Copyright Maximalists Can't Help But Inject Bogus 'Copyright Wins!' Argument Into Google/Publisher Settlement
from the seriously? dept
In the wake of the settlement concerning book scanning by Google and a variety of book publishers, the Copyright Clearance Center issued one of the more ridiculous statements concerning the situation, in which they basically read into the agreement something that was never there:"Today's news not only further establishes the value of copyright, but also points to the importance of working with rightsholders when undertaking mass digitization. Collaboration is key when it comes to copyright."First of all, nothing in the seven-year fight or the settlement helped to "establish the value of copyright." Quite the contrary. It seemed to show what a disaster copyright is today in that it could be used to delay the creation of an amazing resource for the world through highly questionable copyright claims. As for the argument that it's important to "work with" rightsholders when doing things like this, that too is misleading. All it showed is how those rightsholders can hold up the useful creation of such a resource -- and highlight why "permission society" is holding back innovation and better tools for learning and education.
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, settlement
Companies: copyright clearance center, google, publishers association
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Total misread...
"Today's news not only further establishes the value of copyright as a tool to hinder innovation and progress while generating new sources of legal fees, but also points to the importance of working with rightsholders when undertaking mass digitization unless you WANT to get sued, of course. Collaboration is key when it comes to copyright because if you don't collaborate voluntarily, we'll just get the courts to force you."
See? It's all in reading the hidden meanings...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Total misread...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
So tell me how I can download the full works. Because at present, those don't appear to be FREE, only "monetized" for a specific corporate entity.
And as I've said before, once in full control of such resources, Google may effectively deny it (and/or selectively) to the public: it'd be a corporatized profits version of the Domaine (something) Payante mentioned recently.
Your views, Mike, seem always that Google is benevolent, but that's just a stage most corporations go through in order to build up trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
And hey, what's wrong with ads? Google has to pay the bills somehow. It literally can't do everything for free. At some point along the line, it has to have income from somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
It's called, "licking the hand that feeds you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
This however doesn't oppose the argument that publishers andts holder blocking Google AND anyone else building useful resources anyway. It may even be because of them that alternatives -benevolant, publicly sponsored and corporate- are blocked that would prevent a potential futur monopoly abuse by Google monopoly. In other words, publishers have neetly paved the way to a monopoly by the only power willing to withstand their abusive "permission-only" mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
Good point. Except that it isn't bombarding anything. I find Google advertising to be the least intrusive so far.
So tell me how I can download the full works. Because at present, those don't appear to be FREE, only "monetized" for a specific corporate entity.
They are offering a service, a good service I'm willing to see some advertisement to help finance and monetize. And the ones that don't feel comfortable with Google monetizing on the SERVICE PROVIDED, not their works, can refuse to let their books be scanned. Those authors will be losing good and free advertisement for themselves though. So, if you are bothered by the ads go buy the book. I'm bothered by e-readers at times so I usually buy the book and download the e-book on TPB and the likes. If I get annoyed by Google ads I'll simply move away.
On a side note, I find current youtube advertising intrusive so I'm using less of the site.
And as I've said before, once in full control of such resources, Google may effectively deny it (and/or selectively) to the public
They won't dare, it would backfire hugely. Besides, any1 can scan the works, not only Google. So it's pretty simple, once they start being mischievous we, the consumers, just switch places. Actually, many are already switching after the censoring of the auto complete thing and the stupidity of content id ;)
Your views, Mike, seem always that Google is benevolent, but that's just a stage most corporations go through in order to build up trust.
As pointed above, you seem to be new to techdirt, he has already criticized Google at times they were wrong. Oh wait, you aren't new here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
Ummm...You seem confused. Google has no control over the material. They're just trying to make it more accessible. It's the copyright maximalist that are trying to gain greater control over it and deny it to the public not Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
Mike never said google can do no wrong and indeed has pointed out where he thinks they did do wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd say it establishes the "value" of copyright rather well then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Et tu, copyright deniers?
And so what if it's a nice service. If I drove my car through the front glass of a store after hours, I would be creating a nice service for everyone in the neighborhood to get free stuff without waiting for the long lines at the cash register lines. And we all know from around here that if a business makes you wait for even one second, it's A-OKay to rob them blind.
This was a total 1% move from the billionaires at GOOG. They went in, took what wasn't theirs, and then insisted that it was all cool and innovative. It comes pretty close right up to the way that Columbus sailed up to America and took it for his own. And those bogus opt-out settlements offered by Big Bully Google were just like the beads that were used to purchase Manhattan. And GOOG had the temerity to insist that they were providing free publicity to the authors. At least the beads were shiny and pretty.
The fact is that the billionaires had to give up on this one. No one but the loons around here bought their insane copyright denying view of "fair use". And so we'll never learn how much money Google included in the secret resolution. We won't learn how many secret benefits they're giving the big publishers-- the ones who had the guts to challenge the billionaires on their 1%er game of taking it all and asking permission later.
This absolutely proves how copyright is a valuable law for the little guy. The publishers were tiny compared to Big Search and they were still able to stand tall like David and insist that Goliath must pay them a fair share for their hard work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
What a mong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
Stand tall by waiting 7 years before agreeing to what Google originally proposed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
Google is not giving copies away. 'Nuff said.
All those publishing fools could have teamed up, created a foundation and what not to create a similar useful resource. They still can. But they wont. They prefer to be driven by they irrational fear of piracy and whine at Google for taking the challenge up, and yes, possibly make a buck for the useful service they provide to mankind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
i dont deny copyright exists at all
what i deny is its usefulness in the modern age
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
You should be the one cutting out the horse manure. It is clear that the car smashing the glass is about SCARCE goods and a crime. The authors can refuse to get their books scanned. But facts aren't your thing are they?
Your obsession with Google seems to be a pathology, you should get treatment.
No one but the loons around here bought their insane copyright denying view of "fair use"
It's mainstream now, seems humanity is infested with loons. And it is publicity. 3 million books per year now do you honestly think that without visibility and a fan base any author can make big bucks?
This absolutely proves how copyright is a valuable law for the little guy.
Pure and debunked bullshit. The only ones that really benefit are the big players.
The publishers were tiny compared to Big Search and they were still able to stand tall like David and insist that Goliath must pay them a fair share for their hard work.
The publishers didn't do SHIT. It's the authors that did. And I don't see that many complaining. Again, they can still opt out. Where's the bullying? I'm thinking you have some secret documents telling that google execs pointed guns at the artists and yelled "scan or die!", right?
Again, get treatment, it seems to be a pathology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
Who owns what rights to the published books? Why should it only be the authers getting a say in how the books are used since the publishers are generally the ones bankrolling the authers? I agree that the settlement did not tell anything about the need for cooperation. The wording is just a fancy way of trying to push the existing agenda of the old copyright-industry.
But from there to calling the existing copyright laws a disaster is quite a jump. I would call it clumsy and unwieldy on the internet, but a disaster is quite a strong opinion on the authors part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You zealots keep burying your head in the sand about the most important fact:
Copyright is never going away.
And protecting people from corporate robber barons like Google is why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
God save the queen!
Her fascist regime!
You're the first copyright-lawyerly punk, mate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TD definition of innovation: a process anyone comes up with to make themselves more money by providing a service the people really, really want to use. FTFY.
"Copyright is never going away."
I bet they said the same thing about prohibition and slavery too. Laws that people don't respect and simply stop following do eventually go away. Respect for current copyright laws is falling all around the world, and I see no reason to think that will change unless copyright laws are massively revised in the near future.
"And protecting people from corporate robber barons like Google is why."
Ask people who they think the real "robber barons" are. Google, who provide a range of very useful and very popular web services, or legacy music labels, film studios and book publishers, who have stretched and contorted copyright law into something completely different to what is was originally intended to be and is massively incompatible with modern technology and societal attitudes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, and how does it help when the majority of people respects it less and less?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me thinks something is afoot. That or someone is scared of something that they're sending out the loony tunes in full force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No sheep is safe tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do want inventors and artists to get paid for what the create but do I have to wait 1 and 1/2 lifetimes to recognize any value to society?
To the trolls, I recognize you are just trying to chip away at society to get people to make a moral judgement and defer to paying rights holders for 100+ years. It's clear and understandable. However, in my mind, the draconian efforts going in to keeping the money rolling in forever is unreasonable and is holding back clear progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As you said though, culture existed before copyright and it'll exist after. Despite what they may believe, the world and creativity and invention will continue. Copyright and patents aside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google wanted to ignore the rights of authors, plain and simple. The only reason a settlement comes today is because Google is willing to accept their rights, grudgingly.
If you want to blame someone, blame Google the Gatekeeper for not wanting to play fairly with others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In your copy-fascist world, truth doesn't matter as long as you follow your master's best interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given that situation I think it is doubtful that they could make much money off of it.
If we imagine a reasonably small part of the search results made public, I am pretty sure that we are still talking aggregated data where google do not own much of it.
The only big problems I can see is if the book published a detailed description of how the hundreds of parameters in the background engine works and how to abuse it. I am unsure of the status on those informations and thus how publishing it is seen from a legal point of view!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]