PulpLit.net

Home recording of TV shows was illegal until the Supreme Court legalized it in 1984’s Betamax decision. The studios argued that they should be able to opt in to home recording by embedding a “you may/may not” record flag in a broadcast’s Vertical Blanking Interval. The courts rejected this, because even though Sony was proposing to give the public the tools to record every single feature film aired on broadcast TV, the fact that this was a use that wouldn’t substantially undermine the studios’ legitimate licensing revenue made it a fair use.

Today, Google proposes to scan in books — not for the purpose of distributing or copying them, but for the purpose of compiling full-text indices of them. They propose to do this because it will sell more books and make Google more valuable (just as Sony would be more valuable if its VCRs could record all TV shows).

In any event: the point of my post is that the AG objects to Google Print because they say that it’s immoral to assume consent from anyone who doesn’t object. Nevertheless, the AG has brough suit on *my* behalf without my consent, and isn’t even offering me the opportunity to opt out. If the AG wants to sue Google because opt-out is immoral, let it secure the explicit permission of every author it purports to represent here, or simply sue on its own behalf.

Cory Doctorow

Wow. Who would have thunk Cory Doctorow would read this blog? Let me first say I’m a big fan.

Let me second say that the precedent that a company can make a digital copy of a book without anyone’s permission, even when they are explicately NOT given permission to do so by a copyright with states that “All other rights are reserved,” is a dangerous precedent. What to stops a startup from getting a single copy of the latest O’Reilly book, scanning it and letting everyone within the organization use it? That seems clearly wrong to me. How about you? Do you think such a thing would fall under “fair use”?

If not, please explain to me how what Google is doing is different.

As to your second point, that the “AG has brought suit on *my* behalf without my consent”, I can only agree that that is hypocritical and wrong. I seems strange that they decided to sue on behalf of their members without *asking* all their members. Must be in the pocket of the publishers. After all, it looks better if the authors sue then the publishers, as their interests are perhaps not aligned on this issue.