![]() |
#1 | |
Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 1,090
Karma: 6058305
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Paperwhite
|
Supreme Court won’t hear case against Google Books
http://thehill.com/policy/technology...t-google-books Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
Advert | |
|
![]() |
#3 | |
The Dank Side of the Moon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
I was just here to post this. From the BBC:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 6,613
Karma: 26963509
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Device: iPhone 15PM, Kindle Scribe, iPad mini 6, PocketBook InkPad Color 3
|
AG has to do something with member dues ($125-525+/yr depending on 'writing income'). What better way than to conduct dubious legal challenges?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 1,362
Karma: 18451873
Join Date: Apr 2013
Device: Paperwhite, Galaxy S22
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
Advert | |
|
![]() |
#6 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Kate
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 1,700
Karma: 3605799
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oregon, United States
Device: MeeBook, Kobo Libra Colour
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
Its like the European media companies who want google to pay them for sending traffic to their website. How dare they! ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 7,196
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 27,799
Karma: 198099188
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 1,090
Karma: 6058305
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Paperwhite
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Right, Except When Wrong
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 360
Karma: 3968525
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Device: Kindle Oasis 3 (sometimes iPad Mini).
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Dude! Please!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
(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." ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
Bookaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 14,391
Karma: 54969924
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Minnesota
Device: iPad Mini 4, AuraHD, iPhone XR +
|
From the AG...
Supreme Court Declines to Review Fair Use Finding in Decade-Long Book Copying Case Against Google Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apple appeals to Supreme Court | kennyc | News | 213 | 03-12-2016 05:49 PM |
US Supreme Court Upholds Right to Resell | pdurrant | News | 47 | 03-20-2013 07:33 PM |
US Supreme Court mentions Kindle | Madam Broshkina | Amazon Kindle | 9 | 03-26-2009 10:30 AM |
Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster | Bob Russell | Lounge | 2 | 06-28-2005 01:16 AM |