Would it violate some copyrights if I were to go to the library and start photocopying every page of every book that interested me? In what way is Google’s program of action different from that?

-t

If this statement is correct then it is certain that Google will copy data into its database without licence of the authors. The mere publication of information cannot be considered to be an implied licence when such publication is done for reward. That would be just about every commercial book ever written since Dickens (Well not in the US anyway).

This narrows the issue significantly, it is now clear that if Google relies on fair use it must establish that fair use at the point of copying the book. I note the Mice’s post on Feb 10 with regard to GooglePrint and the Diebold analysis and agree with his reasons for not allowing fair use in respect of Google Print. I would hasten to add that the purpose of the copying is not educational as it is, immediately, merely for the purpose of filling the Google database.

On the basis of this opinion, which is reasonable in the circumstances, I would advise Google Print to require authors consent before copying material to its database. I would also note that Google probably has an impied licence to all material provided on the internet or to the public in a digital form and by other means which Google may have the fair use right to copy.

That seems fairly conclusive really.

and thanks for your response nate. there is no “right” answer here which is why the sort of intelligent, civil debate we have here is so valuable. our host is providing all of us with a valuable forum.

please, do not ever think that your opinions do not have an influence on us mice. seeing-impaired as we are, we are groping forward the best we can in the darkness and everyone’s point of view helps. although we may seem arrogantly self-assured at times, the only thing we know for certain is how much we don’t know.

I can’t tell if I’m missing something in your question, but yes, Google is proposing an opt-out system whereby works would be included in the database unless the copyright holder (often not the same as the author) actively declines. Thus the inclusion of works in the Google Book Search is _not_ contigent on obtaining the copyright holders consent, but rather on the absence of refusal; thus this debate.

mice:

Thanks for your response. Although I disagree with you almost word-for-word, it’s a good reality check for me to see why smart people hold contrary positions.

–nate

If a copyright holder chooses not to participate in Google Book Search, not a single word from the book will appear in any searches.

Now this seems a little bit mischievious to me. It could be interpreted that Google will include works in book search unless the author chooses for his works not to be included.

Please advise whether inclusion of works in the Google Book Search is contingent on obtaining the authors consent.

well, nate, we think you have to look at all sides – the impact on authors, the financial benefits to google, and the societal benefit. we argue on the side of david – the authors – who are fighting for their rights against powerful, wealthy corporations and the tyranny of the majority. society does not benefit at all if there are no new books for google and the public to steal.

2) You argue earlier that the real problem is the opt-out nature of Google’s program. You also argue that this is an undue burden on authors. I would have guessed that in most cases this would be handled by the books publisher. Do you feel it is also an undue burden on a professional publisher to opt-out?

yes. the burden must be on google. entirely.

it is naïve, at best, to imagine that google cares one bit about “societal benefit” and it is amusing to see so many people shilling for google shareholders. especially when they shill for free. it is the best. outsourcing. ever.

it’s “the legal department of Random House and the Author’s Guild”