[Web4lib] Copyright Law (fair use) analysis of Google Print program

Fri Sep 9 08:57:18 EDT 2005

First a correction. I mis-characterized the SONY case which stands for the 
proposition that the producer of a potentially infringing technology is not 
guilty of infringement if there is a substantial non-infringing use for the 
technology. The DMCA has certain provisions that seem to have been drafted 
to address that holding.
 In the main I think we are in agreement. Google print may or may not be an 
infringement of copyright in regard to in-copyright works where it creates a 
physical copy of an item. In this case I'd argue that the making of the 
physical copy is incidental to the indexing process and not a harm to the 
publisher. A publisher can, of course, argue otherwise. I do expect we will 
see a court decision on this point.
 I also agree that there is a tension between the current copyright regime, 
which mainly speaks to physical copies and control of them, and the new 
world of the INTERNET that is still not well integrated into the philosophy 
of copyright. Control has seemed to trump the public good. Hopefully a 
sythesis can be reached that balances creator's rights with the public's 
interests.
 Regards,
 Steven C. Perkins

 On 9/8/05, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote: 
> 
> Steven C. Perkins wrote:
> 
> > Karen:
> >
> > I can see Google making an index of all the words and assembling the
> > sentence with the search term and the two sentences on either side at
> > the time it replies to the search request. In that case there is no
> > "copy" of the complete work ever present for the copyrighted works,
> > except at the moment of digitization and loading into the database as
> > parsed and that can easily be flushed out of the memory buffer.
> 
> Google is creating scanned images of pages, not just indexes of
> keywords. That's the real crux of the matter here. Those scanned images
> are being given to the libraries that own the original paper works.
> 
> >
> > Personally, I am an "Information wants to be Free" person and I think
> > the publishers are no longer needed.
> 
> Hmmm. Do you read many vanity press books? If you think that all
> publishers do is reproduce finished copy, you are in for a rude awakening.
> 
> >
> > If you go back to the SONY vcr decision, the making of one copy for
> > safekeeping or personal use can be supported. If I were Google, I'd
> > argue that the copy given to the providing library and the copy
> > distributed across the Google servers is a "safekeeping" copy. Again,
> > at no time can a searcher get a full copy of a work.
> 
> "Personal" use is exactly as it says: personal. An institution is not
> covered under the Home Recording act (see http://www.hrrc.org). In terms
> of the copyright law, there is no consideration of whether a searcher
> can get a "full copy" of the work -- the copyright law covers the making
> of copies, not their access. And note that "safekeeping" copies for
> libraries are sufficiently addressed by current copyright law in section
> 108, and there are strong restrictions on that copying.
> 
> I am no fan of copyright law, but if the discussion is whether Google's
> activities violate the law, then I think that there's a good case to be
> made that the letter of the law is being violated. The question then
> arises as to whether the law, as it stands today, is relevant for
> digital materials and for uses such as those envisioned by Google. But
> to claim that somehow Google's actions fall within the law is a real
> stretch. I welcome Google's actions, however, because I think that by
> pushing the envelope they may force a re-assessment of what copying
> means in the digital environment. Ultimately, their actions may lead to
> a general agreement that copyright law based on the hard copy
> environment is not suitable for the digital, networked information world.
> 
> kc
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steven C. Perkins
> >
> >
> > At 05:53 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >> I see some immediate problems with Band's thesis. Kelly v. Arriba
> >> Soft had to do with the copying of web resources already available
> >> for open access; Google is taking print resources and digitizing
> >> them. Also, although the copying of the books for the purposes of
> >> indexing may not be a violation of copyright law, Google is making
> >> full digital copies of the books for the libraries. Those copies are
> >> probably not covered under fair use, and for sure they aren't covered
> >> under section 108 of the copyright law (which allows libraries to
> >> make copies under some circumstances for the purposes of preservation).
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >> Steven C. Perkins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello:
> >>>
> >>> The link below goes to a 6 page analysis of the Google Print program
> >>> by Jonathan Band.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf
> >>>
> >>> He concludes that under the fair use results of the Arriba case [1],
> >>> it is unlikely that the Google Print program violates US copyright 
> law.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Steven C. Perkins
> >>>
> >>> [1] Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)
> >>> 
> http://www.eff.org/IP/Linking/Kelly_v_Arriba_Soft/20020206_9th_cir_decision.pdf
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Steven C. Perkins, JD, MLL Coordinator of
> >>> Reference Services
> >>> M.D. Anderson Library University of Houston
> >>> SPerkins at UH.Edu 713-743-9775; fax 9778
> >>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" --Juvenal
> >>>
> >>> 
> -----------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Web4lib mailing list
> >>> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> >>> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -----------------------------------
> >> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> >> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> >> ph.: 510-540-7596
> >> fx.: 510-848-3913
> >> mo.: 510-435-8234
> >> ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> 

-- 
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins at gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/