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.

Thread beginning with comment 576892
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Here are some facts...
by galvanash on Fri 15th Nov 2013 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here are some facts..."
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

"LOL. Google steals songs and posts them on Youtube?


No, they do exactly the same thing that Pirate Bay does, but they make sure to stay just below the legal radar and pretend that this is not part of their business model.

Of course it is...
"

When did Pirate Bay start responding to takedown requests from copyright holders? When did Pirate Bay start offering to pay the copyright holder a percentage of ad revenue on videos (that someone else made) that infringe on their content? I guess the big one when it comes to music, when did Pirate Bay take down ALL of the FLAC and high-bitrate AAC/MP3 audio files and replace them with awful, stupid, badly made videos with the music embedded in them that generally sounds like it is playing through a tin cup?

Yep, Youtube is exactly like Pirate Bay...

You do realize, btw, that the reason there are so many copyrighted music uploads on Youtube nowadays is that many of the studios (Universal is a big one) no longer want to take down the videos - they just accept the monetization deal for most of them.

Your whining about something most of the studios stopped caring about long ago. Sure, they would love to nail Google to the wall in court to get a big payday or sweeten the pot if they could, but the reality on the ground is that they are fine with the current status quo and have been for a while... Their actions tell a different story than their lawyers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Here are some facts...
by olafg on Fri 15th Nov 2013 21:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Here are some facts..."
olafg Member since:
2010-05-27

When did Pirate Bay start responding to takedown requests from copyright holders?


Pirate Bay did not host anything so there is nothing to take down, and they are political. The only practical difference is that Youtube is balancing the legal borderline and pretending not to benefit from plagiarism, but they still make money from advertising on videos that violate copyrights.

Your whining about something most of the studios stopped caring about long ago.


I am not whining at all. I am simply pointing out that the main principal difference between youtube and Pirate Bay is that the former is commercial and apolitical legal-tip-toing and the latter is a political statement. The effect on copyright for authors on moral grounds is basically the same. Legal does not mean good ethics. Actually, since Pirate Bay is political I'd say their ethics are better (even though I disagree with them).

What big studios do is irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Here are some facts...
by galvanash on Fri 15th Nov 2013 22:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Here are some facts..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

So I guess my question is how would you propose someone run a website hosting user created videos? Or is your argument that the benefits of such a site are outweighed by its potential to harm copyright holders?

Seriously, in my view Google bends over backwards to try and compensate for the harm done to copyright holders by their service. But in practical terms if what they currently do is not good enough in your opinion, then what is the alternative? Who does it "ethically"? Or is it your contention that such a service cannot be done ethically and therefore should not exist?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Here are some facts...
by olafg on Fri 15th Nov 2013 21:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Here are some facts..."
olafg Member since:
2010-05-27

(double post)

Edited 2013-11-15 21:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1