Comments on: The Catch-22 of Google Books

By: johncabell

johncabell — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:53:07 +0000

@Vibes: That’s pretty much what the Author’s Guild settlement does — and Chin said ‘notice’ was fine.

Under the agreement (which cost Google $125 million), there is no time limitation to make a claim whatsoever, and any money Google collects is held in escrow for an legitimate rights-holder who emerges, whenever that is.

By: Chip_H

Chip_H — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:46:31 +0000

Bunk. The author gives up book copyright to the publisher, unless they’re self-published pulp or e-books and Google is NOT publishing SPP or EB, so this is purely green mail.

‘difficultly-forged’ – another word for our Googlexicon.

By: JEYF

JEYF — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:27:42 +0000

the city officials of New London and the Supreme Court should be kicked out of their homes for the greater good.

I am worried that some city official can just come and kick me out of my home just because.

By: Vibes

Vibes — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:12:02 +0000

Google Books is not a library venture. It is like an online retail store where people can download “purchase” books for a fee.
Google cannot post books unless and until a legal agreement is signed by the author.
A common ground could be that Google may post a request for royalty on its various websites for authors to voluntarily opt-in or opt-out. If, in a pre-decided period by court, the author does not do either, Google may consider it as opt-in and use it for its purpose.

By: johncabell

johncabell — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:29:15 +0000

@chemlawdr I am pretty comfortable with the philosophical similarities of my reasoning.

In order to raise taxes, the taxing entity declared ‘public use.’ But the context was a desire to do something ‘better’ with someone else’s property, and it required making what was a novel argument that the Court accepted.

Same with Google Books only better.

Google is also driving an agenda that a governmental entity can find a way to make work. But all the backlash you allude to arose in part because many believe SCOTUS legislated from the bench. When a legislature legislates, that criticism cannot be made.

To me, this makes the Google issue and Kelo nearly identical twins, with Google having a much better claim to governmental cover than the private developer New London had selected to develop the land under Kelo’s (et al) house.

New London was to directly benefit from the argument it made. Whatever the objective good, the city’s motives were dripping in self-interest — which the Court did not find the least bit disqualifying (by definition, of course, since a litigant needs standing).

The U.S. Congress would not have to get its hands dirty at all by taking a fresh look at copyright law — even if it was motivated to do so by an agenda driven by Google.

This is because creating the database benefits everyone, forever (unlike a now vacant lot in Connecticut) and because the ‘harm’ to any affected individual is orders of magnitude below getting kicked out of your house.

If anything, one doesn’t even need to reflect on the contortions of Kelo to see how this can happen. My point was, there is a Kelo, so Google Books is a philosophical cake walk in comparison.

By: gordo365

gordo365 — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:27:07 +0000

Google is basically saying “If you don’t opt-out- we will take what is yours and sell it.”

Thank, my friends, is stealing.

If you don’t tell me I can’t take the CDs out of your car, then it is OK for me to take them without asking and sell them.

Do not evil?

By: chemlawdr

chemlawdr — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:33:38 +0000

As ridiculous as Kelo v. City of New London was, it was not solely based on increasing tax revenue. The issue was whether or not the city’s proposed plan qualified as a “public use”. A divided court (liberals taking the majority, at least for the most part) ruled yes. I’m not completely sure the jump from Kelo to Google is appropriate. The Kelo court was required to cleverly phrase some its wording to support its holding; however, the fact remained that it was the city against the citizen. In google, you have a company against a citizen. Whatever manipulations may have occurred in that opinion, perhaps the writer of this story should have read the entirety of the wikipedia link:) Eminent domain utterly failed in that case and backlashes have appeared from former President Bush, congress, and states; making an eminent domain a more difficult suit to win.

By: bmmm

bmmm — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:48:04 +0000

Great article; thanks for that.

By: tmc

tmc — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:20:49 +0000

Knowledge is power. That’s a lot of ….Knowledge