Google Fined $15,000 A Day In Copyright Case

[Brother Adam]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/18/france-vs-google-book-scanning-plans/

I can't help but side with the publishers. I have used Google's book service before and scanned fully copyrighted materials and have been able to access entire books by Ignatius Press. Storing an entire text in a retrieval system like that is against basic US copyright, not to mention distributing it freely to everyone. It has the potential to ruin the book publishing industry along with all of its authors.

[Apotheoun]

Wow, I have never been able to access an entire copyrighted book with Google books.

[Apotheoun]

I use Google books in order to search for things that I might want to buy, and I would say at least half of my book purchases over the course of the last few years have been because I could sample a book on Google.

[Jesus_lol]

yeah they only ever have small portions of books. its like picking up a novel and reading a few pages or the first chapter, then buying it or not. hardly stealing.

[CatherineM]

My husband and I both signed up for the Google settlement. I'm frankly surprised that Google thought there wasn't going to be a problem with this.

[Apotheoun]

The publishers will be the losers in the end. I have probably bought over $1500.00 in books that I would not have known about if I had not found the book first on Google books.

[Sternhauser]

"Intellectual property." Illogical.

It won't "ruin the book publishing industry," any more than Universal putting videos and music of their contracted musicians is "ruining the music industry." Musicians make their money through concerts. A record contract isn't that necessary any more, due to the dynamic nature of the market, thanks to the internet. Stars are found by exhibiting their work on YouTube, and then they make money by going on tour.

You can't own an idea, or a form. You can't have physical possession of an idea. All the people in the world can have the same idea at the same time, without anyone being worse off for it.

The fashion industry is quite profitable, and there are no patents onstyles. I know of a man from the Midwest who was paid to walk aroundFifth Avenue and sketch perfect images of the fashions displayed in theshop windows, and they'd be manufacturing in a matter of days.

A statutory monopoly on production encourages a stagnant economy.

Even St. Thomas' definition of "theft" does not jive with the notion of "copyright." If you claim to have come up with an idea and try to sell it as such, that is fraud. But publishing a book that someone else wrote, if you credit the author, is not "theft."

~Sternhauser

Edited December 19, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='18 December 2009 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1261185499' post='2022885']
"Intellectual property." Illogical.

You can't own an idea, or a form. You can't have physical possession of an idea. All the people in the world can have the same idea at the same time, without anyone being worse off for it.

The fashion industry is quite profitable, and there are no patents onstyles. I know of a man from the Midwest who was paid to walk aroundFifth Avenue and sketch perfect images of the fashions displayed in theshop windows, and they'd be manufacturing in a matter of days.

A statutory monopoly on production encourages a stagnant economy.

Even St. Thomas' definition of "theft" does not jive with the notion of "copyright." If you claim to have come up with an idea and try to sell it as such, that is fraud. But publishing a book that someone else wrote, if you credit the author, is not "theft."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Do you think that any individual should be allowed to take any amount of books, reprint them, and sell them (crediting the author as such), and never give any of the money to the original author? Seems to me like that's just asking for the entire publishing business to collapse. It would force every author to self publish, in which case lower income authors would never have a chance to become successful.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='18 December 2009 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1261185499' post='2022885']
"Intellectual property." Illogical.
[/quote]

I agree.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 December 2009 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1261185752' post='2022886']
Do you think that any individual should be allowed to take any amount of books, reprint them, and sell them (crediting the author as such), and never give any of the money to the original author?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Seems to me like that's just asking for the entire publishing business to collapse. It would force every author to self publish, in which case lower income authors would never have a chance to become successful.
[/quote]

See the fashion industry, illustrated above. From your argument, the buyer of the new book would never be able to sell the book, and libraries would be immoral, because thousands of people read the same book in a library, while the author receives no profit.

~Sternhauser

Edited December 19, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='18 December 2009 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1261185499' post='2022885']
"Intellectual property." Illogical.
[/quote]
I'm gonna venture that you've never published a book, recorded an album, or patented an invention...or at the very least, never made your livelihood from it.

Edited December 19, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='18 December 2009 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1261188535' post='2022898']
I'm gonna venture that you've never published a book, recorded an album, or patented an invention...or at the very least, never made your livelihood from it.
[/quote]

Argument from emotion.

I'll wager that you have never published a book, recorded an album, or patented an invention. Because if you did, you would not be under any illusion that such people do not sell the "rights" to their work to the man who offers them money for it. Read the lyrics to Billy Joel's "Getting Closer."

~Sternhauser

Edited December 19, 2009 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

"Intellectual property." Illogical.

It won't "ruin the book publishing industry," any more than Universal putting videos and music of their contracted musicians is "ruining the music industry." Musicians make their money through concerts. A record contract isn't that necessary any more, due to the dynamic nature of the market, thanks to the internet. Stars are found by exhibiting their work on YouTube, and then they make money by going on tour.

You can't own an idea, or a form. You can't have physical possession of an idea. All the people in the world can have the same idea at the same time, without anyone being worse off for it.

The fashion industry is quite profitable, and there are no patents onstyles. I know of a man from the Midwest who was paid to walk aroundFifth Avenue and sketch perfect images of the fashions displayed in theshop windows, and they'd be manufacturing in a matter of days.

A statutory monopoly on production encourages a stagnant economy.

Even St. Thomas' definition of "theft" does not jive with the notion of "copyright." If you claim to have come up with an idea and try to sell it as such, that is fraud. But publishing a book that someone else wrote, if you credit the author, is not "theft."

~KnightofChrist

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='18 December 2009 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1261189667' post='2022901']
Argument from emotion.

I'll wager that you have never published a book, recorded an album, or patented an invention. Because if you did, you would not be under any illusion that such people do not sell the "rights" to their work to the man who offers them money for it. Read the lyrics to Billy Joel's "Getting Closer."
[/quote]
You're right, I haven't. But if I had, and chose to sell my rights to my own work to someone else, well that's my right...hence the term.
If artists were not paid for their work, there would certainly be a lot less art - not out of greed, but out of necessity to work a, dare I say, real job.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='18 December 2009 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1261189959' post='2022903']
You're right, I haven't. But if I had, and chose to sell my rights to my own work to someone else, well that's my right...hence the term.
If artists were not paid for their work, there would certainly be a lot less art - not out of greed, but out of necessity to work a, dare I say, real job.
[/quote]

Thieves in of generation try to justify their sin of stealing with moral relativism.

Edited December 19, 2009 by KnightofChrist