Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
So if Google can make a copy of someone's work without permission does that mean that it will be legal to make dark net copies of books? It's copying a book without permission in both cases. Legalizing one would seem to legalize the other. And what of the poor author who doesn't have the $$ to sue a big corporation like Google? Where is their legal redress?
|
But that's not really what this is about. They aren't invalidating the claims or deciding the case, only stating that it was improper to approve class action status until after they assess the validity of Google's fair use defense. Not all cases qualify for class certification.
As for comparing it to the darknet, the big difference is distribution. The darknet contains copies made specifically for complete distribution to others. Google isn't distributing whole books, except for those in public domain. They provide snippets of the content to people based on search.
There are multiple issues here - the initial copying of the works, the end display to users, and the disputed "orphan works" issue, among others. The Fair Use defense revolves around the content that users of the database have access to, and whether or not Google should be permitted to maintain copies in order to provide that content.