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."

Comments

I got a laugh

[The Real Dr John]

from the humorous comment about how "[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding". They are such kidders.

Re:I got a laugh

[MouseR]

Yeah that's retarded.

Does this mean MusicMatch and other lyrics Apps no longer need to pay royalties, since they "expand the public knowledge and understanding" of mumbly singers?

Re:I got a laugh

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:I got a laugh

[cjb658]

That's what it was originally intended to do, but now we extend copyrights well beyond the author's death and allow companies to claim copyright on things like the Happy Birthday song. It's become a joke.

Re:I got a laugh

[rahvin112]

Happy birthday was just found (by a court) the other day to be in the public domain. Just saying.

Re:I got a laugh

[david_thornley]

GP is right, although the ruling was not definitive. What the court said was that the evidence of an existing copyright was invalid. Theoretically, someone could come up with a valid claim, but I really, really don't expect it.

Summary Makes It Sound Like a Reasonable Ruling

[joelsherrill]

The devil must be in the details.

Wow.. right!

[MickyTheIdiot]

"[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding."

Not in Soviet, I mean Corporate America. In Corporate America, copyright own you!

Yes, this is what the true goal of copyright is, and kudos for actually understanding the real purpose. Millions of teachers in millions of college classrooms today will be teaching that copyright is for making money and nothing more.

Wot

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

In whose lifetime?

Re:Wot

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re:Wot

[MickyTheIdiot]

I know this will enrage some of the Slashdot corporate toadies, but I don't think corporations should be allowed to own copyrights at all. They should be assigned to human beings and corporations should license them.

Re:Wot

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Wot

[david_thornley]

The problem is that copyright owners have a very strong interest in perpetual copyright, while each member of the public is only slightly harmed by perpetual copyright, so it's worth it for Disney to lobby hard for copyright extensions and not worth it for Joe Random to write his Congressional delegation.

Re:Wot

[Just Some Guy]

not making Houghton Mifflin or Steven King rich.

Stephen King would make out just fine under a shorted copyright. Love him or hate him, that guy works for his living. He's the exact opposite of someone writing a single book then sitting back and waiting for their ship to come in.

For now

[0123456]

Won't 'fair use' vanish after Obamatrade is signed?

Re:please extend to *music and video* copyright

[Whatanut]

Fair point. But invalid as of last month. It was ruled to be in the public domain.

"the primary intended beneficiary is the public"

[wherrera]

This is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement should never be ratified.

Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now do something about that "Life plus 70 years" copyright term.

Re:please extend to *music and video* copyright

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:please extend to *music and video* copyright

[rahvin112]

And get past the fact that warner/chappell was the only one that might have had a claim on it as they had rights going back to someone that claimed to be the original author.

Re:Huh

[radarskiy]

"How does allowing google to scan and display the books for their own financial gain."

They are not displaying the books scanned by this work. They are indexing them.

Re:Apple h8rs

[cpt kangarooski]

everybody was apple with apple books - authors, publishers, readers. it was in everybody's self interest. but the govt felt that there was an area that was not sufficiently regulated (liberal attitude) so they wade in and shut it down.

No, you're wrong.

Apple and the major book publishers were trying to rig the market for ebooks so as to 1) increase profits for publishers, and 2) decrease Apple's competition for tablet-format book-reading hardware (Kindles, iPads, etc.). The way they were trying to accomplish this was by raising prices for buyers of e-books.

So it's bad for readers in that it costs them more money to buy books, and it's bad for readers because it reduces competition for the reading hardware. It was also, ironically, bad for the major publishers, who wound up selling fewer books, while minor publishers that didn't participate in the conspiracy wound up benefiting from increased book sales.

It could not have been a more blatant price-fixing scandal, and it was rightfully shut down. And the fact that every publisher gave up and settled with the government, while Apple lost in court at every turn, should probably be good indicators of that.

Meanwhile, your comment about the government is wrong too; the ebooks market is no more or less regulated than it ever was. All businesses are prohibited from working together to fix prices. The law requires that they not do so, forcing them to compete, which tends to produce benefits for the public, such as driving down prices and encouraging the development of new technologies and markets as each business seeks some fair advantage over its rivals.

Now, it is arguable that Amazon is having negative effects on the market too. But conservatives -- starting in the Reagan administration, IIRC -- reduced the enforcement of antitrust law in ways that might have limited Amazon's dealings with publishers, focusing instead almost entirely on whether customers were being overcharged or not. The current administration has taken a decidedly conservative position on antitrust law, which is unsurprising (Obama is more conservative than Reagan was), and instead only tries to keep prices low, as they did by going after Apple.

I enjoy a fair bit of Apple's stuff, but I've got to say, you seem to just be as dumb as a sack of hammers, and very badly informed about both law and politics.