Let's Sue Google (if only for their blatant misspelling of Googol)

[plonq]

The Authors Guild is suing Google.

"Google knew or should have known that the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. ("the Act") required it to obtain authorization from the holders of the copyrights in these literary works before creating and reproducing digital copies of the Works for its own commercial use and for the use of others. Despite this knowledge, Google has unlawfully reproduced the Works and has announced plans to reproduce and display the Works without the copyright holders' authorization. Google intends to derive revenue from this program by attracting more viewers and advertisers to its site."

On first blush I'd tend to side with Google on this issue, but I'd have to do more reading on "fair usage" to take a firm stand either way.

Do any of you creative folk out there have any thoughts on this?

Comments

[kamiten.livejournal.com]

I am no expert on fair useage either, however the plans as stated by google sound like they are easily within the rights of fair useage. As I understand it, you are allowed to use small portions (how small I couldn't say) of a persons text so long as the author is credited.

[dronon.livejournal.com]

I'd like to comment, but given that the company I work for will probably be involved in the digitization process should this project go through (although not at the branch I work at), I have to keep my yap shut. We had an in-office e-mail recently promoting this online library thing, like in the last two days. I guess I'll have another in-office e-mail about it again, now that this has come up. Reminds me of the time we had to threaten a hotel with trademark infringement for using the Dewey Decimal System as their marketing and hotel room theme, which was resolved amicably, thank goodness.

[orleans.livejournal.com]

I think copyright laws need fixing. They should be to encourage creative works and make sure creators are adequately compensated. What we have now is copyright being extended in perpetuity so that companies can continue to get "free money" by milking standbys such as Superman and Donald Duck. And of course, everyone else tags along on that, so the estate of such and such an author keeps getting royalty cheques forever for something they had nothing to do with. Imagine getting $3000 a month just because your granddad was a famous author ... nice easy money, but hardly fair.

Once we fix the copyright laws, it will be more obvious what is and should be in public domain.