Google and copyright

There is an interesting article in the Guardian which denounces Google as being parasitic for ripping off owners of intellectual property: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nternet-piracy . In the comments attached to the article, many bloggers make the point that, at present, the copyright laws are heavily weighted in favour of the copyright owner. Apparently, in the early days of copyright in the US, copyright lasted only for 14 years, as compared to 70 years nowadays. In Australia, copyright ownership is even more generous, lasting for 70 years from the death of the author.

I was shocked to discover that there is currently a pirating website from which you can download the entire current issue of Fine Woodworking. It would be a pity if the magazine were to be put out of business by this piracy. On the other hand, I do think that current copyright law is much too generous to the author. I wonder if any other method of rewarding authors appropriately for their work could be found.

Rocker

That's rhetoric even before you've read the first sentence. Read the by-line "The ever-growing empire produces nothing but seems determined to control everything"

This silly hack, first rants about Scribd.com, which has nothing to do with Google, and more over, the main subject of the article as indicated by the headline and by-line. It's merely a pathetic attempt at making rhetorical device to associate guilt to google.

Quote:

---

One case emerged last week when a letter from Billy Bragg, Robin Gibb and other songwriters was published in the Times explaining that Google was playing very rough with those who appeared on its subsidiary, YouTube. When the Performing Rights Society demanded more money for music videos streamed from the website, Google reacted by refusing to pay the requested 0.22p per play and took down the videos of the artists concerned.

---

It's their website and property, so if they don't want to sign contracts for material, then get accused of being tyrannical? Note that the keyword here which is:

Quote:

---

When the Performing Rights Society demanded more money for music videos streamed from the website

---

Henry Porter, this means, that the artists put terms towards Google/Youtube. Youtube didn't pull down their videos tyrannically. the artists simply priced themselves out of the market with threats (of which youtube owns a majority).

0.22p per play is a lot of money, considering that these videos get anywhere from thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of plays. Consider that these companies can artificially inflate the amount of plays, they can effectively and legally cheat google out of tons of money.

Google actually complied with the artists by taking down videos, and then the artists complained about their own self made predicament...

Seriously, this hack of a opinion columnist doesn't even understand that his own language as it is written, because it actually disagrees with his own opinion.

Google simply made a wise decision to deny the artists terms.

Quote:

---

It does this with impunity because it is dominant worldwide and knows the songwriters have nowhere else to go. Google is the portal to a massive audience: you comply with its terms or feel the weight of its boot on your windpipe.

---

What rubbish. There are plenty of other options elsewhere, youtube just has the enterprise to be the number one video site on the web.

Youtube is a promotional tool, to get an audience and promote.
That is youtube's business model. Nor does youtube's success originate from music videos.

They do not run a monopoly from their implicit popularity. That is a silly myth.

He complains about an invasion of privacy....well streets are public places...why doesn't he complain about his own nanny state and its overboard 1984 style CCTV invasion of privacy?

This guy should stick to the latte socialism/ bonoist left-wing yuppiedom only by keeping it in those trendalite cafes.

In Australia, copyright law is set out in the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act), which I use on my work with an attribute given to my business as the creator of the artwork, be it printed or on the web.

The most recent amendment to it was Dec 5 2006, with all material found on the internet is generally protected under copyright law.

Material that is protected includes:
• written material – including e-books,website text, newspaper articles, emails, computer programs and song lyrics;
• dramatic works – including plays, danceand mime;
• musical works – including musical scores;
• artistic works – paintings, drawings, photographs and computer graphics;
• films – including streaming video footage and television programmes; and
• sound recordings – including compact discs and MP3 files.

The full article can be found at http://www.copyright.com.au/info%20s...20internet.pdf

If current copyright law wasn't weighted to the creator, then I and anyone else who has something on the net is in trouble. Not that I can raise the funds to get a copyright lawyer to pursue any infringement.

Not calling the kettle black, because I also have downloaded various things off the net, it's akin to recording something off the tv. :shrug:

Copyright law genrally works to the benefit of the publishing houses and not the original authors.

eg, Will Mallof wrote the bible of chainsaw milling many years ago which has sold many thousands of copies but he has not even recovered his out of pocket expenses.

Depends, on my government clients I have to assign copyright ownership over to them, whereas they pay to assign my intellectual copyright to them.

On all other clients I maintain and have ownership to all copyright inclusive of intellectual copyright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

Depends, on my government clients I have to assign copyright ownership over to them, whereas they pay to assign my intellectual copyright to them.

On all other clients I maintain and have ownership to all copyright inclusive of intellectual copyright.

---

That's pretty schmick. I could never get that over here as the work was always classed as Work for Hire, which meant I gave up the copyright to the client as soon as he paid me (though not the intellectual rights). Good onya. :)

Some clients understand that work involves more than artwork, and although it's a bit intangible, that I add value which is intellectual copyright.

One client balked big time and I backed off, but I find that the savy people in business understand the value behind the process behind the work.

Reading How magazine ages ago I came across Work for Hire and thought it presented a bit of a stumbling block.

My contract work for a state Govt. department varies. In my current contract, all work, intellectual property, methods I devise etc. become their intellectual property, and also of the commonwealth government which funded the work. However, when I run courses for them, the intellectual property remains mine Even though they get copies (watermarked) of all course materials, they aren't allowed to use them to run their own courses.

Copyright in the US currently exists for 95 - 120 years (it was extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, as it came into force shortly before Mickey Mouse became public domain).

Personally, I'd have let the artists have a share in the profits from YouTube; which is looking at a half-billion dollar loss this year. Maybe bill them for bandwidth and storage costs??

And 0.22p per play? If they want to earn more money, they can go out touring. I'm not still getting paid for work I produced ten years ago, so I don't see why they should!

The complaint about Google, from sources other than the beat-up article mentioned, is that they have come to some sort of arrangement with a few libraries and a few publishers, for Google to claim effective ownership of ALL 'orphan' publications - the ones where the publisher has disappeared and the author is unable/too hard to contact.

Google then gets to scan these publications into its storage & charge everyone for access. I believe at this stage they 'promise' to let the public access 20% or something like that of the works without paying, and access the whole work thru' a library IF the library is paying Google an access fee. Otherwise you have to pay-to-read, like paying Amazon for an electronic download of a book - no mention of any sort of DRM being imposed, at this time.

Further, the agreement seems to give Google a monopoly on these works, although that is still untested by a court. Several US organisations are challenging the legality of Google's arrangements.