Comment by danjoc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danjoc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>The difference is that Google isn't pirating the book.

Neither is Amazon as I understand it.

>It is being hosted on Google Docs.

Amazon is just printing the book.

>This is no different than if someone put the PDF on Dropbox and made it public.

This is exactly what's happening on Amazon. Someone uploaded the pirated file, as their own. Amazon is simply printing the book, and helping you find it via a search interface. I'm still failing to see a distinction here between what Google and Amazon are doing, beyond the fact that Google's approach is digital, and therefore zero cost.

Both Google and Amazon benefit from the piracy. Amazon directly through sale of product, Google directly through search ad revenue. Both Google and Amazon provide the platform for the piracy. Both Google and Amazon provide search discovery for the pirated product.

Analogies are dangerous, but perhaps one will help here.

The book on Google Docs is similar to someone's cocaine falling out of their pocket and hiding in your couch cushions. You didn't know it was there, and when your partner finds it, you flush it.

The book being printed by Amazon is you finding the bag of coke, cutting it and selling it, splitting the take with your friend.

I'll note that "benefit from" is a construction that can do a huge amount of work. I have "benefited from" some truly horrific historic crimes, despite having nothing to do with them (or even having been born yet). I bet you have, too.

Using less attenuated language that makes clear what's going on is a lot more convincing. It also tends to expose differences, like what is going on here.

Both absolutely would be copyright violations ("pirating the book"), but what Google is doing (until it recieves a proper takedown notice, and even after that assuming it properly complies) is within the DMCA safe harbor. Amazon's action has no comparable safe harbor, because digital hosting of user-submitted content is protected, but hardcopy printing and distribution is not.

Is Google profiting by the piracy of this book? Also, doesn't Amazon get a cut of this seller's sales? So it would seem Amazon is profiting from this piracy.

this is reductive to the point of being meaningless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com