Google defeats authors in U.S. book-scanning lawsuit

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

BY JONATHAN STEMPEL
NEW YORK Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:53pm EST

(Reuters) - Google Inc on Thursday won dismissal of a long-running lawsuit by authors who accused the Internet search company of digitally copying millions of books for an online library without permission.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan accepted Google's argument that its scanning of more than 20 million books, and making "snippets" of text available online, constituted "fair use" under U.S. copyright law.

The decision, if it survives an expected appeal, would let Google continue expanding the library, which it said helps readers find books they might not otherwise locate.

It is also turning point for litigation that began in 2005, when authors and publishers sued. Google has estimated it could owe more than $3 billion if the Authors Guild, an advocacy group that demanded $750 for each scanned book, prevailed.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-google-books-idUSBRE9AD0TT20131114

[PoliticAverse]

1. Good to see 'fair use' win a victory...

'fair use' was part of DU's counterclaim in Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven_LLC_v._Democratic_Underground_LLC

[MicaelS]

2. Good. Copyright has been so twisted out of shape..

It is good to see some common sense once in a while.

[Martak Sarno]

3. Laws?

SO...I guess this means we can all copy copyrighted music and movies from discs to safely store them so long as we only look and listen to "snippets?"

Another law circumvented for the benefit of the 1%.

Maybe we don't need no stinking laws!

[dbackjon]

4. If they are scanning for their search engine

I think this is a correct call.

[shraby]

5. The copyright law should revert to its earlier form instead of tying written works

and music up for longer than 75 years. 75 years for a copyright is more than enough time for someone to make their money from their work. Things tend to totally drop out of sight and disappear after 50 years.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Apparently some publishers are using the copyright law to keep older works off the market...

so they don't compete with their more recent releases.

[MicaelS]

9. 25 years is plenty long enough.

You can't make money in 25 years off something, too bad.

[Dash87]

6. You can under fair use. Just not the whole thing.

I don't know what the reasonable limit is, but you can take snippets of stuff and use them under fair use. I think the purpose of the usage matters too.

[penultimate]

11. How does it only benefit the 1% but not everyone else? Also, how does it harm the authors?

[Incitatus]

8. I don't see why authors would oppose this.

Google's argument makes sense. It gives the authors exposure and makes their work more searchable to prospective customers. I can see why publishing companies might oppose it. It would make it easier for authors to create and sell their own ebooks and cut the publishing company's share out of the equation.

[penultimate]

10. Confused me too, well, until I thought about it. They probably don't oppose the concept at all

but they just want to make money from it. At least that would be my best guess. Kinda dickish of the authors if that's the case, because it does seem like it does them a service.