I fail to see how (1) can be rationally articluated at all. That would be like paying the post office for every electronic correspondence I send (including this one). Either way, neither can demonstrably be applied to this situation.

Besides, Goolge Print has yet to be shown to have any negative impact on revenue streams for publishers.

In the end, if Google Print is illegal, than so is EVERY SEARCH ENGINE on the internet.

And where’s the evidence that all content eventually comes into the public domain? Saying X will eventually happen is not an argument. Historical evidence suggests to me that e.g. Mickey Mouse will never go into the public domain. Is there evidence to the contrary?

This simply isn’t true. Copyrights don’t last forever. All content eventually comes into the public domain. Copyright laws as they apply to written content right now are completely fair even by your standards. What Google wants to do is the equivalent of allowing any person to use 20% of *any part* of the landowner’s property per month.

In your post you ignore a very simple way that Google could circumvent all this controversy: just buy reprint rights from the author, and they could make the whole book available online.

Prof. Lichtman I’m going to read up on you now. I think you’ve been unjustly set upon. I personally am closer to Joe’s point of view, but I appreciate the balanced approach you take. It does little good to any side to view this as Good versus Bad (Evil).

I have issue with the implication of your phrase “continue to earn a share of the revenues” … this continuance undermines the idea of first sale, as Joseph points out. There may be reason to offer something to publishers/authors who agree to make their works available here, but I don’t know that there is an *obligation to do so.

Essentially I think the transitional period is mental, not economic. A poster above points out that this is likely to stimulate, not dampen, the sales of most kinds of books. It will take some time before old-media companies realize that, and until then it’s not helpful to antagonize them.

For the academic world, think of how easy it will be to test for plagiarism, a leakily managed process at present and one in which copyright holders ought to be a lot more interested.

Go Google. Go Drummond!

Law makes long spokes of short stakes of men.
Your well fenced out real estate of mind
No high flat of the nomad citizen
Looks over, or train leaves behind.
Your rights extend under and above your claim
Without bound; you own land in Heaven and Hell;
Your part is of earth’s surface and mass the same,
Of all cosmos’ volume, and all stars as well.
Your rights reach down where all owners meet, in Hell’s
Pointed exclusive conclave, at earth’s centre
(Your spun farm’s root still on that axis dwells);
And up, through galaxies, a growing sector.
You are nomad yet; the lighthouse beam you own
Flashes, like Lucifer, through the firmament.
Earth’s axis varies; your dark central cone
Wavers, a candle’s shadow, at the end.

“Your well fenced out real estate of mind”. Intellectual property, indeed. Someone ought to do a rewrite of the poem, imagining the long shadow of indefinite copyright extension – Mickey Mouse’s silhouette, far flung into the future from its corporate base.

Are you truly worried about this? Because when I hear it I immediately suspect any further arguments made by that person as a red herring.

Databases of this type are not masses of intact digital works. There would be zero value to them if they were, because simply being able to quote the work doesn’t tell you anything about the context of that quote, what page number it appears, what paragraph, what other works may have borrowed from it…

These are linked lists of words and passages, not simply giant blobs of scanned text. Even to recompile and reconstitute the works broken up in this fashion from an online source would be more work than simply going to the library, checking the book out and scanning it yourself – just as many people already do.

The movies from books question is a total red herring. Movie producers should and do pay royalties to authors (or, I guess more likely to Publishers) because movies are derivative works. The analogy to Causby falls short because the effect of the new technology (ability for a new type of derivative work) was fully considered in existing copyright legislation.

As far as the question of revenues drying up goes, I think that both types (1) and (2) would have to be covered by what Larry hints at towards the end of the article: a need to compensate for the impact of the new technology on actual revenue lost, and not for hypothetical loss dependent on the increase in value resulting from the innovation. Actually, I imagine differentiating between type 1 and 2 revenue sources would be at the center of such a dispute over compensation. But this approach is all wrong (though it’s certainly less wrong than extorting payment from tech-innovators). No payment should be made by the innovator even if he damages pre-innovation value. The cost of change should fall on everyone’s shoulders, not just those who effect it.

“…I read his [Larry’s] post to be a little unfair in painting a picture of copyright holders as bad, greedy, evil people“

Bad? Greedy? Evil?

I read Larry’s post two more times in an effort to decipher your interpretation of his words. I can only guess that you are referring to the following remark –

“…if the law gives them the power to extort…“

Is it the word “extort” that you find a “little unfair”? Metaphorically speaking, it seems on the mark to me. After all, copyright already grants publishers/authors a dominative position over the public. It is obvious that a searchable database will only help copyright holders garnish more income.

So, if an entity in a position of artificially granted power – aided by an innovation disingenuously labeled as “harmful” – seeks “compensation”, what verb other than “extortion” would you consider to be a “fair” descriptor?

But of course, there is money to be made in fighting. Using common sense could negate a trial. The lawyers will surely line up their specters in order to challenge the fact that a searchable database will aid authors/publishers in their search for profit. For instance, the fear that a “hacker” will gain access to the database and leak the data to the public. But let’s be honest. What would be the end result if every book in the database was freely available? I don’t think any lawyer on the side of the Author’s Guild wants to look deeply at that question for it may mean doing the right thing instead of trying to score a big win for their client. Only the insane and delusional could believe that such a leak would actually hurt the profit mechanism of the printing press. But as the lawyers gag their conscience and throw all reason out the window, this will be one weapon used against Google.

If we were all interested in doing the right thing, there would be no “leak” – no “hack”. If we were all interested in doing the right thing – not what we desire as lawyers, publishers, google CEOs, or authors but as reasonable human beings – we’d rule (i.e. regulate) Google (and thus the publishers/authors indirectly) to place the information contained in the database under a non-commercial creative commons license.

This would solve the problems and books will still be sold.

But no no no no! That’s communist and anti-american to suggest such a thing! Fundamentally changing copyright law?! Peter Rock, are you insane? The constitution says “exclusive” rights!

Well yes, but the constitution also states that the purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public meaning “exclusive” no longer fulfills the purpose of copyright law in the digital age! Its latent oppression – through nobody’s fault – has surfaced in the face of technological advancement.

(The “binary” response) “You are suggesting the abolishment of copyright! Commie swine!“

NO! That’s not what the creative commons is all about. The CC is the “immediate reaches” over the Causby land. It is the “Some Rights Reserved” that the CC clearly spells out. The CC is pointing directly toward a solution concerning our futile attempt at making the digital world conform to ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. How long will we continue to try and fit a square peg into a round hole?

America, do you realize what a blessing it is to have someone like Lawrence Lessig working in the area of copyright law? Do you have any idea what a revolutionary individual and group of people working at the CC your culture has produced? I can only hope Larry gets to see the day when the whole of human knowledge is free (as in speech, not beer) to do what is their natural right to do – access and share culture. Do him an historical favor before he’s 6-feet under – wake up and allow the latent potential of the CC philosophy to truly push forth the “progress of science and useful arts“.