Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling
from the and-on-and-on-it-goes dept
We had hoped that, after nearly a decade of fighting and losing, the nearly complete trouncing of the Authors Guild’s ridiculous arguments against Google’s book scanning project (by a judge, Denny Chin, known for favoring copyright holders), that the Authors Guild and its proudly luddite leader, Scott Turow, might finally take a step back from the brink and recognize that maybe, just maybe, Google’s book scanning project isn’t as evil as the organization insists. But, back here in reality, the Authors Guild is going to keep on keeping on with wasting the various dues its authors pay to be members… as it has officially appealed the decision, guaranteeing the throwing of more money away on a stupid lawsuit that serves no purpose other than to make it clear to the world that the Authors Guild is anti-technology, anti-creativity and anti-innovation.
The lawsuit paints the organization as completely out of touch. Plenty of authors have pointed out how incredibly useful Google’s book scanning project has been for the sake of research and discovering other books (many of which lead to purchases). Publishers have pointed out that having books scanned by Google increases sales. It’s difficult to see what the Authors Guild is arguing for, other than “progress is bad.”
Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, fair use, scott turow
Companies: authors guild, google
Comments on “Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling”
Same reason as all the other content organizations
“Someone” is doing “something” with their segment of the industry, without their permission or control. Doesn’t matter if it’s good for them or bad; it’s that it’s lessening their influence.
Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
It’s the typical IP maximalist thought process: Some money for some use of a piece of IP isn’t enough. You must have all money for all uses. Google should have to pay to help authors increase the sale of their books!
Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
Really now. You’re just a copyright denier. Publishers always experiment with bundling rights in different ways because they want the customers to be happy. But getting things for free is not sustainable no matter how happy it makes people.
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
Who’s denying copyrights? I’m acknowledging their existence and, indeed, their abuse by copyright holders who have no sense of what is good for them. I’m not even advocating for copyright prohibition here. I’m just saying that Google is helping authors by helping customers find their works. And Google isn’t giving anything away for free that you can’t get from Amazon, i.e. a few pages of a preview.
Google is even more useful because of the Ngram Viewer in which you can search for specific phrases. If the whole text isn’t available, but you really want to read more, you’ll have to purchase the book.
Your assumption seems to be that anyone saying that copyrights are being abused or used stupidly is a copyright abolitionist. Welcome to the great gray area in between.
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
They sure have a funny way of showing it. I don’t think they want their customers to be happy. They don’t give two shits about their customers.
None of this, by the way, is about getting anything free.
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
“You’re just a copyright denier.”
Way to sound like an idiot. A ‘copyright denier’ would be someone who denies copyright even exists, like the way Holocaust deniers claim the Holocaust didn”t happen or was greatly exaggerated. Are you sure that’s the accusation you’re trying to make? Most people here are complaining about the overreach by and abuse of the copyright system, which pretty much implies they acknowledge its existence.
Care to try explaining yourself a little better?
“Publishers always experiment with bundling rights in different ways because they want the customers to be happy.”
At this point there are very few customers who believe that their happiness is a high priority for publishers.
“But getting things for free is not sustainable no matter how happy it makes people.”
Decades of free-to-air TV and radio would disagree with you. But you seem to have gone off track because this article is not about getting books for free. If you think it is then you’re as clueless about Google’s book scanning project as the Author’s Guild.
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
Citation? Bundling rights makes customers happy? How? By ripping us off, robbing the public domain, and charging us multiple times for something we already paid for?
Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
Or is it “someone” in the Guild NOT doing “something” that they controlled that is lessening their influence?
Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
This is true for every worker. Everyone wants to control what happens to their work product because it’s the only way to bargain for fair wage. Competition keeps things as fair as possible.
This is true for every union and every management team. Why are you surprised that the authors feel any differently? Why are you surprised that the authors want a cut of the money that Google is making distributing their hard work?
Re: Re: Re:
Have a report vote.
Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
First, I note that Techdirt’s, er, unique, fanboys-trolls have kept up attacks on me even in my absence last 6 days, and by faking my screen name. Gosh, I’m far and away the most influential here. One wonders as usual how anyone can actually believe that helps the site: speaks volumes about Techdirt. At least one fanboy fell for a fake, and was wittily tipped under the screen name, heh, heh. Another point to wonder on is that the fakes often get censored, while the real me rarely does of late, by which I conclude the censoring is almost certainly by Mike alone with knowledge of IP address: Techdirt fanboys are simply not that discerning or fair minded.
Anyhoo. On to this bit of Masnicking:
“We had hoped that” — Mike’s interests are always aligned with those of Google, else why run these pieces?
“Google’s book scanning project isn’t as evil as the organization insists.” — Unwittingly revealing, Mike! You admit that Google is evil, now the only question is JUST HOW EVIL IS IT? — And yes, kids, I am serious about Google and Mike: writing reveals much, or at best, a careful writer would have caught the implication.
Mike “supports copyright” the way termites support a house: by eating away at it!
16:34:05[r-157-5]
Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
Someone’s off their meds…
Re: Re:
Only an idiot would consider mockery as flattering.
Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
“Google’s book scanning project isn’t as evil as the organization insists.” — Unwittingly revealing, Mike! You admit that Google is evil, now the only question is JUST HOW EVIL IS IT? — And yes, kids, I am serious about Google and Mike: writing reveals much, or at best, a careful writer would have caught the implication.
No.
Without weighing in on whether or not it is evil, if we were to assume arguendo that it was absolutely not evil whatsoever, then the claim that it “isn’t as evil as the organization [which claims that it is at least somewhat evil] insists” would still be correct. Zero percent evil isn’t as evil as any greater amount of evil.
That having been said, let me weigh in on whether or not it is evil: it’s absolutely not evil whatsoever.
I’d say you have unwittingly revealed something, but then isn’t everything about you witless?
Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
Gosh, I’m far and away the most influential here.
No you are not Blue. Not even close.
But, you have reminded me of a Plato quote:
Since you seem unnaturally obsessed with commenting on most every article (except around holidays), which group do you think you fall into?
Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
Mike “supports copyright” the way termites support a house: by eating away at it!
Precisely!
Copyright protections, like termite infested houses, should only last for a limited amount of time.
Even the constitution, the supreme law of the land, says the same thing.
Re: Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
Uh. Mike and Google don’t believe in a limited amount of time unless you think that “limited” is 10 seconds or less.
Re: Re: Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hello, paywall bob.
Your definition of limited is “infinity, reluctantly minus a day”. No one takes you seriously.
Re: Mike's gloating for Google gets real out_of_the_blue to pop in.
Off our meds again, Cathy? I’ve seen numerous anomalies RE: the everyday good of copyright, in which your beloved corporations rip off the creators and rob the public domain. If that’s not bad enough, your BFFs at the collection agencies turn out to have failed to pay their trusting dupes, I mean, clients.
I’m no fanboy, but I find more common sense from TD and its rational commenters than I’ve ever found from you. Try to keep your story straight, dear.
You’re not influential, you’re the comic relief.
Author's Guild Funding
If the Authors Guild is receiving reprographic rights money through the Authors Coalition, then it could be just play money, money to burn. I know the small handful of jerks running the Graphic Artists Guild have been able to keep GAG members entirely in the dark about approximately $200,000 in repro funds it has been receiving annually, which enables them to engage in all sorts of mischief without much accountability to anyone.
Speaking of mischief, as a plaintiff in ASMP’s suit against Google, maybe GAG will find it has spent its money just as wisely as the Authors Guild, should the ASMP case come to a similar end.
Scott Turow
I was just getting around to reading one of his books when he started this BS. I like knowing which authors aren’t worth my time before I waste trying to read their drivel.
Hey, everybody...
If you want to access fiction you can download in a variety of formats and freely share with family and friends, click on my name and let’s leave the Authors Guild where it clearly wants to be; the 17th century.
Re: Hey, everybody...
Nope, it’s apparently broken. Never mind, just click here instead.
Perhaps Scott Turow is scared that full book searches will let people discover from which works he lifted those clever turns of phrase, and those neat metaphors etc.
i would like to see them waste all their monies, getting the same result they have already! at least then, perhaps, some of the affected will finally realise that what this bunch are doing, as with all these type of organisations involved with the many varieties of entertainment, are only interested in getting as much in their own pots and not in the least bit interested in those supposedly represented!
Re: Re:
It happened times and times again already..
They just don’t get it. They’re like religious zealots ignoring all the basic rules of logic for their completely unfounded and never actually proven ideology that aggressive copyright enforcement, or even current copyrights, are doing something good for them or society..
It all comes from fear. They think everyone is going to hurt them on purpose if they can get something without paying them for it..
When in reality the desire to buy a copy does not depends on whether you’ll get a huge fine if you don’t buy it..
Maybe there’s a way to make a system that works, but it sure as hell isn’t the current one !
It's always possible (likely?)
That the organisation in question is controlled by members of the one group guaranteed to profit from an appeal
Lawyers!
Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Sure Google is useful, but it’s still a big insult to the authors. On the whole, most authors would rather be able to pay for food and health insurance instead of having their book show up on the fifth page of some Google search. Remember, most authors don’t get free food and health insurance like the programmers at Google.
In every other business, it’s common to ask permission before forcing someone to “share”. But here Google was able to create a huge business for itself without even bothering to ask any permission of the people who did the hard work.
I guarantee you that the Authors’ Guild is not out of touch. I guarantee you that they surveyed their members and made a decision while understanding the risks that some other judge will fall victim to the same wacko logic that infects your brain. They are not out of touch.
It’s you who is out of touch with the needs of the millions of creative people who work hard and just ask for the chance to control what happens to their work, just like every other worker in the economy.
You’re just an astroturfing shill for a bunch of billionaires who want to steal from the artists who are largely poor. Even the richest artists have 1/1000 the wealth of the Google billionaires. You just want to justify the way they’re strip mining the creative world to line their pockets. How much greed is enough for you?
Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
It’s you who is out of touch with the needs of the millions of creative people who work hard and just ask for the chance to control what happens to their work, just like every other worker in the economy.
Wait a minute, now. Name any occupation that’s not IP related that gets to control what happens to their work after it’s sold or exchanged for a paycheck.
Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Prostitute?
Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Uh, did Google write the authors a paycheck? Nope. So it hasn’t been sold or exchanged.
What if carpenters were treated like the authors? Google would insist that it has “fair use” rights to slip into your house and hold parties sponsored by their advertisers. How much of their billions would it share with the home owners or carpenters? Nothing. And if the carpenters refused to go along, they would get Mike to call them luddites who fear the future.
All workers deserve the right to control what happens to their work because it’s the only way they can bargain for a fair wage.
Re: Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Bad analogy is bad. A better analogy would be that Google insists on photographing your house and including it in a database of houses and locations that people can peruse. Maybe Google could call it “Street View”.
If this were so, then any manufacturing operation run by anyone other than the original owner would be impossible. It’s a good thing it’s not so!
Workers bargain for a fair wage by not manufacturing things unless they get it. Control of the work after production doesn’t generally enter into it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
No. Google isn’t taking a photo of the book covers, it’s distributing every part of it. So your analogy fails to cover the scope of just how invasive they are.
Workers generally sell many of their rights with things.
But Google never bought anything from the authors. They never traded anything with them. They just assumed that they could do whatever they wanted with the work. It’s a shame how disrepectful they were.
Re: Re: Re:3 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
You make it sound like Google is distributing the entire book. That’s simply not true. You do understand what Google’s doing, right?
That’s also not true. They determined that their use of the work qualified as legitimate fair use. It certainly looks to me like that’s so. And at least one court agrees.
Re: Re: Re:4 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
“You do understand what Google’s doing, right?”
No, he clearly doesn’t, which is why most of his comments come off as ignorant rants that border on comedy. I also get a whiff of failed author/artist/creator who blames everybody but himself for his lack of success.
Re: Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
What if carpenters were treated like the authors? Google would insist that it has “fair use” rights to slip into your house and hold parties sponsored by their advertisers. How much of their billions would it share with the home owners or carpenters? Nothing. And if the carpenters refused to go along, they would get Mike to call them luddites who fear the future.
Ummm. Don’t know about you bob, but the carpenters who built my house can’t tell me what to do or not with my house once I purchased it. I can kick all the walls in if I please.
Actually, your analogy is more akin to IP rights than anything else. If I purchase a movie on DVD, I’m told I can’t legally do with it what I please, like view it on my Linux machine or save it to my hard drive for convenience.
Re: Re: Re:2 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
That’s right. The carpenters can’t tell you what to do because they sold all rights to you. You bought em.
Google bought nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Re: Re: Re:3 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Carpenters sold no rights to you. They sold you a thing they built. The rights are inherent.
It sounds like you’re conflating IP with actual property. You can’t do that — copyright does not bestow a property right.
Re: Re: Re:3 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
You should take into account that electronic copies have absolutely no value.. Just look at someone’s Steam library of games.. Or your iTune/Amazon/etc.. mp3 library You can’t resell any of it, its worthless.
The only reason people would try to give value to electronic copies is to make a point that they’re losing sales.. But, unlike other products there’s no inherent loss for making copies that cost nothing to produce in the first place, and since its a copy it removes nothing from the original owner..
You could argue about lost potential sale. But, people don’t buy things because they don’t have it already, or because they’re gonna get fined if they have a friend lend them a copy..
People tend to buy what is essentially the same thing with little extra perks. Take the tons of Star Wars re-releases for example.. Or all the editions of the Nintendo DS and 3DS, they all do the same thing, yet they have many versions with perks to each of them ! What keeps them from buying the real thing after getting their hands on a copy for free, especially if there are perks that come with it ?
Sure, when people have little to spend on luxury product like cultural content, they’ll take a copy for free and not pay a dime, but their buying power prohibits them from buying it either way.. Ever since childhood we’ve been raised into not wasting money we don’t have on things we can live without, and focusing on priority needs !
However, this tendency of people to get electronic copies for free, has the advantage of boosting seriously word of mouth promotion. While denying people access to it only helps making the product invisible! How many obscure little bands died and still die because they don’t let people hear their music anywhere else than on stage, or through a paywall ?
Kickstarter has clearly shown us that people are willing to pay to support things they like, even if it means they’ll have to pay again for the end product !
I think its about time people start noticing that fighting over the little bits, while there’s a feast waiting right in their face, isn’t worth the effort !
Re: Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Did the authors get permission from the Programmer who created their word processor, to see if they are allowed to use the word processor for this? Did the author send them any royalties?
What about the creator of the computer OS the author used, did they ask them for permission prior to writing the book?
Did they ask permission from the keyboard manufacturer before using it?
How about the computer monitor manufacturer?
What if carpenters were treated like authors?
They would love it.
Create one thing, and then expect to get paid for the rest of your life, your childrens lives, and their childrens lives. I can not see too many carpenters complaining about that deal.
Re: Re: Re:2 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Last Time I looked at Microsoft Licenses, if they used Microsoft software they are required to get the more expensive Professional versions as they are engaged in a commercial enterprise. The home ans student license are quite restrictive over what you can use the software for.
Re: Re: Re:3 Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Wow, that’s just… I’d have trouble thinking of a more effective way to drive people to alternatives than forcing them to pay probably hundreds more on top of the already insane amounts MS charges for their software.
Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
So having Google show a quote from a book, which might lead to a sale is taking money from the Authors. You seem to have a peculiar idea about how to sell books, like hide them away from potential purchasers to increase sales.
Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
They didn’t ask permission because they didn’t need to ask permission.
Get over it.
Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
Bob,
What this is all about is “Fair Use” which is allowed under USC (United States Code, also known as Federal Law) title 17. (BTW USC Title 17 is the actual Copyright Law, here in the U.S.)
from 17 U.S.C. ? 107
“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. ? 106 and 17 U.S.C. ? 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]”
The Author’s Guild sued claiming that Google’s actions constituted a violation of copyright under U.S.C. Title 17. Google’s defense was based on the “Fair Use Doctrine” as stated above.
THE JUDGE AGREED WITH GOOGLE
It IS NOT “whacko logic” If you would actually READ the judgement, you will find that there are several “litmus tests” that a fair use defense must pass to be upheld.
Judge Chin, in his rulling, dicusses these “litmus tests” and how Google has met them, thereby proving their defense of the issue an winning the lawsuit
Now, while you may not aggree with the judgement, it an actual, honset-to-god binding legal judgement.
The Author’s Guild has elected to excerise their right of appeal, however, having only filed a “Notice Of Appeal” and not a full brief, no one knows what points in the disputed ruling they are contesting.
This is perfectly fine.
Now, if on appeal, this judgement is reversed, then Google will have to deal with that.
If, on appeal, the judgement is upheld, then the Author’s Guild will have to burn more money for futher appeals.
If you actually do a little research ibnto current copyright cases, you will discover that after the 1st appeal, the plantiff’s chances dim (absent obvious and glaring faults in the originaly judgement.)
I commend to you a study of the whole Prenda Law traigi-comedy. One of the funniest excecises in futility I have ever seen
Arisotle said “We may conclude then that the law is reason without passion, and that it is therefore preferable to any individual.” It is this viewpoint that forms one of the basis of our Judicial system
We just need to wait and see
Re: Re:
No one believes you, Prenda fanboy.
Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
“Sure Google is useful, but it’s still a big insult to the authors.”
Yes, having excerpts of your works able to be easily found by fans and potential customers, or people researching your work for academic purposes, must be so damn insulting! Obscurity would be so much more rewarding!
“On the whole, most authors would rather be able to pay for food and health insurance instead of having their book show up on the fifth page of some Google search.”
Since one does not preclude the other in any way, shape or form, your point is completely irrelevant.
“Remember, most authors don’t get free food and health insurance like the programmers at Google.”
Neither do millions of other self-employed workers, so again your point is completely irrelevant.
“It’s you who is out of touch with the needs of the millions of creative people who work hard and just ask for the chance to control what happens to their work, just like every other worker in the economy.”
If that’s the case then it looks like “millions of creative people” are completely clueless about the working conditions of “every other worker in the economy”, most of whom have little to no control over “their work” once it’s completed.
“Even the richest artists have 1/1000 the wealth of the Google billionaires.”
If you want sympathy for your cause I suggest you leave the millionaire winners of the copyright lottery system out of the discussion. Most of us are not going to feel sorry for someone worth millions who’s jealous of someone worth billions.
If I understand the situation correctly. Im gonna have to disagree with this one. I dont think Google should be scanning books without the authors permission.
Re: Re:
Why not?
It is 100% permissible and legal for you to scan any book you have without permission. Why do you think that Google should treated differently?
My friend is an author and has been posting rants about this on his Facebook page for awhile now. Now I understand it a bit better.