Apropos Stephan’s post regarding nefarious Congresscritter bugaboo surrounding a service offered by Google called Google Print, comes a defense from Forbes.
Fortunately, we have a sense of what a snippet might be, since the online book retailer Amazon.com (nasdaq: AMZN – news – people ) offers snippets in its searchable “Look Inside” feature of books it has scanned for its Web site.Pat Schroeder, the former Congresswoman from Colorado is now the president of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and a vigorous opponent of Google’s plan. She is also an author. I went to Amazon and searched in her book 24 Years of House Work and Still a Mess for the word “property,” and Amazon’s technology found for me on page 286 the following snippet:
“Protecting intellectual property is my main focus at AAP. Technology has made it so easy to copy anything you create …”
She’s right about technology. However, my finding that snippet and using it for this article is not a copyright violation. I didn’t ask Schroeder or her publisher for permission to use the quote in her book. Indeed, there’s an entire industry, book reviewing, predicated on the ability of people to do something similar to what I’ve just done.
More discourse here.
{ 7 comments }
It can be found online here through the auspices of Project Gutenberg. They also publish other works pertaining to the problems of tyrants and the risks when governmental power is no longer properly restrained.
Thanks Anonymous,
When I read the previous Google post, I wondered if the author had heard of Project Gutenberg. I bought several of their CD’s in the mid 1990′s. The Amazon.com exerpt is what Google wants to do, if I understand their position properly. Microsoft and Yahoo! are also working on similar services. I produce computer generated art, so copyrights are something I am interested in as well. Personally, copyright lengths are too long now.
I am actually taking a class on Copyright Law right now (as a Graduate student), and so blog entries on this topic have lately caught my eye. I currently have one piece, found via a past post here, shortcut-stored on my desktop, and another icon right above it, with a shortcut to a pertinent entry at AFF’s Brainwash. Thank you, Mr. Swanson, for giving me another one to add to my collection… This may turn out to be especially helpful, in fact, because we were just assigned our big project for that course, which includes something about the Google Print controversy.
<— Saving shortcuts to this entry, and the one by Mr. Kinsella…
I guess if you apply property rights rigorously, the default position is not allowing google to use the informantion since they are a new project, no matter how many authors should rationally benefit. The owners of these articles have to grant some sort of permission for google to use their stuff.
“oneofthem”, why do I need someone else’s permission to use the books I own in the manner I wish?
Wonder what the next ridiculous step is. go to Barnes and Noble and it’s illegal for a person to read a book before buying it? How this truly helps the sale of books is beyond me … It’s more likely that some hacker will set up (or redirect) to a server in a foreign country and violate all sorts of copyrights — that’s not ethical — but it’s likely that will happen. The illegal spread of copyrighted works will occur — it best to join it in some way.
佳き日に、二人に送る電報 結婚 文例でお祝いの気持ちを伝える。
Comments on this entry are closed.