The Ethics of Private Property: Google & the Courts

I was commenting on YOUR statements that advocated judicial activism.

I will explain again so you will understand:



You are announcing you are "fine" with federal copyright laws if those laws protect the copyright owner in the manner you desire.

You are announcing, if federal copyright laws do NOT protect the copyright owner in the manner you desire, then you want the judge to ignore the law, substitute his own judgment for that of the legislature's judgment, and rule upon "higher principles." You are encouraging "judicial activism," which is the very evil you that you allegedly abhor.

Even though copyright laws may affect your interest in your own creative work, so long as copyright laws are rationally related to a legitimate government interest (promoting the arts and sciences), copyright laws are constitutional. So long as the copyright laws are constitutional, our courts do not have the power (in the pursuit of "higher principles") to ignore the laws enacted by Congress and substitute the (unelected) judgment of judges for the (elected) judgment of Congress

Your debate ASSUMES that Google is ignoring copyright law--it assumes a fact that has yet to be proven.

At this point in time, Google's use of a copyright owner's work in its library program is merely ALLEGED to be in violation of federal copyright laws. Neither you nor I are in possession of all the relevant facts and circumstances that would allow us to objectively apply the relevant law to the relevant facts and circumstances and speculate concerning the outcome of the litigation.

If it is proven that Google is violating the law, Google will be held accountable in a court of law and the copyright owners will be entitled to remedies and damages allowed by law.





It is very difficult to engage in a discussion concerning judicial protection of an owner's copyright without any reference to the actual copyright law that applies. Inasmuch as you're not interested in applying real life legal principles but would rather discuss the principles of property as you imagine them to be, you have rendered it impossible to discuss this topic within the confines of any logical parameters.





See my posts above. Copyright laws do not allow an alleged copyright infringer to post anything an alleged infringer pleases on the internet.

Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty (no special abilities necessary) that no judge would ever rule that Google can post whatever it pleases without first obtaining permission from the owners of the intellectual property. A judge would rule that Google may only post what is allowed to be posted by law. Therefore, your doomsday predictions about a judge making such a ridiculous ruling contrary to the law are akin to the little red hen running around and warning everyone that the sky is falling.




Locke believed that all persons were entitled to their share of nature's bounty of berries as was necessary for their survival and no more. Locke abhored waste as a transgression against the common good. Locke believed that it was within the political power of the state to regulate property for the common good. It is upon the consent of the governed that Congress regulates intellectual property by granting copyright owners a bundle of exclusive rights subject to specified limitations and exceptions to promote the arts and sciences for the common good. I am unable to discern any merits to an argument that Congressional regulation of intellectual property through copyright laws somehow deprives a copyright owner of his property without due process of law.

And you know me, Foxfyre. If I discovered an arbitrary governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property, I would be the first one to complain. In my opinion, copyright laws provide copyright owners with substantial protection and I am confident that our courts will protect copyright owners to fullest extent of law in the Google litigation. If Google is engaging in unfair use of the copyright owners' works in violation of the law, I have no doubt that our courts will provide the copyright owners with appropriate remedies and damages.

I think we should give our courts a fair opportunity to do their job with respect to the Google litigation before we rush to condemn for perceived injustices that have not yet occurred and may never occur.




Protection of intellectual property dates back several centuries. Did you check the link that Thomas provided to the "Founders Constitution?" Locke would consider intellectual property rights to be within the political power of government to regulate.

I agree with some of Debra's points and admire her expertise in presenting them. I don't agree that she always accurately concludes what I think or mean. I have already admitted I am not qualified to debate fine points of copyright law. I am, however, quite qualified to debate issues of right and wrong where private property is concerned. And I do not have the confidence in the courts to do the right thing that Debra usually holds. (Then again, Debra, you and I have been on the same side of an issue or two where we both felt the court screwed up.)

This issue is not going away:

Reining in Google
By Pat Schroeder/Bob Barr
November 3, 2005

You're probably reading the byline above and wondering, "What could these two, from opposite sides of the aisle in Congress, possibly have in common with each other?"

The answer is when it comes to Google's Print Library Project we have much in common: We're both authors and both believe intellectual property should actually mean something.

And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion company bent on unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit and in turn denying publishers and authors the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

Internet behemoth Google, plans to launch their Library project in November. It plans to scan the entire contents of the Stanford, Harvard and University of Michigan libraries and make what it calls "snippets" of the works available online, for free.

The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A chapter? A whole book? Meanwhile Google will gain a huge new revenue stream by selling ad space on library search results. Selling ads on its search engine is how Google makes 99 percent of its billions.

Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is also crushing creativity. If publishers and authors have to spend all their time policing Google for works they have already written, it is hard to create more. Our laws say if you wish to copy someone's work, you must get their permission. Google wants to trash that.

Google's position essentially amounts to a license to steal, so long as it returns the loot upon a formal request by their victims. This is precisely why Google's argument has no basis in U.S. intellectual property law or jurisprudence. Just because Google is huge, it should not be allowed to change the law.

Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has argued the "fair use" provision in copyright law allows Google to scan copyrighted books and put them on their Web site without seeking permission. He compares this to someone at home taping a television show and watching it later. Taped TV show are watched in millions of households every night and is quite legal; rebroadcasting that show to make a buck is not.

Next time Dr. Schmidt watches television, he should keep his ears open for the common disclaimer "rebroadcast of this program without the express written consent of" the broadcaster is "prohibited." Google's plans are tantamount to the same thing, profiting from someone else's work without permission. It isn't up to the broadcaster to track down someone profiting from their work, why should it be up to publishers and authors to do so?

Authors may be the first targets in Google's drive to make the intellectual property of others a cost-free inventory for delivery of its ad content, but we will hardly be the last. Media companies, engineering firms, software designers, architects, scientists, manufacturers, entertainers and professional services firms all produce products that could easily be considered for "fair use" by Google.

Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of course, it controls the portal through which Internet user's access that content. It would completely devalue everyone else's property and massively increase the value of its own.

The company contends it will allow authors of copyrighted works to "opt-out" of the free online library by notifying Google they don't want their works online. Most authors and publishers do not know who bought their books. And have you ever tried to get a live person on the phone at an Internet company?

And so, five publishing companies on behalf of the entire publishing industry and the Author's Guild have filed two major lawsuits against Google seeking to stop this plan and deter such conduct in the future.

Politically, we may not agree on much. But on this, we can both agree: These lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual property. To see it any other way is intellectually dishonest.

Pat Schroeder is president of the Association of American Publishers and a former member of Congress from Colorado. Bob Barr, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee, is an author, newspaper columnist and analyst for CNN.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20051102-093349-7482r.htm

Google Print -- Library Project




Copyright analysis:
http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf

So either Jonathan Band is right or those filing suit are right. It will be interesting to watch the outcome.