RSSGoogle Library Effort Hits Legal Wall
By Ed Oswald | Published September 21, 2005, 12:15 PM
Google's efforts to index the catalogs of several libraries is again running into copyright issues as a group of authors accused the search giant of "massive copyright infringement." They alledge that Google never approached them for permission to index their books, and have taken the search engine to court.
The group behind the suit is the Author's Guild, a non-profit organization that lobbies for free speech, copyrights, and other issues of importance to writers.
Saying their books "have not been licensed for commercial use," the authors have asked a U.S. District Court in Manhattan to bar Google from copying any more books. The group is also seeking class-action status for the lawsuit so anyone with a book in the University of Michigan library, one of the libraries the search engine is trying to index, could join the suit.
It is not exactly clear why the group selected the University of Michigan library rather than all the libraries, or any of the other five libraries taking part in the effort.
"This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law," said Authors Guild president Nick Taylor. "It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied."
The Guild claims in the suit that Google should have known that it needed to obtain permission from authors before copying their books, especially for commercial use.
Google defended the practice in a statement, pointing to the fact it has set up a system for authors and publishers to opt out of the index, and said it regrets that the Author's Guild had "chosen litigation to try to stop a program that will make books and the information within them more discoverable to the world."
Last December, Google announced an agreement with five major libraries to scan and index millions of books and periodicals. The information would be integrated into Google's Web search over the next several years.
The company previously had said it would direct visitors to buy the books if they wanted more content than Google would provide.
Google only wants to make the books searchable. They are not going to publish the entire book. I think is a great idea especially for students who usually spent countless hours reading and trying to find answers on text books. They should just ban those authors who don't want they material listed and watch how those how were included benefit. Google is trying to create a virtual library that the entire world would be able to access, restricting access is just being greedy and selfish. Or maybe msft is paying for all the law suits hehehehe :P
Score: 0
|So are all search engines in copyright violation cause if you do a search for a specific book and it has parts of it in the search result?
I find this to be a bunch of people wanting to be greedy. I mean come on your book is sitting on a shelf in a university library that probally has not been touched in years unless they rearranged the shelves and now you want to cry and scream cause it is getting indexed.
Give me a break, I see nothing is out of the radar scope of law suits and suing you for suing me crap.
And to the choad that has constantly posted that google is evil, try laving your house for a while and see the real world...... sheesh
I am all about copyright laws to protect the individual and all but when you abuse that law for your own personal gain or attempt to use it for your own personal gain rather individual or company, I have a huge issue with it and nobody in the legal system is doing anything about it.
You moan cry and complain about the riaa and mpaa about your downloading of movies and music and then cry and moan about the prices of them at a online or retail store but touch a book and it is a cardinal sin and it is screwing somebody out of some untold godly amount of money that is only viable in that person or guilds head.
Get a grip people and quit being a hypocrite...
Score: 0
|If Google makes it opt-in, that would be fine.
But you can't violate copyright and request the copyright holders ask you to stop violating the law.
Google's method for metering how much a user reads of a book is weak. They use a cookie. Flush the cookie, and you can read the whole book.
They had better stick to the public domain or be sued into oblivion.
Score: 0
|Google only makes 20% of the book available, so no matter how many times you kill the cookies, you'll still end up short 80%
Score: 0
|Google is the Devil.
Google is the Devil.
Google is the Devil.
Repeat after me...
Score: 0
|It's not a matter of indexing but should google reap the monetary rewards, that will eventually come? I think not!
Score: 0
|I like the index idea, and have a central database for every information we have on Earth to be merged so any unique information can always be located.
I support google!
Score: 0
|Before condemning them, does anyone here have a better way to get these books online?
You all whine about RIAA keeping your music from you, yet when Google tries to give you books, you b!tch and moan.
Kinda shows where this world is headed.
Google has yet to do anything that steps on my rights, or limits what I can do online. Still not Evil in my book.
The ability to do Evil is not the same as being actively engaged in Evil practices. I can kill, but I don't. Because I can, does that make me Evil?
Score: 0
|Agreed. Especially the RIAA part. That is a perfect example of why I don't buy people's ridiculous arguments for stealing copyrighted information.
In my opinion, Google is doing nothing wrong. From what I've seen, they've made every attempt to abide by copyright laws and are only indexing what they are allowed to index.
Score: 0
|I don't need books online.
I think it's a huge waste. I'd rather sit on the couch and read a real book. I would rather walk to my library and go get one. I don't need to do every freaking thing on my computer.
It's easy to tell that society will be a bunch of fat people that sit in front of computers. Oh....nevermind......half of them already are.
Score: 0
|Oh jesus ur naive. Thats precicely why there should be no issue with it. Because 9/10 people dont want to sit infront of the computer and an entire book, BUT people do want to be able to quickly find excerpts on specific topics.
So long as Google dont find a way to specifically profit from it, just say when reading from google, they offer a link to amazon, and then make a percentage from that sale would be fine, but not them making a user pay a subscribtion.
I personally think the idea is fantastic. The ability to be able to find anything, and capacity to further the overall knowledge of socitey is just amazing.
Score: 0
|Hahahahahha.
Learn to spell.
Nice job Buckwheat.
Score: 0
|Google is the Devil.
Score: 0
|I thought it was Gates...er..Ballmer...I mean, Jobs.
No wait..wasn't it RIAA? Ashcroft? Lewinski? Um....
Damn...this is just too confusing.
Score: 0
|Google were really reaching with this one. 'Opting out' was a supremely arrogant idea - if the company doesn't watch it, it'll have to change it's motto.
Score: 0
|They already need to.
Here's their new motto: "We're evil"
Score: 0
|I don't agree that Google is offering an "opt-out". They should have to get permission, not assume permission unless otherwise told not. Getting rich or not, an author didn't sign up for Google's index when he/she put their book in the library.
Score: 0
|"Google said they were only going to index books that the publishers authorized them to".
does one need a permission to index a book ? is the autorization of the publisher not valid in this matter ? are the writers getting greedy and blinded for some extra dollars ? arent they getting extra and free publicity because of the indexes of their books being published, made accesible to millions of possible buyers ? does ones succes again trigger mans nasty jealousy ? I have also submitted a library with my work to a public accesible web-site and google indexed this in their search engine. should I sue google for not asking my permission to do such ? as a good old fashioned artist I am practically starving, would this garantee me some much needed extra income ? maybe I am not that hungry yet........
Score: 0
|I'll have to agree with you... But sadly, by "legal terms," I have to side with the "authors."
I really don't see why they don't want such publicity. Gah, it just seems like everyone wants to make a lawsuit these days. :/
Score: 0
|I really wish Google would not do this whole Library thing.
I think it's wrong.
Google is getting too big.
Score: 0
|Why do you think it is wrong?
Do you support file-sharing?
Score: 0
|putting the world's information at your fingertips so long as you have internet access (increasingly getting easier) then the poor and rich are unified by oportunity.
nothing wrong at all, but they should adjust where and when needed and let time be on their side. Even the inventor of the toaster got laughed at or is there a better example?
Score: 0
|"Saying their books "have not been licensed for commercial use," the authors have asked a U.S. District Court in Manhattan to bar Google from copying any more books."
That's retarded. Google said they were only going to index books that the publishers authorized them to. And now Google can't do it even when they have the publishers' permission?
Again I say, retarded.
Score: 0
|Heh...I guess my local bookstores are all in deep s*** since the books on their shelves are not authorized for commercial use (aka, sale).
Pretty soon we're gonna have a WIAA (Writers Industry Assoc. of Amer.)
$50.00 for a hard-cover, here we co..
Oh...yeah... $60.00 for a hard..
Oh nevermind.
Score: 0
|lol
Score: 0
|Nicely said lol
Score: 0
|**** copyrights
Score: 0
|Copyrights are there so that rich people can be richer. Yer google should try and ask there permission its not fair other wise the authors lose money but information should be free not copyrighted.
Score: 0
|Copyrights protect the authors. They are abused by RIAA and MPAA to the extent that most people now believe them to be evil.
The copyright in and of itself is a good thing. The legal means by which it is currently interpreted and enforced is flawed beyond comprehension.
Copyright is there to make sure creative types can continue being creative without having to work at McDonalds. It is not there so that Britney can own a mansion.
Score: 0
|ok next time you create a work and try to sell it, remind me to steal it so i can say 'but you hate copyrights'
Score: 0
|That sounds like communism, and I ain't too fond of Britney either. Please expand your argument.
Score: 0
|Communism? Are you serious? Copyright is about individual ownership, about as far from Communism as it gets.
This isn't Rich Authors trampling on the efforts of Noble Google to distribute knowledge 'To The People' (which is much more akin Communism, although Google will be making a buck). It's actually the monolithic Google trying to reap financial benefit from the labor of authors without compensating them.
Score: 0
|Copyright law exists to protect intellectual property - the original thought and creation of whatever the protected item is. For literature the copyright includes, of course, copying the work (in part or in full), and therefore Google's activities put it on the wrong side of the law. The opt-out is a figleaf without which Google would have no defensive argument.
Communism has nothing to do with it. The Soviet Union protected its intellectial property with a thing called the RIAA - I mean KGB :-)
However, I do think that copyright law is protecting property at the incalculable cost of stifling the desemination of knowledge.
Britney Spears should protect her image by not appearing in public ever again. I think most people would welcome that kind of protection.
Score: 0
|Thanks for pointing out the bleedin' obvious.
I am aware of what communism is as it applies to copyright. I was commenting on the idea expressed above that there should be one standard for B Spears and another for more "acceptable" creative types.
Score: 0
|