Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Nov 2013 16:37 UTC
Google

Google has won a resounding victory in its eight-year copyright battle with the Authors Guild over the search giant's controversial decision to scan more than 20 million library and make the available on the internet.

In a ruling (embedded below) issued Thursday morning in New York, US Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the book scanning amounted to fair use because it was "highly transformative" and because it didn't harm the market for the original work.

"Google Books provides significant public benefits," writes Chin, describing it as "an essential research tool" and noting that the scanning service has expanded literary access for the blind and helped preserve the text of old books from physical decay.

Too much common sense. I'm not sure I can handle this.

Permalink for comment 576912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Here are some facts...
by olafg on Sat 16th Nov 2013 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Here are some facts..."
olafg
Member since:
2010-05-27

No, they offer to pay them a percentage of advertising revenue on the video as an alternative to taking the video down. It is up the the copyright holder to decide which they would prefer to do.


So, they get to keep something they had no (moral) right to in the first place, because the legally can get away with it in a particular jurisdiction.

Of course they don't - they don't directly infringe.


Which is due to the particulars of U.S. hosting laws. In some other countries Youtube would not have been able to exist, since they would have been give editorial responsibility.

if the issue is ethics, than it isn't ethical to go after Google for compensation when the actual infringer is another party - Google just hosts content, they do not create it.


Which is really an "artifact" of the particular U.S. laws which Youtube were using/abusing. Google can do this because their most likely long term motive is to see copyright weakend, they benefit from this. A corporation like Sony who rely on copyright and want to see it strengthend would not have created such a service.

"You can create an ethical hosting service if you a) make it easy to remove obviously infringing content


Youtube does this.
"

Actually they required you to send a signed take-down request on paper AFAIK. That could easily take a week from Europe. And when it was removed someone else would upload it the next day… Only after they gained critical mass did they "change". AFAIK.

Like authors are not allowed to publish under pseudonyms... You expect to deny the right to anonymity to others when it is routinely exercised by the party you are defending? Seriously? Yeah, that sounds real ethical...


In other countries you get editorial responsibility and you have to make an effort to gain the real identity of users that publish material on your site. Again, the idea that you should both allow anonymous upload and claim no responsibility is a US phenomenon.

Which party am I defending? I am defending noone, I just claim that Google is doing legal tip-toeing and bending the "edges" of opportunities in US copyright law, because it is in their long term interest to see a weakening of copyrights.

But people like Youtube. People like Google Books. People like gmail. Google figured out a way to make those things available to the public without having to directly charge them for it - they fund it through advertising.


Yes, I like and use those too. Although the advertising on youtube is now getting very annoying. There was very little advertising in the beginning. The strategy is to gain traction/critical mass, then increase advertising pressure until you reach the pain-threshold. Now there is a lot of advertising on youtybe. For me, as a european, the amount of advertising on youtube has become very close to unbearable, but by US standards it is probably no worse than TV. (The advertising pressure is generally higher in the US).

Is it so bad, ethically, to create a business model where those that sell things pay to allow services to those that buy those things?


Well, my point is that Google aren't either ethical/unethical, but amoral when it comes to key business areas (although they are nice in the non-key areas such as providing programming tools, which I use and love almost every day). They strengthen their core business, use the legal opportunities that US law currently permit, and try to stay "bearable" in the public eye. Of course, in global markets that is kind of difficult over time since the "pain thresholds"/"expectations" differs from country to country.

If they stopped paying for it, it would no longer exist...


People pay for a lot of shit… ;^)

Reply Parent Score: 2