Supreme Court says Google can scan books

[purebalance]

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.

Where do you see that it is published by a university. I even searched the publisher just to see and it is not a university.

Here is another book I got on the same topic area: https://books.google.com/books?id=pQ...page&q&f=false

[Rukh]

Where do you see that it is published by a university. I even searched the publisher just to see and it is not a university.

Here is another book I got on the same topic area: https://books.google.com/books?id=pQ...page&q&f=false

I searched the book. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40783598...n_tab_contents
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press

I think its the same book anyways! Same authors.

With regards to your second one: "Originally published by Kluwer Academic Pubishers". Now I'd hypothesize again maybe some sort of academic licensing, however that is followed up by

"No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner."

So maybe not? Or maybe they gave permission. Or maybe Google has taken it upon themselves to assume permission or just doesn't care. :P

[Damajin]

That's a dangerous precedent. I mean, why stop at books?

Exactly. Every slope is a slippery one.

[Krastyn]

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.

Re-read it, still doesn't apply.

[purebalance]

I searched the book. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40783598...n_tab_contents
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press

I think its the same book anyways! Same authors.

Yeah that must be some allowed duplication as the one I linked was the original and published 5 years earlier. The one in google books is the original publishing.

[Omega Sanctions]

Re-read it, still doesn't apply.

No, you re-read it. Here, let me quote it again just for you. I'll even emphasize the important bits!

"Except now they'll have this ruling to call back to, no matter how erroneously, to back up their 'right' (hint, the quotation marks are there to indicate that they don't have the right) to do so."

[TheAbomb]

Everything should be free anyways.

[Krastyn]

No, you re-read it. Here, let me quote it again just for you. I'll even emphasize the important bits!

"Except now they'll have this ruling to call back to, no matter how erroneously, to back up their 'right' (hint, the quotation marks are there to indicate that they don't have the right) to do so."

So your argument is that a website that was operating illegally before, will continue to illegally operate, and will just have another incorrect excuse to operate illegally. Sorry, that holds zero weight.

[Rukh]

Everything should be free anyways.

While I understand the idealism behind such an idea, I think we have to admit that profit has been a powerful motive to incentivising people to create works, both in fiction and nonfiction.

[Omega Sanctions]

So your argument is that a website that was operating illegally before, will continue to illegally operate, and will just have another incorrect excuse to operate illegally. Sorry, that holds zero weight.

Not to the people they're going to be ripping off.

And no, I actually said new sites will almost undoubtedly spring up. And because of this verdict, they'll have fuel to argue that they do have the right. It's opening a huge can of worms, no matter how obtuse you are to that fact. And considering you can't even read a single post on a message forum without getting it completely wrong, your opinion has as much value as an old beer bottle full of warm piss. (That's not very much, just in case you needed that spelled out. Which I'm fairly certain you did.)

[Krastyn]

Not to the people they're going to be ripping off.

And no, I actually said new sites will almost undoubtedly spring up. And because of this verdict, they'll have fuel to argue that they do have the right. It's opening a huge can of worms, no matter how obtuse you are to that fact. And considering you can't even read a single post on a message forum without getting it completely wrong, your opinion has as much value as an old beer bottle full of warm piss. (That's not very much, just in case you needed that spelled out. Which I'm fairly certain you did.)

Ah, one of those, "They don't agree with me so they must be stupid" kind of posters. Can't actually back up arguments so you resort to attacks. Quality.

I don't disagree that someone may try to creatively interpret a law. This is where we differ though. I may be mistaken, but you seem to be against a law not for the ruling itself, but because someone may try to do something the law doesn't allow. I actually like laws that benefit society, and expect the courts enforce it as such. I don't think we should not pass laws because someone will continue to do something illegal that the new law still makes illegal.

[ShmooDude]

I think a few of you really don't understand this ruling. Just because they can scan the books, it does NOT by any means mean that they can (for free or for pay) make available entire copies of copyrighted books without permission. It gives exactly 0 fuel to a site that distributes entire copies of digital books without permission as the ruling is very specific about it not being a substitute for the original work.

From the OP's article:

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.

From the ruling by the Court of Appeals:

The Court of Appeals concludes that the defendant’s copying
is transformative within the meaning of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569,
578-585 (1994), does not offer the public a meaningful substitute for matter protected by the
plaintiffs’ copyrights, and satisfies § 107’s test for fair use.

Here's what fair use basically boils down to:

[1] Is the use you want to make of another's work transformative -- that is, does it add value to and repurpose the work for a new audience
[2] -- and is the amount of material you want to use appropriate to achieve your transformative purpose?

2 obviously needs to include the whole work otherwise the search function won't have all the phrases. So the only question to be answered is 1, is the use transformative? Seems a pretty obvious yes to me but that's basically what it all boils down to.

If you're arguing against, you need to either:
1) Explain why it is NOT transformative (which is what the Authors Guild was trying to, and failed to do)
2) Advocate for a change in the copyright law which arguably needs to be updated for the new digital world we live in.

[Kokolums]

What is the big deal with scanning? Didn't we invent libraries so people could read books for free? Anyone can donate any book they want to a library and have it available for free public use. That didn't seem to hurt the book industry.

[Deleted]

While I understand the idealism behind such an idea, I think we have to admit that profit has been a powerful motive to incentivising people to create works, both in fiction and nonfiction.

To be honest there has never been any money in writing.

I sold at least 50,000 copies of a book some years back. I say "at least" because the publisher fucked off with everyone's money and the statements stopped coming to me. This sort of thing is pretty common in publishing, people get messed around for years, usually contracts never materialize in publications. Had I actually been paid it would have been a dollar a book in royalty, which wouldn't have compensated me for my time for much more than minimum wage.

Suspicous as I am of Google, I don't think people understand how shitty a deal old media publishing was for the author. The real solution for writers is to simply control the means of production and create and sell your books yourself, something that was never practical before.

[zenkai]

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.)

If anything is a crime it is the current copyright laws that far exceed what they were intended for.

[Daerio]

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.

Well if this isn't the biggest load of horse shit for reasoning, I don't know what is.

I do know why they're willing to back Google's copyright infringement and not the general population's, though. They think that pay-off they're getting from Google is where their money comes from, and not everybody else.

[zenkai]

To be honest there has never been any money in writing.

I sold at least 50,000 copies of a book some years back. I say "at least" because the publisher fucked off with everyone's money and the statements stopped coming to me. This sort of thing is pretty common in publishing, people get messed around for years, usually contracts never materialize in publications. Had I actually been paid it would have been a dollar a book in royalty, which wouldn't have compensated me for my time for much more than minimum wage.

Suspicous as I am of Google, I don't think people understand how shitty a deal old media publishing was for the author. The real solution for writers is to simply control the means of production and create and sell your books yourself, something that was never practical before.

That's what Andy Weir did for free at the start with "The Martian", it was only when people asked for PDF copies that he started charging

[Gheld]

The scanned books on google are all public domain.
(And that's what this is about).

[Deleted]

If anything, authors of books should be thankful their works won't completely go the way of the dodo, and hey, perhaps this way someone will actually read them.