If the Authors Guild was really interested in supporting authors, it would be in favour of book digitization, rather than wasting more money with an appeal that will likely prove fruitless and only serve to strengthen the precedent set by this case.
Just for fun, here's a snippet from the judgement that demonstrates the calibre of some of the Guild's arguments:
Quote:
Plaintiffs argue that Google Books will negatively impact the market for books and that Google's scans will serve as a "market replacement" for books. [The complaint] also argues that users could put in multiple searches, varying slightly the search terms, to access an entire book.
Neither suggestion makes sense. Google does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books. While partner libraries have the ability to download a scan of a book from their collections, they owned the books already—they provided the original book to Google to scan. Nor is it likely that someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book.
|