Hypocritical Authors Guild Photocopies Author's Book While Claiming That Scanning Works Is Infringement
from the oops dept
A few weeks ago, we wrote about the big win for fair use, as the appeals court ruled against the Authors Guild and said that libraries scanning books in their collection to make a searchable index is fair use. Hilariously, the Authors Guild is in complete denial about this ruling, putting out a statement claiming it was "not a total victory for either side" and that the ruling was "narrow." Except, that's not true. Yes, the Court sent back a tiny part of the case, but if it wasn't a "complete" victory for libraries, book scanning and fair use, it was, at the very least a 95% victory.Still, the eagle-eyed sleuths at 5 Useful Articles have spotted an absolutely hilarious exchange that happened during one of the depositions in the case. The deposition was of Peter Hirtle (full disclosure: I know Hirtle a bit, and he once invited me to speak at an event, though I was unable to go -- though until now I had no idea he was even a part of this case in any way). Hirtle, who has spent many years as an archivist and policy advisor for the Cornell University Library, also happens to be an author. At one point, the lawyers for the Authors Guild apparently brought in a bunch of copies of Mr. Hirtle's book. Photocopies. I think you can see where this is going.
MR. ROTH: I see you've made multiple copies of Mr. Hirtle's book.That last line is the real zinger -- since a big part of the Authors Guild's argument in the lawsuit was that even if no one looks at the scanned works, it's still infringement merely because they made a copy. And, yes, the Creative Commons license around the book certainly suggests that the Authors Guild's lawyers did not, in fact, infringe on Hirtle's copyright, but it does show, yet again, how frequently it seems that copyright maximalists rush to easily copy something when it suits their needs.
MR. GOLDMAN: Yes.
Mr. ROTH: That is in copyright and for sale in bookstores.
MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Yes.
MR. POTTER: You don't think it raises any copyright concerns?
MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't think this is an appropriate question.
MR. GOLDMAN: No, I think it's also -- I'm not even going to engage in that.
MR. ROTH: Note our objection. These books could have been purchased. And given the subject matter of the lawsuit, it's quite ironic that you'd be using multiple copies of a book in copyright.
MR. GOLDMAN: It's published under a creative commons license. It's not attribution and noncommercial.
MR. ROSENTHAL: Why don't we just destroy the copy that we gave Mr. Hirtle's lawyer and to anybody else in the room who wants a copy other than the one we marked for the thing. If they really don't want to have copies for purposes of fairness in the deposition, then we'll just get rid of the extra copies. That's fine. You want us to take back Mr. Potter's copy and destroy it?
MR. ROTH: I'm not going to give you advice.
MR. ROSENTHAL: Okay. I'm going to take these -- let the record show I'm taking these extra copies and I'm going to put them in our shredder which is in the next room. Anybody who wants to come watch me do it, may be welcome to come do it. And no one has even looked at those. So there you go.
MR. POTTER: I guess if no one else looks at something, it's not infringement? That's an interesting theory.
I'm reminded, of course, of that time when the MPAA was caught making unauthorized copies of the film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which skewered the MPAA and its practices. The MPAA, in that case, insisted that it could make such copies "because it had implications for our employees." Yet, this was the same MPAA that insisted that "all forms of piracy are illegal and carry serious legal consequences." It also was going around at the time telling school children "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it." And its former boss, Jack Valenti, once (incorrectly) insisted that fair use doesn't exist.
There's something deeper here. People copy stuff all the time, because it's a natural and normal thing to do. People make copies because it's convenient and it serves a purpose -- and quite often they know that doing so causes no harm in those situations. This is an intrinsic understanding. It's so intrinsic that folks at the MPAA and Authors Guild do it without even realizing it. But it's part of what makes their hardline position so ridiculous.
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, copies, copyright, creative commons, peter hirtle
Companies: authors guild, hathitrust
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm just going to take this evidence and destroy it...would anyone like to watch me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are we talking about this book, which is freely available from Cornell U.?
http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/14142
What's the problem with making copies of that book? It's under a CC license. Where's the hypocrite in using a book exactly the way the author intended, with his permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He was called out on copying a document and Rosenthal didn't explain why it was ok, he immediately went to "Oops, sorry, I'll just shred it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The strange part is why Mr Rosenthal didn't just say that the copies are licensed because he's complying with the CC license terms, and move on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's still evidence tampering when they're not yet aware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this case, it isn't actually evidence of a crime because he was actually licensed to make a copy, but you can be found guilty of tampering with evidence if you have done so well before any trial has started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My first reaction was that they seemed to be saying that, if being able to copy helps someone in a job, then copyright doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think being able to relax and watch a movie in the evenings has implications for my employees, so downloading a bunch of movies and handing out copies should be totally fine. No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Computers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Computers
Would that make people with good recall repeat infringers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Computers
DEA sells you drugs so that they can arrest you for possession of drugs.
FBI creates a terrorist plot for you to be involved in so that they can arrest you for being involved in a terrorist plot.
So...
MPAA would then sue you for infringement on making a copy of a movie by watching the movie you paid to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence
Second, attorney babble is not evidence. What the witness says is evidence. The witness (Peter Hirtle) didn't say a thing in this portion of the transcript. Presumably Peter Hirtle would be aware of this contradiction and could mention it during his testimony.
Because the attorney was so happy he caught a contradiction, he opened his mouth to show how smart he is and blew it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those people aren't the issue. The people who are the issue are the ones who, knowing that the work is copyright and that they should purchase a copy, decide instead to just take a copy for their own enjoyment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That has nothing to do with either this copyright case or the quoted sentences.
/rerail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do they know they are not causing harm? So, if I don't know that I'm causing harm, it's not infringement. That's an interesting theory.
It's hard to find the proper middle ground on the topic of copyright, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It only counts when other people do it
As a classic example, consider the whole French three-strikes debacle and it's defenders...
One More Copyright Infringement, And HADOPI Must Disconnect Itself From The Net
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/11082417868/one-more-copyright-infringement-hadopi-mus t-disconnect-itself-net.shtml
As Sarkozy Pushes Three Strikes, He Pays Up For His Own Copyright Violations
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090428/1204424684.shtml
Nicolas Sarkozy Caught Mass 'Pirating' DVDs; Time To Kick Him Off The Internet
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0816327383.shtml
Sarkozy's Party Found Violating Copyright Yet Again With Awful Lipdub
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0816327383.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we have a legal blind spot here? It would appear so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More money for the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scanning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]