Infreemation infreemation

Are search engines illegal?搜索引擎是非法的？ The challenge of accessing copyrighted material under fair use and how it impacts our education.挑战访问版权保护的材料，根据公平使用，以及它如何影响我们的教育。

Following the debate on以下的辩论 fair use公平使用 is a great way to dive into information economics.是一个伟大的方式潜入的信息经济学。 We all know and love that various kinds of media (audio, video, print…) are used to create songs, movies and books (or more generally “works”).我们都知道和热爱，各种媒体（音频，视频，打印… … ）是用来建立歌曲，电影和书籍（或更普遍的“工程” ） 。 These information creations are economically important as they are often targeted at a specific market for profit or at least sold to cover the costs of production.这些资料的创作是经济重要，因为它们往往是针对特定市场的利润，或至少出售，以支付的生产成本。 Copyright law著作权法 is designed to incent the creation of new works by legally restricting the ways in which we use them - for example I am allowed to quote a passage from a book I bought without getting permission, but I can’t photocopy large portions of the book to distribute them (without permission) since I might put the author out of a job - and that isn’t good for the creator or the consumer.旨在incent创造新的作品，在法律上限制的方式在这方面，我们使用它们-例如，我让引述通过从一本书，我买了没有得到许可的，但我不能影印很大一部分图书分发他们（未经允许） ，因为我可能提出的作者列一份工作-这是没有好处的创造者或消费者。
Modern technology makes it very现代科技使很 easy to copy someone else’s work and even easier to distribute it容易复制别人的工作和更容易分发 , leading to the controversy about ，导致争议 peer-to-peer点对点 software which软件 rights holders blame for not making as much money as they think they should权利持有人的责任，不是作为多钱，因为他们认为他们应 . 。 This concern has prompted the rights holders to adopt yet another class of technologies called这方面的关注，促使权利人采取的又一类的所谓技术 Digital Rights Management or DRM数字版权管理或数字版权管理 which are as这是作为 fatally flawed致命的缺陷 as the reasoning behind banning作为背后的理由，禁止 peer-to-peer networks点对点网络 and making ISPs liable for illegal activities on the internet.互联网服务供应商和决策责任的非法活动在互联网上。

Lawrence Lessig劳伦斯莱斯格 ’s engaging (as usual)奇摩从事（一切如常） presentation on the Google Print debate介绍了关于Google Print的辩论 (now called “ （现在称为“ Google Book Search Google图书搜索 “) makes an extremely interesting point: If Google either needs to obtain the permission of the rights holders before indexing their works or is not allowed to profit from such indexing , as the Author’s Guild and the publishers contend in separate lawsuits, then search engines are not a legal business model (since they index copyrighted content on the internet without permission and profit from their ability to provide links to that content in search results). “ ）作出了非常有趣的一点： 如果Google或者需要获得许可的权利持有人之前，索引他们的作品或是不容许的利润，例如索引 ，作为作者的作家协会和出版商争鸣在单独的诉讼， 然后搜索引擎是不是一个法律的商业模式 （因为他们指数受版权保护的内容在互联网上，未经允许和利润从他们的能力，提供链接的内容在搜索结果中） 。 This would be a pretty big deal indeed but please这将是一个相当大不了，但事实上，请 don’t panic不要惊慌 - it would appear that Lessig has some compelling arguments why search engines such as this book search would fall under “fair use” which doesn’t require permission and can be the basis of profitable ventures . -这样看来，莱斯格有一些令人信服的论据，为什么搜索引擎，像这样的图书搜索将属于“公平使用”不需要许可，并可以根据有利可图的合资企业。 Fair use protects my ability to use small portions of a work for critical purposes, or create derivative works including parodies which are an important tool for social commentary.合理使用，保护我的能力，使用一小部分工作的关键用途，或制作衍生作品，包括模仿，这是一个很重要的工具，社会评论。 Fair use would allow me to publish公平使用将请允许我发布 some favorite quotations一些最喜爱的报价 . 。 I’m no constitutional expert but I find it unlikely that democracy can work effectively without fair use since criticism relies on use of original materials for full effect.我不是宪法专家，但我觉得这不大可能，民主，可以有效地开展工作，没有公平使用以来，批评依赖于使用原来的材料充分发挥作用。
Therefore, assuming that the Google Book Search service will conform legally to the fair use doctrine as would appear to be the case, there is no reason to require Google to (1) obtain permission to include books (2) not profit from the service.因此，假设Google图书搜索服务将符合法律，以合理使用原则作为似乎是如此，是没有理由要求Google在（ 1 ）获得许可，包括书籍（ 2 ）没有利润，从服务。 This assumes of course that all the materials indexed are legally acquired - in this case all of the books are the property of research libraries who are allowing Google to perform the indexing.这个假设当然，所有材料索引是合法获得的-在这种情况下的所有书籍都是财产研究图书馆谁是允许G oogle执行索引。
So what’s going on here, why the debate? 因此，什么事在这里，为什么辩论？

It would appear that the right to fair use is being undermined by folks who don’t care that copyright doesn’t work in a free and democratic society unless there is a balance between the rights of the creators and the rights of the consumers .这样看来，权利的公平使用的是被破坏的，由乡亲谁不关心版权不工作，在一个自由和民主的社会，除非有两者之间取得平衡的权利，创作者和消费者的权益 。 Furthermore it would appear that these “folks” who I am singling out are predominately rights holders eager to preserve the lucrative status quo, despite the strong likelihood that they may此外，这样看来，这些“乡亲”我是谁挑出来，是主要的权利持有人急于保留有利可图的现状，尽管强烈的可能性，他们可能 stand to gain significantly from projects such as Google Book Search的立场，获得显着的项目，如Google图书搜索 . 。 The most reliable method I use to find many of the books that I purchase is to search through the content.最可靠的方法，我用找到的许多图书，我购买是通过搜索的内容。 Typically this is a time consuming manual process at a bookstore.通常，这是一个耗时的手动过程在一个书店。 Amazon亚马逊 ’s metadata is useful but their taxonomy can be limiting and many books of interest never show up in my searches.奇摩元数据是有用的，但他们的分类，可以限制和许多书籍的兴趣从来没有显示出来，在我的搜查。

There is a larger issue than my selfish desire to build my own library: how can we ensure a depth and richness of education if the restrictions of fair use render educators and creators unable to access and use the bulk of published works?有一个更大的问题比我的私欲，建立自己的图书馆：我们如何能够确保的深度和丰富的教育如果限制合理使用，使教育工作者和创作者无法获得和使用大量出版的作品？ The position of both the the author’s guild and the association of publishers strike me as fundamentally opposed to encouraging and promoting education.的立场，双方作者的作家协会和协会出版商罢工我作为从根本上反对以鼓励和促进教育。 The Author’s Guild and the Association of Publishers need to educate themselves before they create restrictions which both harm society and our ability to find the books we are looking for.作者的作家协会和协会出版商需要教育自己之前，他们创造的限制，既危害社会和我们有能力找到的书籍我们正在寻找。