6 ms·

Seems like this article is sort of preaching to the choir around here. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on HN agrees with the Author's Guild or can make the

by state 11y ago

Seems like this article is sort of preaching to the choir around here. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on HN agrees with the Author's Guild or can make their argument in an interesting way.

Someone1234 11y ago
I'm going to make an argument for the Author's Guild even if I disagree with them... Google is taking books and digitising them. That within its own right isn't illegal. But Google then takes the digitised books and utilises that content for profit (every time you click buy, Google gets a cut of the sale) and what's more the court has withheld the author's ability to decide how they want their books to be advertised/presented. I could scan in books, present content without context, and misrepresent what a book is trying to say. For example I could create a climate skeptic website that takes pro-climate change books and misquotes them into supporting me. But because of this "transformative change" from physical to digital, suddenly I am allowed to do that. Every time Google quotes part of a book without context they're changing the meaning of that book. The author has lost their right to stop that from happening. Essentially Google has committed libel against authors by quoting them without context or permission.
- state 11y ago
  Thanks! That's quite good.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > But Google then takes the digitised books and utilises that content for profit (every time you click buy, Google gets a cut of the sale) Google doesn't use the books scanned for profit. If they sell a book is because they already have it in Google Books, is not one of the scanned
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    They do definitely profit. They either gain referral fees, or they refer to themselves (Play Store) and thus get effectively free advertising (that would cost them money otherwise). When you click a link to Amazon for a specific book from a third party website, Amazon pays that website money for that referral. It is no different here except that one Google department sometimes sends it to another Google department.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      > Fiction: Google is paid by booksellers like Amazon to include links on Google Books pages. > Fact: We provide links to booksellers on Google Books pages because we want to make it easier for users to buy books and for publishers to sell them. Booksellers don't pay to have their links included in Google Books, and Google doesn't receive any money if you buy a book from one of these retailers. http://www.google.es/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html http://www.google.es/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html
      - Someone1234 11y ago
        Except Google links to their own store in the US (Play Store) which they definitely do profit from directly. Click the "Buy Book" link here: https://books.google.com/books/about/Harry_Potter_and_the_Sorcerer_s_Stone.html?id=wrOQLV6xB-wC https://books.google.com/books/about/Harry_Potter_and_the_So... Unless Google are claiming they make no cut from Play Store book sales, which is laughable.
        Oletros 11y ago
        And, as I said, they are not profiting of the scanned book because they own the rights to sell the vook in their store. Unless you're trying to ay that Google can only link to stores that are not their own, which is laughable
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > When you click a link to Amazon for a specific book from a third party website, Amazon pays that website money for that referral. Only if the third-party website has signed up for the Amazon Associates program -- which must be disclosed on the site.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Edit: Your argument is largely based on the idea of using copyright to prevent mischariacterization of the work, and more broadly for the author to control perception of the contents of the work. My original comment (preserved below) pointed out that such arguments have little legal footing in the first place and wouldn't even work offline. I presumed you did not know this, but now I wonder if you're arguing to remove existing standards for fair use. But if you're making that case I would have expected to see different arguments. Arguments founded on the utility to society w/r/t progressing the useful arts and sciences, or a new class of utility all together. end edit >and what's more the court has withheld the author's ability to decide how they want their books to be advertised/presented. Controlling the external perception of the contents of the work is not a purpose of copyright. There is even a well established realm of fair use covering criticism and comment. I don't intend to say that reproduction of excerpts for use in advertising (and google's implementation of it) are fair use. They very well may not be. However, a court will not be swayed by legal reasoning based on an author's ability to wield copyright to control public perception of the work. >I could scan in books, present content without context, and misrepresent what a book is trying to say. For example I could create a climate skeptic website that takes pro-climate change books and misquotes them into supporting me. But because of this "transformative change" from physical to digital, suddenly I am allowed to do that. No, this is again an established area of fair use that has nothing to do with digitization specifically. Someone could publish that hypothetical website as a book and argue fair use with the standards of "research and scholarship" fair use (and maybe "criticism and comment," depending on how the quotes were used). >Every time Google quotes part of a book without context they're changing the meaning of that book. The author has lost their right to stop that from happening. The author NEVER had the right to wield copyright on the basis of preventing mischaracterization of their work, even if is/was de facto ability.
- douche 11y ago
  > Google is taking books and digitising them. That within its own right isn't illegal. But Google then takes the digitised books and utilises that content for profit (every time you click buy, Google gets a cut of the sale) and what's more the court has withheld the author's ability to decide how they want their books to be advertised/presented. How different is this than if I make a website, review their book, and provide an Amazon affiliate link?

by state 11y ago

Seems like this article is sort of preaching to the choir around here. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on HN agrees with the Author's Guild or can make their argument in an interesting way.

Someone1234 11y ago

I'm going to make an argument for the Author's Guild even if I disagree with them... Google is taking books and digitising them. That within its own right isn't illegal. But Google then takes the digitised books and utilises that content for profit (every time you click buy, Google gets a cut of the sale) and what's more the court has withheld the author's ability to decide how they want their books to be advertised/presented. I could scan in books, present content without context, and misrepresent what a book is trying to say. For example I could create a climate skeptic website that takes pro-climate change books and misquotes them into supporting me. But because of this "transformative change" from physical to digital, suddenly I am allowed to do that. Every time Google quotes part of a book without context they're changing the meaning of that book. The author has lost their right to stop that from happening. Essentially Google has committed libel against authors by quoting them without context or permission.

state 11y ago
Thanks! That's quite good.
Oletros 11y ago
> But Google then takes the digitised books and utilises that content for profit (every time you click buy, Google gets a cut of the sale) Google doesn't use the books scanned for profit. If they sell a book is because they already have it in Google Books, is not one of the scanned
- Someone1234 11y ago
  They do definitely profit. They either gain referral fees, or they refer to themselves (Play Store) and thus get effectively free advertising (that would cost them money otherwise). When you click a link to Amazon for a specific book from a third party website, Amazon pays that website money for that referral. It is no different here except that one Google department sometimes sends it to another Google department.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    > Fiction: Google is paid by booksellers like Amazon to include links on Google Books pages. > Fact: We provide links to booksellers on Google Books pages because we want to make it easier for users to buy books and for publishers to sell them. Booksellers don't pay to have their links included in Google Books, and Google doesn't receive any money if you buy a book from one of these retailers. http://www.google.es/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html http://www.google.es/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      Except Google links to their own store in the US (Play Store) which they definitely do profit from directly. Click the "Buy Book" link here: https://books.google.com/books/about/Harry_Potter_and_the_Sorcerer_s_Stone.html?id=wrOQLV6xB-wC https://books.google.com/books/about/Harry_Potter_and_the_So... Unless Google are claiming they make no cut from Play Store book sales, which is laughable.
      - Oletros 11y ago
        And, as I said, they are not profiting of the scanned book because they own the rights to sell the vook in their store. Unless you're trying to ay that Google can only link to stores that are not their own, which is laughable
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > When you click a link to Amazon for a specific book from a third party website, Amazon pays that website money for that referral. Only if the third-party website has signed up for the Amazon Associates program -- which must be disclosed on the site.
forgottenpass 11y ago
Edit: Your argument is largely based on the idea of using copyright to prevent mischariacterization of the work, and more broadly for the author to control perception of the contents of the work. My original comment (preserved below) pointed out that such arguments have little legal footing in the first place and wouldn't even work offline. I presumed you did not know this, but now I wonder if you're arguing to remove existing standards for fair use. But if you're making that case I would have expected to see different arguments. Arguments founded on the utility to society w/r/t progressing the useful arts and sciences, or a new class of utility all together. end edit >and what's more the court has withheld the author's ability to decide how they want their books to be advertised/presented. Controlling the external perception of the contents of the work is not a purpose of copyright. There is even a well established realm of fair use covering criticism and comment. I don't intend to say that reproduction of excerpts for use in advertising (and google's implementation of it) are fair use. They very well may not be. However, a court will not be swayed by legal reasoning based on an author's ability to wield copyright to control public perception of the work. >I could scan in books, present content without context, and misrepresent what a book is trying to say. For example I could create a climate skeptic website that takes pro-climate change books and misquotes them into supporting me. But because of this "transformative change" from physical to digital, suddenly I am allowed to do that. No, this is again an established area of fair use that has nothing to do with digitization specifically. Someone could publish that hypothetical website as a book and argue fair use with the standards of "research and scholarship" fair use (and maybe "criticism and comment," depending on how the quotes were used). >Every time Google quotes part of a book without context they're changing the meaning of that book. The author has lost their right to stop that from happening. The author NEVER had the right to wield copyright on the basis of preventing mischaracterization of their work, even if is/was de facto ability.
douche 11y ago
> Google is taking books and digitising them. That within its own right isn't illegal. But Google then takes the digitised books and utilises that content for profit (every time you click buy, Google gets a cut of the sale) and what's more the court has withheld the author's ability to decide how they want their books to be advertised/presented. How different is this than if I make a website, review their book, and provide an Amazon affiliate link?