Supreme Court won’t hear case against Google Books

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

Are any of these books current fiction book under copyright. Personally if I was an author with a lot of blacklist titles not being released these days would ask google for the ocr text and release them as ebooks.

What would you need Google for? You could just do that your self.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I agree with you with a caveat.
The author should have the option of saying: Google do not show any part of my book.

That is already an option.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

That is already an option.

Bah. Pushovers.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ottdmk

I'm not saying they're right. I think Google has found a clever way to extend their search brand while staying within the bounds of fair use. But I can sympathize as to why some authors might feel this doesn't pass the sniff test.

That's the thing about the sniff test -- it's only as accurate as the person doing the sniffing.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

No,
The authors should pay Google for the free advertising.
If I can search Google and find a cool quote from a book, maybe I will buy the book.

Google does have the right to demand money in exchange for the advertising.
And if the authors don't want to pay, Google can threaten to stop the advertising.

Just as Google is not obligated to pay the authors, because it is fair use, authors are not obligated to pay Google -- Google is giving them a free gift (because it is mutually beneficial and therefore worth it even if they don't get advertising revenue from the authors).

...

Yes, I know you meant that sarcastically.

[AnemicOak]

Have the Courts Given Google a License to Steal From Authors?

Content is what settles in the cereal box after packaging. Or the lumpy stuffing in my dog’s bed or those pesky styrofoam forms you can’t recycle.

My writing is not content. Sometimes it’s brilliant and inspiring, others times it is rank and rough, but it’s something of value called intellectual property. Notions of fairness and rules of law have honored and protected intellectual property for centuries.

But to Google, literature is nothing but generic bits of data, useful only to draw users to their search engine and to sell ads.

http://helensedwick.com/have-the-cou...-from-authors/

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Have the Courts Given Google a License to Steal From Authors?

http://helensedwick.com/have-the-cou...-from-authors/

This is another clueless author who doesn't really understand the difference between the Google Library and Google Publisher programs, and thinks that if the Supreme Court had overturned the lower court, the results from Google Publisher would either stop or would force Google to pay the authors some sort of royalty. I'm repeating it below:

I'm afraid you are confusing the two Google book search programs. It can be confusing because Google uses the same search page to search for books in both the Library project and the Publisher project. I have seen quite a few commentaries about this lawsuit written by people who did not understand the differences between the two projects and the results you get from a book search. It makes me want to dismiss everything you say about the case, because even though you've read all the court opinions and briefs, you apparently still don't understand what the suit is about.

The Library project, which is the one that was the basis of the suit that the Author's Guild brought against Google, and was decided by the courts to be fair use, only returns roughly 3 lines of text per search (I've seen 5 when the search results displayed a footnote) when the book is not clearly in the public domain (i.e., if it was published prior to 1923). If the book results say full-text view or snippet view, it's a search result from the Library project.

The Publisher project, which was never contested by the Author's Guild or the publishers, is a project where the publisher or copyright holder provides an electronic copy of the book to Google, and Google returns result where the link is Preview. In this case, the preview of the book, which is usually something like 20% of the book is made available by someone's search for the book. In fact, the example you start with in this blog post, Kristin Hannah’s The Nightingale, is a Preview result, which means the 16% displayed is with the permission and assistance of the publisher, and would not have been affected if the Supreme Court had chosen to hear the case and overturn the lower court.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

This is another clueless author who doesn't really understand the difference between the Google Library and Google Publisher programs, and thinks that if the Supreme Court had overturned the lower court, the results from Google Publisher would either stop or would force Google to pay the authors some sort of royalty. I don't know if she'll approve my comment other there, but I'm repeating it below:

I'm afraid you are confusing the two Google book search programs. It can be confusing because Google uses the same search page to search for books in both the Library project and the Publisher project. I have seen quite a few commentaries about this lawsuit written by people who did not understand the differences between the two projects and the results you get from a book search. It makes me want to dismiss everything you say about the case, because even though you've read all the court opinions and briefs, you apparently still don't understand what the suit is about.

The Library project, which is the one that was the basis of the suit that the Author's Guild brought against Google, and was decided by the courts to be fair use, only returns roughly 3 lines of text per search (I've seen 5 when the search results displayed a footnote) when the book is not clearly in the public domain (i.e., if it was published prior to 1923). If the book results say full-text view or snippet view, it's a search result from the Library project.

The Publisher project, which was never contested by the Author's Guild or the publishers, is a project where the publisher or copyright holder provides an electronic copy of the book to Google, and Google returns result where the link is Preview. In this case, the preview of the book, which is usually something like 20% of the book is made available by someone's search for the book. In fact, the example you start with in this blog post, Kristin Hannah’s The Nightingale, is a Preview result, which means the 16% displayed is with the permission and assistance of the publisher, and would not have been affected if the Supreme Court had chosen to hear the case and overturn the lower court.

Love this. Oh and you haven't been approved yet over there.

Oh and this author sounds like one of "million club" on Amazon.

Now correct me if I am wrong but I do believe there is money in that there blog.
Ok she doesn't want Google to make any money off her. Then why should she make money off Google? She should tell Google to make sure her blog isn't in their search engine.
Hey fair is fair.

[bgalbrecht]

I only posted my comment to her blog a few minutes before posting here, I doubt that it will be approved before morning in whatever time zone she's in (or later). I think it's true, though, that most of the authors (and others) siding with the Author's Guild mistakenly believe that what the court ruled as fair use is the results they get from the Publisher Project, which are the previews are only made available with the permission of the publisher as a form of free or inexpensive advertising, instead of the 3 or so lines of snippet view. Since she doesn't understand what she's railing against, there's probably no point in me elaborating why I think it's nothing more than an attempt at a stupid money grab from a big company with deep pockets and is a really counterproductive position for authors to take.

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by ApK

What would you need Google for? You could just do that your self.

It saves time and expenses the publishers are paying people to scan and ocr for them etc will be charging authors for it probably. I remember Walter Jon Williams when he wanted to republish his back list and the copyright had transferred back to him he just got the pirated ebooks properly formated

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

It saves time and expenses the publishers are paying people to scan and ocr for them etc will be charging authors for it probably. I remember Walter Jon Williams when he wanted to republish his back list and the copyright had transferred back to him he just got the pirated ebooks properly formated

A fair number of authors aren't very technically literate. Heck, some still write with a pen and paper and have someone transcribe their manuscript.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

It saves time and expenses the publishers are paying people to scan and ocr for them etc will be charging authors for it probably. I remember Walter Jon Williams when he wanted to republish his back list and the copyright had transferred back to him he just got the pirated ebooks properly formated

WJW started with the pirated ebooks, but he copyedited them to make sure they were accurately OCRd. Norman Spinrad used pirated ebooks when he published his backlist, but he didn't copyedit them. I picked up a copy of Mindgames when it was free, and it was a mess. As far as I know, he still hasn't cleaned it up.

[AnemicOak]

The AG's legal council, who worked on the Google lawsuit (among other things) almost from the start, is stepping down at the end of the month.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ors-guild.html

In a letter sent to Guild council members, Constantine made it clear her decision to leave the Guild shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court denied the association’s appeal in the Google case was not a coincidence (The court rejected the appeal Monday). “I promised Paul when he became incapacitated that I would continue at the Guild until the Supreme Court had ruled on our petition for certiorari. That time has arrived and it is only fitting that I take leave of the Authors Guild a week after the lawsuit was over; Paul would have liked the symmetry of my tenure I am certain,” she wrote. Aiken died in February from ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease.

[jones43]

Google books not only provides users to getinto the book but also provides publishers a projection could increase sales. I personally thinks that supreme court has taken good step.