[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

This entire issue is going to be interesting to watch. Google buys YouTube which has on its servers copyrighted material for which they have no permissions. Google ALSO has copyrighted material on its servers for which it has no permissions. Now this. Either anything on the internet is free, or, people have to follow copyright laws. It will be interesting to see who wins this one.

[Dallas59]

And 98% of the lawsuits coming will target Americans...

[Muleteam1]

Unless renewed, aren't book copyrights only good for about 70 years?

[isthisnickcool]

google: "All you stuff does belong to us".

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

If they want to get a good start on the collection, they should buy Blackmask.
It at least only published free EBOOKS that were out of copyright.

[HAL9000]

It will be interesting to see who wins this one.

I predict Google will win. They are knowledgeable about the legal protections available to online service providers.

[kingu]

Failure. That's what the AAP lawsuit will result in. They've got the dog before the pony - scanning the books isn't the violation, unless they wish to imply that virtually every blind person is breaking the law as well by using readers.

Nope, the reality is that Google can scan to it's heart content. The question arises if Google can display the information it collected - and the AAP knows that if it gets to that battle, they'll damage existing copyright law down to it's foundations.

Their best chance was to work out a licensing deal with Google and adapted to the future. Hopefully some calm minds will weigh in and push them back to the table. They won't win in the long run in court.

[Paleo Conservative]

AAP President and former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder said in a statement. "While authors and publishers know how useful Google's search engine can be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource, the bottom line is that under its current plan, Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers."

Did Patricia Schroeder start crying in the middle of saying that?

[Buddy B]

It will be interesting to watch AAP President and former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder in this action against Google.

Ask all the US military retirees about former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.

[Physicist]

It will be interesting to see who wins this one.

Google, and not by using any legal arguments. Google simply has to ask each publisher whether they want their books indexed or not. If they say no, then their books won't get indexed...but neither will any of their corporate sites, nor any other site that links to theirs. To anyone who uses Google as their primary search engine, which is to say most people, that publisher will effectively be off the internet.

[SteveMcKing]

"anything on the internet is free, or, people have to follow copyright laws."

Not "or".

And.

So we see the obvious conflict here....

[Don W]

AFAIAC (as far as I am concerned) ANY book that is a required reference for ANY course in ANY educational course from elementary to doctoral SHOULD be available free online.

Aren't the authors simply in the game to further knowledge, or are they mercenaries?

/sarc

[AFPhys]

You're right - this is interesting to watch.

I have no dog in this fight in any real way. I am concerned about people not being compensated for their real work. However, I can't see any real way that distribution over the internet is going to be possible to halt, in the end. It really seems inevitable to me.

[Cacique]

bump