Google still behaving very, very badly: Strangers in Paradise gets poached UPDATED
on February 19th, 2010I spoke with Terry Moore, creator of Strangers in Paradise about the Google Book Search Scheme. He knew nothing about it until he read of it here.
Google’s plan to scan every book in existence and make them available online without the permission of the copyright holder is praised by some as an “information wants to be free” jackpot for libraries and researchers. Google claimed it would only make “snippets” of in print, copyrighted work available to the public. These “snippets” were supposedly limited to only a few sentences.
When I found entire stories from Clive Barker graphic novels online, I wondered how this could be justified by Google as a “snippet”. Moreover, what “information wants to be free” interest is served in posting a story about a man being eaten by pigs? Can’t we split the atom without that info?
Reader Mike Castle wrote in to assure me that Google would only post large portions of a book to its book search if it had been given permission to do so by the copyright holder.
However, this is simply not the case.
Terry Moore, creator of Strangers in Paradise informed me that not only has he not given Google permission to post his books to book search, but you can get a hell of a lot more of a look at Strangers in Paradise than a mere “snippet”. I was able to view individual issues of Strangers in Paradise as reprinted in the GN’s, and went for two dozen pages or more of “snippets” at a time.
Google does not have the right to do this, and Terry Moore opted out of the settlement. Almost every page of every Strangers in Paradise GN is available in the Google database.
The judge presiding over the settlement has decided not to rule today due to the complexity of the case.
At the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an objection over violations of the privacy of the readers who use the service:
Because the settlement does not contain any privacy protections for users, Google’s system will be able to monitor which books users search for, which pages of the books they read and how long they spend on each page. Google could then combine information about readers’ habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive “digital dossier” that would be highly tempting and possibly vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants.
Not to mention of the rights of the authors who did not give Google permission to make their books a part of this scheme.
UPDATES: Google lawyers get their day in court and lie a lot:
In her arguments, Google attorney Daralyn Durie argued that there was no harm in the settlement because “nothing about the settlement risks injuring the economic interest of absent rights holders.”
Yeah, baby. Copyright squatting never hurt anybody.
If people can go and read my work on other websites, then I am less likely to get traffic to my website which I depend on for income to produce more work. Because part of my income is advertising dollars generated by traffic.
So, if you can go to one resource (Google) to read any book you want, why go anywhere else? Isn’t that their whole plan?
Like it or not (and I don’t like it), the sad reality is that this pernicious practice will persist until one of two things happens.
The first primary possibility is that the Court will issue a definitive ruling against Google Books. Given the recent ruling in favor of corporations’ “rights” to free speech, I think this unlikely.
The second primary possibility is that Google will lose money on the deal and abandon the model as commercially nonviable. Given that they are taking their source material for free (read: stealing) and that this drastically reduces their overhead, I think this equally unlikely.
There are, of course, thousands of unpredictable things that may happen, but those are the two things I think the most immediate possibilities for resolution in creators’ favor.
As a teacher who makes almost rabid use of the Fair Use doctrine in my Comic Book History course, I recognize that it has a legitimate utility. However, until the Courts rule that this abuse of the doctrine is just that, the future is not so bright for the creative among us.
I would have it be otherwise, but that’s the way I see it.
I can’t agree more.
two dozen consecutive pages =/= “snippet.”
two dozen consecutive pages = one full issue of a standard comic book.
I see whut you did thar, Google.
I guess I really am going to have to start offloading my Blogger accounts to another system,and getting an email account that is not Gmail. I really can’t continue to patronize their products if they’re going to, well, be PATRONIZING :-/
Yeah, and that’s 2 dozen consecutive pages, you miss two. Then you get two dozen more. You skip a couple, then you get two dozen more.
Out of a 200 page book, you are only missing about 20 pages.
That’s some “snippet”.
so, how is this any different than Scans Daily… except in bigger blocks?
How the hell can freakin’ Livejournal be more responsible about copyrights than Google? Seriously?
The difference between Google and scans daily is that Google is doing all of this for your OWN GOOD, and so that libraries can pay Google a fat fee to access all of Google’s database so people in libraries can read your books and pay Google for the privilege.
And so Google can then sell digital copies of your “out of print” books without your permission while pocketing a third of the take.
This makes me a bit sad, because for the most part, I really like google. :/ I’ve used the google book search, but until I heard of this, what I saw WAS only what they described–little snippets that made me want to go read the rest, and a couple VERY old books that are now public domain.
That they’d do something so fucked up leaves me dissapointed. …and I’ll definitely want to know how this case goes. If the courts say this is ok, it’ll leave a very, VERY bad precedent for copyright holders.
However, I think that there’s another thing that can be done–bring this very much to public attention. Google works hard to keep its image as a ‘good’ corporation (and hey, I seem to have bought it, up until now.)
The possible negative publicity from this could potentially do enough harm to make it a real threat to them, and possibly get them to be more careful.
…or so I’d think.
Aurora, it’d be nice if people actually paid attention to the issue, but they won’t.
I mentioned the matter to my screenwriters group last month — none of them actually write in other media, so the prospect of having their published work co-opted by Google isn’t personal to them — and they were generally disinterested in it. The one other person who has published something in text (a book on Harry Potter that she did POD) shrugged it off, claiming that it wouldn’t matter because once they did it to some big company (like Disney) that company would go after them legally and get the practice thrown out.
The fact that in the mean time, individual authors would be watching their income fall away because their work had been stolen just did not register.
People do NOT “get it.” Hence the need to make lots and lots and lots of noise about every single instance we know when Google is over-stepping the boundaries.
ha! The last thing I want is Disney–which had the trademarks for its characters extended because they’re special and above the law–protecting my copyrights.
Just because Google has not, in the interest of making other people’s information free for other people and making money over it, started scanning in movie and tv scripts and plays–just wait. I guarantee you they will.
And then the idea of “it doesn’t bother me la la la” is going to bite them on the ass one day and they’re going to stand in the rain wailing “Why didn’t someone tell me about this before? Waaaahhhh…”
Tempting though it is, try not to smirk when you wave at them… it’s considered bad form
No, Google being sued by Disney won’t get the practice thrown out. Disney and Google will settle out of court, thus creating no precedent. I’m sure Disney has already spoken to Google Books about this, since most Hyperion books have “no preview”.
I hate to sound naive and simplistic, but… current copyright has a limit (although quite long, thanks to the CTEA). If something is registered as copyright, it cannot be scanned and posted without the copyright holder’s permission. Orphan works? Set up a small program within the Library of Congress which licenses those works in good faith, at market rates. If the copyright holder becomes known, then the license would be reworked or revoked (e.g. “It’s a Wonderful Life”).
As for the current situation… Do a “class action” cease-and-desist letter campaign. Pick one week, and have all small-business copyright holders submit letters to Google. If action is not taken as the law requires, then have the authors submit legal injunctions simultaneously again. Publicize the actions by tallying how many millions of pages of work are available on Google, and how this affects local authors. Imagine if every local newspaper and television station went with the “Big Greedy Corporation Steals From Local Author” angle, all in the same news cycle. And then… imagine if these authors asked their readers and FANS to write Congress to write a law protecting their rights. We’ve seen what one Twitter from Neil Gaiman or Kevin Smith can do…imagine a “Twitter Blizzard”!
(Yeah… I follow a “What Would Bugs Bunny Do?” philosophy.)
If the courts rule what Google is doing is not a copyright infringement won’t that basically void the copyright laws. I mean if I say got a copy of Microsoft’s Windows operating system and just delete various error trapping routines the are probably scattered all through the code, can I publish it as snippets without fear of recourse? What about uploading movies and deleting a line here, a line there, maybe blank the screen 1 second ever 20-30, would that be protected? If say someone hacked into Google’s system and published their search engine, would that be copyright infringement?
This is a really big issue. I think what ever lawyers do get involved should seek to present the case before the Supreme Court. Google is across the US. Therefore the only court that can stop the practice or really permit it is the Supreme Court. If it is not ruled by them then it could very well end up like Max Ehrmann’s Desiderata. In some jurisdictions it is public domain, in others the family holds the copyright. The family sued and won in some courts and lost in others. Also if the Supreme Court rules against Google and assesses damages their is no court of appeal. I think that would mean they have to start paying.
Google Corporate IT dropped in to have a look at all my Google posts. Hi, Google Corporate IT!
is that how they found me? Ever since I made that complaint on your blog my Google email won’t load anymore, I have to go to their crappy old version to read my mail.
Real subtle there, Google :-/
/only half, perhaps 2/5, joking…
I remember when Prodigy tried similar stunts. They found it bit them in the ass. Google will make a mistake.