Supreme Court won’t hear case against Google Books

[avantman42]

This has been rumbling on for as long as I can remember, but it appears to be finally at an end:

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...t-google-books

The Supreme Court on Monday decided against hearing an appeal from The Authors Guild alleging that Google Books infringes writers' copyrighted works.

The high court’s decision not to hear the case means the lower court decision in favor of Google remains in place. In October, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Google’s project falls within the limits of fair use.

[fjtorres]

Eleven years in court.
And count on the AG to insist it is a miscarriage of justice, that prople should pay if they even look at a book.

[kennyc]

I was just here to post this. From the BBC:

Google wins copyright battle over books

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Google in its 11-year legal battle with an authors group.
The Court said it would not hear an appeal from the Authors Guild, which claimed Google breached copyright laws by scanning books without permission.
The technology giant began the process in 2004, so it could include extracts in a searchable database, and it was sued by the Authors Guild in 2005.
The Supreme Court's judgement is the final ruling on the matter.
....

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36072243

[tomsem]

AG has to do something with member dues ($125-525+/yr depending on 'writing income'). What better way than to conduct dubious legal challenges?

[Manabi]

Originally Posted by tomsem

AG has to do something with member dues ($125-525+/yr depending on 'writing income'). What better way than to conduct dubious legal challenges?

They could buy a ton of wooden shoes and find some machinery to toss them into.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Manabi

They could buy a ton of wooden shoes and find some machinery to toss them into.

Now there's an idea....or they could pulp 'em and print on 'em!

[khalleron]

The thing the AG doesn't get is that THIS IS A WIN FOR THEM, TOO.

Or at least their members. By making their books more findable by Google, they increase their exposure and potentially their sales.

People can't buy what they can't find.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by khalleron

The thing the AG doesn't get is that THIS IS A WIN FOR THEM, TOO.

Or at least their members. By making their books more findable by Google, they increase their exposure and potentially their sales.

People can't buy what they can't find.

But google isn't *paying* for the privilege of helping them!
Its like the European media companies who want google to pay them for sending traffic to their website. How dare they!

[pwalker8]

The issues are, of course, much more complex than they are being caricatured as in this thread. But, hey, it's fun to beat a straw man.

The basic issue isn't that Google books is good for authors or not (I think it is). It's can Google copy the entire book and use it for profit without the author's permission. It's a principle and a rather important principle. In a broad brush, it's the same reason that Rockefeller Plaza is closed to the public once a year. You have to actively maintain your rights to a property to keep it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/ny...ip-rights.html

In this particular case, it was found a case of fair use, though I suspect that it was more because the original judge felt that Google doing this was basically a greater good to the public at large. I happen to agree with that idea and I think that it is in the spirit of the rational for granting copyright and patents in the US Constitution, but it was no where near the slam dunk that some here assume. The fact that Google was using the work to generate a profit is normally considered of major importance in such cases.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

In this particular case, it was found a case of fair use, though I suspect that it was more because the original judge felt that Google doing this was basically a greater good to the public at large.

Doesn't sound all that complex to me.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You have to actively maintain your rights to a property to keep it.

My understanding is that trademarks have to be actively enforced, but copyright doesn't. If I'm wrong, please correct me, I'd like to know about it.

I don't know enough about US fair rights exemptions to know how water-tight Google's case was, but Wikipedia says that the appeals court found unanimously for Google. That suggests to me that Google had a pretty good case.

[MSWallack]

Minor technical point, but when the Supreme Court refuses to grant certiorari (i.e., refuses to "hear" a case), then the Court is not actually ruling in favor of one party or against the other. Rather, the Court is simply allowing the decision of the Court of Appeals to stand. The Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari has no precedential value for future cases. Now, with that being said, the practical effect of the refusal to grant certiorari is a win for the party that wasn't seeking the Supreme Court's review.

[kennyc]

Dude! Please!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I don't know enough about US fair rights exemptions to know how water-tight Google's case was, but Wikipedia says that the appeals court found unanimously for Google. That suggests to me that Google had a pretty good case.

They did.
(At least in the second phase, once the orphan works land-grab "settlement" with the AG got tossed.)

What google did was create a full text database from the scans and use that to run searches to automatically extract quotes around the search text.

There was a legal issue about whether scanning the books consituted a copyright violation but copyright is about distribution and Google isn't distributing the full text. It is no different from any of us scanning and ocr'ing a book solely for personal use with no distribution. (Or creating an omnibus ebook out of a series of stories or novels.) That the court found to be fair use.

Once the scanning issue went away, all that remained was the industrial-scale automated quotes, which *is* distribution but also explicitly defined as fair use.

As the court said, Google pushed the limits of fair use (through scale and automation) but didn't cross the line. The case really ended when the court determined that the act of scanning, by itself, is not a violation of copyright.

When the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal it let the lower court ruling stand and it will serve as precedent that merely scanning and OCR'ing a book, even on an industrial scale is not by itself a violation of copyright.

Falls under the category of: "Good to know."

[AnemicOak]

From the AG...

Supreme Court Declines to Review Fair Use Finding in Decade-Long Book Copying Case Against Google

“Today authors suffered a colossal loss,” said Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson. “We filed the class action lawsuit against Google in September 2005 because, as we stated then, ‘Google’s taking was a plain and brazen violation of copyright law.’ We believed then and we believe now that authors should be compensated when their work is copied for commercial purposes.”

“Blinded by the public benefit arguments, the Second Circuit’s ruling tells us that Google, not authors, deserves to profit from the digitization of their books,” said Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild. “The Second Circuit misunderstood the importance of emerging online markets for books and book excerpts. It failed to comprehend the very real potential harm to authors resulting from its decision.”

“The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture,” continued Rasenberger. “Authors are already among the most poorly paid workers in America; if tomorrow’s authors cannot make a living from their work, only the independently wealthy or the subsidized will be able to pursue a career in writing, and America’s intellectual and artistic soul will be impoverished.”