Slashdot Mirror
Google Books Case Dismissed On Fair Use Grounds
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a case of major importance, the long simmering battle between the Authors Guild and Google has reached its climax, with the court granting Google's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case, on fair use grounds. In his 30-page decision (PDF), Judge Denny Chin — who has been a District Court Judge throughout most of the life of the case but is now a Circuit Court Judge — reasoned that, although Google's own motive for its "Library Project" (which scans books from libraries without the copyright owners' permission and makes the material publicly available for search), is commercial profit, the project itself serves significant educational purposes, and actually enhances, rather than detracts from, the value of the works, since it helps promote sales of the works. Judge Chin also felt that it was impossible to use Google's scanned material, either for making full copies, or for reading the books, so that it did not compete with the books themselves."
for us all. Better deal would say, by all means copy, BUT you must make it fully available. I'm going through awful problems right now trying to get a copy of a 1776 book which was microfilmed ages ago, then digitised more recently. I don't mind people who did both processes getting a fair return but we need to decide what a fair return is. Super profits for people like the infamous convicted modern Enlgish airport fiction writer just don't cut it.
work in progress
Even if you think that Google is Damien's evil brother, this is the right damn decision.
I believe the obvious outcome would have been the complete opposite. Play the game, get a few rewards.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Google spent a lot of money to help us find books. I really don't mind seeing ads down the side while I search. They are not preventing anyone else from spending lots of money to do the same thing.
So, if this stands does this mean it's lawful for Google to make the full text available of these books, or not?
If google can legally copy books (even when profit is involved) then why can't I do the same?
Wouldn't I get hammered with copyright infringement problems if I scanned in books I did not author myself?
Somebody help me here. This sounds like somebody claiming to be a member of the United States judicial branch has made a reasonable and correct decision. Please tell me the other branches are still doing whatever they can to correct this aberration...
Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.
Depending on how Chin's decision stands up on the inevitable appeal, this paragraph has probably given us some very useful & explicit design considerations to incorporate in projects likely to face similar claims of copyright violation.
The SUMMARY tells you no. Two key facts were that a) entire books are not available, you can only read a couple of pages and b) it doesn't compete with full copies, but rather increases sales of full copies by helping consumers find books they are interested in.
Is this really true? I know the book search is limited yet if you target other sections with your search the limit would slide and if you were clever/persistent enough you would be able to access the full text wouldn't you? Otherwise what is the point of only indexing a small part of each book?
You can legally do the same. Just the summary alone mentions two key considerations:
Google allowed readers to see just a couple of pages, excerpts.
That did not compete with sales of the full book, but rather increased the author's sales of the books by helping people find books they might like to buy.
The opinion has another 20 pages looking at the various factors involved.
Google is not just copying anything, and everything, they want.
If it was any other company, it would have probably never even gone to court.
> I don't mind people who did both processes getting a fair return but we need to decide what a fair return is.
It's 9.8%. Over the long term, they'll average 9.8% per year and there's nothing we can do to change that.
Suppose for a moment that there was a very high return. Let's say 50%.
Microsoft and their Bing divison, along with Amazon and others would be watching that and thinking:
We have $50 million dollars to spend on our next project.
We can either spend that on developing a game console, with an expected return of 2%, or
on digitizing books, with a return of 50%.
Fire up the digitizer!
People generally invest in the type of projects that are getting the best returns. So due to the 50% return, you'd have Google, Microsoft, and Amazon all offering different versions of the service. Maybe Microsoft would have no ads, but it would only work in IE11 on Windows 8.1.
Amazon's would be similar to Google, but with fewer, more obtrusive ads for full books that float over the digital pages.
With two competitors, Google's return would decrease. Specifically, new entrants keep coming in with different (better, cheaper, etc.) versions as long as the return is higher than other projects. It turns out that "other projects" return 9.8%, on average. So anything with a risk-adjusted return higher than 9.8% draws competitors.
If money goes IN to lines of business where it'll make more than 9.8%, where does it come FROM? From shutting down (or foregoing) operations that make less, of course. Any business with a risk-adjusted return less than 9.8% has some providers leave the market for greener pastures.
With the competitors close, their market share goes to the remaining competitors, so the remaining people get increased returns. Specifically, competitors keep leaving and the return keeps increasing until the return is as good as other options - about 9.8%.
So that's what you end up with - in the long term, any industry in the US has a risk-adjusted return of about 9.8%. Some, like oil or farming, are subject to high volatility - good years and bad years. Exxon for example is affected by oil prices, so it goes up and down. Exxon averaged 11.62% over the last 10 years, 7.86% over the last 15 years - everything swings up and down around that 9.8% mark.
is to enrich the public domain by putting more stuff in it.
If it's not available, then it's not going into the public domain, is it. Hence it shouldn't have copyrights.
Generally, you CAN copy a whole book, it isn't necessary to claim you only read a few pages.
You can copy it and read all of it, or copy a whole album on tape and then listen to the whole album.
What you can't do is sell whole copies.
Yes, that's a three sentence summary of 100 pages of law, so of course there are more details than that.
Google bought every single copy they scanned.
They own those books.
I am a publisher and want Google to offer a service that if my books, or similar books are searched for, one of the ad links is my stuff, for free. That is a reasonable compromise because it would serve the needs of the viewer. Heck, have a marketplace or a deal with one like Amazon.
JJ
The only thing that makes this result based on it being Google is that only Google would have so much money at stake and enough money to fight the ogiarchy who don't want change because they're at the top and the only place they can go is down. Hence change==bad.
...since it helps promote sales of the works.
Evidence? ...impossible to use Google's scanned material, either for making full copies, or for reading the books, so that it did not compete with the books themselves.
Totally wrong.
Tell you what, like with any other avenue to advertise, you pay google to put your ad for free on their systems.
Do you demand that the newspapers put your ad in there for free too? No? Why?
Google is very clearly in the wrong, legally, with their usage. Technically, they are violating copyright flagrantly, and profiting from it. And I am so glad the judge decided the way he did, because despite very clearly being illegal under current law, the end result is very much in the public interest, as well as being good for publishers despite their throwing a tantrum about it.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
But can I go to your house, copy your books (with your permission), and then take my copies with me?
Kid-proof tablet..
I'm setting up a free service. Anyone can contact me with a question about some topic. I'll search all the books in my fairly large and diverse personal library, and if I find something cool on the topic, I'll get back to you with full bibliographic information and read to you a short excerpt from the book. Oh, and, of course, I'll also read to you a very short, but interesting and personalized, advertisement. I apologize that I won't be able to handle the same volume as Google, nor can I promise the same extensive results to your query. What I can promise is a personal touch. Google can't give you that.
What's in it for me? Whatever money I make from advertisements, and enhancement to my personal brand. (I mean, the chicks are going to dig this!) But, as previously noted, the service is completely free to the end user. So, support the honest efforts of an enterprising individual. Lines are open!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Once you and NYCL have agreed on fees, you can transfer funds through these payment options.
I am glad the court found in Google's favor.
However.... I liked the settlement idea better.
It would have enabled Google to allow me to read entire books online without DRM, directly from a Google search, with a small payment....
For most of the books Google did, yes. They are either public domain or Google has the publisher's permission. For the others, unless there are facts I'm not aware of, I don't suppose that would be legal. However, I haven't read the entirety of the court's opinion. It's quite likely there was a reason the court ruled as it did - some matter of fact or law not mentioned in the page or two we read from the 30 page opinion.
If money goes IN to lines of business where it'll make more than 9.8%, where does it come FROM? From shutting down (or foregoing) operations that make less, of course.
That would only be true if these companies had no liquid assets, no "war chest," and all of their money was working at 100% all the time.
None of that is true. The existing businesses most in a position to compete in a new area in fact tend to be large and have difficulty keeping their money working; when they see an opening, they can throw a bunch of money at it that was otherwise not working effectively.
And startups the drain is more in people that available money, because there is usually lots and lots more money available for statups than actually gets used, because teams that inspire confidence are the bottleneck, not the funding.
But can I go to your house, copy your books (with your permission), and then take my copies with me?
Yes.
But I could get in trouble if I invite you over specifically for that purpose, or if I charge you a fee, or if I advertise to my friends that they can come and copy my books. This is exactly the same as copying of cassette tapes, and making cassette tapes of radio broadcasts.
You ARE allowed to share with your friends in a very limited way. But it has to be like, your friend is already visiting, and asks to make a copy, and makes the copy themselves.
Obviously people can only invest by having assets invest. You don't build up a "war chest" by throwing away your money on a losing proposition. As you said:
"when they see an opening, they can throw a bunch of money at it that was otherwise not working effectively."
In other words, stop doing things that aren't effective at generating a decent return. We saw this today on Slashdot. Auto maintenance wasn't generating a return near 9.8%, so Sears is closing it's auto centers and putting those resources towards datacenters, which do generate a healthy return.
You say "would only be true". Pick ANY industry and look at the average return US companies in that industry made over any 20 year period. You'll see it IS true. Pick various lines of business at various times. You'll see they all have an average return close to 9.8%. It simply IS true. The return is somewhat risk-adjusted; people will tolerate a slightly lower return if it's consistent, and require a higher return if it has wild swings. It's always close to 9.8% over any extended period of time, though.
Because 100% of what you said is untrue.
Of course we have the right (in the US) to record broadcasts for the purposes of timeshifting, but not necessarily to give a copy to a friend. [citation]
[citation needed]
Kid-proof tablet..
My advice, look it up and read about it. There is not a single citation I can give that is going to be an Idiot's Guide to Fair Use Precedent.
And if you're not going to research it, why seek citations? Just believe me or don't, that's really your only choice other than research, and that would still be true if I gave 100 cites.
Not to mention, this is a conversation, a comment system on slashdot. You've been here long to know I wasn't attempting to publish my comment in an academic journal.
I've been researching it and studying it since the Audio Home Recording Act of (1992?).
I just reckon that with my twenty-ish years of studying, that anything abnormal should come with a citation.
You don't have a citation.
*shrug*
Therefore, DM, I disbelieve.
Kid-proof tablet..
You're full of it. If you have so much knowledge, disagree! Do it! I dare you.
But no, you can't actually identify anything wrong with what I said, or offer some sort of differing explanation. So instead of commenting with general, unspecified, weasel-y claims of authority... look it up.