True, but this isn't your house. If you had a store you'd have to put a "no soliciting", "no browsing", "only X allowed in", etc. if you wanted to be selective. Or, if you had a book for the public to read sitting on a easel on a street corner you would need a notice if you wanted to exclude certain people from reading it.

By American law, Google's copy/index/show+snippets IS fair use, and therefore IS legal -- multiple judges have ruled that way.

I'm not sure whether the Europeans are ruling differently because of chauvinism (anything American is evil) or fascism (any thought you don't have a permit for is forbidden). In some cases (the French president, simultaneously promoting a three-strikes law for tiny-scale noncommercial copyright violations and being sued for three major large-scale for-profit copyright violations on his own account), both motives seem pretty strongly evinced.

But that's a separate issue.

Part of the problem may be that it's time to move the law from an opt-in model to opt-out for ALL kinds of information distribution: in other words, compulsory licensing, like the old-electronic-media already have (consider radio stations and the pop-music industry.)

And which the web already has, in the robots.txt file.

That works, relatively inexpensively and unobtrusively: unlike the horrific legal expenses sometimes entailed in exercising perfectly legal rights in a world where unethical lawyers are always extorting money by false accusations of infringement. (I'm particularly thinking of the hundreds of millions of dollars consumed in the SCO lawsuits against Linux, or the insanityh of the RIAA cases against people who didn't have any musical interest or even a computer or even a bloody LIFE -- people who'd been DEAD for years!)

Different country, different laws. There's an anti-American culture sentiment here and there but laws do vary. See libel laws in UK for example. Or the fact that AFAIK you can't even publish a convicted killer's name in Germany after a while due to privacy laws.

By American law, Google's copy/index/show+snippets IS fair use, and therefore IS legal -- multiple judges have ruled that way.

I'm not sure whether the Europeans are ruling differently because of chauvinism (anything American is evil) or fascism (any thought you don't have a permit for is forbidden). In some cases (the French president, simultaneously promoting a three-strikes law for tiny-scale noncommercial copyright violations and being sued for three major large-scale for-profit copyright violations on his own account), both motives seem pretty strongly evinced.

By American law Google's copy/index/show+snippets IS fair use, and therefore IS legal.
...
I'm not sure whether the Europeans are ruling differently because of chauvinism (anything American is evil) or fascism (any thought you don't have a permit for is forbidden).

A brilliant illustration of the exact version of American-centred "logic" that drives Europeans (as well as others) mental. Either you are exactly like us and agree with everything we decide on, or else you are anti-American, or possibly just fascist.

A brilliant illustration of the exact version of American-centred "logic" that drives Europeans (as well as others) mental. Either you are exactly like us and agree with everything we decide on, or else you are anti-American, or possibly just fascist.

But aren't the French taking the same attitude here?

This case merely illustrates the inadequacy of national laws in a global medium.

But aren't the French taking the same attitude here?

No ..the french are saying quite simply that just because something is legal for corporations to do in the USA that doesnt make it legal elsewhere ..and certainly not here ..each country gets to make it's own laws thank you ..however inconvenient that may be for certain US corporations.

BTW since when has scanning books that you dont own copyright to and then republishing them with ads tacked on been a global medium ?

>the french are saying quite simply that just because something is legal for corporations to do in the USA that doesnt make it legal elsewhere

But the scanning actions the French were saying were illegal "elsewhere" weren't performed "elsewhere". That was done in the U.S. where it was legal. When did Ming the Merciless die and leave France evil overlord of the Universe?

Not that the U.S. is the only victim. Canadian copyright law is under attack from the E.U. right now: a mass raid on the public domain proposed in a new treaty. (And, for that matter, the E.U. isn't the only perp. Australian copyright law has been attacked from the U.S., also using treaties as the carrot/stick.)

The books were still in copyright in France ..( where incidentally some of them were also scanned ) and were / are french works in the main ..by in the main french authors ..
By your tortuous and for some reason francophobic logic France could decide that copyright in software should only exist for 10 years or even abolish it and then I ( resident in France ) could just copy ad infinitum photshopcs4 or Xp .( or any other software ..especially those developed in the USA .and make them available as download from my sites ..with ads along side to pay my bandwidth bills ..

My primary business is still the creation of original artworks and sculpures ( thats right creation ) according to your previous rants in this thread You or anyone else should be able to copy them and commercialise the copies with out paying me anything and without my approval ..( and that upon my death my son should not have any rights over those works ..copyright or otherwise ) ..So I'd be working for what ..I would pass on what ..Maybe you think he should give up the house too when his parents pass on ..and GORG could sell it ..for the "common good of humanity as they try to make out is their motive" ..with ads on of course ..or they could just steal it because he might not be in it at the time and to them it looked "abandoned" ..

And your justification ..because your ancestors ..not you personally ( created some things ..a long time ago that you are OK about having copied ) ..firstly I suspect that an architects work comes under work for hire ( and thus isn't protected )..and the argument that teachers descendants could somehow give permission to the students of those teachers the "permission" to speak or think or base their own works on what they were taught is ludicrous ..

Only those who dont earn their crust by actually creating unique work could think that way ..thankfully such total selfishness is in the minority ..and isn't backed by law ..otherwise it would be OK to copy anything that comes out of Hollywood , Stephen King and Disney ..not to mention Microsoft , Adobe and GORG..GORGs own compulsive use of patents says that they certainly see creativity needs protection ( when it suits them ) ..It is simple ..if it isnt yours ..don't copy it ..dont steal it ..and dont think that you have the right to give anyone else the right to copy it either ..

See ..easy ..n'est-ce pas :)

Leosghost, if you aren't aware that the Internet is a global medium, I'd hate to responsible for bursting your bubble. :-)

Book scanning is what I was refering to S_J :)..as you well knew ;)
Other search engines and websites ( yours and mine included don't see scanning what isn't ours and slapping ads up along side it ..until the real owner objects ..as part of our business..we both have more ethics than that ) ..shame GORG don't..

Let me remind you that Google doesn't simply want to distribute and profit from millions of works (created by others) just for the trouble of having scanned them - it also demands *exclusivity* for many of these works, all that simply because they thought of doing that first. In other words, if you think you can do the same, think again, because their lawyers will quickly explain that this legal weightlessness can be enjoyed only by the most equal of animals.

Frustrating, when the credo is 'create websites with unique content'

Eurofascist

Whoa. I think you need to calm down a bit, hutcheson. I would be very very careful with that F word. Most folks (including me) get really upset when being called a fascist. Dangerous grounds here.

But let me calm down as well and have a rational look at the situation.

First, U.S. folks should realize that their ARE different countries with different laws. What may be perfectly legal in the U.S. (e.g. copying of entire websites to show snippets and to monetize as the copying organization sees fit) may not be legal elsewhere.

Second, non-U.S. folks should investigate the legal tools that the U.S. provides. If you register a formal copyright on your works, which is easy to do and costs just $35 (which really is not much in Euroland), then you probably WANT folks to steal your property. Because if they do, you can go after them with the full power of the U.S. copyright law. And this can get really really expensive - up to $150,000 fines PER CASE. Ten songs, ten cases. Fifteen books, fifteen cases. Twenty photos, twenty cases. And this regardless of the actual damage being done. I find this really attractive. Good stuff.

Third, for those cases where a work has an expired copyright in the U.S. but a non-expired copyright elsewhere, U.S. corporations who re-publish that stuff should put money aside for those cases where they get sued in that foreign country. Of course, they could cease doing business there and just ignore it, but I guess that doing business abroad is too attractive to ignore. Sooo, it's really a binary decision: EITHER do business abroad and stick to the laws of the respective country OR do not business abroad and do not stick to the laws of the respective countries.

In this case, I see that Google wants to do both both - they want to do business abroad AND not stick to (certain aspects of) the law of France. Which is simply not OK. They'll have to decide what they want to do. (And bringing up the cr*p about "organizing the world's information" does not cut it. It's irrelevant.)

As a side note, I am personally glad that Europe is much more critical than the U.S.; that really is the cultural divide. There was a point in my life where I wanted to live in the U.S., but not any more. I'm happy being old-fashioned and critical, slow and not as money-driven as (some of) the U.S. folks. I enjoy my freedom of speech which is essentially protected by various E.U. and country laws.

As a side note, I am personally glad that Europe is much more critical than the U.S.; that really is the cultural divide. There was a point in my life where I wanted to live in the U.S., but not any more. I'm happy being old-fashioned and critical, slow and not as money-driven as (some of) the U.S. folks. I enjoy my freedom of speech which is essentially protected by various E.U. and country laws.

As much as I am critical of the "simplistic" US approach exemplified here by several posters, it's also wrong to put the entire country in one pigeonhole.

There are *a lot* of critical voices in the US and yes, most are from cultural industries. If you're interested in this topic, I suggest you catch up on the discussion as followed in The New York Review of Books. It seems that almost every issue recently has a big article on Google / its Book Search project.

I'm with Hutchinson. Dead on.

Google's copy/index/show+snippets IS fair use

fair use goes out the window when you are using the snipets for profit (ad revenue)

fair use goes out the window when you are using the snipets for profit (ad revenue)

I don't think so - not that I'm an expert, but I wasn't aware there was a non-profit part to fair use.

Where they break fair use IMO is displaying the cache.

Folks, just a small reminder to please be mindful and stay on topic. I realize cultural differences are a hot button issue, but let's try and keep the discussion within the scope of the ruling.

Thanks.