All Week 3 readings are listed and linked for you on the Loyola Blackboard class site.
Here’s an update on this week’s schedule:
- Monday-Tuesday: Read (and think), just like before. I’m posting the pro/con positions early again this week; you will find those below.
- No later than Wednesday noon: Post your pro/con position paper on your blog, just like before. And link your blog post to the class twitter account, just like before.
SOMETHING NEW: Copy/paste your blog post to MY BLOG as a comment to this post. This week, our group discussion/comments will take place on my blog rather than scattered over several different student blogs. Let’s see if that works better.
- Wednesday-Friday: Discussion. Post your comments, just like before, except leave them on my blog rather than on your own. Also, I am assigning the group discussion leaders/final essay posters early this time as well; you will find them indicated below.
- No later than Friday noon: Group discussion leaders should post summary/final essays on their own blogs, with links — as always — to class twitter account. Final essays should be something of a TEAM effort — just like before.
***
Note that this week I will penalize late postings more severely (sort of gave you a bye on that last week). Also, I would like to see some evidence of your ability to post a *nice-looking* blog entry, with proper spelling, paragraphs, and links.
Individual Grading (10 pts avl, just like before): Posting on time and on topic. Use of class readings (and other supplemental materials) through links on blog and elsewhere. Ability to respond/defend/evolve argument. Participation in discussion. Clarity and forcefulness of ideas. (I will also tend to react favorably to the use of — or reference to — any new tech/web tools we’ve discussed so far. Try out sharedcopy, for instance.)
Suggested format for position papers: Four/five clearly distinguished paragraphs of about 100 words each. Opening/closing paragraph. Develop two/three points in the middle paragraphs, with documentation; each point should be explained and supported in its own paragraph. (These are suggestions only: do your own thing.) Also, if you have a problem posting your paper by noon, post it the night before, duh.
***
Resolved: The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws.
Roberto J. pro Laura pro Chad P. pro John pro Lauren M. pro/discussion ldr/fnl essay poster Jeffrey D. con/discussion ldr/fnl essay poster Garlyn M. con Keenan R.* con Megan con Jason* con
*MIA. If you are still taking this class for credit, you need to contact me.
June 16, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Question concerning copyright issues:
What interests me personally about the copyright issues is that we as humans take and use certain things from the people we admire as our own, that is the beauty of being human is that we get to choose who we imitate.
For instance Johnny Depp in his recent role in Pirates of the Caribbean modeled the character Jack Sparrow after Rolling Stone guitarist Keith Richards and if in fact one could copyright their own style and mannerism would Johnny Depp have been able to even use his flamboyant character Jack Sparrow in the film. Another example would be Nightmare Before Christmas’s creator Tim Burton’s eerie style was influenced by the dark actor Vincent Price and if Vincent Prices dark M.O. was copyrighted would Tim Burton be able to direct at all? The last example I will use is the eccentric Mexican painter Frida Kahlo who modeled her brush strokes after Starry Night’s creator Vincent Van Gogh.
Everyone takes something from someone else be it the way they dress, the music they listen to, or the way they talk, no one is completely original, even the great Bob Dylan was influenced by folk singer Woody Guthrie. My question is if everything was copyrighted then what would be original?
June 16, 2009 at 9:18 pm
GARLYN’S BLOG POST [http://tr.im/oJZg]
Google book search is an application created by Google in October 2004 that was originally known as Google Print. (Wiki Google Book search) Google Book search scans full texts of books and then converts and stores the texts into Optical Character Recognition (Wiki OCP), which is a mechanical or electronic translation of images of handwritten, typewritten, or printed text into machine editable text.
The Google Book Search allows public-domain texts and other out of copyright material to be downloaded in PDF format. The search also will give “snippets “, which is a small portion of a text but not the whole work, if the text is copyrighted; this has caused writers’ groups to criticize the snippet works as infringement.
Google book search is creating massive copyright infringement by putting “snippets” of a text on its database because the definition of copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of material that covered by copyright laws. (Wiki copyright) This infringement created by Google caused the Authors Guild to sue the company in the fall of 2005. (Samuelson) By putting up “snippets” of copyrighted material on the database the book search is creating infringement, because what is the point of getting a work copyrighted if a database is going to publish it regardless. Google book search should be subjected to existing copyright laws due to the fact that no person, website, newspaper, magazine, or database should be excluded from abiding to these laws and if one is then everyone should be. If Napster was liable for giving out free copyrighted music the Google book search should be liable for giving out free copyrighted books no matter if it is just a “snippet”.
Google Book Search Scans tens of thousands of books on the company’s custom-made scanning equipment and Google intends to scan every book ever published and make the full texts searchable, this would be encourage if Google was not stealing authors works. (The New Yorker) Google is committing thief by stealing authors thoughts and hard work by publishing their copyrighted works. Besides having lawsuits over this matter Google is loosing their creditability by being deceiving and dishonest with publishing copyrighted works.
Google should be subjected to the existing copyright laws just like every other company is and if they do in fact commit infringement they should be given the proper consequences.
June 16, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Two issues you need to be clear on.
ISSUE ONE:
There are three classes of works/books involved here: 1) Those in the public domain, 2a) Those not in public domain with avl copyright holders, 2b) Those not in public domain without avl copyright holders (the “orphans”).
Google can do what it wants with the (1) books. It has negotiated conventional settlements (more or less — see readings) concerning the (2a) books. The real sticking points concern the (2b) works, AND the precedent that the overall settlement agreement might set for future book use and for future Google competitors.
Related: It seems to me you are ignoring the concept of “Fair Use” in relation to “infringement.” You might want to look into that further.
ISSUE TWO:
Isn’t there a great(a HUGE) value in having all books available online? How do we balance the benefit that will provide to society with the individual rights of the copyright holders? Suppose having to adhere to existing copyright law prohibits Google — or anyone — from EVER putting all books online. Would adhering to the law be worth it in that hypothetical case?
June 16, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Resolved: The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws.
Pro:
Copyright law and its application in the U.S. has a long, rich, and complex history. Article I of the Constitution allows for Congress to ” promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Up until the dawn of the digital era, most of the copyright laws and regulations successfully worked to “protect the integrity of creative work while allowing next generations of creators to build on the cultural foundations around them.” (Taking Sides, p. 92). In recent years, however, with ever-increasing technological advances and international reliance on the digital transmission and exchange of information, it’s clear that many of the copyright statutes have become outdated as well as counterproductive. The current controversy over the Google Book Search Project adds another piece to the copyright puzzle, and highlights the hypocrisy and lack of congruence between the applications of copyright law and the modern times in which they exist.
The Google Book Search Project is a collaborative effort by Google employees, several publishing companies and University libraries “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” The project, which includes the scanning and uploading of millions books in full text, has been met with strong opposition by those who believe that “copyright remains the fundamental way by which authors, sculptors, artists, musicians and others can fund the creation of new works, and that without a significant period of legal protection of their future income, many valuable books and artworks would not be created.” Contrary to this argument, however, studies and stats have shown otherwise. Take for example, Radiohead’s initiative with their album In Rainbows. The international success of this album, despite allowing buyers to set their own price, proves the consequentialists’ theory wrong: copyright law is not a neccesity in order to protect, motivate, or inspire creative works. In fact, with the internet having become what it is today, one could go as far to say that copyright is, in fact, “stifling individual creativity and hampering the discovery and sharing of culture and knowledge” (Taking Sides, p. 92).
In Google’s case, “browse leads to buy.” By allowing Google Book Search users to access books online, Google is actually stimulating the market, rather than depleting it. The project is also beneficial for the several other reasons: “First, works on the margins of popularity will find a small audience larger than the near-zero audience they usually have now. Second, the universal library will deepen our grasp of history, as every original document in the course of civilization is scanned and cross-linked. Third, the universal library of all books will continue to culivate a new sense of authority” (Taking Sides, p. 91).
The Google Book Search Project is trying to eliminate such inadequacies that current copyright laws enforce. The project, if allowed to continue, will essentially create a universal digital library, adding an element of “comprehensiveness” that would result in higher-quality knowledge and more reliability in terms of information and texts available online. Google rightfully points out that books are of among the best sources of information and intellectual expression we have and are simply too important not to include and make available to everyone: “you have thousands of years of human knowledge and probably the highest-quality knowledge is captured in books.”
Technology is not what it used to be. The internet is not what it used to be. Times have changed and continue to change everyday. And as Google rep’s have cited before, in the words of Charles Darwin, “It’s not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.” Our society has changed. The way we receive, gather, and share information has changed. In order to continue stimulating the creative process and making information and expression readily available and easily accessible to people around the globe, the Google Book Search Project, and other such endeavors, should not be subject to existing copyright laws.
June 17, 2009 at 12:09 am
Well put together, though I felt as though I were reading as much of Vaidhyanathan as lmfedor.
Your argument addresses how to deal with books of the past, but what about books of the future? If Google is allowed to circumvent existing copyright laws this one time, won’t Google then be in a particularly favored and monopolistic position in relationship to its future competitors? Or do you mean to abolish copyright provisions entirely, for Google and all others as well, present and future?
The traditional argument for copyright protection is that it is a necessary incentive for authors/artists to produce creative works of value. If you are denying this claim, as you seem to, then what incentives *will* motivate creative production? Will creative production decrease in the absence of copyright law?
“We have very few data points on how supplies of these expressive works would have developed without copyright law.” Justin Hughes [http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/310]
June 17, 2009 at 10:42 am
I do not want to be posting everybody’s position paper here. YOU should be posting your position paper here.
Yay for Lauren. She already did it.
John’s post:
http://r6.sharedcopy.com/70a6lc5
June 17, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Resolved: The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws.
Con
Copyrights exist for a reason. If creators weren’t able to copyright their works, there would be little incentive for them to continue creating them. (“Hobbies” are only given so much time; to truly dedicate oneself to a craft, one must somehow earn a living through that craft. Art for art’s sake can only get you so far.) There certainly wouldn’t be the same incentive to work to create things that many people would enjoy. Popular art, is, after all, consumer-driven.
Google’s attempt to digitalize all the books in the world—while, obviously, a valid and laudable idea—will set a bad precedent in a number of ways. First of all, Google claims that it can show snippets of books under the Fair Use doctrine. One of the first criteria used to determine whether a use falls under the Fair Use doctrine is “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;” As Google is certainly not scanning the world’s books purely for altruistic purposes—they will actually make quite a bit of money off of the ads that will appear next to the snippets they post—their posting of these snippets should not be protected by Fair Use.
Secondly, the precedent being set by the decision to allow Google to lump all of its copyrights into one class action suit. The class action suit against Google is not made up of the “peers” of the majority of the orphaned books. The copyrights for the orphaned books are basically being stolen by self-interested and only slightly related parties and sold to Google. This is highly unfair; the rights to copyrighted material should not be allowed to be given away by parties who are not the owners of that copyrighted material. Copyrights should be maintained by those whose work they protect. Otherwise, the copyright—which was created to “encourage authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time.” This monopoly was granted to the creator of the work, not to any person who walks up and decides to claim it—or give it away—on that creator’s behalf.
Finally, this situation is setting a bad precedent in that it appears to be being more lenient with the law than it normally would because Google is, well, Google. As Wired answers its own question of “Would I be able to get away with this” by replying “That’s an interesting question. How good is your lawyer and how high is your bank balance?” Wired also states that “Being a massive company, mostly loved by users, also helps.” A precedent of making allowances for large companies with decent reputations, large bank accounts, and a team of excellent lawyers is not exactly a precedent that I feel comfortable with.
Copyright laws are not inherently evil (though they are sometimes enforced in a way that makes them seem evil). They were created to help authors of works to continue to create great works. They were made, as was the Fair Use doctrine, to further creative ideas in our society. Allowing a company to overturn someone’s copyright, even if—and especially if—that company is one as large and rich as Google is not a precedent that our judicial system should be setting. The law should uphold copyrights and maintain an author’s right to hold the copyright on his works until he himself gives it away.
June 17, 2009 at 11:11 pm
As of tonight, I note the following have posted:
Google…
SHOULD be subject to copyright laws
Garlyn/con (didn’t copy here)
Jeff/con (didn’t copy here)
Megan/con (copied here okay)
Google…
SHOULD NOT be subject to copyright laws
Lauren/pro (copied here okay)
John/pro (didn’t copy here)
As group leaders this week, Lauren and Jeff will have to make of this what they can.
From what I have read so far, the SHOULD NOT side is making some very vague references to the benefits of the Google project as justifying bending copyright rules to accomodate this project; but these benefits need to be explained and promoted more forcefully. What are they? And why exactly is Google the only entity that can provide such benefits?
The SHOULD side seems to be saying that Goggle should follow the law because a) copyright law is good law, and b) Google is no different from anyone else. But are these claims really justified? I think more evidence could be provided.
June 17, 2009 at 11:13 pm
In order to avoid the link problem, maybe you should post your essay through sharedcopy. Like this:
http://r3.sharedcopy.com/7is34c
June 17, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Copyright Week 3
Posted in Uncategorized on June 17, 2009 by jdem88
The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws:
Google’s goal is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” With their Book Search Project, Google is trying to bring the worlds books to our fingertips. No other project to date has been able to amass such a vast number of books and scan them electronically; this process takes a huge amount of energy, time, and money. Google’s book project is doing a service in the public ‘s best interest by preserving historical texts and laying down a future of books without the use of paper. Google sees making books more widely available a tool that may unite the world “In places like the Arab world, where few titles are translated into the local languages each year, access to the world’s books could have a substantial impact ” says Dan Clancy, Google’s chief engineer for scanning books.
Some believe the Book Search Project should be discontinued because the scanning of the books violates copyright laws. In Article 1, Section 8, the founding fathers instructed Congress what to do regarding copyright — secure “for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” Copyright laws were made to allow inventors some time to build on their works, which would ultimately be freed upon the public to build on for advancement. In the digital era in terms of sharing information, copyright laws induce a chilling effect. One news program was afraid to run a clip from the presidents news conference for fear of being sued, the clip would have advanced the coverage of the news story but they were stifled by the copyright complexity.
Another argument against the book project is that the books being available online might result in the loss of revenue from the old fashioned purchase of the books. But I believe Google’s project will result in an increase in interest and profitability for many books, since they will be widely accessible. With this program people will be able to access books from their home with ease, while the publishers receive compensation. “When someone goes into a search engine to learn more about a topic, that is a perfect time to make them aware that a given book exists. Publishers know that ‘browse leads to buy ” says Jim Gerber, Google’s director of content partnerships.
As for the issue of orphaned books, Google reached a settlement to compensate authors for publishing their material and created a Books Right Registry which “will be established for the purposes of locating rightsholders, collecting and maintaining accurate rightsholder information, providing a way for rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project, distributing payments earned from online access provided by Google, and representing rightsholders’ interests in connection with similar programs that may be established by other providers.” This settlement gives Google a clean starting point in the posting of many books that go unclaimed. Authors, who may opt out of the Books Rights Registry, ” decide what to charge to have their book read online and get paid a portion of a fee charged to the reader. Google receives 37 percent of the fee, with the publishers and authors splitting the remaining 63 percent for the book. Payments are distributed through the nonprofit Book Rights Registry”. This seems more than fair for the publishers.
In all, Google’s Book Search Project should not be derailed because of copyright laws, which are ultimately fueled by a fear of a loss in profitability. In this case the positive benefits of a massive database of the worlds books outweigh the greed and selfishness of copyright laws.
June 18, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Resolved : Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws
In Dr. Myer’s earlier blog post, he states that,
“…in order to generate more meaning, we should re-examine those copyright laws that restrict and prohibit data from being adjacent.” Dr. Myers was writing about the reuse of digital media in innovative terms.
The idea here is to generate new ideas with modified, pre-existing content. “Re-mixes” are all over Youtube, mostly for humorous effect. Check out this one for Batman Begins . Are these works new pieces of art? Or merely the same work ina different shade of color?
Copyright laws attempt to answer a number of questions of issues, mostly revolving around ownership and reuse. Google is no stranger to issues arising from copyright law. In the essay Do Copyright Laws Protect Ownership of Intellectual Property, Stephanie C. Ardito writes that “lawsuits seemed to have multiplied since the takeover” (Google over Youtube), adding that Google “doesn’t seem deterred by the legal wrangling”.
Now, Google has gotten itself into a whole new ballgame, The Google Book Search Project. Google is in colloboration with libraries across the country, scanning hundreds of thousands of books page by page to generate a digital library, to rave reviews from its supporters.
“The new century presents important new opportunities for libraries, including Harvard’s, and for those individuals who use them. The collaboration between major research libraries and Google will create an important public good of benefit to students, teachers, scholars, and readers everywhere. The project harnesses the power of the Internet to allow users to identify books of interest with a precision and at a speed previously unimaginable. The user will then be guided to find books in local libraries or to purchase them from publishers and book vendors. And, for books in the public domain, there will be even broader access.”[3]
“The Harvard-Google Project links the search power of the Internet to the depth of knowledge in Harvard’s world-renowned libraries. Harvard has been collecting books for nearly four centuries. Among our out-of-copyright books are countless unique copies, unusual editions, and neglected or forgotten works. Our efforts with Google will bring about the broad dissemination of the knowledge contained in those books and, with it, significant information about the world views that those books represent …. By working with Google, Harvard is furthering an essential aspect of the University Library’s mission, which is to serve scholars around the world.”
– Sidney Verba, the former Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and former Director of the University Library.[5]
It is important to note that Google Books is subject to copyright laws currently, a short summary of which is posted below. (See Full Article)
In response to search queries, users will be able to browse the full text of the public domain materials, but only a few sentences of books still covered by copyright. They will not even see a full page of works copyrighted.
Despite efforts to achieve the contrary, Google is losing credibility. What is the difference between downloading music illegally, and now downloading an author’s work for free? There may be a great value in having a digital library at our fingertips, but where does it end? There would be a great value of having movies readily available for free, video games available, etc. The ability to act with out consequence should not be given solely to Google. Libraries like Harvard in conjunction with Google may be providing a service unlike any before it, but at what cost? Until legal matters justifiably prove otherwise, Google should reside within the same parameters as everyone else, period.
June 18, 2009 at 8:38 pm
1. As we move toward the final essay posting for this week, please let me know whether you prefer reading comments (such as they are) on this blog, or on your individual blogs.
Note also: Next week, I will be asking you to post a copy of your position paper on your blog along with a *sharedcopy* of your position paper. Therefore, you should be exploring the links available in this comment thread to see how sharedcopy links work.
2. I don’t see much added since last I looked. So, my two main interests remain these:
a. What sort of social benefits are provided by the Google Book Search Project? Are these benefits sufficient to warrant bending (or breaking) existing copyright rules?
b. What social benefits are at risk if copyright laws are changed significantly? What incentives are there (if any) to produce creative works if these works are not protected by copyright?
June 18, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I think it makes a big difference that Google is not some altruistic non-profit scanning books for the good of the people. Yes, there is a huge value for society in having all books available online. There is also a huge (financial) value for Google.
Perhaps the copyright laws shouldn’t be adhered to when breaking them provides such a great service to society. However, if copyright laws are going to be bent or broken, they should be bent or broken for someone whose first priority is the benefit for society, not the personal profit. Google, as it is currently operating, is not the right candidate for this special treatment.
June 18, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Was Radiohead giving up their copyright on the music they sold at variable prices? Or was that just an experiment to see if they could get more people to legally purchase the music if they let customers name their own price?
Why would anyone spend the money required to produce a cd if they weren’t going to make any profit, or even that initial investment, back? What would be the incentive to create something? Wouldn’t it actually be more difficult for individuals to create something valid and interesting as they would be unable to come up with the initial funding required to produce their idea since there would be no guarantee that they would be able to get that money back?
June 18, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Are copyright laws fueled by a fear of a loss in profitability or a fear of someone else profiting from your labors?
June 18, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Tell me the difference.
I think the assumption is that any original creative work only has X dollars possible to gain from it, and all X of these dollars should go to the original author. If Y dollars are siphoned off, I don’t think if it matters if those Y dollars are siphoned by another author or just lost along the way somewhere.
The issue is whether the Y dollars being “siphoned off” through unauthorized uses (according to current copyright law) truly subtract from the original X dollars. It’s possible that the result is more positive (X+Y) than negative (X-Y).
June 18, 2009 at 10:14 pm
“Why would anyone spend the money required to produce a cd if they weren’t going to make any profit, or even that initial investment, back?”
Good question, but don’t people do that sort of thing all the time — more for reasons of personal satisfaction/pride than personal gain?
And what if the REPUTATION these people gained from producing something of value was worth more — in endorsements, personal appearances, whatever — than actual sales of the CD?
June 19, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Hey All,
My apologies for the lateness of my post. I’ve been without cable/internet for the last 20 hours. Car accident up the road :/. Anyways. Here’s my “pro” discussion for this week’s topic. It’s not very in-depth, and I apologize for that too. Being without internet really screwed me up and I’ve got several other deadlines that I’m scrambling to meet. Also, not sure how everyone else feels about this, but I thought this week’s format for posting our papers and comments was very confusing. I personally liked it better when we just linked them to our twitter accounts and posted on our on blogs. While it does require you to go to several different pages and blogs, I found it easier and a little more organized.
Discussion Leader: PRO
The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws.
Based on everyone’s positions and commentary this week, one thing seems clear to me: copyright law is a complex, ambiguous, and sticky subject. Making exceptions to rules and laws will always create an issue, especially when looking at it from the perspective of, “laws exist for a reason.” And, if we make an exception for Google, where do we draw the line? In this case, however, I think the strongest rebuttal for the pro side is that we are no concerned with warranting Google as an exception, rather than revisiting and revising copyright law in general. Times are different and like it or not, we live in a digital era. The technological advances that continue to propel us forward as a nation were hardly conceivable when the copyright laws were established. There was no room to address whether or not books could be made accessible online because the internet wasn’t even a fathomable concept. The internet has opened so many doors and created countless opportunities. It would be foolish not to consider such opportunities, like Google has, even if it means diverging from pre-existing and out-of-date laws.
June 19, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I agree! Now, I am quite biased on this topic due to my immense hatred of twitter and other overly complicated internet tools, But linking the twitter and being able to visit everybody’s individual blogs was a lot easier on my eyes and brain than scrolling down a long page of words.