Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Supreme Court says Google can scan books

    So the SCOTUS just ruled that Google can scan in books under 'fair use' clause. I guess that means we'll be able to read everything online for free? Or are they just scanning this stuff in for their search engine?

    The Author's Guild, sort of a union for authors doesn't like it, they say

    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… The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture.

    The vituperative tone may cause eye-rolling in some who find the fair use case to be an obvious one, but Rasenberger does go on to make broader, more philosophical observations that are food for thought:

    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.

    The denial of review is further proof that we’re witnessing a vast redistribution of wealth from the creative sector to the tech sector, not only with books, but across the spectrum of the arts.



    http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/18/sup...-are-fair-use/

    The 2013 decision found that the scanning of books (provided for that purpose by libraries) was not a violation of copyright, owing to its being “transformative” — in a technical sense. The books were not simply being resold or the like, but were being used for a new and creative purpose: a search engine for books that were frequently out of print or copyright. It doesn’t provide a “substitute” for the original work, and the court accepted Google’s argument that it was in fact doing a public service as well as providing authors with new audiences.

    A Supreme Court order issued today closes the book on (or perhaps merely ends this chapter of) more than a decade of legal warfare between Google and the Authors Guild over the legality of the former’s scanning without permission of millions of copyrighted books. And the final word is: it’s fair use.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  2. #2
    I don't think you can read the whole book from google. But you'll be able to search a phrase or something and be able to see where it first occurred. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    So the SCOTUS just ruled that Google can scan in books under 'fair use' clause. I guess that means we'll be able to read everything online for free? Or are they just scanning this stuff in for their search engine?

    The Author's Guild, sort of a union for authors doesn't like it, they say
    No you can't read the books for free. Google scanned the books so you can search for a title or an author or a phrase you remember and Google can search its database and return a blurb from the matching title. A modern day digital library card catalog. Its not monetized and the vast majority of the works are out of print books with no living author claiming copyright.. The Author's Guild objects because.. Well just because they do.. They figure theres a way to make money from a digital database of books in the future and even though they dont have any ideas for one now, damn if Google makes one available for free now before they figure out how to make money on it themselves.

  4. #4
    Regardless of Google's intent for wanting to scan them (and they're one of the few companies I trust in that regard), it really and truly is a shitty verdict. It spits in the face of anyone who holds a legitimate copyright, and by legitimate I mean within the confines of how the copyright laws originally were and not how they currently stand due to fucking Disney and their lobbyists.

    It's going to hurt independent writers and publishers the most, especially once other companies step in and claim that it allows them to not only scan every book but publish them for free on the web. And they will, as they already exist. (Albeit not for free currently.)

  5. #5
    If I remember right, and I didn't look at the article, Google scans books so everything in the book is searchable, but they don't necessarily just leave the book for free for anyone to read.
    While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Sanctions View Post
    Regardless of Google's intent for wanting to scan them (and they're one of the few companies I trust in that regard), it really and truly is a shitty verdict. It spits in the face of anyone who holds a legitimate copyright, and by legitimate I mean within the confines of how the copyright laws originally were and not how they currently stand due to fucking Disney and their lobbyists.

    It's going to hurt independent writers and publishers the most, especially once other companies step in and claim that it allows them to not only scan every book but publish them for free on the web. And they will, as they already exist. (Albeit not for free currently.)
    Thats the kind of logic that called a strawman argument. You attack Google for something they're not doing. Nobody is using this to publish copyrighted books online for free. Google only set up an online card catalog. Something that your local library has had for 100 years. This card catalog can also be searched by blurb so you can search for a phrase you remember from a book and it returns to book information. It doesnt provide you with the book online. This actually grew out of a Google project to digitize the catalogs of university libraries that had millions of books in their shelves that were out of print and rotting away and Google volunteered to catalog them and digitize them in their database for future generation search and access

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Sanctions View Post
    It's going to hurt independent writers and publishers the most, especially once other companies step in and claim that it allows them to not only scan every book but publish them for free on the web. And they will, as they already exist. (Albeit not for free currently.)
    So it's going to hurt independent writers and publishers when companies step in and illegally copyright things that are not affected at all by this ruling? I don't think this ruling means what you think it does.
    Last edited by Krastyn; 2016-04-19 at 12:53 AM.

  8. #8
    Be-still my beating heart, SCOTUS takes a small knock at perpetual copyright?

    Rejoice!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Faenlyn View Post
    Thats the kind of logic that called a strawman argument. You attack Google for something they're not doing.
    You should improve your reading comprehension. Hint: Reread the very first sentence, particularly the parenthetical aside.

    Nobody is using this to publish copyrighted books online for free.
    No go reread the rest of my post.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobar View Post
    Be-still my beating heart, SCOTUS takes a small knock at perpetual copyright?

    Rejoice!
    Except it doesnt actually do that.

    Anyone can just go test it out. books.google.com
    Type in "to be or not to be that is the question" and it returns the search result for Hamlet and other books in which that phrase appeared. It's not stealing anyone's copyright.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    So it's going to hurt independent writers and publishers when companies step in and illegally copyright things that are not affected at all by this ruling? I don't think this ruling means what you think it does.
    That's not what I said, but yes it is going to hurt independent writers and publishers who rely on the profits of their copyrights far more than big companies do. Why pay anything at all to download an eBook or PDF when you can just get it for free from sites like Scribd (even though, as I said above, they currently charge you for the privilege, but other companies will undoubtedly come up and make them free in the same way a site like 4shared does). Except now they'll have this ruling to call back to, no matter how erroneously, to back up their "right" to do so.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobar View Post
    Be-still my beating heart, SCOTUS takes a small knock at perpetual copyright?

    Rejoice!
    I think the consideration is what a person can do with something they purchased. In this case, you can now scan a book in to a database and query search responses from it, you can't distribute it still.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Sanctions View Post
    That's not what I said, but yes it is going to hurt independent writers and publishers who rely on the profits of their copyrights far more than big companies do. Why pay anything at all to download an eBook or PDF when you can just get it for free from sites like Scribd (even though, as I said above, they currently charge you for the privilege, but other companies will undoubtedly come up and make them free in the same way a site like 4shared does). Except now they'll have this ruling to call back to, no matter how erroneously, to back up their "right" to do so.
    I doubt this will change provisions against redistributing works without proper compensation?
    While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Sanctions View Post
    You should improve your reading comprehension. Hint: Reread the very first sentence, particularly the parenthetical aside.


    No go reread the rest of my post.
    I did reread your post. Allowing an internal scan of a book to exist so that the search engine can return catalog search results for text present in those books was deemed fair use. That is not a "shitty verdict" and has no relevance to other companies that want to scan and publish books online

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Faenlyn View Post
    Except it doesnt actually do that.

    Anyone can just go test it out. books.google.com
    Type in "to be or not to be that is the question" and it returns the search result for Hamlet and other books in which that phrase appeared. It's not stealing anyone's copyright.
    The very act of scanning books and indexing them, while under fair use, undermines a copyright. It most certainly does take a knock, not a large one, but a small victory nonetheless.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Sanctions View Post
    That's not what I said, but yes it is going to hurt independent writers and publishers who rely on the profits of their copyrights far more than big companies do. Why pay anything at all to download an eBook or PDF when you can just get it for free from sites like Scribd (even though, as I said above, they currently charge you for the privilege, but other companies will undoubtedly come up and make them free in the same way a site like 4shared does). Except now they'll have this ruling to call back to, no matter how erroneously, to back up their "right" to do so.
    This ruling in no way makes a site like Scribd, or anything like it any more legal, or illegal than it already is. The ruling does not allow Google to scan and post entire works online for anyone to view for free, or otherwise.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Faenlyn View Post
    No you can't read the books for free. Google scanned the books so you can search for a title or an author or a phrase you remember and Google can search its database and return a blurb from the matching title. A modern day digital library card catalog. Its not monetized and the vast majority of the works are out of print books with no living author claiming copyright.. The Author's Guild objects because.. Well just because they do.. They figure theres a way to make money from a digital database of books in the future and even though they dont have any ideas for one now, damn if Google makes one available for free now before they figure out how to make money on it themselves.
    Lol no it's saying you can. Books.google.com has essentially had a few books I would have otherwise needed to buy or hunt down in person for essay's I've been writing. You find the book in google books and many you can preview, but the preview on many is the full damn book.

    Prime example is a book I used for my linguistics class :https://books.google.com/books?id=Ot...page&q&f=false

    Full book on google to read.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    This ruling in no way makes a site like Scribd, or anything like it any more legal, or illegal than it already is. The ruling does not allow Google to scan and post entire works online for anyone to view for free, or otherwise.
    And, once again, please go back and read what was actually said. Not whatever it is you think you're saying. In this particularly instance, the very last sentence is key.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by purebalance View Post
    Lol no it's saying you can. Books.google.com has essentially had a few books I would have otherwise needed to buy or hunt down in person for essay's I've been writing. You find the book in google books and many you can preview, but the preview on many is the full damn book.

    Prime example is a book I used for my linguistics class :https://books.google.com/books?id=Ot...page&q&f=false

    Full book on google to read.
    I see your point. they cut out pages 208 to 841 but i would agree they are providing too much

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Faenlyn View Post
    I see your point. they cut out pages 208 to 841 but i would agree they are providing too much
    I think this book might be under special case and not be the usual copyright a private writer would be protected by. Its published by a university and already available for free on JSTOR.
    While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.

  20. #20
    Scarab Lord Azgraal's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Unvanquished City of Porto, Portugal
    Posts
    4,136
    That's a dangerous precedent. I mean, why stop at books?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •