• three blind mice

    thanks for the link professor. unfortunately it’s way past our bedtimes. we would have enjoyed seeing a spirited defense from the commons of google’s commercial endeavours.

    a public library hosting a defense of google is the best. marketing. ever. and it’s all free for google.

    the irony is that if a public library did this, we might be convinced that there is a good reason to permit a more comprehensive indexing under copyright law.

    but when a commercial giant with tendencies towards world domination does this, the answer is clear: not without the permission of the copyright owner. forget the strained airspace analogy. this is the question: why should google be able to derive commercial benefit from a copyrighted work without obligation to share this commercial gain with the author?

    it is one thing for “the commons” to claim a “right” to the creative work product of another, but it is another thing altogether for the mob to take an author’s blood, sweart, and tears and give it – for free – to a giant commercial enterprise so that they can make even more profits.

    this is worse than stealing: it’s GOP-onomics. steal from the poor author and give to the rich corporation.

  • w

    “why should google be able to derive commercial benefit from a copyrighted work without obligation to share this commercial gain with the author?”

    Why should any magazine that publishes a review of a copyrighted book — a review which includes a few paragraphs worth of material from the book — be able to derive commericial benefit without obligation to share this commercial gain with the book’s author?

    Some magazines which publish such reviews are owned by giant commerical empires that some would characterize as having “tendencies towards world domination.” Nevertheless, magazines can still publish reviews of books, including material from these books, without compensating the author.

    Why are magazines allowed to do this? Fair use.

    Why should Google Print be allowed? Fair use.

  • http://hurstassociates.blogspot.com Jill Hurst-Wahl

    Please have someone archive it so it can be viewed at a later date (even if just for a limited time).

  • http://www.nsputnik.com Nick D

    I think Amazon be on the panel. Since Amazon is getting all of the traffic generated from the Google Print results (according to SearchEngineWatch.com), and Amazon already has a relationship with authors and publishers, who better to explain to the Authors Guild than Amazon? And Amazon has everything to gain from Google Library. If a Google user wantes to find more information about a book, what better link for the book is there than Amazon?

  • http://ponderance.blogspot.com Tama Leaver

    Can I second Jill Hurst-Wahl’s request and ask (and if need be, beg) that this presentation be podcast (or put up as an mp3 at least) for those of us on the wrong side of the globe who’d love to hear the debate but may have trouble justifying starting the Friday workday at 9am with a streaming debate from NY! :)

  • http://www.screaming-penguin.com cooper

    Once again, a Quicktime page that the Linux users can’t get to.

    What is it with the NYPL events and proprietary formats?

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Mice:

    this is the question: why should google be able to derive commercial benefit from a copyrighted work without obligation to share this commercial gain with the author?

    Because they are – as you say – “deriv[ing]” commercial gain rather than competing directly with it. If a publisher has a deal with a copyright owner to act as the exclusive printer of that book, I am competing directly with that publisher if I print my own copy and then sell it. But this is clearly not what Google is doing. So to answer your question, Google “should” be able to do this because they are clearly not competing/diminishing the financial incentive of the publishers/authors. Lawrence is totally correct when he metaphorically states that the plaintiffs are seeking to (ab)use copyright law to “extort” funds. Sure, the language is strong, but undeniably apt.

  • three blind mice

    Peter Rock, it would seem to us that google, with the aid and assistance of starry-eyed commonsists, is the one doing the extortion.

    a copyright confers economic power to individuals. in practice, an author’s copyright is what enables her to negotiate with publishers. authors are human beings. citizens.

    google is just another publisher. a giant, global, paradigm shifting publisher who prefers to appropriate from authors through statute instead of negotiate with authors under market conditions.

    and under the flag of “fair use” the commons-ists run to the defense of the commercial giant.

    to call it extortion is to be too kind.

  • Fabio Capela

    Unless by “extortion” you are refering to the fact that books in the Google index will most certainly sell more, which may make life harder for those who opt out of Google Print, I don’t see how Google can be extortint anyone with its Google Print project. Anyone that don’t want their books in this project can just tell so to Google.

    It’s even possible that Google Print will enable authors to negotiate in better terms with publishers, since they will be less dependant on them for publicity.

    Besides, if I want to put a small excerpt from a book in a web page it’s perfectly legal under the fair use exceptions. The results Google will present to users, showing a few words on both sides of the researched term, will be completely legal, specially if Google keeps it’s promisse to not put advertisement in the Google Print results and to impose technological restraints that make it impossible to retrieve even a single complete page from copyrighted books, and even the people that are fighting Google know this. The one complain they are making is that in order for this project to be functional Google will need to keep complete electronic versions of the books, even though these electronic versions will not be accessible to users.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Mice:

    google is just another publisher. a giant, global, paradigm shifting publisher who prefers to appropriate from authors through statute instead of negotiate with authors under market conditions.

    I’m failing to see what it is Google is appropriating. Of what is Google taking ownership of?

  • three blind mice

    Peter Rock again you fail to see copyright for what it is: an economic device. consider the propostion Fabio Capela puts forth:>”I want to put a small excerpt from a book in a web page it’s perfectly legal under the fair use exceptions. The results Google will present to users, showing a few words on both sides of the researched term, will be completely legal, specially if Google keeps it’s promisse to not put advertisement in the Google Print results and to impose technological restraints that make it impossible to retrieve even a single complete page from copyrighted books, and even the people that are fighting Google know this.”

    there is a difference in using a short excerpt from a copyrighted work in a book, article, or website and the wholesale copying of a copyrighted work to create a searchable index.

    google wants to create a database of books – not to sell books – but to draw internet users to its portals so that it may sell biased and linked search results and, of course, advertising. in short, google intends to derive economic benefit from the content of copyrighted books without the obligation to share this economic benefit with the creator of the content. this stinks. the promised benefit to the authors – that more books would be sold – is completely irrelevant to google.

    the sad fact that civil liberties groups are ready to give away the rights of individuals to giant corporations in the name of freedom is a particular irony.

  • anonymous

    Google has already demonstrated its willingness to engage in willful copyright infringement by copying entire works without authorization or compensation. It is foolish to expect that Google will not further unlawfully exploit the entire scanned works it will amass:

    Google Eyeing Online Book Renting?
    http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69187&cat_id=643

    The Google Print initiative began with discussion with publishers and authors to work out a licensing agreement, but Google went renegade. I expect the same here.

  • one sighted mouse

    The only advertising on the Google Print pages for copyrighted books is, in fact, advertising for the books in question, as produced by the authorized publishers.

    Google will need to tread lightly, on a matter slightly separated from what has been discussed – if they deal only with a select few on-line booksellers, such as Amazon, they risk attaining trust status. They really need to be able to provide links to every bookseller who makes it known to Amazon that they have a web page through which Google can make links directly to the book in question, and from which would-be customers can order directly.

    Does Google stand to make money? Yes.
    Does the publisher stand to lose money? Not likely.
    Does the publisher stand to gain money? Yes.
    Does the author stand to gain money? Depends on the contract the author has with the publisher, but probably yes.

    Is there any way a publisher could lose money? I see two ways: 1. the publisher opts out. 2. the publisher has made deals with one or more on-line bookstores which reduce the amount those bookstores pay for the publisher’s books. Note that both of these ways requires action or prior action on the part of the publisher, or potentially a large section of the publisher’s authors.

  • http://phiffer.org/ Dan

    Is this working for anyone? I can’t get the stream to play…

  • http://www.nancyscola.com/blog.htm scola

    Me neither. Asking for a username and password.

  • http://q00p.net Akshay

    I’m being asked for a username/password to watch the webcast, but nowhere has anyone ever told me what I should enter…

  • http://dorrianporter.typepad.com DGP

    quicktime
    quicktime

    worked!!!!!!

  • http://q00p.net Akshay

    Thanks!

  • http://www.nancyscola.com/blog.htm scola

    I’ve emailed the folks who seem to be hosting it (http://smartleydunn.com). Let you know what I hear.

  • http://www.nancyscola.com/blog.htm scola

    Oh I get it now! Username=quicktime and password=quicktime. Works. Sweet. Thanks.

  • http://www.dansays.com/ dansays

    Is anyone else getting audio? Because, I’m not getting any audio. This makes it really difficult to hear what everyone is saying.

  • http://www.nancyscola.com/blog.htm scola

    This working for anybody else? It came in and then cut back out on me.

  • http://q00p.net Akshay

    I can connect (thanks to the usn/pwd). The connection sometimes times out though and I have to spend a few minutes trying to reconnect.

  • http://www.leetnetworks.com David Riordan

    Any chance this will be put online in full at some point? I missed the webcast (exam, otherwise I’d have gone) and I’m hoping to see what looks like was an incredible event.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Mice:

    in short, google intends to derive economic benefit from the content of copyrighted books…

    Yes.

    …without the obligation to share this economic benefit with the creator of the content.

    Of course. Since there is no reason for an obligation to exist then this is as it should be.

    this stinks.

    Interesting opinion. Can you explain it?

    the promised benefit to the authors – that more books would be sold – is completely irrelevant to google.

    Of course. Should it be relevant to Google?

    the sad fact that civil liberties groups are ready to give away the rights of individuals to giant corporations in the name of freedom is a particular irony.

    This is interesting. I too, am very wary of corporate interests. However, I don’t think that, in this case, this is something to be afraid of in the immediate moment. However, I do see a future of electronic books with individual rights to read being compromised by the perverse endorsement of technological “protection” measures (i.e. trusted computing/drm). And unfortunately, because Google’s motto of “Don’t Be Evil” is utterly meaningless and romantic, Google will endorse and promote whatever is in Google’s best interest. In this case, I worry. But we have not yet reached that stage. However, this potential future problem is not reason enough to claim that what Google is doing now is harmful, unlawful, or that they have an “obligation” to share profit. As I said before, Google’s immediate business plan is not in direct competition with the existing publishers/authors.

    I wish people would just be honest. The fact is, Google is doing nothing wrong. However, because Google is a multi-billion dollar corporate giant, it may well be worthwhile to gather a bunch of “lawyers” in an attempt to extort money. However, in order to win such a case, those pursuing such litigatin can’t just be upfront and honest – they will have to create specters – ghost-like “reasons” as to why they should cash in. And they have to act like they believe in these reasons – at least until the case is over.

    I’d rather see the court not award cash to anyone, but severly restrict Google’s rights over the database they create. Say – “no, you don’t have to pay anyone to do this. Go ahead, create it, use it, but you must be forced to free that copy (and all future copies) to any institution that wishes to use the database for the same purpose.” That is, the database effectively becomes a part of the commons. Restrict its commerciality use so publishers can still obtain the monopoly rights to print/sell books, and everyone wins.

  • icecow

    Why should google be able to do this?

    Because it’s flat out progress.
    The thesis of copyright law is to maximize access to materials and create a mechanism to spawn new works. There is no deficit of new works. It’s the access that needs to be improved. Google Print gives exposure to independent writers and artists and improves access to the public of the entire nation. The pennies google gets for positioning a prospective buyer directly in front of an independent author’s work is better then any normed publisher will do. The notion that the pennies impact the authors is rediculous. You could run around town trying to get people to look at your book and buy it, perhaps pay for an ad. Then someone walks up to your door and says ‘this guy read a paragraph of your book and is considering buying it. I don’t mind bringing him because he also looked at my neighbers car and my neighbor gave me a nickel’ Are you going to start up saying how violated you are? How you had no right to read a paragraph to the guy? You could say it’s different because doing the equivlant online is requires much less effort and the nickel profit is highly repeatable. I’d answer: Exactly. Do you want to live in a cave?

  • http://mayamoose.blogspot.com maya

    Hi,
    I missed the stream – is there an download out there or another stream cuz I’d love love love to here it.

    although it may cause me to rage a bit — oh well a nice glass of wine pre-listening may help out

    moose from cda

  • http://www.ime.usp.br/~is/ Imre Simon

    I managed to view 2/3 of the debate only (it took me 40min to find out the user/passwd combination; my sincere thanks to those who posted the secret here).

    I would like to ask for the availability of this debate for on-demand playing. Would that be possible?

    I heard great arguments on both sides, though, personally, I am rooting for the ample availability of this new indexing capability and most certainly liked best the interventions coming from the right side of the table. But clearly very important issues are being intensely discussed here.

    It would be enlightening to have a transcript of the debate, so that posterity could rely on the arguments and questions raised at this early stage of the discussion. Would that be possible?

  • Ygor Valerio

    I vote for the transcription!

  • http://simplisticton.livejournal.com simplisticton

    I’m really bummed that I missed the webcast because of the username/password thing — which wasn’t posted anywhere else besides here that I could find (and stupid me, I didn’t think to check here!).

    I really hope someone (Wired?) makes this available for download like they did with “Who Owns Culture?”. It would have been so neat to see the debate as it took place, though.