Just Google 'thou shalt not steal'

That is a very powerful headline and it will resonate throughout the Western world at least because it is so deeply ingrained in our culture.

I'm sure Google will trot out PR flaks to spin mealy-mouthed confusion in their own favor but the reality is that there is a whole lot of old fashoned 'coveting' of other people property going on in the Land of Google.

The rate at which new written work is being produced today is far greater than any other time in our history. While technically copyright does exist the moment you put the words on paper, good luck trying to defend it if you haven't registered a copyright on the work (I know I have two copyrights that were filed with the US Government). If everyone was to follow propoer procedure and do the same the amount of time and labor involved would be staggering and the price would climb above the $30 it does now to register a book. If everyone started pursuing these cases in courts I can't even imagine the backlog.

When the governement keeps extending copyright laws every few years like they did with the Sono Bono Copyright extention act of 1998 they are just exacerbating the problem, and placating only rich companies with high priced lobyists. So legislation has to be changed and the process needs to be updated and brought into the 21st century.

That said I think Google print, google books or whatever it's called this month is good thing for authors. If done properly it wil only enhance your sales and be no more harmful than people standing in the bookstore reading the books during their lunch hour. I'm working on having my books listed in Google for just that reason. What is wrong is Google opting in everyone in by default, and not allowing people who want to opt out the option.

... of your book put the following:

robots.txt
User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Don't forget to include NOCACHE and NOINDEX on all the pages of the book too.

Sometimes I even make myself giggle.

If everyone was to follow propoer procedure and do the same the amount of time and labor involved would be staggering and the price would climb above the $30 it does now to register a book.

Copyright protection is automatic in the UK. No need to file with Library of Congress or similar.

I'm still surprised to see people use the "fair use" argument around the Google Library project - as an aspiring writer, my perception is that it's electronic rights which are key to the issue - which are, in short, that you cannot store an electronic copy of protected work without permission.

Will be interesting to see how the case develops, but would be great to see less emotive arguments and clearer focus on the facts of the case.

What is wrong is Google opting in everyone in by default, and not allowing people who want to opt out the option.

Absolutely right - some authors will love it - but writers are, by their nature, generally protectionist about their work.

The Library of Congress is way ahead of Google in some respects along with many library groups. I did a project related to the Z39.50 protocol for a now defunct (sold and assimilated) product called DRAFIND and there were places in various librares that for a fee you could get access to complete books and articles before 1999.

Imagine you're doing some research and you go to Google, search for what you need, see the snippet from a book and confirm that is exactly what you want and then order the book online to be drop shipped, reserve from your local library, or for a couple of bucks download a PDF on demand.

Seems to me it's a very logical step and we could theoretically just download books as easily as we can now download music on iTunes or whatever. It's the next evolutionary step in publishing and could make these authors MORE MONEY directly in many circumstances and not less as many could self-publish without much expense and bypass the publishers, the same fear the gripping recording industry.

If they can't get with the program they better get out their old IBM Selectrics and start cranking out books the old fashioned way as the genie is out of the bottle and I don't see Google really being the evil-doer here, they're just ushering in the future taking the relics of the past kicking and screaming into the new age of online information.

there were places in various librares that for a fee you could get access to complete books and articles

There is actually a licencing system that libraries pay to publishers for this. I know some authors have made a specific point of waiving fees owed to them through library use, to encourage accessibility.

What Google are doing is presuming the right to use content with no prior licencing agreement, which is the crux of the matter. Libraries already have that licencing permission, Google does not.

Ms. Cheever and the Authors' Guild will get their day in court. In the meantime, it would be nice if she would quit distorting what Google Book Search is all about. I'm not sure where she pulled out the "400 words" standard for fair use, but if she would look at the terms for Google Book Search she would see that the snippets Google is serving up are far below that threshold.

Additionally, while authors should certainly be compensated for their work, the comparison to physical property is laughably strained, as most 18-year-old college students could tell you. Look, it works like this. Someone takes your chair, you don't have the chair anymore. Someone infringes your copyright, you still have the work in your posession. Many advocates of strong IP rights absolutely hate this argument, but it is seen as self-evident by an increasing number of people, especially young people.

The legal minds at Nolo Press have a FAIR USE section on their web site that claims doing this for commercial gain is when you've stepped over the line.

Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use.

I'm no lawyer but linking to buy the author's books would probably still fall under fair use but commercializing it with ADWORDS is probably a can of worms.

However, I'm sure they consulted their high priced IP attorneys before they even started this project and got the green light.

Additionally, while authors should certainly be compensated for their work, the comparison to physical property is laughably strained, as most 18-year-old college students could tell you. Look, it works like this. Someone takes your chair, you don't have the chair anymore. Someone infringes your copyright, you still have the work in your posession. Many advocates of strong IP rights absolutely hate this argument, but it is seen as self-evident by an increasing number of people, especially young people.

i second that.

It's not just Fair Use. It is the unauthorized copying. If I stood in a library and photocopied an entire book I would be breaking the law. I can assure you that the librarian would stop me. The fact that I only intend to quote one small paragraph is not the issue it is the copying (scraping) without prior consent.

Even Google objects to people scraping Google without prior consent, even if the person copying it does not republish it.

If you have respect for other people's property then you ask first otherwise it is a non-consentual taking.

Just saw the story posted on WMW about Harper Collins digitizing their own books and allowing the engines to crawl their server.

It's a brilliant pre-emptive strike to control the digital licensing rights of their property opposed to how the recording industry let the music fiasco boil for years before paying armies of laywers to sort it all out.

Kudos to Harper Collins for being a visionary and taking control of the situation to make the search engines play on their terms.