Publishers Thank Google for Book Sales

eldavojohn writes "A few book publishers are actually thanking Google for an apparent rise in sales due to Google's scan plan. Google is busy defending itself against authors and publishers that have brought lawsuits for ignoring copyrights. The director of the Oxford University Press said, 'Google Book Search has helped us turn searchers into consumers.' It seems to work in favor of the smaller publishers: 'Walter de Gruyter/Mouton-De Gruyter, a German publisher, said its encyclopedia of fairy tales has been viewed 471 times since appearing in the program, with 44 percent of them clicking on the 'buy this book' Google link.' Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?"

Yes.

[cperciva]

Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?

Yes -- both.

The fact that Google's book search increases book sales in no way diminishes the fact that Google is violating the authors/publishers copyright. If those publishers are intelligent, they will give permission for Google to do this; but they have a right to not give that permission.

Or?

[taustin]

Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?"

Why does everyone think this is an "or" question? Copyright isn't about generating profits, for the copyright holder or anyone else. It's about control of making copies. Money is a common motive for wanting such control, but is almost irrelevant to the law.

Uh,,,, Both

[cataBob]

"Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?"

Can't the answer be "both"?

Increase sales or violate IP...

[Skreems]

Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?

Why is this an "or" question? It can be both, in fact I'm pretty sure it is. This just goes to show that the extremely strict copyright laws we've legislated ourselves into aren't benefiting anyone, including the authors / owners.

Re:Yes.

[iminplaya]

...but they have a right to not give that permission.

Incorrect. They were granted the privilege.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yes.

[X-rated Ouroboros]

If they are using this privilege we have granted them to line their own pocketses at the expense of the advance of science and/or art... seems it's our duty to revoke the copyright we have granted them.

Yes, but...

[Aaron Denney]

Basically, yes, Google is violating the copyrights, when they scan the books in. This is a copyright violation.

This is not, however, what is upsetting the the authors and book publishers. What upsets them is that google is allowing other people to search, which is fairly clearly fair use, given how much is displayed. They want a cut of the money stream, of any possible monetization of their works, even though that is not what copyright entitles them to.

(Counting this as a copyright violation is going to be horrendous once we have AI...)

Can you say "false dichotomy"?

[jc42]

Heh. Here I was all prepared to to point out that the obvious answer is "both", but I noticed that every single reply so far has said the same thing. So rather than be rated redundant, I'll just point out that there is a standard name for this particular bit of illogic.

If authors had any sense, they'd be jumping onto the anti-copyright bandwagon. Such laws were, we're told repeatedly, created to give authors and artists control over their creations, and to guarantee them income from sales. More and more, the actual effect is to take away the creators' control, giving control and profits primarily to their corporate masters.

This story just illustrates that some authors have figured out that it helps to let their readers know what's available. And the copyright question basically asks whether a publisher has the right to block communication between an author and the audience.

Maybe we do need some sort of copyright laws. But authors don't need the current copyright laws. That's what's keeping most of them poor.

Publishers Thank Google for Book Sales

[bigrigdriver]

Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?

When I walk into a bookstore, I can peruse books before buying.

Now, I can peruse books via Google before buying.

In the first, I can physically handle books. In the second, I can electronically handle books.

The only difference I see between the two, is that, via Google, I don't have to leave home to peruse, and buy, books.

Re:Yes.

[iminplaya]

Precisely. It IS our duty. But like many duties we have to protect our freedoms, we have forsaken them. We have abdicated our authority to incompetent morons. And now we will pay the price.

Re:Yes.

[O'Laochdha]

Privilege, privilege, it's all privilege. The privilege of free speech, the privilege of property ownership, etc...there are those against both. The government protects your right to the proceeds of your creations - that makes it as much a right as anything.

Re:Yes.

[RomulusNR]

Does flipping through a book in the bookstore violate copyright? No. Any publisher that doesn't want people reading books they haven't bought had better not sell them in stores or sell them to libraries. Holy crap, I'm surprised the library system hasn't been either sued or legislated out of existence, due to the impact their socialist practices have had on book sales.

Take copyright out of the question. Not wanting people to preview your material is stupid business practice, and bad for consumers and the public.

Google Book Search provides online what book stores already can in RL.

Who cares?

[jbf]

Who cares if it increases their sales? If it does it in a way that's contrary to the author's intent, then copyright law prohibits it. Consider someone who writes a book on the evils of the Internet and prohibits its contents from being shown on the Internet. Why should that hypothetical author accept Google posting their book? What if Google had fewer controls so that the entire book could be copied? Publishers that want Google to index can provide Google a license. Those who don't should be protected by law (and Google's use has serious problems under fair use doctrine, since the copied amount is the entire use, it impacts the marketability of reference works where only a few pages are needed at any time, it can be used to form a collection of works, and it is being commercially exploited.

The slashdottitude of "unauthorized copying of books/music/videos/software is just free marketing" is in direct contradiction to the letter and intent of modern copyright law, and even if it does help sales, that's a decision for the copyright holder to make.

Re:Increase sales or violate IP...

[n8k99]

This form of questioning is most suited for the maximum possible variance in answers. A question that queried if A and B are something, requires that Both condition be met in order for the response to be in the affirmative. The OR operator allows for one OR both conditions to be met for a response to be in the affirmative; yet within this response it is generally considered that a human will supply more information that a return value of TRUE, ie an explanation of Why or How the answer was generated.

Ultimately, a question which uses the OR Operator in order to tie together two seemingly unrelated or contradictory conditions is designed to create an environment which is conducive to discussion.

In response to the Parent - It is highly likely that there are specific instances in which Google is violating the rights of the publishers to control copies, yet it seems feasible to me that the publishers will benefit from this service as it puts the material in potential purchasers hands without any cost to the publishers (aside from the whole rights thing that is.)

A more general thought on copyright in this age...

[cleetus]

Law has always moved slowly. At least in the US, either a court has to fashion a new interpretation of existing law, one that, according to some august commentators, ought to confine itself to the interstitial space between existing laws, or the federal legislature has to pass, and the president sign, a new law.

The slowness and expense of both of these methods, and more specifically, the lack of technological anticipation in the current copyright (and patent) regimes, make for some interesting times, given the perfect granularity with which digital technology can reproduce most copyrighted works.

Both of the above factors ought to (and in some corners have) given rise to a wholesale re-examination of the purposes and methods of copyright protection in the US. Having worked in one house of the US Federal legislature, I can tell you that is not really one 'corner' where the re-examination has either been thorough, thoughtful, or disconnected from moneyed (or copyrighted, if you will), interests.

In the end though, I hold out hope that our laws can and will accomodate our practices. It makes no sense to make an outlaw of most citizens if (and this is a substantial and debatable 'if') there is negligible harm in their current practices.

It should be obvious that I feel the submittor's question presents a false choice.

cleetus

Re:Yes.

[daeg]

Publishing companies aren't known to be the smartest bunch on the block when it comes to technology. Does anyone else remember the general outcry in the late 90's when publishers thought e-books were going to take over within a few years? A lot of the profit gained in book publishing is from the actual printing process -- e-books threatened to reduce their markup potential. Publishers are worried that the gain in sale from people previewing their book won't outweigh the people previewing it and declining to buy such crap. Walking into a bookstore has an emotional tie -- you want a book, so you browse until you find something, even if it wasn't what you intended to buy. Online, however, there isn't emotional attachment (if there is, it is more likely to be attached to the webiste moreso than anything else). If you don't find something you like, you won't buy. Or so the publishers think.

On the contrary, I'd assume the higher number of people previewing it would, for good books, increase sales. Impulse buying is far more rampant in online shopping.

One thing that would probably solve the issue is allowing publishers a hand in the process. Give them certain leeway as to what pages are available as a preview. That way, they can pick the good parts of the book and not reveal any plot. I don't think they should have pure control over it, though, so maybe 50% chosen pages vs. 50% random/Google pages would be a good mix. Google, to appease publishers, could provide data back to them. They could even show different previews to each user and give them stats back of how each preview affected the buyers as well as demographics related to the sales. That's something a conventional book store cannot provide!

Great Defense Google!

[frieza79]

So, If someone was suing my company, I too would probably come up with some "statistics" that showed I was actually helping them. Not that I don't believe in google's "do no evil", but no company really thinks THEY are doing evil, not even Philip Morris, they just provide what the customer wants.

Re:Yes.

[kbielefe]

Google Book Search provides online what book stores already can in RL.

I'm sure copyright holders agree with you. That's why they want google to pay for their copy, just as bookstores and libraries are required to pay for each copy in their inventories.

Doing something!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a problem. Google is trying to solve it for all of us. Our problem is that knowledge as a whole is vastly more valuable than bits and pieces scattered everywhere. Right now, searching for all knowledge on, say, sebaceous glands, means you must go physically to Washington, DC and visit a bunker on the campus of NIH that is kept closed most of the time: The National Library of Medicine. Less than 2% of medical knowledge is available online. Searching services like Google's or pub-med and others never bring up all the source materials you need. Worse, there's no reasonable way to see all the research on a subject without a multimillion dollar budget! Make this comparison as analogy. Take a book, any book. Now compare the value of that book to the same book whose pages are scattered and hidden among millions of squirrels. Squirrels are publishers who feather their own nests for their own purposes with bits and pieces of knowledge that they feel they own. Yes the authors of scientific papers are forced to give up the copyright to their own original work by the God-cursed publishing houses. Authors get nothing, ever, indeed, often authors must pay "page charges" to get anything published of their scientific work. Oh authors who work for large academic institutions get higher salaries and benefits if they publish, but those of us unafiliated with Harvard get nothing, ever, even if our work is read and admired by millions of people. Fair? The God-cursed publishers have their advertizing revenue, and more advertizing revenue with each reading, but they want $25 to $50 to let a published scientist read an article on a home computer. Scientific publishing is a cartel that must burn down for the sake of human progress. No wonder scientific progress has slowed to a crawl. What if we treated patents this way? Testing hypotheses is in the public interest, overwhelmingly paid for by public largesse, and should be public property.

Re:Let it be up to each publisher then

[Jugalator]

Seems to me it's up to Google to get permission from the publishers.

I thought that's what they had to do already..?

Some existing partners:
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html [google.com]

How to become a partner (and searchable):
https://books.google.com/partner/signon?apply=Clic k+Here+to+Apply [google.com]

Re:Yes.

[GeffDE]

Oooh, good point, sir. I really want to form the "Incumbents are Incompetent" Party to boot everybody out of Congress. But I fear that only slashdot members would join. So much for the next great idea in American politics. Or world politics...

Re:Yes.

[chazwurth]

I didn't forget it, in fact by bringing it up you make my point. The GP was claiming that all rights are actually privileges; I defeated that argument.

I see your point, but I disagree. Your definitions of rights and privileges imply that rights are super-legal (or extra-legal?). I'm arguing that copyright is a right in exactly the same way that freedom of speech is a right: by legal protection. The GP seems to be claiming that all 'rights' are actually privileges that are legally protected (and I tend to agree). You're claiming that there's a substantive difference between different legally protected rights -- that some are 'true' rights and others are 'merely' privileges. I think you've failed to demonstrate this.

it remains a privilege; as it is only granted exclusively to the author or inventor. All of the true rights, constitutional or otherwise, apply to everyone.

I'm sure you'd agree that 'something that applies to everyone' isn't an adequate definition of a right. Your earlier post seemed to suggest a criterion derived from nature. I'd argue that many of the rights we deem to be 'natural rights' have no basis in nature. Do all squirrels have the right to practice their religion? Must a bear try a salmon in a jury of its peers before eating said salmon? Does a wolf need a warrant from a judge before sticking its nose down a rabbit hole?

We can invent all the rights we like, but I fail to see how any rights attain a special status of 'true' or 'natural' rights aside from the fact that a whole bunch of people agree on them, write them down, and assign the task of defending them to some people with weapons.

It's important to remember that Locke's arguments rest on the notion of a state of nature that is a well-constructed fiction, but not a description of any state that's ever existed in the real world. For this reason, among others, I don't see how the rights he derives are anything other than a (perhaps useful, but not 'true') social construction. The rights exist because we pretend that they're rights, and because we enforce them as law.

Re:Yes.

[Jason Earl]

If the government wasn't there, I could say whatever I pleased.

Yes, and I could put a bullet in your brainpan with impunity.

If the government wasn't there, I could not stop you from copying what I wrote.

But I could stop you from copying what I wrote, by force if necessary.

Which then, is a right, and which then is a privilege granted by the government?

Without government you would only have the "rights" that you could defend for yourself. If someone bigger, stronger, and meaner came along your "right" to life, liberty, and property would disappear completely. The difference between what you believe to be a natural right and what you would label mere privilege exists only in your mind. Society determines what "rights" its members have, as is evidenced by the fact that different societies have different sets of "rights."

Re:Yes.

[rkcallaghan]

O'Laochdha wrote:

Free speech is not one of those things either. You and I agree that there should be free speech, but there are many countries where it is illegal to express certain opinions, including our dear neighbor Canada. There are many, many people who defend these policies, so it's not something "we accept exists regardless of what the government wants to do about it."

This really adds no value to your arguement as I already said
rkcallaghan wrote:

Free speech is a constitutional right, and as such falls between the two areas. It took the constitution to grant this creation, but as we hold it higher than the government or anyone else, its still a right.

It took the constitution to create that right; but now that we have it, it is above the law. You're arguing in a circle, stating the same point I did in an attempt to refute it.


O'Laochdha wrote:

Property rights would certainly not exist without a government.

I disagree, and if you doubt this, please by all means head out in to the jungle and attempt to tell the first tiger you see that he has no claim on his prey or his den; as there is no tiger-government to grant him those rights. You might want to bring some weapons though, because he's not going to agree with you either.

~Rebecca

Re:Yes.

[Fordiman]

I disagree.

Greed is the reason so much of past art exists.

But many people do it for the love of it.

In a world with the internet, those people are able to do it, do it right, do it cheaply, and get both the word and the finished product out to the masses easily. This means that the amount of content without the need for copyright is growing exponentially - and while some of it sucks, a lot of it is very good.

Just look at the Creative Commons database.

Should copyright be abolished? Hells naw. Is it infected with "It's mine and mine forever" syndrome? Unfortunately, yes. Maybe copyright needed to be 95 years at some point. It doesn't now. It shouldn't even be past its original 14-28 year limit.

And, just so's you know, I don't believe it should be transferable, or be able to be owned by a non-individual (read: company). Though, my reasons for these are partially philosphical, and only partially based on policy physics.

The reason: if a group with enough cash to be an influencial lobbyist posesses a copyright, it is in their best interests to expand copyright until it's doing more harm than good, as we have seen in every major industrialized company.

Want proof of harm? Look at the popularity of illegal filesharing. It exists, continues to exist, and will exist for a very long time, because there is a demand for it - or more specifically, for content - stretching back as far as 95 years - that can be obtained by illegal sharing. The demand for old IP combined with profitability of old IP is not an incentive towards creativity; it's incentive for stagnancy. How many rereleases of "Snow White" has Disney spent time and money on, for example?

Remember that IP law is there to ensure continued creativity of the content and scientific industries. If it's doing something other than that, you can be assured that it's promoting economic inefficiency (money going where it's not needed, in this case).

If, on the other hand, after 14 years, copyrighted works are released into the public domain, illegal sharing no longer has the kind of demand it once had. It will still be the go-to source for anything older than 14 years, but people are happy to buy the more recent stuff; most people assume that if it comes from the source, it's of higher quality.

The other bit that gives me the non-transferrable and non-individual restrictions is artist compensation. Look at what the RIAA's member companies do to their artists, and tell me that RIAA ownership of copyright is even close to reasonable. The artists get a nickel, and the recording industry gets the lion's share. Spun the other way around, where the artist owns his work, the record company would be forced to properly compensate their artists, or the artists would walk, taking their entire library of content with them.

Like I said, philosophical and policy based.

Re:Yes.

[Bing Tsher E]

There needs to be some copyright protection but it should never interfere with the good of society.

As defined by whom? Most people who think like you have abstraction notions of what is 'good for society' based on an 'individual versus society' mindset.

There is a notion called 'freedom of association' that comes to play. I am free to associate with whom I wish to and free not to associate with whom I do not wish to. If that means I exclude you from the right to read my poetry, that's just how it goes. Tough crackers. The fact that something is published on a printing press doesn't magically give you the right to read it.

Re:Yes.

[O'Laochdha]

But how can one buy and sell a legal person on the market? Hasn't that been illegal for some time now?

Re:Yes.

[Changa_MC]

Shrnk-wrapped books tend to be text books. Since no-one actually wants to own them, they have to be shrink-wrapped to force people to buy them. Blackmailing students is not a valid business model.

Re:Or?

[mvdwege]

While google is only displaying excerpts, they are making digital copies of the entire book to drive their searches. And those copies are likely dupicated multiple times within their infrastructure.

No problems there. In order to scan the book, they have to buy it. In my understanding, after buying a copyrighted work, I can do with it whatever I please, under what is called the First Sale Doctrine in the US.

Of course, copyright disallows me to redistribute my personal copy, but that is not what Google is doing, they are providing excerpts, which is covered under Fair Use.

To make this even hairier, the Fair Use defense is just that, a defense. It is brought against an otherwise valid claim of copyright infringement. In other words, Fair Use is copyright infringement, but it is an allowed infringement.

Mart