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.挑戰訪問版權保護的材料，根據公平使用，以及它如何影響我們的教育。

Following the debate on以下的辯論 fair use公平使用 is a great way to dive into information economics.是一個偉大的方式潛入的信息經濟學。 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”).我們都知道和熱愛，各種媒體（音頻，視頻，打印… … ）是用來建立歌曲，電影和書籍（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.這些資料的創作是經濟重要，因為它們往往是針對特定市場的利潤，或至少出售，以支付的生產成本。 Copyright law著作權法 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創造新的作品，在法律上限制的方式在這方面，我們使用它們-例如，我讓引述通過從一本書，我買了沒有得到許可的，但我不能影印很大一部分圖書分發他們（未經允許） ，因為我可能提出的作者列一份工作-這是沒有好處的創造者或消費者。
Modern technology makes it very現代科技使很 easy to copy someone else’s work and even easier to distribute it容易複製別人的工作和更容易分發 , leading to the controversy about ，導致爭議 peer-to-peer點對點 software which軟件 rights holders blame for not making as much money as they think they should權利持有人的責任，不是作為多錢，因為他們認為他們應 . 。 This concern has prompted the rights holders to adopt yet another class of technologies called這方面的關注，促使權利人採取的又一類的所謂技術 Digital Rights Management or DRM數字版權管理或數字版權管理 which are as這是作為 fatally flawed致命的缺陷 as the reasoning behind banning作為背後的理由，禁止 peer-to-peer networks點對點網絡 and making ISPs liable for illegal activities on the internet.互聯網服務供應商和決策責任的非法活動在互聯網上。

Lawrence Lessig勞倫斯萊斯格 ’s engaging (as usual)奇摩從事（一切如常） presentation on the Google Print debate介紹了關於Google Print的辯論 (now called “ （現在稱為“ Google Book Search Google圖書搜索 “) 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點： 如果Google或者需要獲得許可的權利持有人之前，索引他們的作品或是不容許的利潤，例如索引 ，作為作者的作家協會和出版商爭鳴在單獨的訴訟， 然後搜索引擎是不是一個法律的商業模式 （因為他們指數受版權保護的內容在互聯網上，未經允許和利潤從他們的能力，提供鏈接的內容在搜索結果中） 。 This would be a pretty big deal indeed but please這將是一個相當大不了，但事實上，請 don’t panic不要驚慌 - 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 . -這樣看來，萊斯格有一些令人信服的論據，為什麼搜索引擎，像這樣的圖書搜索將屬於“公平使用”不需要許可，並可以根據有利可圖的合資企業。 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，保護我的能力，使用一小部分工作的關鍵用途，或製作衍生作品，包括模仿，這是一個很重要的工具，社會評論。 Fair use would allow me to publish公平使用將請允許我發布 some favorite quotations一些最喜愛的報價 . 。 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.我不是憲法專家，但我覺得這不大可能，民主，可以有效地開展工作，沒有公平使用以來，批評依賴於使用原來的材料充分發揮作用。
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，假設Google圖書搜索服務將符合法律，以合理使用原則作為似乎是如此，是沒有理由要求Google在（ 1 ）獲得許可，包括書籍（ 2 ）沒有利潤，從服務。 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.這個假設當然，所有材料索引是合法獲得的-在這種情況下的所有書籍都是財產研究圖書館誰是允許G oogle執行索引。
So what’s going on here, why the debate? 因此，什麼事在這裡，為什麼辯論？

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 .這樣看來，權利的公平使用的是被破壞的，由鄉親誰不關心版權不工作，在一個自由和民主的社會，除非有兩者之間取得平衡的權利，創作者和消費者的權益 。 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，這樣看來，這些“鄉親”我是誰挑出來，是主要的權利持有人急於保留有利可圖的現狀，儘管強烈的可能性，他們可能 stand to gain significantly from projects such as Google Book Search的立場，獲得顯著的項目，如Google圖書搜索 . 。 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，我用找到的許多圖書，我購買是通過搜索的內容。 Typically this is a time consuming manual process at a bookstore.通常，這是一個耗時的手動過程在一個書店。 Amazon亞馬遜 ’s metadata is useful but their taxonomy can be limiting and many books of interest never show up in my searches.奇摩元數據是有用的，但他們的分類，可以限制和許多書籍的興趣從來沒有顯示出來，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?有一個更大的問題比我的私慾，建立自己的圖書館：我們如何能夠確保的深度和豐富的教育如果限制合理使用，使教育工作者和創作者無法獲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.的立場，雙方作者的作家協會和協會出版商罷工我作為從根本上反對以鼓勵和促進教育。 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.作者的作家協會和協會出版商需要教育自己之前，他們創造的限制，既危害社會和我們有能力找到的書籍我們正在尋找。