Slashdot Mirror
Google Books Wins Again (documentcloud.org)
cpt kangarooski writes: After Google won a lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild alleging that Google's project to scan and provide a searchable index of books was copyright infringement, Google has now won the inevitable appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court found that Google is engaging in fair use, and reminds all that "[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding." The ruling (PDF) adds, "while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public."
No, because the latest hip-hop album about "pimpin hoes" and "bein a gangsta" doesn't do that in any appreciable way. However books, particularly ones relating to science and technology, do have that effect. And Google isn't just giving the books away to the public, rather they're offering snippets for the purpose of reference, constituting fair use, whereas MusicMatch gives you the whole song.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The first part of the copyright clause is about "progress of science and the useful arts," not making Houghton Mifflin or Steven King rich.
You notice the word "limited" has pretty much been ignored, too.
To answer your question, in the Framers of the Constitution's lifetimes.
Fair point. But invalid as of last month. It was ruled to be in the public domain.
yvan eht nioj
Anyone that comes forward now claiming to own "Happy Birthday To You" would need to explain why they 1) didn't assert their claim before this and 2) didn't contest the Warner/Chappell assertion of owning the copyright. They'd have a big uphill battle to get their copyright recognized.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No, the Supreme Court decision that directly involved the definition of 'limited' expressly distinguished between 'limited' and 'definite'. Forever minus a day is 'limited', but not definite. However, in common parlance, there is nothing 'limited' about something that lasts from before you are born to well after you die, and that's where we are with copyright at this point. (Which is also *part* of why there is so little respect for copyright among the general population. [1])
[1] Lord Macaulay's speech on copyright extension, circa 1841
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html