Google and Quotes litigation -- conspiracy in common?

by Fatfreek 6 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Fatfreek

  There are two ongoing and unrelated events (or are they?) in the publishing world. There is a class action suit against the Google folks because of their effort (postponed till November) to digitally scan entire libraries of hard-copy books at several university libraries. That, so people like you and I can peek inside publications which would never otherwise come to our view. I say peek because here is what Google says:

  Let's be clear: Google doesn't show even a single page to users who find copyrighted books through this program (unless the copyright holder gives us permission to show more). At most we show only a brief snippet of text where their search term appears, along with basic bibliographic information and several links to online booksellers and libraries. Here’s what an in-copyright book scanned from a library looks like on Google Print:

  (Graphic omitted by Fats)

  Google respects copyright. The use we make of all the books we scan through the Library Project is fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.

  For a full view of that page, here's the link:
  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/google-print-and-authors-guild.html

  The other event is what has been reported on our own forum, that of the Quotes site (http://quotes.watchtower.ca/admin-site-map.htm#publications) under recent threat of shutdown by that vast team of lawyers commissioned by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. While most current JW's would have thought that their motherly watchdog society would be tickled pink that people all over the world could have a private peek at the literature -- which the hard working drones spend hours leaving at laundromats, nursing homes, and private homes -- quoted at this site, the legal action speaks for itself. It becomes obvious to non-JW's, that the Society is truly embarrassed by the huge volumes of its own printed blundering predictions, cartoonish teachings, and flip-flop-flipping beliefs and would love to bury this rubbish away from public view.

  So, as these two events proceed, I have my own hopes. That Google wins its case because I think as Google goes, so goes Quotes. I see that both are doing a similar venture, simply quoting snippets of the subject literature -- not the entire contents. To me, not violating copy write restrictions. What do you think?

  Fats
• 

  rebel8

  "The reading or non-reading a book will never keep down a single petticoat."
  --Lord Byron
• 

  Fatfreek

  Yes, Rebel. Yet another fellow Byron (are they related?):

  "...I for one venerate a petticoat,
  A garment of a mystical sublimity,
  No matter whether russet, silk, or dimity."

  Don Juan, by George Gordon Byron
• 

  Lady Lee

  interesting

  very interesting
• 

  nerofiddle

  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" (probably not Byron but still apropos)
• 

  Fatfreek

  You're right, NeroF, about Byron. But Epstein, Trachtenberg, Graham, Hoffert, Field, Douglas, and Chambers all include that expression in their books at least once. That's a count of seven.

  If you replace "good" with "sauce" in the Google Scan search, then there is a count of seventeen books with the expression. I don't know which came first.

  Fats
• 

  ezekiel3

  Source: http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/&articleid=251654 Writers sue Google for copyright infringement A group representing more than 8 000 United States writers is suing Google, alleging that the company's attempt to digitise the book collections of several major libraries represents massive copyright infringement.
  
  The lawsuit, filed by the Authors' Guild in the US district court in Manhattan, is the first to arise from the Google Print Library programme, the fledgling effort aimed at creating a searchable library of all the world's printed books.
  
  The lawsuit seeks class-action status, allowing multiple plaintiffs; asks for damages; and demands an injunction to halt further infringements.
  
  As well as the Authors' Guild, the largest society of published writers in the US, three writers are named as having brought the action: Daniel Hoffman, a former poet laureate of the US; Betty Miles, an author of children's and young-adult fiction; and Herbert Mitgang, a former New York Times editorial writer and the author of a biography of Abraham Lincoln as well as novels and plays.
  
  Each of the plaintiffs claims copyright to at least one literary work that is in the library of the University of Michigan -- one of the libraries, along with Harvard and Stanford, that agreed to let Google create a database of their entire collection.
  
  The company is also scanning books stored at the New York Public Library and Oxford University, but those two libraries are providing Google only with "public domain" works -- material no longer protected by copyright. Oxford University's Bodleian Library will initially make an estimated one million books from its 19th-century collection available to Google.
  
  At the time the project was announced in December last year, Reg Carr, director of Oxford University Library Services, commented: "We hope Oxford's contribution to this project will be of scholarly use, as well as general interest, to people around the world."
  
  The overall project will involve scanning millions of titles -- many of them rare and delicate -- and making the text available on the internet via Google searches. It is a process that experts have predicted could take as long as 10 years.
  
  The lawsuit is the latest round in the battle between Google and publishers that pit copyright holders' interests against the company's mission of "organising the world's information and making it more universally accessible and useful".
  
  In August, Google said it planned to scale back plans temporarily to make the full text of copyrighted books available on its internet site, while discussions with publishers and authors continued.
  
  A Google spokesperson said the company regrets that the Authors' Guild has chosen to sue rather than continue discussions.
  
  "Google Print directly benefits authors and publishers by increasing awareness of and sales of the books in the programme," Google said in a statement. "Only small portions of the books are shown unless the content owner gives permission to show more."
  
  But Nick Taylor, president of the New York-based Authors' Guild, said: "This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law. It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied." -- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005