Lessig v. Publisher Re: "Stealing" and Google Book Search
Lessig's post starts out:
Engaget reports that “the head honcho of Macmillan Publishers” lifted a couple Google laptops at a recent BookExpo America, and then when he returned them, retorted “hope you enjoyed a taste of your own medicine,” and “there wasn’t a sign by the computers informing him not to steal them.”
So this betrays an astonishing level of ignorance, even for a “head honcho.”
Remember (and I did a 30 minute preso here to explain it) Google Books proposed to scan 18,000,000 books. Of those, 16% were in the public domain, and 9% were in copyright, and in print. That means, 75% of the books Google would scan are out of print but presumptively under copyright.
The publishers and Google already have deals for the 9%. And being in the public domain, no one needs a deal for the 16%. So the only thing the publishers might be complaining about is the 75% which are out of print and presumptively under copyright.
With respect to these, Google intends to index the books, and make them searchable. If a hit comes through the search engine, Google offers snippets of the text relevant to the search. The page includes links to libraries where the book might be borrowed; it includes links to book stores where the book might be purchased. And, I take it, if the “publishers” were to choose to publish the book again, it would also include a link to that publisher.
Finally, any author who wants to be removed from this index can be removed. As with Google on the net, anyone can opt out.
So vis-a-viz a computer sitting at a demonstration booth at a conference, is the “head honcho’s” action like Google’s?
Obviously not. And let us count the ways:
Read the rest here.
Comments
Prof. Lessig explains how inefficient the current copyright scheme is with regard to orphan works and how one may utilize them again. The problem I have with any of his solutions: copyright registries, opt-in/opt-out is that they layer another set of rules or another bureaucracy on top of the current copyright scheme. Adding a layer doesn't simplify or make things more efficient, quite the contrary.
The solution to orphan works is simple, if not yet politically tenable: reduce copyright periods to something really reasonable like ten or fifteen years. I would rather wait forever for that to happen than to tinker around with the law and potentially end up with something even worse than we have today. Beware unintended consequences.
The issue with orphan works to me is a problem for the owner of the orphan work. No one else worried about it until a few years ago. Prof. Lessig defends the public service Google does alerting the public to the presence of these "lost works". If it were merely altruism that motivated Google I would say bravo. But since Google wants to make commercial use of images from these works I say let Google go through the hassle and expense of tracking down the owner just like the rest of us. This is just another case of Google freeriding for its own ends. Sorry folks we might have to wait to see these orphan works. Don't worry they won't be reduced to ashes if we wait another five months or five years to find the owner.
Posted by: Jardinero1![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 8, 2007 04:37 PM