COPYCENSE

“LexisNexis and iParadigms have teamed up to create a product called CopyGuard to help detect plagiarism and copyright infringement and protect intellectual property. At a time where people and companies are having real problems with copyright protection, this may be a suitable solution for protecting their properties.

“The new product by LexisNexis enables users to verify content originality quickly and easily, searching billions of documents within minutes. LexisNexis says it has 6.1 billion searchable documents, including deep archives and four to five years of archived webpages from iParadigms.”

John Stith. LexisNexis Working On Copyright Protection. WebProNews.com. Aug. 22, 2005.

“Although Jose Avila has a good job as a software developer, he’s locked into two rents after moving to Arizona, and has no extra cash for an Ikea shopping spree. But Avila got creative and built an apartment full of surprisingly sturdy furniture — out of FedEx shipping boxes.

“FedEx is not amused. The shipping giant’s lawyers have sent Avila letters (.pdf) demanding he take down the site he created to document his project, invoking, among other things, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”

Kristen Philipkoski. Furniture Causes FedEx Fits. Wired News. Aug. 11, 2005.

I have been trolling the Web, looking to catch up on things I’ve missed over the last week or so. I found this statement on Aaron Swartz’s blog:

“Google won’t even scan any book copyright holders ask them not to, even though doing so is perfectly legal.”

(I don’t know Mr. Swartz, although a Google search suggests that many others do, or at least know of him.)

Mr. Swartz is upset that Google has discontinued its Google Print Library Project due to pressure from publishers who are concerned about the copyright implications inherent in the project. That is his opinion, and he is entitled to it. But to say that it is “perfectly legal” for Google to scan a book that remains under copyright is misleading at best, and skidding dangerously into just plain wrong.

The Google Print Library Project is predicated upon the most basic of copyright rights: the owner’s exclusive right of reproduction, as codified in Section 106(1). What Google is doing by scanning books is to make a digital reproduction of these works. That action implicates the reproduction right, and if Google cannot find a limitation on the publishers’ exclusive rights (which may be found somewhere in Sections 107 through 122), it is liable for copyright infringement under Section 501(a).

Granted, there are other considerations. One or more of the libraries involved in the project may be able to digitally reproduce some of their holdings pursuant to library limitations at Section 108, or perhaps even the fair use limitation codified at Section 107. Google itself could claim a fair use limitation under Section 107, but that requires analysis I don’t want to engage in right now (mostly because I’m holding it for another, more formal article). But I think Google’s fair use claim is shaky at best.

I agree with Mr. Swartz’s assessment that the publishers are barking up the wrong tree, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it’s “perfectly legal” for Google to go ahead with its digitization plan. Unfortunately, Mr. Swartz perpetuates a common misconception among technologists and information professionals about copyright and its importance to the business of information.

Google Weblog. Google Sells Out Users to Publishers. Aug. 12, 2005.

See also:

Google Blog. Making Books Easier to Find. Aug. 11, 2005.

“On August 11, Google announced on its blog that they are suspending its scanning of copyrighted works from libraries. Scanning will resume in November, which presumably gives publishers who are rights-holders time to opt-out with a list of books they do not want scanned at the library.

“There are still huge problems with Google’s new description of its Library Project. The biggest problem is that Google is trying to offer an ‘opt-out’ approach to publishers, while copyright law is clearly a matter of ‘express consent.'”

Daniel Brandt. Google Spins to Avoid Copyright Challenges. Google Watch. Aug. 12, 2005.

“Ecommerce giant Amazon.com appears to be preparing a digital music service to compete with Apple Computer’s iTunes at last, according to a job listing posted on a popular industry blog.

The ad, posted on Paidcontent.org (and since removed), sought a ‘content acquisition manager’ for the company’s ‘forthcoming digital music service.'”

John Borland. Amazon.com Preps Digital Music Service. News.com. Aug. 4, 2005.