?? Who ever said that was going to happen?

Did you research this or let hysteria run away with you??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That you keep posting this drivel about the EFF shows a fundamental lack of understanding what it is real people actually mean when they talk about lobbying and astroturfing.

https://www.eff.org/tags/google

No objective reading of that collection of links could lead one to think they're not tough on Google when Google does things that don't further free speech, privacy, innovation, and/or consumer rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:46am

authors* spelling mishap on my part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
You're barking up the wrong tree, those are quotes from bob's posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still not seeing how indexing the books is "leeching".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamF (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 12:36pm

Re: big mistake on Google's part
If they ran this as an opt-in project and let the book authors request to be part of the index, they would have had authors stampeding.

Maybe and maybe not. The problem is that most of these authors are unreachable (often dead). Perhaps Google could have given copyright holders the option to not be included in the project.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've gotten at least five checks from different class action lawsuits over the last few years.

And in this one sentence, I've learned as much about bob as I need to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 1:20pm

Re:
It's NOT $7.50 their asking for, it's $750. It even says so in the damn title.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So how much should Google be paying website creators for indexing their websites, Bob?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Wow, you are truly delusional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RyanNerd (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
bob

When Google first started scanning books they started with those in the public domain. I too read more than a dozen books and hundreds of pages as well. All public domain works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sandy Thatcher, 7 Aug 2012 @ 2:57pm

Google
But of course every digital copy that Google supplied to participating libraries is indeed a direct substitute for a copy that a publisher could have sold to that library. So there was harm created by what Google did, and it is not fair use under any theory of the law except the loony one propounded in the Ninth Circuit. Google is hoping that "opt out" will replace "opt in" as a principle of copyright law, but Judge Chin has already rejected that argument in denying the settlement agreement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:18pm

Re:
Well I trust Google more than I trust your analyses of them because seriously you are the last guy on earth I probably take it seriously on any conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
What?

Counterfeit journalism?

Have people no respect for anything anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re: Re: pivot case
Circumventing any copy protection is illegal, at least that is what some people believe in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, bob makes money via legalised extortion.

"Say google that's a nice index you have there, it would be a shame if something bad happened to it"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where do I see Google doing this?

Not in step 1, because they never actually do it all to start with. They will digitize the books, make them searchable, but to start with will not make the entire book available.

Then someone will release a keyword list and bot that will allow you to search for various "parts" of a text, and collect the results to form up the full book.

Then Google will say, well, obviously the cat is out of the bag, so let's find a better way. Maybe an "online only" reader?

The process doesn't start and end at step 1.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
i just feel that they should give the others a percentage of each sale.

Nobody is saying otherwise. If Google sells your book, then you'll get paid just like if any other retailer sells your book.

I don't think google is in the bookselling business, though. What google will do is facilitate selling your book by letting people know about it and where to buy it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
What if they let you read 1 chapter per day... or 1 chapter per IP per day... so someone turns on TOR and a "chapter collector" and at the end of the day has the full book for free.

Once it's digitized and made available online, the whole thing will be rapidly available in some form or another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then Google will say, well, obviously the cat is out of the bag, so let's find a better way. Maybe an "online only" reader?

This doesn't address me question. You said that Google was providing free, widespread access to books. I asked where they were doing that. You replied that they might start doing it at some indeterminant point in the future -- meaning that the answer to my question is "they're not doing it."

In any case, you're just making stuff up here -- pure speculation based on nothing but unmitigated and unexplainable Google-hate.

It seems to me far more likely that Google would respond to your bot scenario in the same manner they've dealt with similar situations in other areas: by limiting access so that you can't do that without using a botnet, and blocking IPs that they catch trying.

And if they responded by making a google reader as you suggest, why do you imagine they'd blatantly violate copyright to do so? It's far more likely that they'd do it right: arrange publishing deals and pay appropriate royalties.

Why would you assume differently? Google has given exactly no cause to think they'd behave badly.

Really, Google's track record when it comes to respecting copyright is excellent. They bend over backwards and go way beyond legal requirements on this count. And yet, pure Google-hate makes some people blind to this. It's inexplicable.

And I'm not a fan of Google. If you want things to be mad at them about, I can give you plenty -- but this issue is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
What if someone uses a photocopier to make copies of the book?

*GASP* Those photocopier manufacturers must be evil! And makers of paper and pencil must go, too, just to be safe.

My point is that you seem to be confusing things: you seem to think that Google is looking for a way to violate copyright out of some kind of malice toward authors, and imagine various ways that their tools can be abused to get a free book.

I'll grant you this much: there will be a way to abuse the tools, just like you can abuse any tool to the same effect. If Google behaves as they have behaved in the past, they will take all reasonable steps to prevent this and it will be a pain in the butt to pull off and the impact on authors will be insignificant -- just like how you can photocopy a book, but this isn't often done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the value of books
Considering bob has never once provided a credible source for his batshit-crazy claims ("EFF brag about the money they get from the billionaires at Google!"), I think you probably are asking too much.

This stuff is purely a product of his over-fertile imagination. Unfortunately he combines this with a penchant for verbosity and a lot of free time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:17pm

Why are we bothering to entertain bob, someone who has actively campaigned against libraries? He hates indexing of books where the authors don't et paid, regardless of purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting money from a donator does not mean you bow to their will. In fact they criticise google when they do evil.

Of course you might not understand this as you probaby only speak what your masters pay you to say and project your own behavior onto EFF.

I think I'll call you "astroturfing bob" from now on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:16pm

Re: Re:
In fact, Google doesn't even let you read the entire text. Only a selected page containing the terms that was searched for. Of course, if the AC was actually interested in following this case, they would have known that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evidence????

Who ever heard of such a thing??

Where's yours????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, and show us the /harm/ to the creators? I mean, if they're so obviously being harmed by this, you can show it to us, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2012 @ 1:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Anecdotal. Link it or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 1:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, that's not supported by the evidence in play here. "

Neither's your assumption, yet you never question those, hmmm? Is there really any evidence that Google stand to make $750+ for each book they scan?

"We can see direct benefit for Google (more content that they control, indexed by them and given preferential treatment in search results) - thus driving page views and income."

Yes, but that is also based on their own work - the scanning, indexing, algorithms used to help people find what they're after, etc. The content is of course necessary, but it would be just as useless without Google's work as Google's work would be without the disputed content.

"For the content owner, we see, well - widespread free access, free copies, and a digital version that can easily be shared and distributed without any apparent cost or comeback to the content owner / author"

Not apparent because you choose to remain ignorant of the benefits and whine about the potential (not proven) negatives. Are you seriously trying to say that an author and publisher stand to gain nothing from their content being easily searched, indexed and archived? Think about it for a moment.

"I can find the benefit to Google. The benefits to the creators is less obvious - and completely unproven."

Only because you choose to be blind to the whole picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 2:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
Funny you sdhould say that, I'm doing that right now. Only, my phone shows it as over 15,000 pages. For the journey, not the experience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2012 @ 6:21am

First of all, it is arguable whether or not such access to scanned books actually increases book sales. Why should authors be forced to be the lab rats to test such a theory?

Secondly, this whole notion of access to knowledge should be free... please ... every occupation in the world demands knowledge. Therefore, no one should work for money ever since they are charging for their knowledge. There is individual artistry and hard work to put a book of knowledge together just like any other job. The only difference is that books are easily stolen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MahaliaShere (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am

Re: Google's ace card
I would love it if a database like that existed (if something like it already does, I haven't found it yet).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yoshord, 8 Aug 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re:
If google only scanned one book, then $750 going to be the authors would be a big deal. As it is, Google's scanned, what, a few thousand books, if not more? So, the settlement would be 750 * a few thousands, of which I would not be surprised if the few thousand authors got $750 to split between them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
Well, your phone displays it as 15,000 pages, because of the size of the screen. I read it on a desktop, each page in the PDF was A4.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:21pm

Re:
First off, there's a diffrence between raw knowledge and applied knowledge.

Second the authors are not lab rats, they're only involved in this because they choose to make this an issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Astro Buoy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re:
Funny how Bob only shows up when Google is mentioned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]