Re: AAP/Google in Chronicle of Higher Education

[Janellyn P Kleiner <jkleiner@lsu.edu>]

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors,
but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end,
copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed
by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means
by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. ---- Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service
Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349(1991)

If the primary objective of copyright is to promote science and the arts,
then Google certainly seems to be directing their efforts wisely. Much of
the copyright law and fair use provisions still remain open to
interpretation.  We have yet to see how the courts will view Google's
efforts.  I can only hope the above decision will be applied to publishers
as well as authors.  Publishers appear to be the ones more reward-driven.
Has any group of authors taken action opposing Google's plans? There may
be some and I'm just not familiar of them.

A number of fair use interpretations involve monetary gain as a deciding
factor as to whether something is or is not fair use. I don't see how
snippets of books can negatively effect publishers' financial gains while
those same snippets may have the potential to promote the progress of
science and useful arts.  I am not opposed to publishers' earning fair
profits, but I am opposed, in the Google scenario, to the suppression of
information in snippets which may have the potential to enrich society.
Those snippets may even increase publishers' profits by serving to promote
their products.  Publishers should be wary of taking such actions in an
age where the technology exists to support authors' distributing their own
work.

Jane Kleiner
Associate Dean of Libraries for Collection Services
The LSU Libraries
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Phone: 225-578-2217
Fax: 225-578-6825
E-Mail: jkleiner@lsu.edu


"Bolick, Bob" <Bob_Bolick@mcgraw-hill.com>@lists.yale.edu on 06/22/2005
06:52:11 PM
Subject:    AAP/Google in Chronicle of Higher Education

Hi, Chuck --

Let me take a shot at explaining where the publishers are coming from on
the copyright point.  On the innovation front, almost all of us are
cheering and want to figure out for ourselves, our shareholders, our
authors, and other allied stakeholders how best (legally and respectfully)
to foster this sort of innovation.  But in general, this is a situation
where ends do not justify means.

The benefits of the exclusive reproduction right provided in Section
106(1) of the Copyright Act means that simply making a copy of a
copyright-protected work infringes the copyright owner's right to control
reproduction, even if the copy is not distributed or displayed. The
qualification of the rights of a copyright owner by "fair use" privilege
or other statutory limitations do not vitiate the exclusive reproduction
right.  To put it another way, if you must copy and store in your
databases every work in its entirety in order to use so-called "snippets,"
then it ain't fair use.

If the law were otherwise interpreted and applied, the reproduction right
would be meaningless except in cases where the distribution, performance
or display rights were also implicated by proven conduct. Neither Congress
nor any federal court has ever suggested this result. In specifically
providing a reproduction right, the copyright law reasonably assumes that
people do not make copies of a copyright-protected work without intending
to use the copy in some manner, and that the ready ability of the copier
or anyone else who has access to the copies to use them in a manner that
could implicate other rights of the copyright owner justifies restricting
the right to make such copies without the copyright owner's authorization
or some other specific authorization under the law.

So, unauthorized scanning is indeed itself an issue with Google or any
other person or entity that makes copies of copyright-protected works in
their entirety without permission from the copyright owner or
authorization under a specific provision of federal law.

Hope that helps.

Regards, Bob

Robert Bolick
Vice President
Global Business Planning
McGraw-Hill Education
IM: bobb@nexus.eppg.com
IM: b6b2y@aol.com
Internet ID: http://dx.doi.org/10.1570/b01b01b