US appeals court rules Google's book-scanning project is legal

[Dulin's Books]

i saw it first at http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/16/g...canning-legal/

but they are linking the source at Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...source=twitter

2nd US Circuit Court in New York says it's fair use and a public service

A unanimous three-judge appeals panel said the case "tests the boundaries of fair use," but found Google's practices were ultimately allowed under the law.

"Google’s division of the page into tiny snippets is designed to show the searcher just enough context surrounding the searched term to help her evaluate whether the book falls within the scope of her interest (without revealing so much as to threaten the author’s copyright interests)," Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court.

[Pablo]

"Google’s division of the page into tiny snippets is designed to show the searcher just enough context surrounding the searched term to help her evaluate whether the book falls within the scope of her interest (without revealing so much as to threaten the author’s copyright interests)," Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court.

That's not very accurate, as for many copyrighted books it's possible to see several whole pages.

That said, I believe Google Books is a fantastic project that cannot be linked to piracy in any way. No sales are lost due to Google Books, that's pretty obvious.

[Ninjalawyer]

I'm looking forward to the (predictably) hysterical news release from the Authors Guild.

[DiapDealer]

But they could get hacked. And then all of the books in the world would be available for free everywhere for everybody.

[Turtle91]

Can't really base laws penalizing someone off of what "could be" or else we would all be in a prison cell for something we could do... didn't they make a movie (and now a tv show) about that...

A different argument would be...anyone could get hacked...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm looking forward to the (predictably) hysterical news release from the Authors Guild.

I wouldn't say hysterical. How about displeased?

https://www.authorsguild.org/industr...-high-and-dry/

We trust that the Supreme Court will see fit to correct the Second Circuit’s reductive understanding of fair use, and to recognize Google’s seizure of property as a serious threat to writers and their livelihoods, one which will affect the depth, resilience and vitality of our intellectual culture.”

Will the published authors on the court recuse themselves? Not likely. Too few justices would be left. But that seems to me a good reason not to take the case.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wouldn't say hysterical. How about displeased?

https://www.authorsguild.org/industr...-high-and-dry/



Will the published authors on the court recuse themselves? Not likely. Too few justices would be left. But that seems to me a good reason not to take the case.

The assumption that Judges are going to act in their own self interests in preference to the law comes up quite frequently on these forums, and is simply not justified in almost all cases. I'm not sure if you believe published authors on the Court should recuse themselves in this instance. However, I doubt it would matter, even if all Judges were prepared to act in such a fashion. I suspect that any traditionally published judge, no matter how eminent and respected, is making a similar pittance to most other traditionally published authors. Even for a Judge prepared to act in such a fashion, there is just not enough money involved!

The resistance to what Google is trying to do here is a classic example of intellectual property laws, at least as big publishing wants them interpreted, acting against the public interest.

[conan50]

Excellent.
Copyright has been so blown out of proportion from what it was originally intended to be.

The purpose of the law is to provide an incentive for people to create artistic works because doing this benefits society—and ultimately, the social benefit of Google Books outweighed the infringement aspect.

http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-fair-use/

[kennyc]

Excellent and Great News!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm looking forward to the (predictably) hysterical news release from the Authors Guild.

Yep....

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

The assumption that Judges are going to act in their own self interests in preference to the law comes up quite frequently on these forums, and is simply not justified in almost all cases.

I wasn't saying they would act in self-interest, or suggesting that they recuse themselves. Mentioning that there can be recusals when there is financial self-interest involved wasn't meant to say they should recuse themselves. Here's the problem with the recusal theory: It's far more likely they would act in accord with their political predilections than financial ones.

In a case like this, where there's no clear liberal or conservative position, it would impossible to predict how justices would vote. However, well, they are political appointees.

Originally Posted by darryl

I suspect that any traditionally published judge, no matter how eminent and respected, is making a similar pittance to most other traditionally published authors.

Justice Thomas received a $1.5 million advance

Sotomayor’s Book Advances From Knopf Surpass $3 Million

Originally Posted by darryl

The resistance to what Google is trying to do here is a classic example of intellectual property laws, at least as big publishing wants them interpreted, acting against the public interest.

If the publishers win in the end, I agree with that! I like the Google book search, I've used the results in posts here, and it doesn't have anything to do with my buying, or not buying, anything.

There's no circuit split, and so no reason for the Supremes to butt in. I hope they leave as is.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wasn't saying they would act in self-interest, or suggesting that they recuse themselves. Mentioning that there can be recusals when there is financial self-interest involved wasn't meant to say they should recuse themselves. Here's the problem with the recusal theory: It's far more likely they would act in accord with their political predilections than financial ones.

In a case like this, where there's no clear liberal or conservative position, it would impossible to predict how justices would vote. However, well, they are political appointees.



Justice Thomas received a $1.5 million advance

Sotomayor’s Book Advances From Knopf Surpass $3 Million



If the publishers win in the end, I agree with that! I like the Google book search, I've used the results in posts here, and it doesn't have anything to do with my buying, or not buying, anything.

There's no circuit split, and so no reason for the Supremes to butt in. I hope they leave as is.

Thanks Steve. A very reasonable and informative response. I wasn't aware of the level of advances paid to the Judges as per your links, as I would not have thought advances of this level on these types of books would be economic. Thank you for curing my ignorance in this regard. Given this level of pecuniary interest it is quite legitimate to at least raise the issue of recusal, not because of any doubts about the integrity of the Judges in question, but simply because of the principle of perceived bias which comes into play in these circumstances. Justice not only must be done, but must be seen to be done.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this matter, which seems to be the likely result. In which case, of course, the law would have worked in this instance, at least in both your opinion and my own.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

A different argument would be...anyone could get hacked...

Just ask Lizzie Borden's Father and Step Mother.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

Thanks Steve. A very reasonable and informative response. I wasn't aware of the level of advances paid to the Judges as per your links, as I would not have thought advances of this level on these types of books would be economic. Thank you for curing my ignorance in this regard. Given this level of pecuniary interest it is quite legitimate to at least raise the issue of recusal, not because of any doubts about the integrity of the Judges in question, but simply because of the principle of perceived bias which comes into play in these circumstances. Justice not only must be done, but must be seen to be done.

Given, though, that every Surpreme Court Judge is almost certainly a published author, whom do you suggest should try the case if all the judges rule themselves out?

[darryl]

Quite frankly, Harry, I think that most if not all of the Judges are probably quite capable of dealing with any biases they may have. Before I had looked at Steve's links I had thought it was stretching things to even raise the issue, as all Judges are human beings and have their biases. But part of being a Judge is learning to deal with this, and I think the vast majority succeed for the most part. However, given this level of pecuniary interest, I think it is legitimate to raise the question, and for each Judge to consider it. It may well be that it is impossible to avoid a perception of bias in this situation. I can't conceive of the situation where all judges recuse themselves, and don't know how the law would deal with this situation.