Skip to comments.Google book-scanning project legal, says U.S. appeals court
Posted on 10/16/2015 2:33:58 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
Google book scan copyright challenge lawsuit dismissed - deemed Fair Use.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
In English, when the gender is indeterminate, the default pronoun is masculine.
More politically correct crap.
I thought Fair Use could only be applied to non-profit uses. Google is definitely not a non-profit entity.
I read that the Swedes recently invented a new gender neutral pronoun, "hen".
“Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court.”
French name. Perhaps that has something to do with the choice of pronoun ;)
You do not have to be a non-profit to invoke fair use.
The Swedes have certainly become a bunch of "hens".
They need to get their nose bloodied hard. Something needs to happen to provoke some of that Viking blood lust, because they have a whole bunch of people in their country that badly needs killing.
I don’t think so. If the copied portion disseminates helpful consumer information or provides a benefit to the public it qualifies for fair use even if it makes money for the user. It is impossible actually to conceive of advertising, critical reviews or news reporting without relevant quoted material.
Google Books is ‘highly transformative,’ appeals court confirms in fair use ruling
by Jeff John Roberts
October 16, 2015, 11:18 AM EDT
A woman holds up an iPad with the iTunes U app after a news conference introducing a digital textbook service in New York in this January 19, 2012. Photograph by Shannon Stapleton Reuters
Its finally over. An appeals court confirmed that Googles scanning of more than 20 million books counts as fair use.
Its been ten years since authors first sued Google GOOG 0.07% over the decision to scan millions of books, but now an appeals court appears to have confirmed once and for all the scanning did not violate copyright law.
In a unanimous ruling handed down on Friday morning, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York deployed a familiar four-factor fair use test to conclude that the Google Books project was lawful.
We see no reason in this case why Googles overall profit motivation should prevail as a reason for denying fair use over its highly convincing transformative purpose, together with the absence of significant substitutive competition, as reasons for granting fair use, wrote Justice Pierre Leval.
This ruling appears to settle once and for all a case that began in 2005 when the Authors Guild as well as a number of book publishers brought lawsuits against Google over a project that saw the company partner with dozens of libraries to scan over 20 millions books.
Todays decision underlines what people who use the service tell us: Google Books gives them a useful and easy way to find books they want to read and buy, while at the same time benefiting copyright holders. Were pleased the court has confirmed that the project is fair use, acting like a card catalog for the digital age, said a Google spokesperson.
While the parties initially reached a settlement that would have created a revenue-sharing model based on the scanned collection, a judge rejected the deal in 2011, saying it was a bridge too far. In response, the Authors Guild renewed its lawsuit shortly after, but suffered a major setback in 2013 when a judge first ruled the scanning was fair use.
Fridays appeals court ruling is significant because it clears the legal uncertainty that has been hanging over Google for a decade, and also because it provides more guidance on what qualifies as fair use in a digital age.
In particular, the court states on several occasions how copyright law represents a balance between authors and the public, and points out how many forms of fair use are partly commercial.
Many of the most universally accepted forms of fair use, such as news reporting and commentary, quotation in historical or analytic books, reviews of books, and performances, as well as parody, are all normally done commercially for profit.
The Authors Guild did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This story will be updated shortly with more details. Heres a copy of the ruling with some of the relevant parts underlined.
Print and broadcast media are trying to hang onto the old dispensary paradigms.
The problem is that technology is in the process of nullifying those old paradigms. The Internet and Web have created a whole different set. Those old professions — print and broadcast — are having a difficult time discovering new paradigms for the new technology.
Alas, the buggy-whip companies had similar concerns in the early 1900s as autos rolled off the assembly lines.
It seems that all Google is doing is putting online what publishers would put on the book covers/jackets of books — a brief summary or commentary to help the potential reader get an idea of what the book it about.
It is sort of like trailers for movies.
Let me give you another perspective if I may...
If Google is successful ultimately they will decide which books are avail and which are not.
My fave is reading on a computer but some I prefer print
This is also a Big part of TPP as well as Pharma giveaways, not at all as simple and egalitarian as it seems at all
Google (alphabet...sorry) is EVIL!
Neither is FR.
If Google has the right to do this under fair use so does everybody else. People who limit themselves to Google alone are being lazy.
Don’t understand... non profits can even have paid employees. But FR is not a “money earning” corporation.
FR is not a 501c3 or c4. It’s an LLC. JimRob pays taxes on it.
If you don’t find what you want on Google, check Amazon’s Kindle.
I did that earlier today. I looked on Netflix to see if a specific movie is available yet. It isn’t on Netflix. I then checked Amazon Prime and there it is — and now in my AP watchlist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.