In case you don’t have the time to read Battalle’s The Search, a pretty good substitute might be an article in today’s Washington Post (Search Me?). The article discusses a number of issues around Google’s book project which got me thinking: could a bit of creative lawyering and calling Google a “library” be a possible escape for the project’s leagal liability. The point is made that:
To index the Web, Google first sends out software programs called “crawlers” that explore the online universe, link by link, making copies of every site they find — just as Book Search makes a digital copy of every book it can lay its hands on. Web sites are protected by copyright, so if you don’t want your site indexed by Google and its search brethren, you can “opt out,” usually by employing a nifty technological watchdog (a file called robots.txt) that tells search engines to bug off.
Ditto for books, Google argues: Publishers and authors can opt out by informing Google that they don’t want their books scanned and made searchable.
It looks as though the “transformative use” argument is being made, but I wonder if this could be extended to the notion that, much like a traditional library, all Google is doing is collecting material and making it available for a limited public use (a few pages, as opposed to a limited-time loan). I’m not saying that this argument is necessarily persuasive, or even right, but rather creating an analogy between a data warehouse and a physical book warehouse. As it is, copyrights basis in “the copy” pretty much makes the argument untenable (but this basis is up for debate).
…in other stories grabbing my attention today
Michael Geist is picking up on the emerging Blackboard v D2L patent fight. Not exactly sure what to make of this yet, as a large part of my job involves working with D2L software (I’ll note, for one of its earliest and largest clients). For more, keep an eye on Michael Feldstein’s blog.
Finally, the Times has an article about Paparazzi 2.0, where anyone with a cell camera stands to profit from selling quick pics to tabloids. Now celebrity privacy can be added to the list of areas of media law individuals may need to “be more aware of” in the world of anybody-can-publish (something Ashley Simpson knows well). It appears in at least these cases, there are still organizational checks within news and tabloid firms to keep the issue from falling totally on a photographer.
Finally finally, here’s a good note on “Astroturfing 2.0” from Ars. If my old pro-market comment-ers on net neutrality were in fact involved in this, they might like to know that their efforts were appreciated in that they really forced me to further examine and clarify my own views. If they were legitimately commenting–thanks for the same reason!