How to make money with boats vs. Google

[Zed]

Copyright laws allow for reproduction of 10% of the body of work where appropriate, at least in this part of the world and the last time I was appraised of what we could and could not do by our legal advice. That was about a decade ago now but I'd be surprised if it is markedly different now and I would think our laws mirror common international practice.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Zed

Copyright laws allow for reproduction of 10% of the body of work where appropriate, at least in this part of the world and the last time I was appraised of what we could and could not do by our legal advice. That was about a decade ago now but I'd be surprise if it is markedly different now and I would think our laws mirror common international practice.

And 60+ pages of Scott's 294-page book is considerably over ten percent. It's more like twenty percent. Even if we ignore his statement that a few weeks ago Google was posting the entire book, I'd say he has a legitimate legal (and ethical) complaint.

[Zed]

The other possible twist is if its a collection of material, you can have the copyright on a collection while not owning the copyright on the individual elements of the collection. The original authors can give you permission to print it as part of the collection which you in turn have copyright on but you can't control what they do with their part of it unless it is covered in some agreement. That situation can get quite complex from memory!

I don't know if index pages count as the 'work' either... if any full segment is published then the the argument becomes if its OK as its part of the collection or its not OK as its the original work in its entirety. I forget how that goes but it has twists from memory.

[happy_red]

Why are you assuming Google is innocent until proven guilty

That's a basic principle of law in both the US and UK.

Again, you're the one who decided to turn this into an America-bashing thread.

and

I repeat: you were the one who originally sank to turning this debate into a diatribe against the US and its legal system. And you've returned to it repeatedly, as though your opinion that Americans are scum...

Not sure where you got the idea that I think Americans are scum. That certainly isn't true. Any American I've spoken to, I've always found very amicable. I also didn't start the 'America bashing' - you have made 2 previous references to Brits and colonialism:

You aren't the first Brit I've run into who automatically jumps to the smarmy assumption...

. Unless of course you take offence to my dislike of what is known in both the US and UK as "compensation culture" (not a phrase I invented) and conclude that I think all Americans are scum because of it. The same logic would lead you to believe that I find the British scum, too - and that would have to include me as I am British. All my comments were clearly marked as a response to your stereotyping so no-one else reading this thought I was really anti-American. Maybe it would be a good idea if we both avoid national stereotypes when referring to each others comments. I'm pretty sure we can disagree without becoming personal.

you offer nothing but pure speculation that Scott's book might be involved in the Partner Program. Do you really believe his publisher could give away his rights like that without even notifying him, much less obtaining his permission?

What rights has his publisher given away? The fact that Scott's book is showing more than snippets (by Googles definition and yours) suggests that Google are showing the book based on a Partner Program deal. Not sure that's such a radical conclusion. If it looks like an elephant, sounds like an elephant and smells like an elephant, it is probably an elephant! Scott more than likely has a contract with his publisher which may or may not give the publisher the right to promote the book in any way it sees fit. That's obviously speculation on my part, but not an illogical position to take

...no bearing on whether Google has the legal right to print his entire book--or major swaths of it--online without his permission

His entire book? Major swathes of it? By your own opinion, it is at most 20%. And Google probably has the right to publish it via the Partner Program.

I don't believe Scott's publisher can give away his legal rights as an author without his permission or even knowledge

The publishers more than likely own the copyright.
I don't work in that industry, but a look inside the cover of almost any book shows the copyright is owned by the publishing company and not the author. That gives them the right to do what they want, within the terms of any contract they have with the author.

Again, Scott believed his whole book was published on Google Books. It may have been, but certainly isn't now. Therefore I don't think he needs to give it away on those grounds - but obviously that is his decision. It looks, by Googles definition of what they have published, that his publishers have joined the Partner Program and Scott is getting some wonderful free advertising for his book. If a court finds Google guilty, then I'll assume they are guilty. Until then, they are innocent.

[masalai]

Sadly, Happy Red, USA has demonstrated its determination to conduct its affairs as it sees fit - legally or otherwise - and to heck with any view that the rest of the world may have - - Justifying being labeled itself as a pariah state.... Go look through http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...ies-26558.html, (247 pages of clippings and links, countered by rabid denial, invective, disinformation as personal views because not many are prepared to understand why the economic collapse), the links and copied essays are mostly "on the ball" accurate and well researched.... The general facts of the matter cannot be disputed, but that does not mean that the evidence is sufficient to prosecute because in USA justice is measured by the amount of money one brings to the case... The defendants have the access to print or create as much money as is needed for whatever project - effectively screwing the future financially, for all the good citizens of USA who are not aware or turn a blind eye to the facts...

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by happy_red

That's a basic principle of law in both the US and UK.

Presumption of innocence is a legal construct and instrument, designed to be applied in legal proceedings and applying mostly to the prosecution of criminal cases. You and I are not obliged to presume or pretend Google is innocent of wrongdoing, simply because a decision hasn't been rendered by the courts yet.

His entire book? Major swathes of it? By your own opinion, it is at most 20%. And Google probably has the right to publish it via the Partner Program.

Twenty percent of a book is a major swath. I don't see how you can pretend that one fifth of a book, in uninterrupted order, is a minor snippet. And that 20% isn't my 'opinion;' it's a fact. I scrolled through 60 pages in succession. And that was only one preview; I can get multiple previews of a book by wording google searches differently.

Again, you're too quick to jump to the defense of Google. You're assuming they're in the right, and you're assuming the authors have no basis for legal action--that they're suing only as a crass maneuver to make money. I don't think you have any proper grounds for either assumption.

Somehow, I doubt a bunch of authors got together, and one said, "hey...here's an idea. Our publishers put our books in Google's Partner Program. They own all the legal rights to our work, and it was perfectly legal for them to do so. But even though our rights haven't been violated because we have none, let's go sue Google anyway. Maybe we can bamboozle the judge and jury, and make a ton of money."

[troy2000]

It looks like this lawsuit has been settled, or at least a court granted preliminary approval of an agreement back in November. So I assume Scott was talking about participating (or not) in the final agreement, and decided it wasn't worth the bother. And incidentally, if he was able to offer his book free online instead, I'd say he owns the rights--not a publisher.

In rebuttal to your assumption that the lawsuit was simply a scam filed by a handful of greedy authors: the plaintiffs included not just individual authors but the Author's Guild. And five large publishers filed a separate lawsuit, as representatives of the Association of American Publishers. Both lawsuits are addressed in the agreement.

In the long run, it looks like a win/win situation. Legal rights and responsibilities have been clarified, and both sides stand to make a profit. Apparently, books that are out of print but still in copyright will be sold online by Google, with 63% of the profits going to a Book Registry. The registry will deal out money to the authors involved, like ASCAP does to songwriters and musicians. And Google is also paying $125 million dollars--mostly to settle claims and cover legal costs, but $34.5 million will go toward establishing the Book Registry.

It's a shame Google had to be hit with lawsuits to get its attention, and get it to sit down and negotiate. I think it was being a little arrogant in unilaterally deciding what it could do regarding other people's rights.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by happy_red

If a court finds Google guilty, then I'll assume they are guilty. Until then, they are innocent.

Google is paying the authors and publishers $90.5 million dollars in damages and legal fees. You might come back and say that doesn't count, because it was part of a court-approved settlement rather than a legal verdict. But it's good enough for me.