Google wins their book-scanning case

Status
Not open for further replies.

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
The judge ruled fair use, essentially.

US Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the book scanning amounted to fair use because it was “highly transformative” and because it didn’t harm the market for the original work.

“Google Books provides significant public benefits,” Chin wrote, describing it as “an essential research tool” and noting that the scanning service has expanded literary access for the blind and helped preserve the text of old books from physical decay.

Chin also rejected the theory that Google was depriving authors of income, noting that the company does not sell the scans or make whole copies of books available. He concluded, instead, that Google Books served to help readers discover new books and amounted to “new income from authors.”

I agree with the judge, and I think the Authors' Guild has been rather... quixotic.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Google needs to be sure that it's respecting copyright, but I've always had the impression that it's done exactly that.

And yeah, I'm with blacbird on expecting this to appeal all the way up.
 

jjdebenedictis

is watching you via her avatar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,063
Reaction score
1,642
I haven't been keeping up with the specifics of the case, so my apologies if I'm saying something bone-headed and ill-informed here, but I suspect the Author's Guild is more worried about this being a slippery slope that makes more overtly problematic behaviours harder to combat.

Copyright law is meant to protect authors while still allowing society the greatest possible benefit from using their art, i.e. you don't want to lock things up so that only the person who bought the book is allowed to look at it, but you also don't want the content so freely available that no one bothers to buy the book.

I think Google Books provides a great service to society and probably won't do much harm to the artists. Thus, I have to agree with the judge's ruling.
 
Last edited:

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Google needs to be sure that it's respecting copyright, but I've always had the impression that it's done exactly that.

And yeah, I'm with blacbird on expecting this to appeal all the way up.

To be honest, I think it's less about Google respecting copyright than just saying, hey, let's scan the books and sort out the legal rights and wrongs later. They were on the hook for billions in damages if the chips fell the other way, but they can afford it, and they believed (as I do) that the social utility of the project would be enough to tip the scales in the long run.

Compare the Google Street View project - they went around photographing everything, and hoovering up broadcast Wifi data, and eventually were sanctioned for the latter - they overstepped the bounds of what the courts would accept, and you could interpret that as a lack of respect for privacy. But the result is a much better maps/location services for everyone, and the Wifi stuff didn't appear to end up hurting anyone. (I think it was probably right to slap them on the wrist, but accept they did a good and useful thing in the long run.)
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
If you don't own the copyright, leave book the hell alone. Google is as bad as Amazon. Maybe worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.