Just finished watching Lessig on Charlie Rose (yeah, I’m in here a long time after the fact). Some things he said about putting his work on the Web for free (and urging Charlie Rose to allow that with his shows) were pretty self-serving, and blathered from a position in which he has no vested interest in whether his work is put out free or protected by copyright and sold.

That position is often called “moneyed.” He’s made his pile. And Charlie Rose gets paid before he even makes the programs. Lessig’s slant on copyright and making creative, scholarly, and research work avilable on the Web–particularly without the author’s permission–would be 180 degrees out of phase with his current views, were he to find himself depending entirely on the earnings of his work.

I imagine he wouldl be monumentally and sincerely pissed off if he was flat broke and watching the incentive for people to buy his books being eroded by people who want to “share” them because it’s a cool idea. And he’d likely be producing no written work, because he’d be burning the time he might put into writing working his ass off for someone else.
–MB

I think your entire set of arguments taking away from the ‘fair use’ that is involved in the Google Print Project suffers from an understanding of the doctrine that is based on a preconceived conclusion on your part that this project is in violation of copyright laws.

For example, a fair reading of the very site you linked to on the Four Factor test would demonstrate a more balanced view of the entire case.

1. On the question of the ‘character’ of the use, while it is commercial, there is also the ‘otherwise transformative’ aspect of this project – clearly, Google is changing the nature of the copyrighted work, and transforming a lot in the course of this project.

2. On the question of the nature of the work, it is clear on the website that the Google Book Project and the works involved don’t fall into the category of ‘imaginative’, but are published works, which fall on the left hand side of that column, thus weighing in Google’s favour.

3. On the question of how much of it will be used, your ‘literal interpretation’ notwithstanding, a very small portion will be used. A snippet, irrespective of how much will be used by Google overall. Hence, again, left side of that column.

4.On the question of its effect, it will clearly not affect the market adversely – enough and more surveys are showing a clear indication of the good Google is doing.

All in all, Google has a strong Fair Use case. You, on the other hand, don’t. I’d also suggest reading a resource carefully before offering it as an argument.

I’m sorry for being a bore. I know the law can be boring, and that’s what I continue to get back to. Would you like me to use your style of non-legal diatribe, or should I just start with short personal attacks? I know that you combine the two, but I need to work up to that.

Come back when you have learned to read.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

You really have to get over this “commercial use” nonsense. Commercial use or not has almost nothing at all to do with it. commercial use (opr not) didn’t matter to the girl scouts. It didn’t matter to drink or die. and it doesn’t matter here. Whether or not commerce is involved (especially since the DMCA) is essentially meaningless in any discussions of copyright infringement.

Also, use of the entire book is held against you—if you take the fair use factors literally—whether or not you publish the entire book.

You really need to work on those comprehension issues. I bet you didn’t even give the SRA your email address, did you?

What if I set up a 900 number where you call for a snippet of a book and in return I read back a relevant passage? No one is getting the entire book – but you are getting a citation which you would not have without my service.

As has been mentioned more than once, there are four fair use factors (I wish this was in a full browser window so I can search for stuff more easily) and commercial use of someone else’s work is held against you according to one of them. Also, use of the entire book is held against you–if you take the fair use factors literally–whether or not you publish the entire book.

In the particular scenario you mention, in some cases, you can call a public library that has a telephone reference service and the book and they’ll read you the citation for no charge. Otherwise search the internet, go to a bookstore, etc.

I don’t believe a system should be created in which copyright holders have to search under every rock to see whether someone is using their (arguably entire) work for profit in a way that devalues it for the copyright owner. That’s what Google’s opt-out system creates. Luckily, I don’t think it’s legal and it probably never will be.

Lessig wrote:

Given the total mess of copyright records, there is absolutely no way to enable this sort of access to our past while asking permission of authors up front. Or at least, even if Google could afford that cost, no one else could.

Nobody needs that sort of access, but why can’t Google at least take the time time to email the copyright holders printed in the books, just in case they’re able to be contacted and are able to reply? If any emails are ignored, Google could assume the material is orphaned. That would be illegal too, but it’s closer to fair and wouldn’t be impossibly expensive per book. What would it cost Google to do that per book, considering they can do it for hundreds of books per single email to a publisher? A penny? Oh, then Google might need to read a contract. Still, one contract per hundreds of books. Nothing compared to what Google would earn from Google Print.

If it’s true that there’s “no way to enable this sort of access to our past while asking permission of authors up front,” it would probably be because Google wouldn’t get permission from the copyright holders of even the non-orphaned books, not because Google can’t afford it or because they’d need to pass impossibly high costs on to the customer after getting the permission.

Will someone fix blockquote already! What blog software is this?