We disagree. While you may not consider the two as similar circumstances, they are: They both chose to knowingly and non-violently break laws they consider unjust. It's civil disobedience either way. The fact that you agree with Rosa's position and not Google's or the possible punishment they receive is not relevant. PLENTY of people didn't agree with Rosa's actions back then, they were wrong.

For-profit corporations acting on a profit motive are not accorded the same latitude as individuals under US law.

I'm not advocating anything. I noted that the world has changed. While it may be relatively easy to bust Microsoft or Google, it is impossible to police billions of people with digital media. Criminalizing nearly the entire earth's population is not an effective solution.

There are also millions of murders each year around the world. Better stop trying to police that, too.

By the way, the entire Earth's population is not infringing copyrights. Most of the Earth's population hasn't even touched a computer.

"Real property" is a specific legal term meaning land and land improvements. I assume that you mean "tangible property." Just because property is intangible does not mean that it does not exist

No. But since the world has changed, the law will have to change. It's nice that your bike was always legally yours and that it existed, but you had better make sure you used a bike lock that existed as well. And if someone defeated that lock, good luck getting the law enforced upon some unknown perp. The responsibility for protecting it remained with you.

Now that same burden is on those that would protect digital media. Best of luck to them. I think they'll fail, and they would either bankrupt themselves or the justice system chasing down .mp3s and .pdfs.

Google is just pushing the envelope.

Large, publicly-traded corporations are in a slightly different category than 9-year-old bullies. If IBM or Alcoa or Pfizer started a nation-wide bicycle theft ring, law enforement would obviously get involved.

Do you think it is fair for some up-start to sell store-brand soda with Coca-Cola labels, for a Google engineer to sell the search algortithm to Yahoo, or for a complete stranger to sue the hair salon for something that it did not do?

No, because there is clearly a property line there, and it's clear that someone is profiting--there is clearly a chain of evidence: money changes hands, et cetera.

Where exactly is this property line? If monetary exchange is the line, then Google has crossed it. Google profits from having this content searchable. Look at the screenshot of a copyrighted work. On the left where it says "Buy this book," that is called advertising. As in revenue generation. Advertising revenue derived from search results of content that Google misappropriated in clear violation of copyright law.

The larger Google Print project appear legitimate, since as far as I can tell the copyright owners opt-in. This library project that requires opt-out is what has me riled.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

For-profit corporations acting on a profit motive are not accorded the same latitude as individuals under US law.

While true, that has nothing to do with Google or Rosa's act of civil disobedience.

There are also millions of murders each year around the world. Better stop trying to police that, too.

What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, the entire Earth's population is not infringing copyrights. Most of the Earth's population hasn't even touched a computer.

If Google has it's way, eventually they all will be. That's the whole point.

Large, publicly-traded corporations are in a slightly different category than 9-year-old bullies. If IBM or Alcoa or Pfizer started a nation-wide bicycle theft ring, law enforement would obviously get involved.

Sure. But billions of people have started a world-wide digital media theft ring, and law enforcement, for the most part, has refused to get involved. Why is that, do you think?

Where exactly is this property line? If monetary exchange is the line, then Google has crossed it. Google profits from having this content searchable. Look at the screenshot of a copyrighted work. On the left where it says "Buy this book," that is called advertising. As in revenue generation. Advertising revenue derived from search results of content that Google misappropriated in clear violation of copyright law.

Yes. Exactly. Where is this property line? That is what the courts will decide. Google is forcing the issue. What happens if they decide in favor of Google? Or decide that individual authors will have to file suit to protect their work (much like putting a lock on your bike)? Will it be OK then?

Or, what happens if the courts decide it all moot, because digital media transfer is rampant, a simple fact of every day life. As long as you don't make profit, it is OK?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

---

Account frozen...

Yes. Exactly. Where is this property line? That is what the courts will decide. Google is forcing the issue. What happens if they decide in favor of Google? Or decide that individual authors will have to file suit to protect their work (much like putting a lock on your bike)? Will it be OK then?

Google is using copyrighted material to generate revenue for itself. This destroys the "not for profit" argument. Most likely, at least one author will need to file a lawsuit to get an injunction filed.

Or, what happens if the courts decide it all moot, because digital media transfer is rampant, a simple fact of every day life. As long as you don't make profit, it is OK?

Copyright is protected under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It is not a law that can be struck down by an activist judge, although some of the judges in the United States may well try.

The point is not profit; I refuted that since it was the defense that you offered on Google's behalf. If I own a piece of land and you trespass on it, the crime does not depend on you deriving some sort of profit from tespassing. Private property is private property. You don't gain any claim to my private funds just because you think it would be nice for you to have them... why should you have any claim to my private copyright?

Should copyright be essentially struck down in the United States, you will see a virtual halt to content creation in that country. Very little new software. Very little new music. No new movies or books. News might limp along at greatly reduced capacity... basically nothing but local coverage.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Google is using copyrighted material to generate revenue for itself. This destroys the "not for profit" argument. Most likely, at least one author will need to file a lawsuit to get an injunction filed.

However, that is open to interpretation. Google is displaying advertising next to copyrighted material that other people freely searched for. That one will have to be sorted out in the courts.

Copyright is protected under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It is not a law that can be struck down by an activist judge, although some of the judges in the United States may well try.

The corpus of copyright law is substantially larger and more detailed that what is contained in the Constitution. And, as you noted with Disney, has become somewhat of a dilemma. Some judges anywhere may well try, if only to keep their courts from being overwhelmed and destroyed.

The point is not profit; I refuted that since it was the defense that you offered on Google's behalf....

Your own determination that you have refuted something is just circular reasoning.

...If I own a piece of land and you trespass on it, the crime does not depend on you deriving some sort of profit from tespassing. Private property is private property. You don't gain any claim to my private funds just because you think it would be nice for you to have them... why should you have any claim to my private copyright?

I'll say this again: the world has changed, and private property may have been private property, but that is no longer reality in the matter of digital media. In other words, it is likely that real property and digital media can no longer be seen as the same thing.

Again: you are unlikely to be able to protect a pile of 1's and 0's or a eensy pile of electrons. Additionally, the actual worth of those 1's, 0's, or electrons is likely infinitessimal. Besides, no one that is not profitting is laying any claim to your copyright. They're just giving their property away, a pile of electrons that they were given, to someone else.

What you find is a legal system that, for the first time, is confronted with routine actions on the part of private individuals that could easily shut it down, overwhelm it, bankrupt it. This is not some small matter. It is very very likely that the courts will decide that unless someone is making a profit, fair use will apply.

Should copyright be essentially struck down in the United States, you will see a virtual halt to content creation in that country. Very little new software. Very little new music. No new movies or books. News might limp along at greatly reduced capacity... basically nothing but local coverage.

Pfffft. That's just your opinion. The vast and overwhelming majority of digital media is created and never, ever makes a dime. In fact, it usually costs the people who create it money. People make it because they want to. And they've been doing so since the beginning of time.

News will be fine, because advertisers will still pay networks to gather and collate information to put in front of millions of people. Hell, you could make the case now that the news does what Google is doing: presenting the stories of other people, and deriving advertising revenue from the ads presented along side. The New York Times presents a review of Harry Potter along with pictures and everything. Oh, and they present advertising right next to it. They are doing what Google is doing. If that's fair use, it isn't such a stretch to see that Google is doing the same thing.

While it may destroy the business model of the Gang of Five music companies--big deal, no more Britney Spears massive airplay. She could of course, still do tours, still endorse products, et cetera. What she would likely do is sell a trinket, an autographed picture, or a limited edition set of earrings, or some other non-digital item, along with her music. There she still earns revenue on items that aren't digital and still has all the incentive to make music.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Excuse me that I interrupt the ongoing discussion with this:

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Race to save earthquake survivors

"At least 23,000 people have died, most in Pakistani-administered Kashmir."

How to donate:

Current emergencies: South Asia Earthquake Children's Appeal

DEC Welcome to the Disasters Emergency Committee

United Nations World Food Programme - WFP; Hunger relief against poverty & famine

KIRF | Help Kashmir Today | Azad Kashmir | AJK | Charity | NGO | Pakistan | Earthquake

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | UN seeks $272m urgent quake aid

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

... the world has changed, and private property may have been private property, but that is no longer reality in the matter of digital media...

or in the matter of eminent domain

PASADENA - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory plans to lay off between 5 percent and 8 percent of its work force as a result of belt-tightening at the agency's Washington headquarters, officials said. The lab's director, Charles Elachi, made the announcement Monday during a staff meeting, saying he expected across-the-board cuts. About 200 employees and 100 contractors will be affected, spokesman Blaine Baggett said. The lab employs about 5,400 workers.

---

me@rescam.org

... the world has changed, and private property may have been private property, but that is no longer reality in the matter of digital media...

or in the matter of eminent domain

If some court decides that encoding copyrighting material into digital form effectively surrenders the copyright, then one of two things will happen:

• DRM will get so much more intrusive that it would make the currently debated technologies look quaint, or
  
• For-profit studios will abandon CDs and DVDs. They may like the formats, but they like money more.
  

The reason that the United States, and more importantly its citizens, have the funds available to help with disasters around the world is because the country has an economy that is far stronger than you hear about on the news. The bedrock of that economy is property rights. The economy is strong enough to survive amazing shocks (like the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, racial and anti-war rioting in the 1960's, the attacks of 9/11/2001, Hurricane Katrina, and Elliot Spitzer), so even rampant copyright infringement by thousands of individuals will not bring it to its knees. But removing a large chunk of intellectual property rights would not be 'damage' to be healed, it would be a change in the rules that would derail most of the entertainment and technology industries that were founded upon the idea that a person (or company) can own the material that it creates.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Should copyright be essentially struck down in the United States, you will see a virtual halt to content creation in that country. Very little new software. Very little new music. No new movies or books. News might limp along at greatly reduced capacity... basically nothing but local coverage.

Pfffft. That's just your opinion. The vast and overwhelming majority of digital media is created and never, ever makes a dime. In fact, it usually costs the people who create it money. People make it because they want to. And they've been doing so since the beginning of time.

Digital media that doesn't make a dime doesn't finance the creation of newer, better forms of media. But then, I'm sure that the relative advantages of DVDs over clay tablets are debatable. There are those who further technology simply out of curiosity, but without a profit motive the advances are painstakingly slow. Even purely academic research is jealously guarded by copyright.

News will be fine, because advertisers will still pay networks to gather and collate information to put in front of millions of people. Hell, you could make the case now that the news does what Google is doing: presenting the stories of other people, and deriving advertising revenue from the ads presented along side. The New York Times presents a review of Harry Potter along with pictures and everything. Oh, and they present advertising right next to it. They are doing what Google is doing. If that's fair use, it isn't such a stretch to see that Google is doing the same thing.

The "press" has specific privelages granted under the First Amendment and expanded by federal laws. Copyright law specifically grants the right to review copyrighted material, and the act of posing for a camera is considered permission to use that image on the news. The reporting of events falls under the press's exclusion from copyright and trade secret laws. The press is not the only profession with exceptions to normal legal requirements... doctors, lawyers and priests cannot be compelled to testify about what clients have said to them (note that reporters do not have this protection).

These exclusions are granted for actions that are seen as indispensible to professions that perform what is perceived as a needed public service. If Google wants to portray what it is doing as being an indispensible part of providing a public service, it needs to show that it's virtually impossible to run an information indexing service if it limits the index to publicly displayed information (such as published web pages). The phenomenal commercial success of Google.com defeats that argument.

While it may destroy the business model of the Gang of Five music companies--big deal, no more Britney Spears massive airplay. She could of course, still do tours, still endorse products, et cetera. What she would likely do is sell a trinket, an autographed picture, or a limited edition set of earrings, or some other non-digital item, along with her music. There she still earns revenue on items that aren't digital and still has all the incentive to make music.

I'm not concerned with entertainers, per se, although their presence in the economy is more positive than negative. We wouldn't have stadiums if we didn't have entertainers like musicians and football players, and the folks who work for entertainers do push specific technologies forward (singers finance new recording media, sports teams finance certain medical technologies, etc.).

My concern is with the profit motive for content creators in general. If the exception to needing a copyright holder's permission is expanded as much as Google wants it to be, for no compelling reason, then the value of copyrights will drop... which will have a ripple effect on the industries that the United States now relies upon for innovation. If copyright is effectively destroyed, the effects upon all industries that rely upon intellectual property would be catastrophic.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

If some court decides that encoding copyrighting material into digital form effectively surrenders the copyright, then one of two things will happen:

• DRM will get so much more intrusive that it would make the currently debated technologies look quaint, or
  
• For-profit studios will abandon CDs and DVDs. They may like the formats, but they like money more.
  

The second something goes down the wires to a speaker, monitor, or anything else, it's DRM has been removed, and if it can be decoded to be used it can be copied in that form.

Who cares if Sony abandons music promotion? There is already an overwhelming abundance of music on the web that doesn't have Warner Bros imprimatur. You don't need BMG to tell you what you like.

The reason that the United States, ... >snip<... The bedrock of that economy is property rights. >snip< But removing a large chunk of intellectual property rights would not be 'damage' to be healed, it would be a change in the rules that would derail most of the entertainment and technology industries that were founded upon the idea that a person (or company) can own the material that it creates.

You are missing the point entirely, so let me try again. The courts are not likely to state that the creator has surrendered the copyright when the content is translated into digital format. That really isn't in question.

However, the millions of files that are changing hands THIS VERY SECOND are not given a second thought by the courts or law enforcement. Why aren't the copyright laws ALREADY being enforced? No one is suggesting that you can't sell your music or your concept to McDonald's and make money off of it. No one is suggesting that the legal status of copyrights will change.

But what HAS changed is the ability to control them when used casually by the average user. It doesn't matter what the law becomes, just like it doesn't matter what the law is NOW.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Digital media that doesn't make a dime doesn't finance the creation of newer, better forms of media. But then, I'm sure that the relative advantages of DVDs over clay tablets are debatable. There are those who further technology simply out of curiosity, but without a profit motive the advances are painstakingly slow. Even purely academic research is jealously guarded by copyright.

There will always be a profit motive for the next, more advanced, storage system. Why? Because people want to somewhere to store the digital content that they have. There is always a profit motive for advanced technology because people want that that makes their life easier.

This has nothing to do with digital content.

The "press" has specific privelages granted under the First Amendment and expanded by federal laws. Copyright law specifically grants the right to review copyrighted material ...

You seem to labor under the impression that law is created solely from some immutable philosophy, and much as I wish it were, it is not. Much of the law is derived from social concerns, and rest assured, it is a social concern not to criminalize the entire population. It is also a social (and judicial) concern, not to destroy the court system with hundreds of millions of .mp3 trading cases.

These exclusions are granted for actions that are seen as indispensible to professions that perform what is perceived as a needed public service. If Google wants to portray what it is doing as being an indispensible part of providing a public service, it needs to show that it's virtually impossible to run an information indexing service if it limits the index to publicly displayed information (such as published web pages). The phenomenal commercial success of Google.com defeats that argument.

That may be the argument that is acceptable for you, but that doesn't mean it will fly. The courts may decide what Google does is essentially indistinguishable from what The New York Times does. Google may change it's format slightly and provide "reviews" of material from other websites, as a public service. Hell, it may just take it's servers off-shore and simply not worry about what the U.S. gov't says.

I'm not concerned with entertainers, per se, although their presence in the economy is more positive than negative. We wouldn't have stadiums if we didn't have entertainers like musicians and football players, and the folks who work for entertainers do push specific technologies forward (singers finance new recording media, sports teams finance certain medical technologies, etc.).

I have no idea where any of this comes from. Brittany can still perform, the Yankees can still play the White Sox, none of that changes.

Profit is a fleeting thing, and there have been any number of technologies over time that have destroyed profit-making abilities for others. Brittany could still sell her music to Coke, that doesn't mean the courts would allow her to imprison someone for sending someone else a stream of electrons.

My concern is with the profit motive for content creators in general. If the exception to needing a copyright holder's permission is expanded as much as Google wants it to be, for no compelling reason...

No compelling reason to YOU. The courts may decide that providing the whole of human knowledge to everyone IS a valid and compelling social reason.

then the value of copyrights will drop... which will have a ripple effect on the industries that the United States now relies upon for innovation. If copyright is effectively destroyed, the effects upon all industries that rely upon intellectual property would be catastrophic.

Again, I'm not arguing that copyright will be destroyed. It won't be. As I said before, "fair use," is likely to just be expanded. But suggesting that ineffective and enenforceable laws will somehow stop what is already happening is naive.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Who cares if Sony abandons music promotion? There is already an overwhelming abundance of music on the web that doesn't have Warner Bros imprimatur. You don't need BMG to tell you what you like.

The music industry is peculiar because talent doesn't seem to correlate very well with success. I would like nothing better than to have thousands of individual bands creating tracks available for download, bypassing gatekeeper distributors that reward musicians for being in the right place at the right time. Music stores could burn CDs (or fill iPods) for those who aren't technically savvy enough to scour the Net personally or burn a CD without blowing a circuit-breaker.

The economy is robust enough to withstand the current level of illicit file-swapping, because enough people decide to buy content (like music or Microsoft Office or computer science textbooks) anyway that producing the content is profitable. If institutions are allowed to ignore copyright protections, then large portions of the economy start to erode.

Google's selling point is the vastness of the data it searches. Most of that data has been published on the Internet specifically so that potential viewers can find it. An opt-out approach to this index is appropriate. Scanning books is another matter... Google is profiting from the copyrighted material (if in no other sense than broadening the database for marketing purposes, thus driving advertising rates) but it is not compensating the copyright owners. Books are meant to be read, but unlike a website, the copyright owner expects someone to buy the book. An opt-in approach is appropriate here.

You are missing the point entirely, so let me try again. The courts are not likely to state that the creator has surrendered the copyright when the content is translated into digital format. That really isn't in question.

However, the millions of files that are changing hands THIS VERY SECOND are not given a second thought by the courts or law enforcement. Why aren't the copyright laws ALREADY being enforced? No one is suggesting that you can't sell your music or your concept to McDonald's and make money off of it. No one is suggesting that the legal status of copyrights will change.

But what HAS changed is the ability to control them when used casually by the average user. It doesn't matter what the law becomes, just like it doesn't matter what the law is NOW.

It matters very much what the law becomes. Some members of Congress are trying to abolish DRM of all kinds, which would effectively destroy copyright protection whether Google scans books or not. Some are lobbying Congress to allow copyright holders (read as "music distributors") to routinely scan computers connected to the Internet for infringing content. Not only does this obviate the need for search warrants on privately-owned computers, the copyright owners could flood the legal system with literally millions of lawsuits until file-swapping withers away or Congress takes industry-friendly action to unclog the court system.

The fact that individuals... even a large group of them... privately disobey a law does not make the law meaningless. Virtually everyone on a highway is speeding, but somehow only sportscars and cars with out-of-state licenses seem to get pulled over. The traffic laws are fairly draconian, but their loose enforcement keeps reckless driving to a minimum. Should Congress or the Supreme Court for some insane reason strike down all speed limits, chaos would ensue. In a similar vein, making copyright infringement illegal isn't really intended to stamp out every last illicit copy of a song, but rather to prevent companies from profiting from the labor of others without compensating them.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The economy is robust enough to withstand the current level of illicit file-swapping, because enough people decide to buy content (like music or Microsoft Office or computer science textbooks) anyway that producing the content is profitable. If institutions are allowed to ignore copyright protections, then large portions of the economy start to erode.

"Large portions?" that is just speculation on your part. What is the difference if an institution says you need a book for class, for example? The student then just downloads it for free. Or, he gets together with the kids in his class, buys one copy, and spreads it to the rest of the class, and by extension, the rest of the world. The institution has nothing to do with it, and the copyright is still violated.

People still buy Office or whatnot because they aren't savvy enough, as a whole, to use free source stuff or p2p. Once they are, Office is in trouble, regardless of what the law is. But Office can still make a profit, they give the software away for free and charge for technical support and a guarantee--many people would likely opt for that route instead of fiddling around with open source projects.

Google's selling point is the vastness of the data it searches. Most of that data has been published on the Internet specifically so that potential viewers can find it. An opt-out approach to this index is appropriate. Scanning books is another matter... Google is profiting from the copyrighted material (if in no other sense than broadening the database for marketing purposes, thus driving advertising rates) but it is not compensating the copyright owners. Books are meant to be read, but unlike a website, the copyright owner expects someone to buy the book. An opt-in approach is appropriate here.

You keep speaking as if (soon to be) billions of people are going to stop what they are already doing and follow what you see to be best. Part of copyright law is often that the owner takes steps to protect it, that's great, if yer rich, you *may* find it worthwhile to file suit in the U.S. But what about Fiji? Burkina Faso? Finland? How much can you afford to sue and in how many jurisdictions? Rest assured very few of them have the legal protections you are seeking. It would be child's play after scanning the file to note which servers in which country could hold it. Easy, and dispenses with American law entirely.

It matters very much what the law becomes. Some members of Congress are trying to abolish DRM of all kinds, which would effectively destroy copyright protection whether Google scans books or not. Some are lobbying Congress to allow copyright holders (read as "music distributors") to routinely scan computers connected to the Internet for infringing content. Not only does this obviate the need for search warrants on privately-owned computers, the copyright owners could flood the legal system with literally millions of lawsuits until file-swapping withers away or Congress takes industry-friendly action to unclog the court system.

I guess I just don't get your point. You note here exactly what I have been saying, "millions of lawsuits," and "effectively destroy copyright protection." In reality that is the case NOW.

Additionally, no judge, especially appeals, federal, or Supreme, nor any Congress would ever structure the law to allow your millions of lawsuits. Nor could any company, even the Gang of Five, ever afford that. They'll just expand fair use. That's all. Once something is in digital form, if you aren't profiting from it, that will be fair use. That avoids millions of lawsuits, and prevents Coke from using Brittney without her permission. But displaying advertisements next to something that an individual searches for, the courts may just buy into that, especially if it opens the entire universe of information to everyone on earth, for free.

Note that nearly every single jurisdiction in America pays money to build and maintain libraries? Why is that? Because people and law believe that it IS a worthwhile social goal to allow EVERYONE free access to copyrighted material. It is no big stretch that that is exactly what Google is doing.

The fact that individuals... even a large group of them... privately disobey a law does not make the law meaningless. Virtually everyone on a highway is speeding, but somehow only sportscars and cars with out-of-state licenses seem to get pulled over. The traffic laws are fairly draconian, but their loose enforcement keeps reckless driving to a minimum. Should Congress or the Supreme Court for some insane reason strike down all speed limits, chaos would ensue. In a similar vein, making copyright infringement illegal isn't really intended to stamp out every last illicit copy of a song, but rather to prevent companies from profiting from the labor of others without compensating them.

This is not quite analoguous. You see, its relatively easy to catch speeders. The cop just notes their speed, pulls them over, and writes them a ticket. This is actually even pretty cost effective, any cop can more than pay for the costs by writing more tickets. Additionally, they nearly ALL get away with it, greater than 99.9% of the time.

The same doesn't hold true for digital content. The costs involved in finding who sent "Whip it!" from Singapore to a Czech citizen in Belgium are enormous. It isn't simple, and it isn't cost effective, by any sense of the word. Not one American law would apply. Even here you note, that the point is "to prevent companies from profiting from the labor of others without compensating them." Given the nature of law and the social aspects of much of it, you haven't made a case distinguishing what Google does from what the news does or what the New York Times does. There are slight differences, of course.

And I'll ask you again: Say Google loses. What will you do if they just move their servers to a friendly off-shore nation? What happens then? American law then no longer applies. Will you then be arresting millions of Americans because they access Google through google.co.uk or google.lichtenstein? Because if you DON'T start arresting them, then no, it doesn't matter at all what the law becomes in regards to digital content. It doesn't matter now, it won't matter then.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

People still buy Office or whatnot because they aren't savvy enough, as a whole, to use free source stuff or p2p. Once they are, Office is in trouble, regardless of what the law is. But Office can still make a profit, they give the software away for free and charge for technical support and a guarantee--many people would likely opt for that route instead of fiddling around with open source projects.

Microsoft Office is not the best example because it's bloatware, but think of specialized applications like AutoCAD, MasterCAM, JD Edwards (or whatever it's called this week) or a business intelligence suite. Virtually all of the users are corporate, meaning that presumably someone in the IT department is savvy enough to download a copy and virus-scan it. Some of these, like JD Edwards, could be sold on a service basis. For others, without the revenue from unit sales the development will simply cease.

The marginal production cost of an expensive software package is the same as the marginal production cost of an inexpensive video game and they have similar support requirements. The video game is much higher volume, meaning that its development costs can be spread out thinly. Most corporate customers would buy a support contract on ONE copy of an expensive package then just install it one as many machines as needed. This would NOT support further development of the software.

You keep speaking as if (soon to be) billions of people are going to stop what they are already doing and follow what you see to be best. Part of copyright law is often that the owner takes steps to protect it, that's great, if yer rich, you *may* find it worthwhile to file suit in the U.S. But what about Fiji? Burkina Faso? Finland? How much can you afford to sue and in how many jurisdictions? Rest assured very few of them have the legal protections you are seeking. It would be child's play after scanning the file to note which servers in which country could hold it. Easy, and dispenses with American law entirely.

Your scenario is why a trade group filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against Google scanning the books.

Once something is in digital form, if you aren't profiting from it, that will be fair use. <snip> But displaying advertisements next to something that an individual searches for, the courts may just buy into that, especially if it opens the entire universe of information to everyone on earth, for free.

Google's model will be to profit from the use of the copyrighted material, so it would not fall under your definition of fair use.

You are saying that Google is justified in its actions because it is misappropriating intellectual property for a "good" use. Ignore the information's owner's rights and use that information without compensating the owner.

As for the "just a pile of electrons argument," the vast majority of M1 money in the United States exists as little sequences of 1s and 0s on bank computers. There are certainly more socially responsible things that could be done with your savings account than letting it sit there earning interest. Would it not be appropriate then, to just sieze all of the money in the United States and make it available for everyone to use as some court sees fit?

That siezure is not permissible in the United States because the money is private property. It might be nice if you donated some of it, but you cannot be compelled to do so (except indirectly through taxes).

Note that nearly every single jurisdiction in America pays money to build and maintain libraries? Why is that? Because people and law believe that it IS a worthwhile social goal to allow EVERYONE free access to copyrighted material. It is no big stretch that that is exactly what Google is doing.

Libraries are not free. Try returning a book late and see what happens. The reason for the late fee is that a library is an efficient means of providing a tiny sliver of fractional ownership to a vast collection of works that most individuals would only need once or twice in their lifetimes. If Google wants to try to establish an Internet Library, it should be talking to the Library of Congress to work out the ground rules first, not run off and start the project without the permission of copyright holders.

This is not quite analoguous. You see, its relatively easy to catch speeders. The cop just notes their speed, pulls them over, and writes them a ticket. This is actually even pretty cost effective, any cop can more than pay for the costs by writing more tickets. Additionally, they nearly ALL get away with it, greater than 99.9% of the time.

The same doesn't hold true for digital content.

There are technological means for detecting such traffic... it's just that we would not appreciate the warrant-less searches, the enormous slowdown of the Internet backbone, or the political patronage involved in picking who gets to look for what. It would be stupid, but not impossible, to require ISPs to force customers to request every single port they want open on their hosts, effectively requiring licenses to operate servers of any kind (peer-to-peer or otherwise). The government would lag behind the technological work-arounds, but it would create a huge nuissance for everyone.

Even here you note, that the point is "to prevent companies from profiting from the labor of others without compensating them." Given the nature of law and the social aspects of much of it, you haven't made a case distinguishing what Google does from what the news does or what the New York Times does. There are slight differences, of course.

The difference is that the New York Times is performing its own analysis of the books in question, not plugging them into a huge database for public queries. By offering books for sale, authors are implicitly requesting publications like the New York Times to offer reviews (and existing law protects the New York Times should it give a negative reqview so long as it passes the "fair comment" test). Google's aim is to lasso a vast quantity of content into its search engine database as a means of extending its core business, which is selling advertising that appears alongside search results. Google is not performing journalism, it is simply using copyrighted material to make money.

It is fair to say that many, probably a majority, authors would give Google permission to include their works in such a database. However, Google did not ask. When a website records personal information about you without your consent (even if you would have provided it had you been asked), it is an invasion of privacy. Similarly, Google is infringing upon the rights of intellectua property owners.

And I'll ask you again: Say Google loses. What will you do if they just move their servers to a friendly off-shore nation? What happens then? American law then no longer applies. Will you then be arresting millions of Americans because they access Google through google.co.uk or google.lichtenstein? Because if you DON'T start arresting them, then no, it doesn't matter at all what the law becomes in regards to digital content. It doesn't matter now, it won't matter then.

The United States has levied sanctions against nations that flagrantly disregard US intellectual property laws. Granted, this is unevenly applied, and it would really matter what country was doing the hosting.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Google, Comcast searching to buy piece of AOL
Microsoft also in hunt; action may boost stock

By Saul Hansell
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

October 13, 2005

Google and Comcast are in talks with Time Warner to buy a portion of America Online, according to several people with knowledge of the negotiations. The joint bid was widely seen as a way to head off Microsoft, which also has been negotiating to buy a minority stake in AOL.

The development means that Time Warner, which has long been under pressure by Wall Street to sell off its AOL unit, now finds itself in the enviable position of having multiple suitors who could drive up AOL's value.

Both Comcast and Google approached Time Warner last month after word of Time Warner's discussions with Microsoft was reported in the press.

The terms of any potential deal are in flux, several participants said. Spokesmen for Google, Comcast, Time Warner and Microsoft declined to comment on any negotiations among them.

Time Warner believes that any deal must value AOL at more than $20 billion. But the kind of minority stake Google and Comcast might be negotiating would have a lower value because it would involve only AOL's Web portal and content, and not its highly profitable but declining Internet dial-up business.

Time Warner's decision to sell a stake in AOL is driven by its need to increase its sagging stock price, especially as it is being pressured to restructure itself by activist investor Carl C. Icahn, said Michael B. Nathanson, who follows Time Warner for Sanford C. Bernstein.

Microsoft and Yahoo, AOL's two big rivals, also announced yesterday that they would link their instant-messaging services, a move that appeared to intensify Time Warner's need to show that it is taking action, Nathanson said.

Under the deal, Microsoft's MSN Messenger users will be able to communicate over the Internet with Yahoo Messenger subscribers starting in the second quarter of 2006. Users of the two services also will be able to call each other over the Web.

Analysts said the move could put pressure on AOL, the most popular service.

"Up until now, AOL has been able to pick and choose its partners, command the royalties it wants," said Robert Mahowald, an analyst with research firm IDC. "They've moved to develop this market at their own pace. This forces them to take a more aggressive stance."

AOL's instant-messaging product, AIM, had 51.5 million unique U.S. users in September, compared with about 27.3 million for MSN Messenger and 21.9 million for Yahoo's Messenger, according to Nielsen NetRatings.

Instant-messaging services are popular with business users, teens and others because they let people communicate quickly and easily over the Internet. The systems are only expected to grow more popular as they add more sophisticated tools, such as the ability to place calls or have video chats.

During the past two weeks, Google has become more involved in trying to work out a deal to buy a stake in AOL, people involved in the deal making said. Late last week, Google contacted Comcast about a joint bid and they approached Time Warner with the concept this week, a person involved in the negotiations said.

Google wants to preserve its position as the search service on AOL's various offerings, which reach more than 73 million users in the United States each month, according to Nielsen NetRatings. And Comcast hopes to lure customers for its high-speed data service by offering AOL's content and by marketing to AOL's dial-up subscribers.

Microsoft, for its part, is mainly interested in extending the reach of its new Web search business, which it sees as the best way to counter the growing power of Google.

Currently, Microsoft's MSN search has 11 percent of the search market and AOL, which currently uses Google to power its Web search, has 8 percent, according to Nielsen NetRatings. For Google, the loss of the AOL contract would not be a big financial blow, but it could have other effects, said Jordan Rohan, an analyst with Royal Bank of Canada.

"AOL contributes clicks, liquidity and high-quality traffic to the Google network," he said, and that makes advertising with Google more attractive.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This would NOT support further development of the software.

Maybe, maybe not. The scenario you presented is happening right now, as we speak. Yet software still continues to be developed. Why is that?

Your scenario is why a trade group filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against Google scanning the books.

Did they file said suit in every jurisdiction on earth that has the correct laws? What did they do in jurisdictions that simply don't care?

Once something is in digital form, if you aren't profiting from it, that will be fair use.<snip> But displaying advertisements next to something that an individual searches for, the courts may just buy into that, especially if it opens the entire universe of information to everyone on earth, for free. Google's model will be to profit from the use of the copyrighted material, so it would not fall under your definition of fair use.

Or, to say it a different way: Google's model is to profit from advertising, so it would fall under my definition of fair use. This is what the courts must decide.

You are saying that Google is justified in its actions because it is misappropriating intellectual property for a "good" use. Ignore the information's owner's rights and use that information without compensating the owner.

I am saying that Google is justified in its actions because it isn't using the intellectual property, it is placing advertising next things that are, or very shortly will be (with or without Google, with or without American law) freely available anywhere.

As for the "just a pile of electrons argument," the vast majority of M1 money in the United States exists as little sequences of 1s and 0s on bank computers. There are certainly more socially responsible things that could be done with your savings account than letting it sit there earning interest. Would it not be appropriate then, to just sieze all of the money in the United States and make it available for everyone to use as some court sees fit?

Ummmm, that is exactly what they do. It's called taxation. They seize your money and make available for the U.S. to use as it sees fit.

But once again, your analogy fails you. Money as a pile of electrons has worth as currency, but not any old pile of electrons can be currency. "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" as music is nearly worthless.

That siezure is not permissible in the United States because the money is private property. It might be nice if you donated some of it, but you cannot be compelled to do so (except indirectly through taxes).

What, you mean the gov't can compel you? You mean the gov't can take what is yours? Odd. They may just decide to take this as well. You know, in the public interest.

Libraries are not free. Try returning a book late and see what happens. The reason for the late fee is that a library is an efficient means of providing a tiny sliver of fractional ownership to a vast collection of works that most individuals would only need once or twice in their lifetimes. If Google wants to try to establish an Internet Library, it should be talking to the Library of Congress to work out the ground rules first, not run off and start the project without the permission of copyright holders.

Libraries are free to users. The late fee cannot support them.

While your opinion of what Google should or should not do may be of interest to you, rest assured, that opinion is of no worth to Google. You see Google is "an efficient means of providing a tiny sliver of fractional ownership to a vast collection of works that most individuals would only need once or twice in their lifetimes." And it vastly more efficient than any library.

There are technological means for detecting such traffic... it's just that we would not appreciate the warrant-less searches, the enormous slowdown of the Internet backbone, or the political patronage involved in picking who gets to look for what. It would be stupid, but not impossible, to require ISPs to force customers to request every single port they want open on their hosts, effectively requiring licenses to operate servers of any kind (peer-to-peer or otherwise). The government would lag behind the technological work-arounds, but it would create a huge nuissance for everyone.

Thank you for illustrating my point. A cop just writes a speeder a ticket, the costs are very low. However, as you illustrate above, the costs are enormous to provide a check on electron shipping.

The difference is that the New York Times is performing its own analysis of the books in question, not plugging them into a huge database for public queries. By offering books for sale, authors are implicitly requesting publications like the New York Times to offer reviews (and existing law protects the New York Times should it give a negative reqview so long as it passes the "fair comment" test). Google's aim is to lasso a vast quantity of content into its search engine database as a means of extending its core business, which is selling advertising that appears alongside search results. Google is not performing journalism, it is simply using copyrighted material to make money.

You had better hope that every jurisdiction on earth agrees with you. I don't think they will. Many places would have a LOT to gain from hosting Google's (or anyone else's) server farms.

The United States has levied sanctions against nations that flagrantly disregard US intellectual property laws. Granted, this is unevenly applied, and it would really matter what country was doing the hosting.

Heh heh. And this is what you are relying on? That the U.S. will bring sanctions? Hell they can't even stop MONEY LAUNDERING or off-shore accounts which actually cost the U.S. billions of dollars a year. And you figure that they are going to worry about some copyrights enough to stop that? That's silly.

Maybe, maybe not. The scenario you presented is happening right now, as we speak. Yet software still continues to be developed. Why is that?

Most expensive, specialized software has intrusive DRM in it to prevent this sort of abuse.

Did they file said suit in every jurisdiction on earth that has the correct laws? What did they do in jurisdictions that simply don't care?

The lawsuit was filed in federal court, which has juristiction over anything that Google does in any juristiction including overseas operations (Foreign Corrupt Services Act and all that).

[quote]Once something is in digital form, if you aren't profiting from it, that will be fair use. <snip> Or, to say it a different way: Google's model is to profit from advertising, so it would fall under my definition of fair use. This is what the courts must decide.

You really lost me on that one.

I am saying that Google is justified in its actions because it isn't using the intellectual property, it is placing advertising next things that are, or very shortly will be (with or without Google, with or without American law) freely available anywhere.

If it cannot be accomplished without the intellectual property, then it is using the intellectual property. That is the nature of intellectual property.

Just because a company has gained (or can gain) access to something by illicit means, that does not give the company license to use it since it was "freely available." Google could easily index the contents of peer-to-peer networks with its army of webcrawlers, but to do so would land it in federal court.

Ummmm, that is exactly what they do. It's called taxation. They seize your money and make available for the U.S. to use as it sees fit.

But once again, your analogy fails you. Money as a pile of electrons has worth as currency, but not any old pile of electrons can be currency. "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" as music is nearly worthless.

In the United States, with one glaring exception under the Clinton Administration, non-land personal property has never been taxed by the federal government unless it changed hands. When you are paid for work, the wages are taxed (theoretically) when the money changes hands from employer to employee. Personally, I think that there is too much taxation already, but it is not a case of "we saw a huge pile of money over there and we decided that we want some of it."

What, you mean the gov't can compel you? You mean the gov't can take what is yours? Odd. They may just decide to take this as well. You know, in the public interest.

See above about taxation. The Fifth Amemdment gives the goverment the right to sieze existing property so long as one is compensated for it. Congress has defined this as the value of whatever it was before the government decided to take it. For example, if an industrial lot is declared a wetland, the government has restricted the use of the land, therefore siezing a good portion of its value. The government has to pay the landowner the difference, although the government's formulae for determining value are widely criticized.

Under the Fifth Amemdment, one could theoretically compel a person to buy something (sieze money, pay for it in goods), but I don't recall any instance of this happening.

This ownership right, while not absolute, is why governments can't just sieze money unless a crime was committed. The reality of economics also prevents the government from simply printing all the money it wants (that would devalue existing money to the point of worthlessness).

Libraries are free to users. The late fee cannot support them.

I didn't say that late fees support the library. Private libraries like Blockbuster, Comcast OnDemand and NetFlix get by on subscription fees while public libraries get by on tax dollars. My point about late fees was to illustrate that a generic user doesn't have an ownership right to permanently keep something from the library.

While your opinion of what Google should or should not do may be of interest to you, rest assured, that opinion is of no worth to Google. You see Google is "an efficient means of providing a tiny sliver of fractional ownership to a vast collection of works that most individuals would only need once or twice in their lifetimes." And it vastly more efficient than any library.

Libraries operate under specific conditions to maintain their special status in the copyright universe. Like I said, if Google wants to try to run a digital library, it should say so.

Thank you for illustrating my point. A cop just writes a speeder a ticket, the costs are very low. However, as you illustrate above, the costs are enormous to provide a check on electron shipping.

Do you honestly think that license plates, registration stickers, annual inspections, auto insurance, traffic cops, toll booths, traffic lights, street signs, pavement markings, special traffic courts, radar guns, and red light cameras are all there because cars need them to operate? The infrastructure for controlling cars is so pervassive that you don't even notice it. Just becaise the Internet is relatively unregulated now does not mean it will stay that way. If companies like Google push too hard, hasty and bad laws could result.

You had better hope that every jurisdiction on earth agrees with you. I don't think they will. Many places would have a LOT to gain from hosting Google's (or anyone else's) server farms.

Creating indexes is generally considered fair use, but what Google is proposing is not an index but rather a data retrieval system. Data retrieval systems are specifically prohbited without the copyright owner's consent. Most companies of Google's size would prefer to remain in the US because it has relatively low taxation, the environmental regulations don't really hurt it, and it enjoys (up until now, anyway) strong private property protection. Ask the oil companies that invested in Venezuela how important that is.

Heh heh. And this is what you are relying on? That the U.S. will bring sanctions? Hell they can't even stop MONEY LAUNDERING or off-shore accounts which actually cost the U.S. billions of dollars a year. And you figure that they are going to worry about some copyrights enough to stop that? That's silly.

The US economy is robust enough to put up with a lot of violations, but institutions are held to the laws (if only loosely) to maintain a semblence of order. This is why Napster and Grokster get hauled into court but individual file-swappers generally are not. International sanctions may not work (okay, they won't work), but the FTC could forbid any US firm from advertising on the newly-foreign Google.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

All hail the veto
Acquiescent Bush could learn from governor

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

October 15, 2005

There's much to be said about a governing philosophy that is leery of adding new laws to the books, irrespective of topic or purpose. When the impulse to right wrongs or improve on something that isn't broken gets mixed up with the legislative process, the result is often flawed measures whose defenders are given to say things like, "Don't worry - we'll fix it next session."

That's why it's refreshing to see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto so many bills while patiently explaining to lawmakers - go online to www.governor.ca.gov and search for "veto message" - how their good idea went awry in its execution. He is unusually alert to the problems created by poor drafting and dubious precedents. This, as much as partisan differences, is why he has vetoed more than 540 bills the past two years.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., we have a president, George W. Bush, who has never vetoed a bill, a record of executive acquiescence so abject that Colby College Professor G. Calvin Mackenzie suggests we might as well have a parliamentary government.

Too bad. When it comes to vetoes and good governance, the scion of the political dynasty could learn plenty from the novice immigrant actor.

---

me@rescam.org